Schiff and Dems ‘Have All This Blood on Their Hands,’ Nunes Says


I watched last night’s Ingraham Angle and saw the Ingraham/Nunes interview about the House expanding Congressional investigations into Obama Administration State Department officials’ possible knowledge that the so-called Steele Dossier was a fake put together by the Crooked Hillary campaign to disparage and sink the Trump campaign.

 

JRH 7/3/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Schiff and Dems ‘Have All This Blood on Their Hands,’ Nunes Says

Obama administration officials and liberal bureaucrats ‘completely destroyed the FBI and DOJ’ by weaponizing them on behalf of Hillary Clinton

By Kathryn Blackhurst 

Updated 03 Jul 2018 at 7:48 AM

PoliZettePolitics. Explained.

 

Democrats “have all this blood on their hands” because they “completely destroyed the FBI and DOJ” by digging up dirt on President Donald Trump in 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s favor, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Monday on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”

 

“They’re the ones that have all this blood on their hands. They’re the ones who completely destroyed the FBI and DOJ,” Nunes insisted. “How did they do that? They did that by digging up dirt — the Clinton campaign dug up dirt, put it into a dossier, fed it into the FBI. The FBI used our counterintelligence capabilities against a political campaign. That’s what happened here.”

 

Nunes was responding to accusations Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, leveled against him and other GOP House committee members during an interview on CNN’s “Wolf” last week.

 

Schiff called Nunes, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) “the four horsemen of this apocalypse” who “have been leading the charge basically to require the Justice Department to give them materials that can be leaked or fed or misrepresented.” Meadows is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, which Jordan founded, while Gowdy is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

“And in the meantime, they do enormous damage to these institutions. Ultimately they’ll be held accountable,” Schiff claimed.

 

Nunes dismissed Schiff, saying he and the other GOP lawmakers are “not going to be threatened by the Democrats” and will proceed with their investigative plans.

 

“The Democrats in the House and the Senate — they’ve continued to want to obfuscate, they’ve continued to want to cover up,” Nunes said. “If we listened to the Democrats, we would have never … found out that the Democrats and Hillary Clinton paid [former British spy] Christopher Steele to generate this dirt on President Trump.”

 

VIDEO: Nunes tightens screws in his probe into surveillance abuses

 

“So I tend to ignore everything that they say,” Nunes added. “We continue to do our work day in and day out to get to the truth. And gradually we are getting to the truth.”

 

Nunes revealed earlier this year that the FBI used the anti-Trump dossier alleging collusion between the presidential campaign and the Russians to renew surveillance warrants again former Trump adviser Carter Page. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) funded the dossier.

 

Information the congressional committees’ investigations have steadily uncovered includes direct evidence of profoundly anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias within the DOJ and FBI during the Russian collusion investigation, and also in the immediately prior probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of state.

 

Nunes noted that he referred 17 current and former DOJ and FBI officials to Gowdy of the House oversight committee, and to Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

 

Nunes also revealed Monday that he referred 10 Obama-era Department of State and White House officials to Gowdy and Goodlatte for testimony about the dossier, surveillance abuse, and other matters.

 

Congressional investigators “still don’t understand how” and why the Trump-Russia investigation “was opened” in the first place, Nunes said, noting that “many people in the Obama-era State Department were involved in the opening of that investigation.”

 

“We also know that many people in the State Department were meeting with Christopher Steele … so this is why this investigation is taking a while,” Nunes said. “A lot of people had their hands on the Steele dossier, including many people in the media who knew about the Steele dossier.”

 

Nunes said these reasons are “partly why I am sending these names over to the judiciary and oversight committees, because they already have a task force — the task force has been convened.”

 

“They should be able to do all of these hearings in the public, full transparency, so that people can watch on live television,” Nunes told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. “But the good thing is that I believe that Chairmen Gowdy and Goodlatte, their task force will interview these people, and they will interview them in public. It will be the first time during this entire investigation that the American people get to see actual questions get answered by these potential witnesses.”

 

Related: Trump Can Order Rosenstein to Give Docs to Congress, So Why Doesn’t He?

 

“That is my recommendation to the committee chairmen. I believe they will follow that recommendation. And they may have other names,” Nunes added. “I believe as these hearings take place and testimony is given to the Congress, I think it will be a much-needed sunlight in this investigation. I think the American people will begin to see who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth.”

 

Nunes also ripped mainstream media outlets for failing to cover the Obama-era scandals and seeking to “get to the bottom of it.”

 

“What we’re having to do here as the legislative branch of government — we’re having to do the work that the media won’t do because there are very few in the media who will actually cover this story to try to get to the bottom of it,” Nunes lamented. “That’s part of what’s taking so long. Typically you would have a free and fair and transparent media trying to get to the truth. But in this case we haven’t had that.”

 

Nunes said he hopes to ensure the American people “know that this is just one more step in the process” of finding answers and achieving transparency.

 

“I think we’ve been very transparent about how we’ve conducted the process. We’re onto FISA abuse and other matters. I’ve said for a long time that we’re looking at the State Department.”

 

PoliZette writer Kathryn Blackhurst can be reached at kathryn.blackhurst@lifezette.com. Follow her on Twitter.

