Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?


John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

 

I realize there are a lot of unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theories out there. Because of this Conspiracy Theories are much like the old story of a Boy who Cried Wolf. In this day and age of television, video games, laptops, etc.; parents may not share classic stories like Aesop’s Fables that end with a learning moral. The moral of the Boy who Cried Wolf is if you tell an alarming lie all the time, when you tell the alarming truth, no one will believe you.

 

Deciphering the credible from the incredible Conspiracies brings up the Boy who Cried Wolf scenario in believability. I have unappreciated disagreements with Conspiracy Theory enthusiasts about the credible and incredible.

 

The current Deep State conspiracy to bring down the Trump Administration by any lying means necessary is remarkably credible hence believable.

 

The sad thing about this anti-Trump conspiracy is that a huge swath of Americans that ONLY get their information from the primary Mainstream Media (MSM), televised or print, are probably duped into believing President Trump is a corrupt criminal. The problem is the MSM is a part of the Deep State cabal conspiring against President Trump and the agenda he was elected to perform.

 

Ergo, if the MSM actually tells the truth about some info, their dishonesty has been so pervasive, I can’t believe them. AND YOU shouldn’t believe their wolf crying either.

 

Thanks to the Winning America Now e-newsletter, I have discovered some Deep State info that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed into being the deciding Justice in validating Obamacare.

 

What was the possible dirt collecting method against Chief Justice Roberts? Illegal surveillance by the CIA and/or NSA perpetrated by the Obama Administration.

 

In full disclosure of the credibility/incredibility scale, one of the sources involved in making this public is former Sheriff Joe Arpaio who nearly convinced me that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Arpaio made some very credible assessments of Obama’s Birth Certificate validity. **

 

** On a personal level of opinion, I believe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii rather than Kenya. However, sometime between Hawaii to Indonesia and back to Hawaii, something hinky happened with Obama’s citizenship status. It is my opinion that Obama’s citizenship records were thus messed up in the travels that may have even gotten him into Occidental College as a foreign exchange student. For me this explains the suspicious Birth Certificate and the reasons Obama school records from childhood through college have been sealed from public exposure. That’s my conjecture and not a proven fact.

 

Below is the illegal Obama surveillance story that if true, should cause a huge Constitutional crisis with Obama forcing an unconstitutional law into constitutional validity via clandestine blackmail.

JRH 7/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

By Patrick Howley, Editor-in-Chief

July 12, 2017 8:07 am EST

Big League Politics

 

Evidence shows that John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, was “hacked” by a Deep State surveillance operation overseen by Obama administration CIA director John Brennan and Obama director of national intelligence James Clapper.

 

Roberts, the Bush appointee who made the decisive vote to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare before the 2012 election, was allegedly the victim of the same Deep State surveillance program that spied on President Donald Trump.

 

Tapes released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow — preserved on a Whistleblower Soundcloud page — show real estate billionaire Timothy Blixseth explaining Brennan and Clapper’s surveillance program to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Mike Zullo. The existence of this surveillance program has been corroborated by Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” release and by the public comments of former CIA and NSA contractor Dennis Montgomery, who says he worked on the program for Brennan and Clapper.

 

Montgomery has gone public with his claims exposing how the program was used to spy on President Donald Trump when he was a private citizen. Montgomery has gained immunity and desperately wants House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes or other lawmakers to call him to testify about what he knows.

 

On the explosive tapes, Blixseth walks Arpaio and Zullo through the details of the program on a computer screen. At one point, the three begin pulling up specific names of targeted individuals.

 

“You know who that guy is? That’s the head of the FISA court they hacked into, Reggie Walton,” Blixseth tells the investigators.

 

“John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, was hacked,” Blixseth tells Arpaio and Zullo.

 

LISTEN TO THE TAPE HERE (18:00 Minute Mark)

 

Insiders have always been skeptical of Roberts’ motives for siding with President Obama on the 2012 Obamacare case. While there’s still no available evidence that Roberts was blackmailed, the allegation that he was “hacked” by Obama officials provides some more context into the justice’s controversial career.

 

As Big League Politics reported, former FBI director James Comey seized and buried volumes of information that demonstrated this wide-ranging government surveillance operation targeting Donald Trump before he became president.

 

Larry Klayman, attorney for former NSA and CIA contractor and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, delivered to the FBI 47 hard drives and data amounting to more than 600 million pages of documentation on the surveillance scheme. Then-FBI director James Comey’s general counsel James Baker took the data into his possession, according to multiple sources. But despite possessing Montgomery’s bombshell whistleblower revelations, Comey never acted on or publicized the information.

 

Additionally, Comey’s former firm Lockheed Martin granted entry to Montgomery to one of its facilities to help him work on the alleged mass surveillance program, which was allegedly overseen by Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper and specifically targeted Trump.

 

“This guy showed me 900 million phone calls. And I see myself in there. I see people I know. I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg is in there,” Blixseth said on the tape, referring to information that Montgomery allegedly showed him.

 

“We don’t have any comment,” the FBI told Big League Politics when questioned about the existence of the program.

 

“I provided to the FBI seventeen businesses of Donald Trump, including the Trump Tower, the Trump leasing programs, all of these different programs, and including Trump himself and the various family members that had been wiretapped under these programs,” Montgomery said in a recent interview. “There has been a wiretap on Trump for years.”

 

“I started by going to Maricopa County and showing that Sheriff Arpaio himself was wiretapped under the Obama administration,” the whistleblower said.

 

“I was a CIA contractor both under John Brennan and under James Clapper and these individuals were running domestic surveillance programs in the United States collecting information on Americans. This isn’t political. They were collecting information on Republicans and Democrats. But they collected everything they could find. Bank accounts, phone numbers, chats, emails, and they collected a massive amount of it under the Obama administration,” Montgomery said.

_____________________

Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?

John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

__________________

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

© 2017 Big League News

 

About Big League Politics

 

Big League Politics is a fast-paced news site led by a team of top-level investigative reporters, filmmakers, and citizen journalists all over the country. We challenge powerful politicians in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. We are not conservative. We are not liberal. We are road warriors fighting the good fight for journalism. How did this happen? It happened because the mainstream media and corporate journalism outlets are bought off by shady interests and they don’t tell the truth. We got sick and tired of it. That’s why most of our writers are completely incapable of getting a job anywhere else.

 

Our Ethics

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are factually accurate.

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are in the public interest. We don’t suck up to politicians. We expose corruption and give people the best information on the politics of the day. If we’re reporting it, then it’s important.

 

  1. No target is too big or too small. If someone has broken the public trust, we will be there in his/her face with a video camera.

 

  1. We let our writers have a voice. It is not our job to agree with everything that our writers say. But free speech is under attack at most publications and we think that’s wrong. At Big League Politics, censorship is READ THE REST

 

How Long will U.S. Law Ignore Obama Admin. Corruption?


John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

 

Back in March I was extremely upset that Fox News had suspended (two posts: HERE & HERE) Judge Andrew Napolitano for breaking the news that British Intel organization Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was spying on President Donald Trump during his campaign run and during the Obama lame duck period prior to the Trump inauguration on January 20, 2017.

 

There was no surprise that Leftist MSM called the Judge’s report fake news, but many Conservative news outlets also threw the Judge under the bus just like Fox News. Fox News anchor totally discredited Andrew Napolitano the same day that the Judge was on Fox and Friends. Very disconcerting to me was the way typically Conservative RedState reported on Napolitano’s GCHQ exposé:

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is back on Fox News after reports that he was suspended temporarily because he openly promoted an internet hoax about the British intelligence community surveilling Donald Trump’s team, at the behest of former President Obama.

 

His poorly sourced story was used by the president as “proof,” but otherwise discounted by others at Fox, such as Shepard Smith, who said Fox News had seen nothing to back up Napolitano’s claims. (Back On The Air With Fox News, Judge Napolitano Stands By His Claims Of British Spying; By Susan Wright; RedState; 3/29/17 6:30 pm)

 

Susan Wright uses words like “internet hoax” and “discounted by others at Fox” which in my opinion unjustly impugns Andrew Napolitano’s reputation.

 

I found a couple of articles that amplify the Andrew Napolitano GCHQ exposé, yet lends a huge amount credence to the Judge’s reporting. The articles are both by the Daily Wire. The articles refer to Obama’s Administration gathering intel on Trump:

 

1. By gathering Intel on Trump not only from the UK, but also several other American ally foreign Intelligence services. HELLO JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO!

2. The other Daily Wire story is about then CIA Director John Brennan actively working with foreign Intelligence services to “Falsify Trump-Russia Connections”.

 

How does this not incriminate Barack Hussein Obama, American Intelligence service officials and probably numerable top Executive Branch officials in felonious crimes that must be tried in Court before a jury?

 

YES, THAT INCLUDES FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

 

AllenWestRepublic.com Intro:

 

It is bad enough that candidate and now President Donald Trump had to run the gauntlet of the Obama administration plotting against him. It is a whole new ball game when you find out that most of the world’s intelligence agencies were feeding data to the Obama Camp. If this is true, then there is no way that President Trump or his team can ever trust any of these perpetrators.

 

JRH 4/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

By JOHN NOLTE

APRIL 17, 2017

Daily Wire

 

If you are wondering why our national media has pretty much dropped the whole Trump-Is-A-Russian-Manchurian-Candidate thing, it is because the naked truth about the Obama administration’s chilling spying — something the media has covered up for months — is finally coming to light. Last week, both The Washington Post and The New York Times quietly reported that the Obama administration had “wiretapped” (their word, not mine) a Trump staffer.