______________________

© 2014-2018 LifeZette. All Rights Reserved

 

NOT Fake News: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch Now ALL Under Investigation


Until some Republican members get some backbone in Congress and President Trump’s DOJ effectively drains its swamp, I will not expect any indictments for these criminals. Backbones and swamp drainage will mean indictments for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch and hopefully the last Criminal-in-Chief Obama. THEN there will be a shot to return America to the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers intended.

 

JRH 6/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

NOT Fake News: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Loretta Lynch Now ALL Under Investigation

 

By JOSEPH CURL

JUNE 26, 2017

The Daily Wire

 

You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media, but President Donald Trump is not under FBI investigation (repeat: NOT).

 

But you know who is? Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders. Loretta Lynch.

 

In early June, Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, launched a new probe of former Secretary of State Clinton’s attempts to deflect a Bangladesh government corruption investigation of Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor and friend of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

 

“While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business,” Circa reported.

 

“If the Secretary of State used her position to intervene in an independent investigation by a sovereign government simply because of a personal and financial relationship stemming from the Clinton Foundation rather than the legitimate foreign policy interests of the United States, then that would be unacceptable,” Grassley said in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

 

“Co-mingling her official position as Secretary of State with her family foundation would be similarly inappropriate. It is vital to determine whether the State Department had any role in the threat of an IRS audit against the son of the Prime Minister in retaliation for this investigation,” Grassley wrote.

 

Also, Sanders and his wife are both under investigation over a bank loan Jane Sanders got to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News reported last week.

 

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders’ top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents’ allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People’s United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

 

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders’ office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan. 

 

And former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is now under investigation, too. The Senate Judiciary Committee last week opened a probe into Lynch’s efforts to control the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email scandal.

 

Grassley, along with the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, sent a letter to Lynch asking her to lay out exactly what she did during the Clinton probe. Former FBI Director James Comey testified this month that she tried to get the FBI to downplay that probe. “At one point, she directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Comey said in his June 8 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”

 

Comey said Lynch’s request “gave the impression the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our investigation with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity.”

 

From the nonstop coverage of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, you’d think he was under FBI investigation. But he isn’t. Instead, three big Democratic players are.

 

But you wouldn’t know that from the MSM coverage. In fact, Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s Meet The Press, didn’t even ask Sanders about being the subject of an FBI investigation during a seven-minute interview on Sunday.

 

Par for the course.

_____________

Follow @JosephCurl on Twitter. Email josephcurl@gmail.com.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, THE DAILY WIRE

 

The Rape of Lady Justice


Blind Justice Raped

Justin Smith expresses the same outrage every American should feel that Director Comey, AG Loretta Lynch and the Obama Administration is not going to make any effort whatsoever to prosecute Crooked Hillary:

 

Everyone is “innocent until proven guilty” in America, but the evidence in Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of information is so overwhelming that it leaves no doubt that she is guilty on several levels. This is the reason that Director Comey’s recommendation that she not be prosecuted was so shocking to so many Americans; it is unfathomable that this case was not at the very least presented to a Grand Jury for inspection. –Justin O. Smith

 

JRH 7/12/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Rape of Lady Justice

The Day the Rule of Law Died

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent July 9, 2016 2:03 PM

 

The rule of law died on July 5th and the tide turned against freedom in America, after FBI Director James Comey delivered the news that Hillary Clinton, a crooked, corrupt and accomplished liar, would not face charges for her criminal mishandling of top secret information. This day will be marked in infamy in the annals of American history as the day that Comey, Loretta Lynch and Obama, who all swore oaths to uphold justice, worked to annihilate justice and limit and destroy rights. Their actions to this point and after the fact remove all doubt that one standard of law does in fact exist for the political aristocracy and another standard of law applies to the average, common U.S. citizen, as this administration pushes America down the dark path of tyranny.

 

Coincidences of the magnitude of Bill Clinton’s and Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s “chance” meeting on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport in late June are no coincidence at all, especially once one discovers the July 3rd New York Times story that revealedMrs. Clinton … may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general“. This story confirmed to Lynch that her message had been received by Hillary’s staff. A pact — a collusion and a conspiracy — was shaped: No indictment in return for reappointment.

 

Comey outlined the facts that 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained top secret information, at the time they were sent, thirty-six contained secret information and eight other email chains contained confidential information at the time.

 

Now, at the very least, America understands that Hillary Clinton lied last July, when she confidently claimed “I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.” This one statement supports a charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

 

So why wasn’t Hillary interviewed under oath by the FBI? And why wasn’t Clinton’s testimony recorded?

 

After thousands of investigative hours and more than a year it came down to Comey stating: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.”

 

Really? This appears to have great potential to be prosecuted, unless one has been bought or intimidated away.

 

Comey said that he and his team “cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” This does not have the ring of truth for several reasons.

 

The Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers of information under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined, with five subsequently sent to prison. Secrecy in D.C. is such that the slightest mishandling or disclosure can result in a felony charge and months or years of prison. Stephen Kim was sentenced to 13 months in prison for speaking with reporter James Rosen on “sensitive” information about North Korea, most of which was already released in several news sources. If one is sufficiently important in D.C., as in the cases concerning Leon Panetta and David Petraeus, they are usually spared and let off with the lightest of consequences, while powerless nobodies without any intent to leak or mishandle information face criminal prosecution, career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.