 

The Trump-hating Guardian then dropped another bombshell, the news that pretty much every Western intelligence agency in the world was aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s unbelievable and unprecedented (Nixon only wanted to do this) abuse of power against a political opponent:

 

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

 

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

 

Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

 

Q: So what exactly is this “sigint”?

 

A: It perfectly meets the modern definition of — you ready for it? — wiretapping!

 

Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). Signals intelligence is a subset of intelligence collection management.

 

This next bit from the Guardian report is important because it appears to vindicate Fox News commentator Judge Napolitano, who was widely-ridiculed in the political media, and then suspended by Fox News, for reporting something very close to this back in March:

 

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

 

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

 

No one better summed up what was going on here better than PowerLine’s John Hinderaker:

 

The blindingly obvious point that the Guardian tries to obscure is that the combined assets of all of these agencies failed to find any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. We know this, because the Democrats have pulled out all the stops. Both before the election, and especially after the election, they have leaked furiously to try to discredit President Trump. If there were any evidence of collusion between Trump (or even obscure, minor “advisers” like Carter Page) and Russia, there would have been nothing else in the Washington Post or the New York Times for the past five months. But they have nothing.

 

In other words, the whole world was spying on Trump, not just the Obama administration, and even with all of these resources the Democrats and their media got exactly squat. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing between Team Trump and Russia. There is, however, a growing pile of evidence that Team Barry needs to be investigated by Congress and the Justice Department.

 

Hinderaker’s second point is that everyone in the world was so sure Hillary Clinton was going to beat Trump that all of these countries believed it was safe to “curry favor with the new administration” by spying on her opponent, by offering her intelligence-oppo during the campaign that was then leaked to a MSM that was 100% complicit in this illegal behavior — because leaking intelligence is a felony.

 

If this is not scary enough, try to imagine what Hillary’s administration and the MSM would be doing to Donald Trump right now if he did not have the power of the presidency to defend himself. As it is, the media have been lyingsmearing, and slandering him without any evidence.

 

The only weapon Trump has had to fight back with is his access to truth about Obama’s spying, access he would not have had had he not won the presidency.

 

We have already seen the terrifying lengths Hillary and Obama will go to as a means to cover up their lies, we have already seen the violence our media (especially CNN) is willing to gin up in order to protect a Narrative. There is no doubt in my mind that with the help of their media pals, had Hillary won the presidency, Trump would right now be in federal prison for a crime he did not commit.

 

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

 

+++

Report: Former CIA Director Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

 

By JOSEPH CURL

APRIL 20, 2017

Daily Wire

 

There were dueling headlines this week, one from a liberal British newspaper, the other from a conservative U.S. magazine.

 

“British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia,” wrote The Guardian. Well, bother, that’ll put the prezzy in a bit of a spot.

 

But wait, there was this other headline — same story, just a different headline, from The American Spectator: “Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump.”

 

Well dang, now we don’t know what to think.

 

The Guardian painted the “facts” in dull hues:

 

The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump’s team and Moscow ahead of the US election. This was in part due to US law that prohibits US agencies from examining the private communications of American citizens without warrants. “They are trained not to do this,” the source stressed.

 

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” the source added. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

 

Thank God for British intelligence, or we surely would’ve missed this massive Trump-Russia collusion.

 

But The Spectator shined the spotlight into the dark crevasses of the story:

 

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, [John] Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

 

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

 

Huh. What a very different story.

 

What’s important from the U.S. side, of course, is what our own CIA director did.

 

Says The Spectator: “The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan ‘passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.’ To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the’“Gang of Eight’ about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.”

 

Funny, it was all right there in The Guardian report — Brennan was the center of the storm. “The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at ‘director level.’ After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.”

 

But The Guardian sought to play up the roles of British and European agencies.

 

 Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.

 

The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

 

But The Spectator cuts to the point far more succinctly:

 

Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”

 

_______________

How Long will U.S. Law Ignore Obama Admin. Corruption?

John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

_____________

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

AND

 

Report: Former CIA Director Colluded With Foreign Spies to Falsify Trump-Russia Connections

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, THE DAILY WIRE

 

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


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

Blog Editor John R. Houk

By Fred Fleitz

Posted 4/6/17

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 4/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

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

 

By Fred Fleitz

April 6, 2017

The Federalist

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What Intelligence Has Really Confirmed About Russia

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What About All the Missing Intelligence Agencies?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

________________

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

 

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

 

It Sure Sounds Like a Coup Attempt


President Barack Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, left, and Vice President Joe Biden, right,  speaks at the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., Wednesday, April 13, 2016, after a meeting with his National Security Council. Obama pays a rare visit to CIA headquarters as the United States weighs sending more forces to Iraq to fight the Islamic State group. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
President Barack Obama, joined by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, left, and Vice President Joe Biden, right, speaks at the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., Wednesday, April 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

John R. Houk

© December 16, 2016

 

The American Left publicly led by President Barack Hussein Obama and Crooked Hillary acolytes are using Fake News as the absolute truth pertaining the accusation Russian hacks influenced the U.S. election in which President-Elect Trump won.

 

In the debates, Crooked Hillary said no less than SEVENTEEN Intelligence organizations have proclaimed that the Russians hacked the DNC. – LIE!

 

while-u-sleep-msm-creates-your-realityMSM Leftists are repeating the Crooked Hillary lie.

 

Now the American Left is proclaiming that Russia directly hacked voting machines in favor of Trump. –LIE!

 

The only Intelligence Agency pointing to Russian hacking is the CIA. AND within the CIA there is open rebellion about the validity of a Russian hack. INDEED, the CIA leaks claiming a Russian hack of the DNC are all Obama political appointees and political hacks within the CIA. Perhaps CIA anti-Obama agents leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks as Judge Napolitano suggested.

 

Furthermore, when the House Intelligence Committee requested to review the information alleging a Russian hack, the Intelligence Agencies REFUSED. The disinformation reason allegedly from the Intelligence Community is that the Intelligence is currently incomplete. After completion, the classified report will be released to the House Intelligence Committee.

 

WHAT? If the report is so incomplete to share the proof that Russia hacked the DNC, was there a leak in the first place from the CIA?

 

fbi-vs-ciaThe FBIin charge of domestic criminal investigationsdoes not concur there is proof of a Russian hack. Multiple other Intelligence agencies has NOT confirmed the CIA political-Obama acolytes’ public accusation against Russia and against President-Elect Trump.

 

Now I love a viable Conspiracy Theory, yet I’m not one to give full credibility to a Conspiracy Theory as an accurate gospel of truth. But I gotta tell ya. There is an ample appearance the Dems are conspiring to pull a coup d’état justification to prevent a Presidential Administration of Donald Trump.

 

Below is a Cliff Kincaid article about Dem duplicity with the Russians which is followed by a forty-five-minute video of Kincaid interviewing Toby Westerman, the author of Lies, Terror, and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire (Book Review) along the same lines pertaining to the Russians and the CIA.

 

JRH 12/16/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Corrupt CIA Feeds Crooked Media

 

By Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Posted by TMH

December 15, 2016

NoiseyRoom.net

 

Isn’t it strange how the left suddenly finds the CIA to be a worthwhile organization now that it has been turned into a weapon against Trump?

 

We need congressional investigations into the politicization of the CIA under John Brennan, whose claim to fame has been bringing sexual “diversity” to the agency. Perhaps he should have been doing his job, which is to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Reuters reports, “The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.” Reuters reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (or ODNI) “does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations,” but “it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump.”

 

All of this flatly contradicts the fake news story in The New York Times that the CIA judgment on Russia was built on a “swell of evidence.” It is evidence not seen by other intelligence agenies [sic] and the FBI. Even the CBS Evening News reports that the “FBI has not concluded its investigation into this, but so far it is not siding with the CIA.”

 

Common sense tells you that Moscow was perfectly content to let Hillary win, and probably thought she would win. After all, Hillary sold out America to Moscow’s interests with a Russian reset that failed and opened the door to more Russian aggression. Her State Department also sold American uranium assets to Moscow. She was the perfect Russian dupe.

 

This whole discussion in the media about the Russians backing Trump is fake news.

 

The obvious conclusion is that Brennan is on a mission to overturn the election through propaganda and disinformation. This is not only the last gasp of sore losers but represents corruption of the intelligence process.

 

If the purpose of the Russian hacking was to undermine confidence in the American democratic process, as some “experts” originally thought, Brennan’s CIA is doing a good job of that.

 

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes has sent a letter to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, saying, “On November 17, 2016, you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC [Intelligence Community] lacked strong evidence connecting Russian govemment cyber-attacks and WikiLeaks disclosures, testifying that ‘as far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.’ According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position.”

 

The WikiLeaks disclosures, of course, involved hacked emails from the Clinton campaign.

 

The CIA position” changed” because Brennan saw an opportunity to use the controversy againt Trump. Nunes refers to the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.” Once again, we see evidence that the CIA is making things up.

 

There is no doubt that WikiLeaks has worked for the Russians. Julian Assange himself worked for the Russian propaganda channel RT. But that doesn’t constitute evidence that the emails were stolen by the Russians and given to WikiLeaks.

 

It now seems clear that the CIA is going far beyond what the evidence in its possession actually shows. This means that the original story in The Washington Post was based on misleading, if not false, information. That story was headlined, “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House.”