 

A Naval investigation into Bryan Nishimura’s 2007-2008 service in Afghanistan revealed that he did not intend to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel. He had downloaded and carried classified materials on his “personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media”. Upon his return to the U.S., he continued to maintain this information at several unauthorized locations and on several unclassified systems, which resulted in his prosecution, two years of probation and a $7500 fine.

 

If someone, who was obscure and unimportant and powerless, recklessly and secretly used a shoddy home server, as well as several other unsecured servers, to work with Top Secret information in the same manner that Hillary Clinton did, they would have been criminally charged and placed under the jail long ago. This was all criminal behavior, as Huma Abedin’s recent sworn testimony before Congress has shown.

 

Comey tried to give Clinton a pass by suggesting she didn’t have the requisite intent, but the law doesn’t require intent. The law requires merely “gross negligence” under 18 U.S.C. 793, which, among other things, makes it a federal crime punishable by 10 years in prison, for any official entrusted with classified information relating to national defense to “permit … the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed” — all of which Hillary Clinton did.

 

And the Far Left, those like Representatives Elijah Cummings and Nancy Pelosi, are celebrating this recent obstruction of justice. Obama too made it clear he was Hillary’s Black Knight and protector, as he gave her use of Air Force One at the expense of the American people. He took her to her North Carolina campaign event, where they both laughed and smiled like pumpkin-eating possums, as she gave her speech behind the presidential seal.

 

The Obama administration and an entire segment of U.S. society, millions of people, are turning a blind eye to this travesty of justice, acting as if it’s nothing. They are offering an immoral defense of Hillary Clinton — an elitist, oligarchic ideologue and a smug sociopath — who was a treacherous Secretary of State, responsible for the murders of four fine Americans at Benghazi, and who lied repeatedly about compromising U.S. secrets.

 

Unless Americans are willing to submit to the arbitrary whims of rulers for generations to come, we must stop this rape of Lady Justice and free Her from the chains imposed by the FBI and the Department of Justice, which have been corrupted by Obama and Hillary. This administration became illegitimate the second it stopped operating through just and impartial laws, applied equally to everyone in society, including its own. This dark course towards systemic privilege and a different application of the “law” between the powerful and the powerless must never become common place in America. Stopping Hillary’s ascent to the presidency will stop our slow slide towards such tyranny, and prosecuting her, no matter how long it takes, will stop Lady Justice’s outraged screams and start the healing of America’s soul.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Intro to Google to Manipulating Searches to Favor Hillary


Hillary-Google Screen Capture

John R. Houk – Editor

© June 11, 2016

 

If you are a Conservative you consider it a fairly logical guess that the major search engine giants are in the tank to promote the Dem Party nominee for President, right?

 

SourceFed evidently desired to test a Conservative’s logic by running tests. They found that Google was not only supportive of the Dem Party by of Hillary Clinton in particular. How? By manipulating your search with the autocomplete algorithm to point toward favorable info on Hillary and unfavorable info on Trump and Sanders.

 

The SourceFed homepage doesn’t really point to an about page for semi-computer literate Baby Boomers (like me) to figure out what their raison d’etre is. I am guessing computer geeks and/or nerds know exactly the purpose of SourceFed. The SourceFed homepage does point to a lot of Youtube projects involving the same name. The SourceFed Youtube about page offers this:

 

Description

 

Welcome to SourceFed! Everything that should and shouldn’t matter explained by the people who love the same things you do. We do the news… sort of.

 

We also go even more in-depth with all our stories on our website SourceFed.com. Also, if you like our stuff, be sure to show us some love on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

 

At any rate, I found the SourceFed video at the Washington Free Beacon. The Beacon their report with the roughly 7-minute SourceFed video which exposes Google. The Beacon runs an article more suitable to Baby-Boomer-Speak. Evidently Google, in an attempt to protect its integrity, is denying the results of the SourceFed analysis. I am guessing the denial because the Beacon runs another video – this time by the Washington Examiner – that runs a similar to SourceFed analysis in response to a Google denial. The Washington Examiner video is not a Youtube video but it has an embed that my various blog platforms may or may not accept.

 

JRH  6/11/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Google Allegedly Manipulating Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

By Aaron Kliegman

June 10, 2016 12:16 pm

Washington Free Beacon

 

VIDEO: Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary?

 

 

[Blog Editor: Just for clarity, the Youtube description is not a part of the Washington Free Beacon article]

 

Posted by SourceFed

Published on Jun 9, 2016

UPDATE: Friday June 10

 

Google has responded to this video via an email statement to the Washington Times:

“Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.”

Read the full article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/10/google-denies-burying-bad-hillary-clinton-stories/

While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton. If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm. According to a research paper cited in this video, that kind of search result manipulation has the potential to substantially influence the outcome of actual elections.

Sources:
Google Search Results Can Change Elections: http://bit.ly/1MTSboF
Wikileak’s Julian Assange Links Google and Clinton Camp: http://bit.ly/25LaEPF
Eric Schmidt, Head of Pentagon Board: http://bit.ly/21HREvG
Eric Schmidt Funds Groundwork: http://bit.ly/1FWIXar
Official ‘Groundwork’ Website: http://bit.ly/1WP53z3

 

Tech giant Google is allegedly manipulating its online search results to bury terms that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to an analysis conducted by SourceFed, a news website with a prominent YouTube channel.