 

In short, the Post was duped by Brennan’s CIA. This constitutes a case of the intelligence community using a major media organ to mislead the American people. Since Post owner Jeff Bezos does business with the CIA, this is a matter of utmost concern.

 

In a statement, Nunes said, “Russia’s cyber-attacks are no surprise to the House Intelligence Committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s belligerence for years—as I’ve said many times, the Intelligence Community has repeatedly failed to anticipate Putin’s hostile actions. Unfortunately the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous Intelligence Committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat.”

 

Obama’s CIA director “woke up” because it was politically convenient for him to do so. He’s trying to exploit the Russian cyber attacks, which the CIA and other agencies failed to prevent, for political purposes.

 

Even more sensational than Brennan is former CIA official Michael Morell, who openly backed Hillary. He declared, “A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11.”

 

It seems clear at this point that the corruption in the media has spread to the CIA.

 

An investigation is certainly needed. It should be conducted into the various former and current CIA officials who have been using the agency and their associations with the agency to wage war against the duly-elected president of the United States.

 

It may turn out to be the case that the real government meddling in our elections has been from the Obama administration and its CIA.

 

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

 

+++

What’s Wrong With The CIA?

 

By Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Posted by TMH

December 15, 2016

NoisyRoom.net

 

The author of Lies, Terror, and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire, Toby Westerman, talks to host Cliff Kincaid about the problems in the CIA and what President Trump can do about them. Westerman and Kincaid also discuss the threats posed by Russia and China.

 

VIDEO: What’s Wrong With the CIA?

 

Posted by USA Survival

Streamed live on Dec 13, 2016

 

________________

It Sure Sounds Like a Coup Attempt

John R. Houk

© December 16, 2016

________________

Corrupt CIA Feeds Crooked Media

And

What’s Wrong With The CIA?

 

© 2016 NoisyRoom.net

No Tears For Terrorists


Party of Deceit, Spin & Lies

 

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently produced an extremely flawed report that vilified the CIA for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) as torture. American voters must keep in mind ONLY the lame duck Dem majority placed its stamp of approval on this report. The Dems have spent the last 14 years LYING to America (Bush election 2000 – Obama years to the present in 2014). Lying is how Obama was elected in both 2008 and 2012. Obama’s deceptions he has told are scandalous and worse America’s Mainstream Media (NBC News, CBS News, NY Times, Media Matters etc.) have been perpetuating those lies (Townhall.com, WSJ, National Review, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Eagle Rising, etc.).

 

I have listening to Leftists touting this Senate Dem report on EIT as confirmation that prosecutions for crimes should occur. The thing is it’s like I’ve been telling my grandkids: “If a Democrats lips are moving, it is a lie.”

 

Justin Smith provides some facts that refute lying Democrats.

 

JRH 12/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

No Tears For Terrorists

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 12/13/2014 4:54 PM

 

The recently released Senate Intelligence report on the CIA detention and interrogation program, created after 9/11, is a poorly done partisan attack on the Agency, and it is marred by errors of fact and questionable motives, as Americans note that this story moved Dr. Gruber, ACA architect, and his “Americans are too stupid to understand Obamacare” remark from the front page of the New York Times to page twenty; however, since the Democrats have mischaracterized the effectiveness of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program and alleged that Islamic terrorists/”enemy combatants” captured on foreign battlefields were “tortured” through waterboarding and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), let’s put this topic to rest, as we also note that waterboarding was prohibited seven years ago.

 

Many progressive Democrats have conflated the issue by stating that Japanese soldiers were hung in 1947 for “waterboarding” U.S. soldiers, when what they actually did is more accurately described as “water-torture”, forcing water into the stomachs of prisoners, our U.S. soldiers, until osmosis ruptured their blood-cells, ending in death. This is not in any manner similar to the minor dunkings that Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists received at the hands of CIA interrogators, which merely gave the subject the illusion of drowning.

 

At the cost of $40 million, the Senate intelligence report, a 524 page declassified executive summary of the 6300 page classified report, accuses the CIA of torture, however, the CIA repeatedly consulted the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel about methods it intended to use. Legal opinions – later discredited and withdrawn due to political pressure from the Obama administration – assured the Agency that ALL of its Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) were lawful and did not constitute torture.

 

It is worth noting here that tens of thousands of U.S. Armed Forces members, Rangers, Special Forces, SEALs, Pathfinders and Recon have voluntarily subjected themselves to waterboarding in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) classes. All intelligence and military personnel exposed to a high risk of capture take SERE training.

 

Now, the very same Democrats, who once fully supported the EIT program, clearly didn’t include any information that did not fit their predetermined conclusions, and these same Democrats charged the CIA with immoral ineffectiveness, after they cherry-picked their way through six million pages of documents in the program that they in fact enabled; in their questionable endeavor, they ignored credible evidence that information gathered in this program led to Osama bin Laden.