 

“SourceFed has discovered that Google has been actively altering search recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so quietly that we were unable to see it for what it was until today,” SourceFed’s Matt Lieberman said in a new video posted online Thursday.

 

Lieberman explained how, for example, if someone types “Hillary Clinton cri” into Google, the site’s auto-complete function, which provides the user search term suggestions while typing into the search bar, shows three potential searches: “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” “Hillary Clinton crisis,” and “Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994.” But when someone types “Hillary Clinton cri” into Yahoo’s search engine, the first search suggestion to appear is “Hillary Clinton criminal charges,” followed by “Hillary Clinton crimes” and “Hillary Clinton criminal.”

 

“There’s clearly something wrong here, right?” Lieberman asked. “It’s like if you put three people into a room that’s on fire and two out of three people yell ‘fire’ and the third person yells, ‘I’m in a room.’”

 

The SourceFed analysis shows that this mismatch in search terms is intentional rather than the result of people searching different terms on different websites.

 

Lieberman explained that when SourceFed searched in Google Trends for “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” the site’s top search suggestion for the aforementioned example, there were not enough searches of the term to even build a graph on the site. However, when SourceFed searched “Hillary Clinton crimes,” Google gave back a full graph, indicating that far more people are searching for the latter term rather than the former.

 

“Which begs the question, why on earth is [Hillary Clinton crime reform] the first potential result?” Lieberman asked. “Google just doesn’t want you to know or ask.”

 

To gather more data, SourceFed wanted to see if Clinton’s much-discussed private email server that she used as secretary of state would yield similar results.

 

They discovered that when someone types “Hillary Clinton ind” into Bing or Yahoo, the first search suggestion is “Hillary Clinton indictment,” followed by a series of indictment-related search terms. When the same text is typed into Google, though, the first two recommended terms are “Hillary Clinton Indiana” and “Hillary Clinton India.”

 

“Could people really be searching more for ‘Hillary Clinton India’ than ‘Hillary Clinton indictment?’” Lieberman asked.

 

When he typed the two terms into Google Trends, it showed that people have been searching for “Hillary Clinton indictment” eight times more often than “Hillary Clinton India.”

 

“The intention is clear: Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site,” Lieberman said.

 

For comparison, SourceFed searched for negative terms associated with Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. When they typed in “Bernie Sanders soc” for socialist and “Donald Trump rac” for racist, Google matched the recommendations for Bing and Yahoo.

 

“At this stage, I must be clear: We at SourceFed are not accusing any individuals of any crimes,” Lieberman said, adding that if Google did manipulate search results it would be “unethical and wrong but not illegal.”

 

He added that there is no evidence of Hillary Clinton’s campaign having involvement with this issue, but noted there are a “stunning” number of links between Google and the Clinton campaign, most of which stem from Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., and former chief executive officer of Google.

 

Lieberman also noted that Schmidt is a major funder of The Groundwork, which is, according to Democratic campaign operatives, “an investment by Schmidt to ensure that Hillary Clinton has the technological and engineering prowess to win the election.”

 

The Groundwork is one of the Clinton campaign’s most expensive outside contractors, costing $177,000 in the second quarter of 2015 alone.

 

Lieberman said the connection between Google, Schmidt, and Clinton is clear, adding that the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon, is a former Google executive.

 

Lieberman also explained that, despite voters having access to an innumerable number of sources of information, manipulating Google searches can have a profound effect on voters’ decisions.

 

SourceFed cited the work of Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute of Behavioral Research, whose most recent experiments focused on changing political opinion through search engine results. In his study, according to Lieberman, Epstein held a mock election and allowed the mock voters to search for various terms regarding the two candidates. Epstein showed mostly positive results for both Candidate A and Candidate B, while having a control group that received mixed, untouched results.

 

“What he found was that he was able to swing voters up to 48 percent for whatever side had more positive results, a process he dubbed ‘voter manipulation power,’” Lieberman said.

 

Epstein was quoted after the experiment as saying, “Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”

 

Lieberman noted that the Hillary Clinton campaign has made no comment about the topic of search manipulation.

 

[Blog Editor – Washington Free Beacon of interest: Here Are 10 More Examples of Google Search Results Favorable to Hillary; BY: Brent Scher and Elizabeth Harrington; 6/10/16 1:30 pm]

 

+++

Washington Examiner VIDEO: Is Google Manipulating Search Results to Favor Hillary Clinton?
http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=freebeacon_hom_non_non_dynamic&videoId=30980961
_________________________

Intro to Google to Manipulating Searches to Favor Hillary

John R. Houk – Editor

© June 11, 2016

_________________________

Google Allegedly Manipulating Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

Aaron Kliegman   Email Full Bio 


Aaron Kliegman is a Media Analyst for the Washington Free Beacon and a Master’s Degree Candidate in Johns Hopkins’s Global Security Studies Program in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the Free Beacon, Aaron worked as a Research Associate for the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank, and as the Deputy Field Director on Micah Edmond’s campaign for U.S. Congress. He graduated from Washington & Lee University in 2014 and lives in Washington, D.C. His Twitter handle is @Aaron_Kliegman. He can be reached at kliegman@freebeacon.com.

 

©2016 All Rights Reserved – About Page

 

Do Americans Care about the Wicked Web Woven to Deceive?


Web of Deception

John R. Houk

© June 5, 2016

 

Most Conservatives are very aware that President Barack Hussein Obama is a liar as well as his Executive Branch flunkies. The Dems and the American Left have been making excuses for those lies by denial of the obvious, deceptive misdirection and/or cover-ups.

 

That is how Obama was elected in 2008: recall the lies of being a Christian for nearly a quarter century under the Black Liberation Theology racist Jeremiah Wright, friendship with homegrown American terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (Weather Underground), mentorship of Communist Frank Marshall Davis (See DTN for details on Davis-Communism), secretive and still undisclosed academic records, the lack of clarity if his Mother and Muslim Stepfather made him an Indonesian citizen while living there going to a Muslim school and undoubtedly more lies and deception I cannot think of at the moment.

 

AGAIN lies secured Obama’s reelection in 2012: i.e. the lies about Libyan military weapons shipped to unvetted Syrian rebels fighting Assad’s regime and the probable cover-up that led to four Americans being murdered by organized Islamic terrorists. The cover-up included blaming an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer that parodied Mohammed’s bloodthirsty sex life. The same lies also included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Obama web of deception

As part of the Obama Administration lies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illegally used a private email server that included the use of emailing classified information. Hillary’s misdirection was other Secretaries of State used private email servers but failed to mention that most of Secretaries did not have restrictive laws in place. Hillary’s next misdirection was claiming nothing on her server was marked as classified at the time but only later. That deceptive lie was used even knowing that the potential emailing of information that might later be marked classified was and is illegal by law. Hillary also ILLEGALLY deleted thousands of emails trying to cover-up her blatant misuse of a private email server that combined both sensitive (later marked classified) and business dealings that included nefarious foreign fund raising for the Clinton Foundation in exchange for Hillary favors. Here are three journalistic claims of illegality by Hillary:

 

 

 

 

Trust me there are more lies and cover-ups but I want to get to the one in which the Obama Administration has been caught lying to the American people and to Congress about the Iran Nuke Deal which was only a deal for Iran with zero plausible vetting by the U.S. government. Most auspiciously the Iran Nuke Deal lies were exposed by Ben Rhodes flapping his mouth either unintentionally or “braggadociously” that lies were used on Americans to gain the deals acceptance. AND the cover-up was further exposed when the admission happened that some mysterious person ordered a portion of a Press Conference exchange between State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Fox News correspondent James Rosen was deleted from public viewing.

 

Psaki/Rosen press conference State Department cover-up is exposed:

 

JRH 6/5/16

Please Support NCCR

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

BREAKING: State Dept. Drops BOMBSHELL About Cover-Up… They Were ORDERED To Do It

 

By Conservative Tribune

Hat Tip: Right Alerts

Posted by Joseph Capulet

Right Alerts date: June 4, 2016 1:22 am

 

Little more than a month ago, senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes let slip, either unwittingly or braggadociously, that he and others had essentially lied to the media and American people about the Iran nuclear deal in order to advance the administration’s narrative.

 

This admission raised a number of questions regarding the truthfulness of prior statements from Obama officials about the deal, compelling some to go back and check archived video of past press conferences, which in turn led to the discovery that a pertinent exchange during a 2013 State Department press conference had been edited out of the record.

 

That edit of an exchange between Fox News reporter James Rosen and then-State spokeswoman Jen Psaki, in which she admitted with a wink and a nod that the administration lies to keep certain information private, was initially dismissed as nothing more than a “glitch.”

 

However, it has now been admitted by spokesman John Kirby that the edit was no glitch, but a deliberate erasure of the record on orders from on high in the administration.

 

Speaking to the crew of Fox’s “The Five,” Rosen said it was “significant” that the administration effectively admitted to lying about covering up a prior admission of lying.

 

“I think this is a significant moment insofar as we have the United States government essentially admitting here that its spokespeople lied from the State Department podium, that they then admitted that from the State Department podium, and then tried to cover up that admission by deleting the official archive of this material, and so I’m honored to play some small role in holding our public officials to account, and we’ll see if this is the end of it,” Rosen explained.

 

However, the new-found truthiness of at least one member of the Obama administration only went so far, for while Kirby admitted that the edit to the tape had been ordered, he claimed not to know who had given that order.

 

Rosen and the rest weren’t buying that excuse, though, with Rosen surmising, “If you remember being asked to do it, you probably have a very good chance of remembering who asked you to do it.”

 

“The Five” co-host Dana Perino, former spokeswoman for the Bush administration, thought Rosen was too nice in his assessment of the situation, saying, “I think that their explanation falls well short of acceptable, because one, it is a violation of the Federal Records Act. It has to be.”

 

This administration lies, the lies about lying, then lies about lying about lying. Then, on the rare occasion that it actually slips up and tells the truth, it quickly reverts to lies and subterfuge to counteract and cover up the truth with more lies and deception.

 

This from the “most transparent administration in history” no less.

 

H/T Washington Free Beacon

 

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to share yet more evidence that the Obama administration is packed full of liars who lie about lying.