 

In a joint response, former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes rebut the Senate Intelligence report in a December 10th Wall Street Journal editorial that states:

 

“The (EIT) program in its totality formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation. For instance, the CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.”

 

Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, and five other Republicans wrote a 100 page dissent of the report, which was written solely by Democratic committee staff members. Chambliss, in a later statement, contradicted the principal findings of the Democrats, calling them “erroneous and inflammatory.”

 

Senator Chambliss also presented 766 known cases that represented “sole sourced” intelligence extracted through EIT, which gave advanced warning of terrorist attacks on Heathrow airport and London’s Canary Wharf. Chambliss stated, “There is no telling how many lives this program saved.”

 

Jose Rodriguez Jr., a former CIA official, rejects the Senate Intelligence report’s conclusions that EITs weren’t useful in saving American lives, and he stated: “… that the interrogation program brought no intelligence is an egregious falsehood; it’s a dishonest attempt to rewrite history … I’m bemused that the Senate could devote so many resources to studying the interrogation program and yet never once speak to any of the key people involved in it, including the guy who ran it, that would be me.”

 

One report from the twelve month period in 2004 showed a 92% success rate when EITs were used at GITMO, and even the Senate Intelligence report had to admit that some intelligence was gathered from 82% of detainees subjected to EITs, while in CIA custody. The effectiveness was shown to be only 57.5% with detainees when soft-sell techniques (polygraphs) were used.

 

As a career U.S. military senior interrogator with extensive knowledge of the EITs used by the CIA interrogators on high value detainees, Jason Beale (pseudonym) anticipated the Senate Intelligence report and wrote a 39 page response stating that “under duress the unrehearsed details (of a lie) are the wild-cards that bite you in the ass … I would rather sit across from the most talented interrogator on earth doing a soft-sell than any interrogator doing a hard-sell … the only consequences to my lies come in the form of words. I could handle words. Anyone could.” [Bold Italics Blog Editor’s]

 

Since the creation of the detention and interrogation program, the CIA has reported any allegation of abuse to the Justice Dept. Twenty cases have been forwarded to Justice in all these years, with only one meriting prosecution.

 

If detainees were subjected to “rough takedowns”, stripped, bound, screamed at and slapped, as alleged in this Senate Intelligence report, and hasty decisions made in the chaotic aftermath of 9/11, those CIA agents involved should have been interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee to ascertain the reasoning and logic behind their actions. This should have been placed in proper context. [Bold text Editor’s – NO CIA agents involved in IET were interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee pertaining to this report.]

 

On December 11th, CIA Director John Brennan put this topic in its proper context as he stated:

 

“The events of 9/11 will be forever seared into the memory of Americans … those 77 minutes in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Our Nation ached … It prayed. In Our pain, We pledged to come together … We vowed, NEVER AGAIN.”

 

Americans are now being forced by this report to reflect and ask themselves, “Was America wrong to use these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?”

 

Would anyone really and truly be troubled over waterboarding an enemy combatant, a terror suspect, with the knowledge that thousands of American lives might be at stake?

 

The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Islamofascist groups that now comprise the Islamic State have routinely tortured, maimed and murdered their prisoners over the last several decades, just as America witnessed nineteen U.S. soldiers dismembered in Somalia and hung from utility poles in 1993 and, more recently, four young Christian children beheaded in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam. And during this time, they have consistently and routinely worked towards successfully striking America in the most destructive and lethal fashion; the bomb plots, the biological and chemical attack plans and their search for nuclear weapons have all increased, and all of this was in the making long before the EIT program, as illustrated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

 

Americans reflect on what has brought us to this discussion, and we remember – We remember Islamic terrorists followed the Koran’s mandate to murder non-believers, the infidels, in order to purify the world – taking the lives of 3000 innocent Americans. This is their life’s calling, and America reacted by making it our mission to capture or kill every Islamofascist meaning to bring Her harm, a mission we took seriously; if an Islamic terror suspect or known terrorist gets slapped a few times or has a little water poured over his face, I’ll not be shedding any tears.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________________

Edited By John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality


United Against Terrorism - Sharia heavy Muslim manual

ACT for America promotes an Andrew C. McCarthy article from NRO that exposes the U.S. State Department endorsing a Muslim manual supposedly meant to be an anti-terrorist perspective from Canadian Moderate Muslims. The hypocrisy that McCarthy exposes is that the Muslim manual promotes all that is harsh and extreme pertaining to Islam’s Sharia Law.

 

JRH 10/15/14

Please Support NCCR

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

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 10/13/2014 7:57 AM

 

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with America, Out of Touch with Reality

 

The U.S. State Department once again demonstrates that it fails to grasp the true nature of the threat from Islamic jihad by endorsing a Canadian publication produced by Islamist organizations—even after the Canadian Mounted Police rejected the very same manual.