+++++

YouTube Video found at Washington Free Beacon link above:

 

James Rosen: The State Department admitted it lied from the podium and tried to cover it up

 

 Posted by Washington Free Beacon

Published on Jun 1, 2016

______________________

Do Americans Care about the Wicked Web Woven to Deceive?

John R. Houk

© June 5, 2016

_________________________

BREAKING: State Dept. Drops BOMBSHELL About Cover-Up… They Were ORDERED To Do It

 

About Conservative Tribune

 

Conservative Tribune is a news outlet that spreads conservative news and commentary across America. It hosts ConservativeTribune.com, a website dedicated to defending and advancing the principles of liberty, freedom, and prosperity.

 

Conservative Tribune delivers news to over 25 million people every month, ranking the site as a Top 250 most visited website in the United States, according the site metric tracker, Alexa. In fact, Conservative Tribune was the most shared publisher on Facebook in July 2015, according to Newswhip.

 

ConservativeTribune.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast)

 

https://www.quantcast.com/p-s4EjFfr0LYkYa#trafficCard

 

News and stories on Conservative Tribune are curated by an excellent team of journalists who are dedicated to advancing the values of Conservative Tribune. ConservativeTribune.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according to NewsWhip.

 

Interested in writing for us? Fill out an interest form.

 

Read more at http://www.conservativetribune.com

Hillary Indictment Rumors – We can Only Hope


Hillary Sec-State Contributions

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2016

 

There have been unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary Clinton is about to be indicted. Very recently the Huffington Post put out a report that an indictment was imminent, then the report was pull off the HuffPo website in less than 24 hours:

 

Huffington Post Removes Article Claiming Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted

by PATRICK HOWLEY

29 May 2016

Breitbart.com

 

The liberal publication Huffington Post removed an article on its website Sunday claiming that the FBI plans to pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton on federal racketeering charges.

 

HuffPo freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, posted an article on the site’s blog entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges”. Huguenard wrote:

 

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime.  RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.

 

 

But the article link now directs to a page that says “404” with a frownie face and the message “This is so embarrassing” after Huffington Post took the piece down Sunday.

 

READ ENTIRETY IF WISH

 

In this vein the Freedom Outpost cross posts a PBS News Hour interview with a Washington Post reporter talking about how egregious Hillary Clinton’s email scandal has become. When two Left leaning news media outlets begin reporting Hillary is in trouble then I am guessing something is up for Crooked Hillary.

 

(Spoiler Alert: The PBS interview is so bland you may fall asleep before the end of the five minute or so segment. Tape your eyes open and listen to the details it is quite enlightening.)

 

JRH 5/31/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Clinton Cooked: Report on Email Scandal Worse Than Initially Expected (Video)

Even though this specific report has no “official” legal ramifications, it very likely provides a small window for the general public to gain some idea as to the nightmare the FBI is dealing with, and that doesn’t look very good for Mrs. Clinton moving forward.

 

By MICHAEL DEPINTO

MAY 30, 2016

Freedom Outpost

 

The State Department’s report condemning Hillary Clinton has brought the debate over her conduct as Secretary of State back to the forefront of the political landscape, and throws the race for the White House into uncharted territory. Judy Woodruff talks to Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post about the details of the report and why Clinton’s violations are worse than her predecessors’.

 

In the video below, you’ll learn that the main purpose of the most recent report that could jeopardize Clinton’s bid for the White House, was to examine the overall usage and handling of State Department email while in office, and then the preservation of those government records upon leaving office. The investigation examined the records for the five previous Secretary’s [sic] of State to get a fair comparison. This particular report concluded that of the last five Secretaries, Hillary’s violation of Department policy, and her lack of compliance with the Federal Records Act were by far the most egregious.

 

The primary reason that Clinton’s records were the worst, was because during her tenure as Secretary, the threat and risks associated with cyber security were much better understood than they were perhaps 15 years prior to her tenure. That fact, coupled with her lack of taking anything even resembling reasonable steps to protect and securer the information in her possession made her the worst offender.

 

The report also states that despite Clinton’s public statements about how she has remained always willing to help in any way requested of her, the reality behind the scenes has been anything but cooperation from Hillary and most of her aids. The Department’s Inspector General still has yet to ever interview Hillary herself (at all), because Hillary has refused every request. Also, several of her aids have failed to respond to various questions asked of them.

 

Even though this specific report has no “official” legal ramifications, it very likely provides a small window for the general public to gain some idea as to the nightmare the FBI is dealing with, and that doesn’t look very good for Mrs. Clinton moving forward. Perhaps it’s best Bernie is sticking around after all.

 

VIDEO: Why Clinton’s private email use is deemed more serious than predecessors’

 

 

Posted by PBS NewsHour

Published on May 25, 2016

 

The State Department’s report condemning Hillary Clinton has brought the debate over her conduct as Secretary of State back to the forefront of the political landscape, and throws the race for the White House into uncharted territory. Judy Woodruff talks to Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post about the details of the report and why Clinton’s violations are worse than her predecessors’.

 

Common Dreams reports:

 

Hillary Clinton and her top aides failed to comply with U.S. State Department policies on records by using her personal email server and account, possibly jeopardizing official secrets, an internal watchdog concluded in a long-awaited report (pdf) on Wednesday.

 

Clinton also never sought permission from the department’s legal staff to use the server, which was located at her New York residence, a request which—if filed—”would not” have been approved, the report by the agency’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) states.

 

“At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” it continues.

 

The findings are the latest development in the email scandal that has persisted throughout Clinton’s presidential campaign to little effect—but its conclusion was unexpectedly critical.

 

And it could spell trouble for the former secretary of state in the final stretch of the election, as public trust in Clinton continues to decline while polls show her rival Bernie Sanders has become the most formidable candidate against Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

 

As Politico’s Rachael Bade, Josh Gerstein, and Nick Gass write:

 

The watchdog’s findings could exact further damage to Clinton’s campaign, and they provide fresh fodder for Trump, who has already said he will go after Clinton for the email scandal “bigly.” The Democratic frontrunner’s bid for the White House has already been hindered by high unfavorability ratings, with people saying they don’t trust her.

 

The report represents the latest pushback — in this case by a nonpartisan government entity — against her campaign’s claim that she did not break any rules and that her use of a private server was completely allowed.

 

In fact, technology staff in the Information Resource Management (S/ES-IRM) office who brought up concerns about Clinton’s use of her private server were reportedly instructed not to question the arrangement.

 

“In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements,” the report states. “According to the staff member, the Director [of S/ES-IRM] stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”

 

Other staff from different offices were also instructed “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

 

On Wednesday, Clinton’s campaign was quick to point out that the report’s criticisms also extended to the State Department in general, which the OIG found to be riddled with “longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications” and noted that other department officials, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, also used personal e-mails while in office.

 

The findings were issued a day after a group of U.S. intelligence veterans, including William Binney, John Kiriakou, and Diane Roark, published an open letter to President Barack Obama urging him to expedite the forthcoming FBI report on Clinton’s alleged email security violations.

 

“The question is not whether Secretary Clinton broke the law,” the letter states. “She did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior.”

 

Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand.

_______________________

Hillary Indictment Rumors – We can Only Hope

John R. Houk

© May 31, 2016

________________________

Clinton Cooked: Report on Email Scandal Worse Than Initially Expected (Video)

 

Edited by John R. Houk with spellcheck.

Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

About MIchael DePinto

 

Michael is a member of the fast growing un-silent majority that is sick of the insanity going on in this country right now. He has been accused of being vitriolic, bombastic, sarcastic to the extreme, and probably worse behind my back. He is sick of being branded a right wing extremist, racist, homophobe, warmonger, or whatever asinine adjectives Liberal Progressives have for the words COMMON SENSE these days. Michael is also a blogger at The Last Great Stand and and an Attorney.

 

Copyright © 2016 FreedomOutpost.com

 

American Left can be seen in Nazi History


Hitler- BHO & Hillary

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

 

I have noticed over the years that Lefties (aka Liberals, Progressives, Left Wingers, Moonbats, etc.) have smeared Conservatives as Nazis or Hitler-equivalents. The irony is Hitler’s Nazism was a Left Wing Movement that employed the nationalist-corporatism of Fascism which is ultimately State control of the industrial complex.

 

Karl Marx’s Communism envisioned Industrial workers rising up in revolt over the means of production and who controls those means. Which ultimately played out of State ownership of everything from property to the industrial complex under the illusion that the people (aka workers or the proletariat) controlled society’s living conditions and the mode of production. In essence the State assumed the role of the people by proxy.

 

Nazism was not so much interested in the illusion of who controls production as much as every citizen serves the needs of the State paying homage to the elites of State that made the lives of true citizens prosperous. Consider how the word Nazi Party gained its appellation:

 

Acronym Finder

 

What does NSDAP stand for?

 

NSDAP stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NAZI Party)

 

 

ONLINE ETYMOLOGY DICTIONARY

 

Nazi 

 

1930, noun and adjective, from German Nazi, abbreviation of German pronunciation of Nationalsozialist (based on earlier German sozi, popular abbreviation of “socialist”), from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” led by Hitler from 1920.

The 24th edition of Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2002) says the word Nazi was favored in southern Germany (supposedly from c. 1924) among opponents of National Socialism because the nickname NaziNaczi (from the masc. proper name Ignatz, German form of Ignatius) was used colloquially to mean “a foolish person, clumsy or awkward person.” Ignatz was a popular name in Catholic Austria, and according to one source in World War I Nazi was a generic name in the German Empire for the soldiers of Austria-Hungary.

An older use of Nazi for national-sozial is attested in German from 1903, but EWdS does not think it contributed to the word as applied to Hitler and his followers. The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi designation as what the Germans call a “despite-word,” but they gave this up, and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term. Before 1930, party members had been called in English National Socialists, which dates from 1923. The use of Nazi GermanyNazi regime, etc., was popularized by German exiles abroad. From them, it spread into other languages, and eventually was brought back to Germany, after the war. In the USSR, the terms national socialist and Nazi were said to have been forbidden after 1932, presumably to avoid any taint to the good word socialist. Soviet literature refers to fascists.

 

The Wikipedia entry for “Nazi Party” goes into greater detail if you are interested. At Wikipedia the focus is more on nationalism combined with racism more than Socialism.