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

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

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

By Andrew C. McCarthy

OCTOBER 8, 2014 2:29 PM

National Review Online

 

At the Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo reports that the State Department has issued a tweet endorsing a manual that promotes sharia and admonishes investigators not to use terms like “jihad,” which it describes as “a noble concept” in Islam.

 

The manual, United Against Terrorism, is said by its sponsors – the Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) – to combat the radicalization of young Muslims. Yet, after being consulted during the manual’s writing, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police rejected the final product due to its “adversarial tone.”

 

That’s putting it mildly. Upon reading the book, Toronto Star columnist Anthony Furey observes that it frowns on “liberal values,” forbidding such things as the intermingling of the sexes in civil society and the marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim, while promoting the treatment of adultery and premarital sex as crimes for which “punishments are harsh.”

 

The manual admonishes that “Terrorism is not jihad. Jihad is a noble concept in Islam.” It further discourages Muslims from cooperating with law enforcement officials, even if the police are seeking information about Islamic radicals – the very “extremists” the manual ostensibly sets itself against. It also derides investigative measures designed to gather intelligence against terrorists.

 

Yet, the U.S. State Department lauded the manual yesterday, tweeting: “Canada: handbook to help parents understand extremists, combat recruitment [with a link to the manual.]”

 

As Mr. Kredo notes, the State Department’s approbation struck some Twitter users as curious. It should not have. The State Department, throughout the tenures of Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, has been second only to the White House itself in championing the Muslim Brotherhood, whose promotion of sharia and project to forbid notice of the Islamic doctrinal roots of Islamic terrorism are amply reflected in the manual.

 

The airbrushing of jihad is also familiar. It is the same spin I discussed here in 2010 when then-White House counterterrorism czar (and now-CIA director) John Brennan claimed that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’” because “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam” that merely means “to purify oneself or one’s community.”

 

In point of fact, according to the authoritative sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller, which has been endorsed by scholars at al-Azhar University in Cairo (the seat of Sunni scholarship since the tenth century) and by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (the Muslim Brotherhood’s think-tank), “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” As Answering Islam’s Yoel Natan has recounted, jihad is referred to in 164 verses of the Koran, almost exclusively in terms of combat.

 

Moreover, if – even as jihadists are rampaging – you want to indulge the Brennan/Obama administration fantasy that jihad has evolved, Brennan’s anodyne rendering of the concept is hopelessly flawed. I explained why in the 2010 column:

 

Jihad is, always and everywhere, the mission to implement, spread, or defend sharia, the Islamic legal code. It is not exclusively violent; an army doesn’t need to be violent if its enemies are willing to give ground. But jihad only “means to purify oneself or one’s community” in a very narrow sense. It is not the syrupy quest to become a better person but the command to become a better Muslim; it is not the smiley-face mission to “purify” one’s community of crime but the command to cleanse one’s community of non-Islamic influences.

 

The inextricable bond between jihad and sharia is also easily explained. In Muslim doctrine, sharia is deemed the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society. Islam’s designs are hegemonic: Even in its less threatening iterations, it is taken as a given that believers must call all of humanity to the faith. What separates the true moderates from the faux moderates and the terrorists are the lengths to which one is willing to go in carrying out that injunction. That it is an injunction, however, is not open to debate.

 

Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.

 

Again, if the State Department, the administration, and the Beltway political class are going to keep looking at Islamists –i.e., Islamic supremacists who promote sharia – as part of the counterterrorism solution rather than a big part of the anti-American, anti-Western liberalism problem, we are never going to get out of our own way.

_______________________

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality

 

ACT for America is a 501(c)(4) issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. Donations to ACT for America are not tax deductible.
_____________________

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

© National Review Online 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Stand For Liberty


Rand Paul filibuster

Justin Smith utilizes Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster as the foundational starting point to write about the Obama Administration’s – with Attorney General Eric Holder as a reference – abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/15/13

Please Support NCCR    

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

Stand For Liberty

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/14/2013 3:23 PM

 

In a fascinating and charismatic stand for Our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Liberty for all Americans, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) demanded on March 6, 2013 that Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder specifically give clarification regarding the Obama administration’s policy on using unmanned armed aircraft (drones) overseas and on American soil. When Holder gave several ambiguous statements and circled any honest answer pertaining to provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Executive Order on 12-31-12, allowing the president to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and to kill Americans who are deemed terrorists or “enemy combatants,” Senator Paul vowed to block the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA until he received some satisfactory answers (Presidents have long used the word “privelege” in Article I Sec 9 as a tool to ignore habeas corpus). And thus ensued an amazing lesson in government and the U.S. Constitution, as Senator Paul delivered a thirteen hour filibuster!