 

Either way, Nazism and Communism were political vehicles to control the masses under the direction of an elitist oligarchy.

 

Matt Barber has written an essay that I located on Constitution.com highlighting that Adolf Hitler was an anti-Christian pretending to be a Christian with Left Oriented Socialism in the backdrop.

 

Who does that sound like today in 21st century America? Since Barber doesn’t mention any modern day similarities, allow me to name a couple:

 

  • Barack Obama

 

  • Hillary Clinton

 

JRH 5/27/16

Please Support NCCR

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

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 US Flag with Nazi flag paperclip

By Matt Barber [webpage lists him as Guest Columnist but at the end the essay attributed Barber]

May 26, 2016

Constitution.com

 

[T]he only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

– Adolf Hitler

 

Yes, there have been evil men who have done evil things in the name of false Christianity. To a limited degree, Adolf Hitler was one such man. Still, and as even he frequently admitted outside the public eye, he was no Christian.

 

As a counterweight to stigma associated with the tens of millions slaughtered in the 20th century alone under the atheist regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al., the secular left is quick to thunder, “But what about Hitler? He was a Christian!”

 

Bad news, kids. Herr Führer was your guy, too.

 

“I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie,” Hitler confessed (audio transcribed in “Hitler’s Table Talk” [1941-44]). “It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field [to be labeled a Christian].”

 

Did Adolf Hitler ever call himself a Christian? Certainly. He did so, and as he would later admit, for the singular purpose of disseminating political propaganda.

 

“To whom should propaganda be addressed?” he wrote. “It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. … The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.”

 

The Nazi Germans of the 1930s and ’40s are not alone in swallowing Hitler’s Christianese-peppered puffery. Today’s secular- “progressive” establishment likewise bandies about a handful of carefully crafted Hitlerian quotes released for public consumption. His “pro-Christian” proclamations in “Mein Kampf” and elsewhere, for instance, were universally a perversion of biblical Christianity leveraged for the sole purpose of justifying the extermination of the Jewish people.

 

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter,” he wrote. “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge [the Jews] to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. … For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

 

That was the extent of Hitler’s plastic “Christianity.” The Bible, always taken out of context, served as a twisted weapon to justify the mass slaughter of over 11 million Jews, Christians, disabled people and other “undesirables.”

 

In reality Hitler insisted, “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.”

 

 

What Brutal Hitler and Softer Modern Day Progressives Share in Common

 

Sounds an awful lot like today’s American church-state separatists. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, for example, held, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself. … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

 

Indeed, the ACLU’s promotional materials similarly advocate anti-Christian intolerance and mirror Hitler’s directive that, “Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” “The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion,” imagines the “American” so-called “civil liberties” union.

 

That’s viewpoint discrimination and it’s unconstitutional.

 

This is secular socialism in a nutshell. It’s a religion, and its devotees, be they Nazi Germans or American Leftists, are Communist Manifesto-thumping fundamentalists.

 

“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity,” Hitler opined. “As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. … The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. … Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless.”

 

Indeed, Hitler’s robust anti-Christian hatred lives on beyond the death of the Third Reich. Modern-day progressives like Hillary Clinton, though, tend to take a kinder, gentler, more surreptitiously totalitarian approach: “Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee recently said in the context of some phantom “right” to exterminate undesirable infants. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

 

Yikes. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

 

While Hitler was more direct, he nonetheless shared Hillary’s secular socialist vision: “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”

 

Sound familiar? Progressive “truth,” of course, invariably means Christian torment.

 

Hitler, borrowing from socialist icon Karl Marx, said that all Germans must “free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunized against the disease.” Marx, a hero to the secular socialist left, famously called religion, “the opium of the people.”

 

Hitler a Christian? No chance.

 

Anti-Semitism, Islam and a Dash of Darwin

 

Moreover, like the preponderance of today’s similarly anti-Semitic secular progressives, Hitler, too, was an apologist for Islam. As America’s own Dear Leader has done, Hitler partnered with Iran, present-day “Palestine” and other Islamist regimes in the shared goal of eliminating the Jews:

 

“The world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!” he fumed. “Then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so!”

 

Hitler also parroted the godless ideology of modern atheists. Like so many of today’s secular progressives, he was an avowed materialist, neo-Darwinian evolutionist and hardhearted God-denier: “When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”

 

“Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity,” he said. “And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.”

 

Two thousand years and still waiting.

 

And so Hitler endeavored to assist “natural selection” and, as he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “establish an evolutionary higher stage of being.” He placed his hope in Germany’s youth because they were “absolutely indifferent in the matters of religion.”

 

A beloved Hitler Youth marching song captured the Führer’s heart on matters of Christ and Christianity:

 

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

 

Today’s progressive “social justice” warriors are angling for a dystopian, Swastika-free repeat. Their hope, too, lies in the youth (witness the socialism-fueled anarchist insurgence occurring on college campuses nationwide).

 

Like then, progressive secular socialists endeavor to rule the world.

 

And “Christianity alone,” to update Hitler’s own words, will “prevent them from doing so.”

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity,” a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

________________________

American Left can be seen in Nazi History

John R. Houk

© May 27, 2016

________________________

No, Hitler Was Not a Christian… He Was More Like Modern-day “Progressives”.

 

Copyright © 2016 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.