Twelve other Republicans and one Democrat, Ron Wyden (Oregon) supported Paul during his 13 hour soliloquy, but the bulk of the Republican Party was notably and unfortunately missing in action during this intense, momentous and historic moment, which prompted Senator Paul’s observation, “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.” So, in stark contrast Senator Rand Paul struck a blow for all Americans and Liberty, as Republican-in-name-only Senator Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) office would not divulge his whereabouts during the filibuster; and, RHINO Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who had dinner with Obama and eleven others during the filibuster, gushed like a teenage girl over the attention they received, as they were groomed to once more betray their constituency and the American people regarding upcoming financial matters.

Senators Graham (R-SC) and McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Senator Paul was doing “a disservice to Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” As McCain added, “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction,” I thought that statement was fairly applicable to Obama and the Progressive Democrats as much as it was to Al Qaeda.

Remember that Holder has been undermining the U.S. legal system for a long time. The Holder Justice Department has prosecuted U.S. agents unfairly due to previously approved methods of interrogating terrorists, who have no standing under the U.S. Constitution (parallels “piracy”) or the Geneva Convention. Holder himself has represented Al Qaeda terrorists pro bono during his time with the law firm of Covington and Burling. He has unconstitutionally overseen the military trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed; now, he once again has conferred Constitutional rights on a terrorist/enemy combatant where none should exist and, in fact, do not exist in the case of Sulaiman Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and chief propagandist for Al Qaeda. And this is the man we are supposed to trust when he states that “no intention” exists to use drone strikes in America… the very same Eric Holder who ignored due process in the international child custody case of Elian Gonzalez.

Due process of the law has been integral to the American way since George Mason and others penned the Bill of Rights, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointedly stated, “The question of whether the United States government can kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil when that individual does not pose an imminent threat or grievous bodily harm is a fundamental issue of Liberty. It is an issue of enforcing the explicit language of Our Constitution.” It is within this context that all Americans must take pause and object to Holder’s reluctance and hesitancy to offer an unequivocal and certain, “No…the president does not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat,” as he eventually did on March 7, after a month and a half of pressure from Congress!

This controversy largely arose over the Obama refusal to allow Congress to see the legal opinions that authorize drone strikes, although regular reports have been made to the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees. The critical question centers on Congressional oversight of a covert war against suspected terrorists, as Obama has grabbed too much power and violated the U.S. Constitution in his so-called “efforts to keep the nation safe.”

Virginia E. Sloan, the president of the Constitution Project (civil liberties group/DC), stated in February, “We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesn’t know much more… speeches are absolutely no substitute for the actual memos in hand.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.” Setting aside conspiracies, a known fact represents reality; and, America’s reality is an Obama administration and Homeland Security who warned of the ranks of potential terrorists being filled by “right wing extremists” and “Christian conservatives.”

Attorney General Holder has not told us the criteria used to mark a person as an enemy combatant. He also did not back off his contention that the president has the authority to pursue military action inside the U.S. in extraordinary circumstances, which is currently and technically correct; however, this also requires numerous signatures from the other branches of government, and it still gives the impression of flying in the face of Posse Comitatus [NCCR Editor: Read HERE, HERE and HERE]. And it was this assertion that sparked Senator Paul’s filibuster, as he declared, “I have allowed the president to pick his appointees… But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”

One should also note that the U.S. has developed miniature drone listening devices that go unnoticed as they hover over areas, like something out of Bradbury’s ‘Fahrenheit 451’ or Orwell’s ‘1984’. That’s well and good if they’re hovering over a terrorist camp, but do we really want to use this in America? … Embrace Big Brother… And even if we do, shouldn’t we still demand the application of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments?

Over the course of the filibuster several senators, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, attempted to lessen the strain of the effort on Senator Paul by asking questions and speaking themselves. Cruz read passages from ‘Henry V’ and lines from the movie ‘Patton’. At one point, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who struggles with a cane due to a stroke, delivered hot tea and an apple to Paul’s desk, but a doorkeeper removed them; not to be outdone, House Republican Louie Gohmert from Texas stood off to the side of the Senate floor in a show of support.

One person can make a difference when they stand up for a righteous cause, and no one should take any U.S. President’s word, especially this one’s, that his administration’s policy in any area remains consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, regardless of claims of “transparency”. By offering his resolution stating that the use of unmanned, armed aircraft on U.S. soil against American citizens violates the Constitution and delivering 13 hours of explanation and education, Senator Paul opened the eyes of many Americans, who want a better balance between protecting our security and protecting our Liberty; even CodePink called and thanked him “for standing up against abuses of power.” So, the next time you hear Senator Rand Paul, or anyone, ask “are you so afraid that you are willing to trade your freedom for security,” reply “No!”…and stand up for Liberty!

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith