The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!


The next time you hear a Leftist radical – er, I mean Democrat – tell you that Crooked Hillary did not approve Uranium One because she was just one of nine who gave unanimous support OR that President Barry Soetoroer, I mean Barack Hussein Obama – was the greatest President in U.S.; then direct them to this very informative essay by Andrew Benjamin.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!

 

By Andrew G. Benjamin —— Bio and Archives

November 17, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

 

Midday on November 14th, FOX News talking head Shepard Smith, whom we might charitably label as a liberal non-heterosexual who may not like Donald Trump, meaning his politics have everything to do with his sexual preferences and whom he would vote for, and very little to do with reality, gave the nation a much-needed reality check.

 

Hillary Clinton is innocent of all charges. As Shepard opened his mouth, we saw former FBI Director James Comey’s eyes peeking out.

 

Shepard’s was a monologue over which the liberal press went bananas. Or “ape” if you will.

 

You see, the Clinton-Uranium-1 Story is, according to Shepard and the Kool Aid his media mates at CNN and MSNBC drink, a fairytale. Or given the much overused cliché, “a nothing burger”, a fabrication of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 

The line is the line according to Smith and his media mates on every other channel that would give the death penalty to Team Trump and his family at the earliest opportunity, for the mere outrage of winning an election, with the stories of every Democrat calling for impeachment.

 

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.” said Smith.

 

SHEPARD SMITH YOU TUBE

 

VIDEO: Fox News’ Shep Smith Methodically Debunks Uranium One Conspiracy Theories [Blog Editor: Leftist Shep Hogwash]

 

Smith’s monologue was meant to dispel any suspicion still hanging in with FOX viewers about the Clintons who have, throughout their illustrious careers, only benefited the nation. It was meant to reinforce in liberal minds the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin who made them pull 63 million levers across America for Donald Trump. It is meant to fix in one’s mind the notion that the entire Trump Team is guilty of perjury and even treason. And the idea that Barack Obama colluded with Hillary and the Russians about anything is preposterous, since their suspected collusion is not reported on any channel except for Shepard’s, and therefore does not exist.

 

The gist of Shepard’s historical “innovation” is that Hillary Clinton is wholly innocent of accusations about how and why the $145 million wound up in her family’s slush fund AFTER the sale took place. It is to dispel the notion of a possible RICO (organized crime) investigation into the Clinton Matter. Shepard’s spin suggests that the Clintons are hardly greedy, in fact, never; or self-dealing and treacherous. Donald Trump is, for questioning the Clinton Matter in tweets.

 

The bottom-line of Shepard’s astonishing Aesop’s Fables and the non-contextualization of history (as well as the record of the players), was that there were nine cabinet members of CIFUS, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, who had unanimously, of their free will, approved the “good deal” that was ultimately approved by the president himself. The same president who appointed the self-same cabinet.

 

Clearly, as in law, precedent must rule in this matter, the same as the precedent for the Iran Nuke Deal which was a Good Deal for America (that was the line our past president from some central African nation told us); as the North Korean Nuke Deal was a Good Deal for America (which was the line the husband of the last female Democrat presidential candidate told the nation over two decades ago); as is the Uranium-1 good deal from which ONLY the Clinton Family Foundation profited. It had to be a Good Deal for America, and the $145 million slush fund the Clintons can do with as they will happens to be a sidebar.

 

Every deal from which America’s enemies profit has to be a Good Deal for America.

 

Or charity – if you will.

 

Especially with all the Good Deals in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got involved.

 

For example:

 

  • The BenghaziGate Good Deal in which the United States got run out of North Africa by a band of extremist religious thugs, got Americans killed just to make the deal better, and made certain that that nation was taken over by ISIS.

 

 

  • The Iran Nukes Good Deal which insured that Iran will not only continue to develop IBCM’s – Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles– but in less than eight years arm them with MIRVs – Multiple Re-entry Vehicles tipped with nuclear bombs. that Good Deal was meant to make Americans happy.

 

  • The Eric Holder Fast & Furious Good Deal in which 55,000 Mexicans and some Americans were murdered by weapons seized by Barack Obama and Holder from American citizens, and given to the Mexican drug cartels. Hillary was SecState at the time dealing “diplomatically” with Mexico for America’s benefit.

 

  • The IRS-gate Good Deal in which American organizations and groups with words in their names such as “American,” “Patriot,” “Constitution,” and similar suggesting a faith in law and allegiance to the nation, were targeted for examination – and then deliberately paralyzed from raising funds for political campaigns.

 

  • The DNC-Clinton Primary Fix-Gate Good Deal in which a year prior to the presidential primaries one candidate received, by written agreement from the Party itself, full control of the party, its activities and decision-making, and all the money the party raised. Funds which she promptly redirected to her own campaign and into her own pockets. Clearly, she was never greedy and self-dealing and never had any interest in uranium.

 

Under the greatest president ever, Barack Obama, and his former SecState Hillary, Good Deals for America were almost a daily occurrence and even Settled Science.

 

In 2009 and 2010, in a bid to corner and dominate the global uranium market, Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, was anxious to take over a majority stake in the uranium mining company UrAsia formerly owned by Clinton ally and benefactor, Canadian Frank Giustra.

 

After the board members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States appointed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton’s nod approved the sale, as well as managing the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission leadership appointed by Barack Obama at Clinton’s behest, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One in 2013. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with this Good Deal to benefit the American People and put America’s uranium assets in Russian hands.

 

As the CFIUS includes the State Department as one of the regulatory body’s members, Hillary asserted that she had nothing to do with “massaging” the deal because she never had any interest in money, uranium, or even her own agency at State. She kept insisting that a number of agencies had agreed to the good deal for America because they too, had no interest in making the Clintons fabulously wealthy. According to the latest reports from insider sources on the inside speaking anonymously behind closed doors at an undetermined date and place, she did not go so far as to suggest that selling off America’s assets and wealth was also a good deal, but we might presume that she was thinking it.

 

What Shepard Smith failed to disclose is that the “friendly” – as opposed to hostile – Uranium One takeover began in 2005. Meanwhile behind the scenes we presume Hillary Clinton was the senator at the time pushing the deal. And Frank Giustra still owned the company.

 

The Clintons were at his side for no reason at all all this time. For example, no reason like this, reported by the Times:

 

“The $500,000 (speaking) fee (in Moscow)—among Mr. Clinton’s highest—was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin…”

 

Meanwhile, as Team Clinton reportedly spent $1.2 Billion on getting her elected to the presidency mostly so no investigation will ever be launched into the Clinton Good Deals (that $1.2B represents One Thousand Two Hundred times a Million dollars) CNN gave you updates 24/7 for months about the Russians using FACEBOOK to infringe on American democracy and turn an American election in Donald Trump’s favor.

 

With the $6500 that FACEBOOK reported the Russians spent.

An amount that would not buy a used steel, never mind, gold, Rolex.

 

According to the Times:

 

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, (Hillary Clinton) then a senator.

 

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

 

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

 

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming ‚Äúa powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. ‚Ķ The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

 

What Shepard Smith neglected to disclose among all the good deals going down among his media mates at CNN and MSNBC, The NY Times and WashPo, is the timing and the timeline, and that 1 + 1 may actually equal 2. Possibly 3.

 

The Times:

 

“Mr. Telfer’s (the chairman of UrAsia) undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal…..”

 

At least no interest in the deal until a former president who made previous Good Deals that armed North Korea with nukes and ICBMs, came to the rescue with a $500,000 speech that lasted at most 10 minutes, with “guarantees” for millions more to arrive shortly for which no speeches will will [sic] be made. And a box of cigars.

 

Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side in the early years, made sure that the Kahakh mines would become Russian mines. And the American mines become Russian mines. She was SecState at the time, and if you’re seeing a conflict of interest and self-dealing, you are seeing things.

 

It appears Shepard deliberately neglected the obvious for political reasons of his own, in a speech that LeftMedia is now celebrating thinking that FOX News, just like they, are now in the tank with the Clinton narrative. Look, $145 million goes a long way to persuade the reluctant that the sky is not blue.

 

For after all, there are no more deserving people to benefit from all the Good Deals than the ones who made them: Barack Obama and the Clintons.

 

Theirs is the Good Deal that stipulated that:

 

  1. The $145,000,000 that wound up at the Clinton Family Foundation for no reason at all got there for no reason at all.

and

 

  1. That, for no reason at all Barack Obama appointed ALL the voters at CIFUS and the other agencies under his command who approved the Good Deal without ANY dissent. And then Barry approved the sale himself according to Smith.

 

For absolutely no reason at all.

 

Not even the $145,000,000 reason and a genuine replica of the Reset Button.

 

REPORT TO CONGRESS – CIFUS

 

[Blog Editor: Title to PDF of above link: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); By James K. Jackson; Congressional Research Service; 54 pgs.; 10/11/17]

 

_______________

© Andrew G. Benjamin

 

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition team’s Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press.

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?


John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

 

The Dems have tried to frame President Trump with getting the Russians to fix the November elections to Trump’s favor. Indeed, traitor former President Obama has been exposed with his own self trying to sway the election with the Russian Fake News story combined with some Watergate style campaign spying in the name of National Security.

 

FINALLY! President Trump is pushing back! Our President is letting the cat out of the bag and the Dems are trying to obfuscate the push back with typical denials in their defense of treasonous Obama.

 

Here is some more Obama/Dem Deep State documentation of the travesty of pulling a legal coup against President Trump. I have to wonder. WHEN the legal coup fails, will the Obama/Dems begin a violent coup as evidenced in the streets with violence against Pro-Trumpers? Can you say Loretta Lynch?

 

VIDEO: Loretta Lynch Calls for MARCHING, BLOOD and even DEATH in Resistance to Trump in new Facebook Video

 

Posted by The Tolerant Left

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

As to the push back against Obama, Mark Levin outlines the very same thing Trump refers to on Fox & Friends yesterday. The irony! The sources cited by Levin are Left oriented rags (Levin uses the term “another Right Wing” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to get his point across).

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump | Fox & Friends 3/5/17

 

Posted by KagenOfficial

Published on Mar 5, 2017

 

Mark Levin interview on Fox News Fox & Friends on March 5, 2017 3/5/17 and provides proof of Obama Administration Wiretapping Spying by FBI and NSA. Mark Levin proves wiretap trump tower

 

If you are foolish enough to watch other news outlets castigate President Trump for his tweets against treasonous Obama, YOU have to see the hypocrisy that Levin sources the Left for Obama meddling in the 2016 election cycle!

 

JRH 3/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

March 5, 2017 

Noisy Room

 

Obama Spying

 

Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.

 

Levin has laid out exactly how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof, when they provided said proof. This is insane.

 

From Conservative Review:

 

Mark Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during the 2016 election.

 

“The gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.

 

Levin – who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese – explained the potential scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:

 

“We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.

 

“The question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”

 

Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup. And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.

 

A myriad of things now look very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself, and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally calling for blood and death in our streets: …They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again– Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.

 

[Noisy Room Video posted above]

 

Full Interview [Fox & Friends Weekend]: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/mark-levin-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping

+++

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals why scandal is ‘bigger and worse than Watergate’

 

By JOSEPH FARAH

March 5, 2017

WND

 

After Donald Trump blew the whistle on the eavesdropping of his 2016 campaign headquarters by Barack Obama’s administration, few in the media or elsewhere seem to be asking the obvious questions:

Was it legal?

 

Was it ethical – in the American way?

 

One thing is for certain: If the roles were reversed and the Trump administration bugged Democrats, you can imagine the media would take a much different view.

 

Let’s first take a look at how the media reported this travesty of justice, political decorum, the Constitution and American legal tradition:

 

  • Washington Post: President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.

 

  • CNN: Trump’s baseless wiretap claim

 

  • Atlantic: Trump’s Unfounded Claims of a “Nixon/Watergate” Wiretapping Scheme

 

  • Huffington Post: Obama Refutes Allegation that He Wiretapped Trump Tower During Campaign

 

  • New York Daily News: Trump’s poor understanding of national security investigations may prove dangerous

 

  • New York Times: President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.

 

The emphasis of all of these “fake news” reports is disingenuous to say the least. Obama didn’t deny his administration wiretapped Trump. He said no one at the White House did. That is a virtual admission that his administration did, probably Justice Department, meaning the “apolitical Loretta Lynch” who just called for “blood and death” in the streets to stop Trump, much to the approval of Senate Democrats. It’s an obvious parsing of words by the slick Obama.

 

The accusation is indeed bigger than Watergate, which began with an attempt not to eavesdrop directly on Richard Nixon’s opponent in the 1972 presidential election, but on Larry O’Brian, the head of the DNC, whose offices were in the Watergate Hotel. He was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of his day, but she and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta didn’t bother securing their email communications, and you could read them all on WikiLeaks.

 

And that brings us to the excuse for Trump’s campaign being undoubtedly bugged – the elusive evidence for Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

If you doubt there is no evidence, just carefully read every New York Times story on the fake scandal. Way down near the bottom of every story, the paper that has trumpeted this story the most admits there’s no evidence.

 

So, here’s the way this thing obviously went down.

 

Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to investigate the Russian fantasy. The judge turned it down.

 

It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request. The judge turned it down.

 

Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in October. Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping began.

 

Not one of these big news organizations will tell you that.

 

It’s the attorney general who would request such wiretap authorizations for heavy-duty, politically charged requests such as this – not that any have ever been requested or authorized in the history of the republic.

 

Do news organizations really want to be covering up stuff like this? Don’t they understand the same tactics can be used against them? Obama, or (wink-wink) Lynch, just set the precedent.

 

Nixon never did anything remotely like this – and he was forced from office as a result. Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the Trump administration. And one or both probably should be.

 

Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.

 

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information” as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.

 

Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian hacks?

 

That’s what makes this scandal, pardon the expression, “bigger than Watergate.”

 

Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration to investigate the Russia deal were. What does that tell you?

 

It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary.

 

Since the election, the hysteria over Russia’s role in the election has only increased exponentially.

 

And that’s why:

 

1. I believe Trump.

2. I don’t believe Obama.

3. I don’t believe the “fake news cartel,” which is all in for finding the elusive Trump-Russia link.

 

What we’ve got here at first glance is a prima facie case for “bigger and worse than Watergate.”

 

But the Washington Post and New York Times have already signaled they won’t be investigating. They are already publishing front-page editorials that stake out a rather shrill “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil” approach.

 

Was it legal? No.

 

Was it ethical in the American political tradition? No.

 

Is it one of the most dangerous developments in American political history? Yes.

 

+++

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Originally NATIONAL REVIEW

March 5, 2017

Israpundit

Posted by Ted Belman

 

President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

 

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony. In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.

 

As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

 

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

 

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.

 

It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page.

 

The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts. Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:

 

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

This seems disingenuous on several levels. First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates.

 

The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Second, the business about never ordering surveillance against American citizens is nonsense. Obama had American citizens killed in drone operations. Obviously, that was not done in the U.S. or through the FISA process; it was done overseas, under the president’s commander-in-chief and statutory authority during wartime.

 

But the notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd. Third, that brings us to a related point: FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Consequently, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with a president’s ordering national-security surveillance of a potential foreign agent who may be helping a foreign power threaten American security and interests.

 

That is one of the president’s main jobs – there would be something wrong if a president, who truly believed the nation was threatened by a foreign power, failed to take action. Prior to FISA’s enactment in 1978, courts had no formal role in the surveillance of foreign agents for national-security purposes – it was a unilateral executive-branch function. Beginning with the Carter administration during FISA’s enactment, it has been the position of presidential administrations of both parties that, despite the enactment of the FISA process, the president maintains inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to order surveillance even in the absence of court authorization. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures.

 

But it would not be inappropriate  e–ven though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process.

 

Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.  [I have updated the post, as indicated, to reflect that I meant “not unconstitutional” in a passage in which I erroneously said “not constitutional.] -[Blog Editor’s bold text]

__________________

Dem Propaganda & Deep State Coup?

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2017

_______________

SPYGATE: Mark Levin Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]

 

© 2017 NoisyRoom.net

______________

WAS OBAMA’S TAP OF TRUMP LEGAL, AMERICAN?

 

Copyright 2017 WND

_______________

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump 

 

© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

 

Israpundit

 

About National Review

 

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science


global-warming-hoax-exposed

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

 

JRH 2/10/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

 

By Julie Kelly

FEBRUARY 10, 2017

The Federalist

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What Bates Revealed About a Famous Climate Study

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Climate Change Study Was Rigged

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Media Rushes to Defend Karl’s Study

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Media Weren’t The Only Study Apologists

 

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

 

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

 

______________

julie-kelly

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

 

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

 

TOP 10 ESTABLISHMENT-MEDIA COVER-UPS OF 2016


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

 

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

 

JRH 12/31/16

Please Support NCCR

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

OPERATION STRIKE

 

TOP 10 ESTABLISHMENT-MEDIA COVER-UPS OF 2016

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

 

December 30, 2016

WND

 

Leftist MSM Fake News Journalists

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. The contents of the Podesta emails:

 

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

 

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

 

john-podesta

John Podesta

 

Here are a few of the many revelations:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2. The true Obama economy:

 

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

 

president-obama-white-house-photo

President Obama (White House photo)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3. The doubling of the national debt under Obama

 

president-obama-white-house-photo-2

President Obama (White House photo) 2

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

illegal_aliens2

Illegal Aliens

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

protestors-against-illegal-aliens

Protestors Against Illegal Aliens

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

huma-abedin

Huma Abedin

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The resolution would effectively criminalize criticism of Islam.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8. The threat of ISIS and its Islamic roots

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

fbi-director-james-comey

FBI Director James Comey

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

WND columnist Jack Cashill recalled others over the years:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10. Anti-Trump hoax incidents

 

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

 

donald-trump

Donald Trump

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

splc-senior-fellow-mark-potok

SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

_____________

Copyright 2016 WND

 

Newbill: Pizzagate, Trafficking, False Flag & Fake News


fake-news-leftist-style

By Tony Newbill

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted December 13, 2016

 

Here are some Newbill emails with link summaries by yours truly. Also I added a bit of my own commentary as well. The Newbill layout roughly follows the thought behind the title. (Not necessarily in the order of the title.)

 

JRH 12/13/16

Please Support NCCR

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

 

***ATTENTION*********ATTENTION***

12/8/2016 12:57 PM

 

OBAMA LEGACY??????

LISTEN TO THIS NEWS REPORT!!!!!!!!!!

USA in NATIONAL CRISIS CHILD PORN ? SEX TRAFFICKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

VIDEO: Impunity for US government workers using child porn #Pizzagate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5YEkvMsdyw

 

Posted by Detodo Unpoco

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

Is John Podesta involved in an International Child pornography/ Child Sex Trafficking???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEUvrtNyQGI

VIDEO: #PizzaGate Breakthrough: ROTHSCHILD and CTR’s David Brock Had Social Ties w/ Jimmy Comet!

 

Posted by David Seaman

Published on Dec 8, 2016

 

If there’s nothing to PizzaGate, why have researchers found an image on Jimmy Comet’s Instagram of him at a private book party with Lady Lynn Rothschild—one of Hillary’s strongest backers in elite circles—and David Brock, creator of troll shop Correct The Record and propagandist establishment rag Media Matters. Although this proves nothing, we now know that “Jimmy Comet” of PizzaGate fame, at the least, had social relations with Lady Rothschild and Brock. That is unusual; why is a random pizza shop owner hanging with Rothschilds and longtime Clinton insiders like Brock? Some have found the trolling against PizzaGate researchers to be almost identical to Correct The Record’s flavor of attack during the election, rather than being an attack sourced back to any state-sponsored entity. Why would a random pizza shop, maligned by “Internet trolls,” have the resources for a national Correct The Record counter-campaign? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Via Free Thought Project: ’Buried in thousands of the former Secretary of State’s emails sent via her personal server, are intimations of her close relationship with the infamous Rothschild banking family and hints for a potential Rockefeller-State partnership.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild wrote an email on April 18, 2010, in which she tells Hillary she would “love to catch up” — and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.” Clinton responds “let’s make that happen,” and signs her response, “Much love, H.”
On September 23, 2010, Clinton emailed Lynn Forester de Rothschild (an email chain marked by heavy redaction) saying, “I was trying to reach you to tell you and Teddy that I asked Tony Blair to go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going …”’

Read more at  http://thefreethoughtproject.com/searched-hillarys-emails-indicted-win-presidency/#Q4VAjFbESyGeV2L0.99

Primary source bona fides- https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/1606

Follow- https://gab.ai/d_seaman
Support- https://paypal.me/DavidSeaman
Backup- https://vimeo.com/davidseaman

Newsletter: http://bit.ly/2d2SQpm

https://www.patreon.com/davidseaman

+++

Question

12/8/2016 1:59 PM

 

Does denigrating Humanity to create a Less than Exceptional Impression of Human Life as is displayed in the first link, and Child /Human Trafficking have anything in common with in elite circles of society?

 

https://sli.mg/a/mdv0hG  

[Blog Editor: The above link has volumes of photos of some kind of Occult bizarre event. Some of the photos are a bit hinky yet does include some famous people. The below title is the only text.]

Maria Occult Gala

 

+++

*****ATTENTION******

12/11/2016 12:22 PM

 

With what Ben Swann has exposed we can say with Confidence that a Psych-ops is going on RIGHT NOW with the claim of Russian hacking of the 2016 elections for a COUP by the Obama Globalists to retain POWER …… and with Ben Swann’s report we can say with confidence that these Investigations can be made up Propaganda!!!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/1225315250866756/?pnref=story

 

[Blog Editor: Below is the Youtube version of the above Facebook link to the Ben Swann video.]

 

VIDEO: Reality Check: Pentagon Paid $500 Million to PR Firm To Create Iraq Propaganda Videos

 

Posted by Ben Swann

Published on Oct 11, 2016

 

If the Pentagon paid for Propaganda, then they can help Obama and Hillary Clinton try and Create a false narrative about Russia interfering with the election and the Loss of Crooked Hillary Clinton!!!!!!!!

 

CIA says Russia caused Hillary Clinton’s Loss.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvoExnjQJ2k

VIDEO: Hillary Election Loss Blamed on “Russian Hackers”

 

Posted by Mark Dice

Published on Dec 10, 2016

 

Liberals are once again claiming Russia is to blame for Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 Presidential Election to Donald Trump after an alleged Secret CIA assessment has been conducted on the issue. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. Copyright © 2016 by Mark Dice.

Do not download or re-upload this video in whole or in part to any channel or other platform, or it will be removed for copyright violations and your account terminated. [Blog Editor: I am not uploading or downloading but I am using an embed.]
✔️ Subscribe now for more! http://bit.ly/1QHJwaK See you tomorrow!

 

— Order Mark’s New Book THE ILLUMINATI IN HOLLYWOOD– In Paperback on READ THE REST

 

Obama / Schumer ORDER Investigation

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/schumer-calls-for-full-investigation-by-congress-of-russian-interference-in-us-elections/ar-AAlotyP?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

The CIA’s findings that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency are both “stunning and not surprising,” the next leader of Senate Democrats said, raising the need for Congress to conduct a full investigation.

 

The statement from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), issued Saturday morning, was in response to a Washington Post story that intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee to boost Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances.

 

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

 

It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

 

READ THE REST of the Fake News Leftist Report (Schumer calls for full investigation by Congress of Russian interference in U.S. elections; By Ellen Nakashima, Kristine Guerra of Washington Post; msn.com; 12/10/16)

 

*** [Blog Editor: TAKE NOTE that this story being circulated by WaPo and picked up by other Leftist MSM outlets (like MSN) as truth is actually Fake News! If you read way down in the WaPo so-called exposé article you can see that even WaPo is unsure of its credibility.]

 

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

 

 

[WAY DOWN]

 

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

 

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

 

 

On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of “political organizations.” Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.

 

Some key Republican lawmakers have continued to question the quality of evidence supporting Russian involvement.

 

I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.” [Bold text by Editor]

 

 

Though U.S. intelligence agencies were skeptical that hackers would be able to manipulate the election results in a systematic way, the White House feared that Russia would attempt to do so, sowing doubt about the fundamental mechanisms of democracy and potentially forcing a more dangerous confrontation between Washington and Moscow. [Editor’s bold text]

 

The lack of an administration response on the Russian hacking cannot be attributed to Congress,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who was at the September meeting. “The administration has all the tools it needs to respond. They have the ability to impose sanctions. They have the ability to take clandestine means. The administration has decided not to utilize them in a way that would deter the Russians, and I think that’s a problem.” [Editor’s bold text] (Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House; By Adam EntousEllen Nakashima and Greg Miller & Philip Rucker contributing; WaPo; 12/9/16)

 

[Blog Editor: And here is a direct rebuttal to the WaPo story that injected just enough stealth doubt for plausible deniability.]

 

CIA: Washington Post Report Linking Russian Government to Trump & Election Hacking Is “Outright Lie”

 

The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an “outright lie,” according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case.

 

The Washington Post, in a front-page splash on Friday, fingered the CIA for allegedly confirming the wild rumors of Russian hacking that were concocted and spread by Democratic lawmakers for months preceding the election and the weeks since the GOP win. The Washington Post’s story, however, contained no CIA sources and in fact, no credible U.S. intelligence agency sources whatsoever. Instead, it hinged on what unnamed lawmakers had supposedly been told by unidentified, supposed CIA-linked sources in “secret” briefings: That the CIA had developed proof the Russian state waged an orchestrated campaign to destabilize the U.S. election to benefit GOP-candidate Trump.

 

“It’s an outright lie,” a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. “There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.”

 

Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks.

 

On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post.

 

CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.

 

“If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.

 

Trump has already named Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as Brennan’s successor and CIA personnel anxiously anticipate Brennan’s departure, READ THE REST of NOT Fake News (CIA: Washington Post Report Linking Russian Government to Trump & Election Hacking Is “Outright Lie”; By admin; True Pundit; 12/12/16)

 

[Blog Editor: Back to the Newbill narrative.]

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-09/obama-orders-investigation-into-election-related-hacking-attacks-iwhy9nww 

 

President Barack Obama has directed U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct an investigation into hacking attacks related to the U.S. election and issue a report before he leaves office next month, White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco said.

 

The report, which will be provided to Congress but not necessarily made public, will examine what impact hacking by Russia may have had on the election last month, Monaco said Friday at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the READ THE REST (Obama Orders Investigation Into Election-Related Hacking; By Chris Strohm; Bloomberg; 12/9/16 9:31 AM CST – Updated 12:58 PM CST)

 

Obama to STAY IN POWER

 

https://www.intellihub.com/obama-regime-positions-retain-power/  

 

Obama Admins scurries to flip script

 

(INTELLIHUB) — Major coordinated attacks on the President-elect’s character and judgement have been launched as of late Friday night, after the New York Times and Washington Post both released major disinformation pieces, citing how the C.I.A. has ruled with “high confidence” that the Russians helped sway the elections, creating Trump’s win.

 

Astonishingly, I predicted this exact scenario just an hour or more before the bombshell propaganda pieces were released, which can be seen in the following Tweet. (Click on the Tweet to see full context)

 

Shepard Ambellas

@ShepardAmbellas

I bet, so he can show falsified data to steal away @realDonaldTrump‘s victory https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/807405210364735488

9:16 PM – 9 Dec 2016

 

 

“In briefings to the White House and Congress, intelligence officials, including those from the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, have identified individual Russian officials they believe were responsible. But none have been publicly penalized.”

 

The New York Times went on to purport the following ‘fake news’ Friday, using haphazard terminology, which offers the publication an out, carefully writing how “cybersecurity companies believe”, meaning they actually have no proof they just “believe.” Just a play on words to push the new and patently false narrative.

 

 

In light of the recent propaganda push, President Obama has ordered Intelligence agencies to submit a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, which Obama may potentially use to stay in power by declaring the elections were rigged.

 

The President-elect is rejecting claims of Russian espionage, saying, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” which led to war and the deaths of over 600,000 people, according to a Lancet Survey. READ ENTIRETY (Obama regime positions to retain power, stay in office, as shitstorm develops; By SHEPARD AMBELLAS; INTELIHUB; 12/10/16 10:19 AM EST)

 

THERE WILL BE NO PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER

 

Obama allowing Terrorists into the USA!!!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxjrpDIO1X4

VIDEO: UNBELIEVABLE!!! Obama is letting terrorists into the USA.

 

Posted by mrstepintime

Published on Dec 10, 2016

 

All these Muslims say is Obama says we can come into the country. Illegal Immigrants Tell Border Agents “Obama Said It Was OK To Come.
And if you don’t know by now, Obama plans to flood the country with Muslims, WHY? because he hates Christians, plain and simple, and this is his way of causing total Chaos and eventual martial law.

 

THE MILITARY WILL NEED TO POSITION THEMSELVES ON THE TERRORIST CELLS THAT ARE IN THE U.S.A. WHICH ARE OBAMA’S SHADOW SECURITY FORCE HE HAS ALLOWED IN OVER THE YEARS TO HELP HIM WITH THIS coup.

 

The Military needs to start now with Proxy Propaganda outing the Terrorist cells and their association with this Obama Mission to rally support away from Obama and Marginalize the factions in society that might support Obama but would not once they learn of the Terrorist cells that Obama has brought into the U.S.A. to create the destabilization that would jointly force the Military to act against the will of the People’s election!!!!!!!!

 

+++

DON’T DO AS I DO. DO AS I SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12/12/2016 8:44 AM

 

House Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites

 

On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news“, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017“, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

 

A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”, whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

 

  • The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:

 

  • Establishment or funding of a front group.

 

  • Covert broadcasting.

 

  • Media manipulation.

 

  • Disinformation and forgeries.

 

  • Funding agents of influence.

 

  • Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.

 

 

  • Terrorist acts.

 

As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

 

Curiously, the bill which was passed on November 30, was introduced on November 22, two days before the Washington Post published its Nov. 24 article citing “experts” who claim Russian propaganda helped Donald Trump get elected.

 

As we reported last week, in an article that has been widely blasted, the WaPo wrote that “two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a READ THE REST (House Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites; By Tyler Durden; ZeroHedge; 12/3/16 11:55 AM)

 

+++

Establish Media LIES about what is going on in Aleppo, Syria!!!!!!!

12/12/2016 10:53 AM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ509Z8uk_A  

VIDEO: Eva Bartlett Rocks

 

Posted by G Nyx

Published on Dec 10, 2016

 

Eva Bartlett. Syria truth.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&feature=youtu.be

VIDEO: Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)

 

Posted by TyrannyUnmasked

Published on Dec 10, 2016

 

↓↓↓[[[All Links Below]]] ↓ ↓ ↓ Join the community http://www.con-tru.com/

Subscribe to our censorship free channels before it’s too late!:

 

https://www.minds.com/TyrannyUnmasked

 

 https://steemit.com/@tyrannyunmasked

Help this operation by READ THE REST

 

[Blog Editor: Eva Bartlett is supportive of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria claiming that attacks that have killed Aleppo civilians were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists rather than by the Russian and Syrian regime forces. Furthermore, she claims that the so-called Moderate Syrian rebels are as vicious and horrific as the Islamic terrorists (most notably al Nusra). She claims in an effort to effect regime change the Western “Corporate” Media is disseminating U.S. and EU propaganda to poison our public against Assad’s Syria, Russia and by extension Iran.

 

I’m not going to she is incorrect because there are plenty of non-Left alternative news sights that corroborate her testimony before the UN (e.g. the website A Closer Look on Syria – Wikipedia-like info base – has some of the same info as Eva Bartlett on the Al-Quds Hospital destruction in Aleppo). However, I know that the Bashar Assad (who is a Shi’ite Alawite) has brutalized Sunni Muslims and that most of the power positions in Syria are Alawite (See Also HERE). I know that Syria has closely aligned itself with the Shia Twelver Ayatollahs of Iran. And I know that Russia is supporting the Assad regime and Iran as a counter-balance to American National Interests. This means Assad, Iran, Syrian Rebels & Syrian Terrorists, the Shi’ite terrorist of Hezbollah located in Lebanon are extremely anti-Israel Jew-Haters. And since Russia is supportive of these Jew-haters I can only assume Putin would either help or look the other way of yet another Muslim invasion or war with Israel to kill every single Jew living in the Land of Jewish Heritage. Sadly, I have no doubt that if Sunni Moderates (so-called) Sunni Terrorists fighting Assad’s regime would take up the Jew-hating mantle so insidious in the Muslim world. A prime example of this hatred among Muslims toward Jews is in the name of the hospital attacked – by someone. “Al-Quds” is the Arabic name for the “Jerusalem” of the Bible – The Holy city of the Jews and the Capital City of Israel no one recognizes out of idiotic fear of Muslims.  I HAVE A PROBLEM with that.]

 

+++

Democrats say Russia Hacked their emails but Hillary said

12/13/2016 10:01 AM

 

How can Hillary and the Democrats say Russia Hacked their emails when Hillary said, “No Evidence of Email Server Hack”???

 

Hillary Clinton: ‘No evidence’ of email server hack

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/09/17/hillary-clinton-email-server-polls-intv-tsr.cnn

 

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer speaks with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about her email server, recent poll numbers and whether she would be a better president than her husband.

Source: CNN

 

CNN VIDEO: Hillary Clinton: ‘No evidence’ of email server hack

[http://fave.api.cnn.io/v1/fav/?video=politics/2015/09/17/hillary-clinton-email-server-polls-intv-tsr.cnn&customer=cnn&edition=domestic&env=prod]

 

+++

[Blog Editor: of interest is this: “CIA Secret Assessment “Confirms” Russian Hack of US Election – Do You Buy It?” 12/12/16]

 

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill 

Unfooled Grassroots Movements will Save America


WeThePeople-Constitution-Flag

 

John R. Houk

© February 2, 2015

 

A movement that began in Germany is beginning to spread across Europe. That movement reflects a grassroots mentality of becoming fed-up with Muslims practicing Sharia and of a significant amount of Muslims following the literal exhortations of Islamic holy writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The movement acquired the acronym PEGIDA in its German nation of origin. The English translation for this acronym is “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West”.

 

This PEGIDA movement in Europe is widely condemned as Right Wing racism against Muslims by Europe’s ruling elites. The ruling elite is devoted to multiculturalism hence they stick to the opinion that Muslim violence exacted in the name of Allah and Mohammed is not Islam. The reality is though, if you ignore all the Islamic denials, and actually read the Quran, Hadith, Sira and other respected Islamic treatises such as the Reliance of the Traveller (yup the two “Ls” are correct in this case) you discover Islam – unlike most religions – actually calls for violence as an act of submission to Islam and Allah.

 

In recent days the grassroots PEGIDA movement has ran into some difficulties that even true Conservatives have to wag their heads. That difficulty relates to its German founder Lutz Bachmann dressing up as Adolf Hitler and then taking a selfie. Hitler and Nazi junk is illegal in Germany not to mention Jews do not find any humor – if that was Bachmann’s intent – in Hitler portrayals. Indeed European nations have hate-crime laws that our American Constitution would render as a ridiculous infringement of Free Speech. I understand that Bachmann is currently being investigated for breaking a hate-crime law in Germany. The consequence – Bachmann resigned as the leader of PEGIDA which has followed by a host of German PEGIDA leaders also resigning.

 

I am guessing that there are some extremist elements that have violent racist views that have migrated into the PEGIDA movement. I understand that pseudo-Nazi creeps in Germany and European Nazi-sympathizers are making a stealth comeback. My opinion is that the obvious rise of virulent antisemitism is evidence of a resurgence of Nazi/Fascist sentiments but one could also add Muslims subscribing to the commands of Islamic holy writings has made additional antisemitism more noticeable.

 

Europe’s Left-leaning multicultural political elites is quick and correct to condemn the rise of Nazi/Fascist racism yet those same elite are idiotic to look at Muslim violence against Free Speech, against exposing the real Islam and against Jews as if that Muslim violence has nothing to do with Islam. That is simply cultural suicide.

 

Yedioth (or Yediot) Ahronoth (or Ahronot) may be one of the most read of Israel’s news media if not the most read. As an American I prefer to call that media outlet by its internet url “Ynet”. That’s on the old American pronunciation. From what I have read Ynet is centrist on Israel’s political scale with some agendas on the Right and some on the Left. Where I discerned this assessment at 972Mag.com that points out Ynet is tends to lean to the Right on security and military issues but is apparently anti-Netanyahu.

 

I give you this assessment because I ran into an insightful Ynet interview with a PEGIDA spokesman relating to the movement and PEGIDA’s critics. I need you to see this interview then afterwards I will some thoughts on PEGIDA and the need for such a grassroots movement to explode in America before a Muslim violence issue becomes as warped in America as it is in Europe.

 

In exclusive Ynetnews interview, spokesperson of anti-Islamization grassroots initiative addresses Jewish world’s concerns about the movement, says ‘we want Jews and Israelis to feel safe in Europe.’

 

BERLIN – Christian Mayerhoff, a spokesperson for PEGIDA, the grassroots initiative which started in Dresden, Germany in autumn of 2014 and now coordinates anti-Islamist protests in 10 European countries, sat down for an exclusive interview with Ynetnews in Berlin this week in a bid to address the Jewish world’s concerns about his movement.

 

Mr. Mayerhoff, Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Germans in her New Year’s televised address that people at PEGIDA protests are filled with “hatred” in their hearts. What is your reaction to this statement?

 

“We think Frau Merkel wants the world to believe she hold the high moral ground. But this is not true. Her government sells weapons to dictators in the Middle East, such as tanks to Saudi Arabia. Her government closes an eye to the infiltration of German mosques and German cities with Islamist preachers and Islamist propaganda material. What is happening today is totally unacceptable.”

 

PEGIDA claims that Germany and Europe are threatened by Islamization. What do you mean by this?

 

“We mean that there are in many European countries rapidly growing Muslim parallel societies. This is in itself not bad. What is negative and dangerous is that these communities contribute disproportionately to social problems such as vandalism, unemployment, crime and terrorism.

 

“Before we allow these communities to grow further, we should make their members are integrated into mainstream society just like immigrant communities of Eastern Europeans, East Asians and South Americans.”

 

Fears of Islamist activities in Europe were heightened by the latest terror attacks in Paris. Has the response of the German authorities satisfied you?

 

“No it hasn’t. De Maizière, our interior minister, came out saying that these attacks have nothing to do with Islam. This makes him lose all credibility. It’s like saying that Nazism had nothing to do with Germany.”

 

But PEGIDA has been labeled a pro-Nazi, xenophobic and racist movement by mainstream German media. Even Josef Schuster, president of the Central Committee of Jews in Germany, stated that you are pyromaniacs.

 

“We are no Nazis. Personally I was active in left-wing human rights movements in my youth during the early 1990s. After 9/11 I started learning about Islam and Islamism and this changed my opinion about multiculturalism and political correctness. In PEGIDA there are leftists, centrists and conservatives. In the city of Kassel our committee includes a Croatian, a Jew and a secularized Muslim…

 

“But personally, I sympathize with Mr. Schuster. In Germany and Europe, Jews are nowadays harassed and attacked for no reason. If the leaders of Jewish communities said something fair about PEGIDA, it would be used as a pretext by Islamists to escalate their anti-Semitic campaigns.”

 

What anti-Semitic campaigns are you talking about?

 

“Sociologists and pollsters who monitor Muslim communities in Europe regularly reveal that anti-Semitism is rampant, especially among young religious Muslims. In mosque sermons preaching against Jews is a Friday pastime.

 

“For example, last summer in Berlin, Sheikh Abu Bilal Ismail openly called for Jews to be exterminated. He was not incarcerated. This indulgence is suicidal.”

 

Yet Germany’s intellectuals also attack PEGIDA and repeatedly sign public statements to repudiate your agenda. Doesn’t this generalized hostility concern you?

 

“Writers and artists love to sign appeals. They should sign more appeals against ISIS and Boko Haram instead of being obsessed about PEGIDA. They attack us and do not bother to read our demands. Readers should visit us on Facebook and decide for themselves if we are more dangerous than the Islamists in Europe.”

 

But what are your demands concretely?

 

“We support a better treatment of real asylum seekers and the repatriation of fake asylum seekers. We call for a more selective immigration policy in Germany and the European Union along the lines of what works well in Canada, Switzerland and Australia. We demand zero tolerance against religious extremism and against all calls to murder in the name of God.”

 

But don’t you think you are targeting Islam and ignoring the dangers of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism?

 

“All religions should respect the law in Europe. We do not see Europe priests or rabbis calling for believers of other faiths to be murdered.”

 

But all Muslim religious leaders and community leaders in Europe condemned the terror attacks in Paris.

 

“That is not enough. Muslim leaders must stop tolerating imams in their midst who preach violent jihad. We don’t care if it’s jihad in Europe, jihad in Syria or jihad in Palestine. To condemn killing in the name of God must be a basic value.”

 

But who is PEGIDA to demand that Muslims teach a 1,400-year old religion in a way that suits your political agenda?

 

“I am not a Muslim and PEGIDA cannot tell Muslim how to read the Quran. As Europeans we do have the right to demand that all religions in our continent respect the law. To teach that it is good to kill in the name of God is unacceptable and must be seriously punished.”

 

Does PEGIDA have a message for Muslims?

 

“Europe is a generous host. Muslims who respect our laws and ethical values are welcome. Muslims who hate Western values and support violent jihad should not come here. Muslims who are against Islamism are of course welcome at PEGIDA.”

 

Do you have a message for Jews?

 

“We want Jews and Israelis to feel safe in Europe. We want you to be able to show your faith on Europe’s streets openly. We must stand united against Islamism and jihadism.”

 

How does it feel to speak on behalf of the most despised political movement in Germany?

 

“It is very frustrating. The demonization of PEGIDA is evidence that the elites in Germany are completely out of touch with reality.” (PEGIDA spokesman: We are no Nazis; Moritz Josef Schulman; Ynetnews.com; 1/24/15 09:37)

 

So it seems you have a choice. Do you believe European (or more specifically in this case – German) ruling political elites or do you believe the grassroots motivation for protesting against counter-culture Islamization in Europe? You can probably guess I’ll lean with PEGIDA motivation.

 

PEGIDA denies:

 

o   Nazism

 

o   Antisemitism

 

o   AND even any hatred of Muslims

 

There is a qualifier though with Muslims. That qualifier is simple. If Muslims refuse to assimilate into the acceptance of a host nation’s rule of law than those Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to a Western nation or if that Muslim already lives in a Western nation and agitates for counter-culture Islamic Sharia Law to trump the rule of law they should be deported as a non-citizen or if such a literalist Quranic Muslim is a citizen by naturalizing or birth they should be invited to leave to a culture more acceptable to their Islamic beliefs.

                                     

America’s Tea Party Movement has ran into the same Left Wing vilification in attempts to brainwash Americans that the Tea Party are a bunch of Right Wing and racist-hatred-filled thugs that undermine America’s tolerance and Constitution.

 

Of course that is a load of Leftist propaganda. Is it possible that extremist Right Wing racist have hooked up with the Tea Party? Of course it is. Is this representative of the mainstay of the grassroots activists of the Tea Party Movement? That’s a big negative good buddy.

 

Of course the Left Leaning American Mainstream Media has been reluctant to tell Americans that extremist Leftist elements have either infiltrated or have attended Tea Party rallies to agitate or engage in false reporting to tell Americans the propaganda lies.

 

Then there is the Mainstream romanticized Leftist Occupy Wall Street Movement. In the Occupy Wall Street most active days there are a host of headlines of Occupiers being arrested for violence, murder, rape and terrorism. The numbers are in the high hundreds to the low thousands. You can check out the numerous Occupy headlines and included summaries at NRO.

 

Then there are the Ferguson riots in which Democrats and Black Activist race-baiters were practically calling for the lynching of Officer Darren Wilson – a Caucasian – for shooting to death 18 year old Michael Brown – a Black Man. Again the Left lean Mainstream Media without knowing the facts painted Officer Wilson as a Black-hating racist that used unnecessary force to shoot a poor unarmed Black teenager.

 

After a Grand Jury and even Holder’s DOJ investigation cleared Wilson the agitators STILL wanted Officer Wilson’s head metaphorically.

 

Between the incidents in which a gigantic male of the age of majority roughed up a store clerk for some cigs then proceeding to walk belligerently down the middle of the street which caught Officer Wilson’s attention an arrest was attempted. Brown resisted arrest violently smacking Officer Wilson in the face and attempting to unholster Wilson’s weapon. In the scuffle Wilson managed to prevent Brown from obtaining his weapon. Brown then began to flee. Wilson told Brown to stop. Rather than surrender, Brown charged Wilson like a rabid Rhino which resulted in Wilson discharging several shots at Brown. It is my perception that Wilson took a head shot when the previous body shots failed to stop the charge. It is an absolute myth that Brown got on his knees with his back to Wilson with his hands raised in surrender. THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

 

Not willing to wait for the truth, race baiters agitated. And the good citizens of Ferguson went on looting rampages engaging in property damage and theft from Ferguson stores.

 

Dear God in Heaven contrast these typical Leftist inspired protests with the goings on with Tea Party Movement rallies. Left = Violent Rage. Conservative Right Tea Party = Peaceful yet displeased Patriotism.

 

Going Back to PEGIDA

 

The United States of America needs a Tea Party style PEGIDA Movement to demonstrate American displeasure with culture-failing-to-assimilate immigrants – Muslims and Latin Americans – making America their home. This is especially the case with Muslims that are pre-disposed to Sharia-literal-Quran wielding immigrants who would rather agitate the downfall of Constitutional America than assimilate to the E Pluribus Unum melting pot that has made America one culture rather than a disunited diverse multiple cultures.

 

Abraham Lincoln’s House Divided Speech did not win him his Senate run against Stephen Douglas; however the speech made Lincoln’s name go viral in however that happened in 1858 and thrust him to be the first Republican President in the 1860 election.

 

Lincoln’s House Divided Speech context was a nation divided between a no-slave North and a slave South will not survive. Either nation will become one or the other but both cannot coincide together. That was wisdom that kept are nation morally united rather than immorally united in slavery.

 

The Left Wing Multiculturalist paradigm cannot coincide with an America united by the Founding Fathers document we call the Constitution. Either Multiculturalism will fracture America’s Union into various nations only united in their region or the Constitution will be fought for to our Union the United States of America. Multicultural fracturing will turn a once strong America where immigrant dreams had hope, into diverse multiple independent States trying to preserve the heritage of their region. The ONLY way this Union remains these United States is the best Constitution the rule of law has experienced in history.

 

House Divide Speech

 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

 

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

 

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

 

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

 

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

 

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

 

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

 

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

 

It will become all one thing or all the other.

 

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as newNorth as well as South.

 

(House Divided Speech; Abraham Lincoln; June 16, 1858; AbrahamLincolnOnline.org)

 

A grassroots PEGIDA Movement is as needed in the USA to preserve the American Union under the U.S. Constitution as is the Tea Party Movement needed to remind Americans that this nation’s Founding principles are on taxation ONLY with representation and Less Government rather than a nearing autocratic huge government the Democrats and American Leftists are leading toward.

 

JRH 2/2/15

Please Support NCCR

Gingrich Certainly Qualifies as a Christian Values Candidate


Palin-Gingrich

John R. Houk

© January 2012

 

Sarah Palin took on the criticism that Newt Gingrich is receiving from Establishment Republicans on her Facebook page yesterday. Palin compared the attacks as consistent to how the Left Wing Media assassinates the character of Conservatives. Of course the greatest negative ads are coming from Mitt Romney who has not exactly demonstrated a Conservative Republican exemplar in his days of Governor of Massachusetts. Whereas Newt Gingrich has spent his entire political career emphasizing Conservative fiscal policy and values. Yes I said “values”. Newt’s personal life may have been a screw-up in living those values; however he did espouse those values. Every single person supportive of Christian values has made a mistake contrary to Christian values to one degree or the other. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!

 

Those that have made a mistake with Christian values and have not sought repentance but rather have sought self-justification are the people that should concern values voters.

 

Consistent Pro-Life Record
 

Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard.  He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 

Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. (READ MORE)

 

Setting Record Straight of Left Exploitation of Gingrich Divorce to 2nd Wife

 

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

 

Newt’s daughter recently wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.
 

This story is a vicious lie.  It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on hearsay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today.  It is completely false.
 

Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear.  The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.  You can read it here.

 

Here are some excerpts from an article demonstrating Gingrich’s opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and abortion. The article asks about Newt’s three marriages in which Newt responds by saying as President he will enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

 

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, has vowed to support a federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

 

Gingrich’s pledge came in a written response to conservative Iowa group The Family Leader’s “The Marriage Vow — A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” The group’s 14-point pledge can be found at http://www.thefamilyleader.com/the-marriage-vow.

 

In addition to opposing same-sex marriage, the pledge also requests candidates vow “personal fidelity” to their spouse, appoint federal judges who are “faithful constitutionalists” and reject Islamic sharia law.

 

Gingrich, 68, has been married three times. …

 

 

In his response to The Family Leader, Gingrich also said he would “vigorously enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama directed the Justice Department to cease defending the constitutionality of the law.

 

 

Gingrich joined U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in signing The Family Leader’s pledge.

 

 

In regard to Gingrich’s response, Bob Vander Plaats, president & CEO of The Family Leader, said: “We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements regarding DOMA, support of a federal marriage amendment, defending the unborn, pledging fidelity to his spouse, defending religious liberty and freedom, supporting sound pro-family economic issues, and defending the right of the people to rule themselves.”

 

Following is the full text of Gingrich’s response to The Family Leader: (Read the text at the Rock River Times)

 

Here are twelve quotes from Newt Gingrich’s book “Rediscovering God in America” courtesy of the website OnTheIssues.

 

On Education: Removing God from Pledge of Allegiance assaults our identity

 

There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identity. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.

 

How can the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, overrule the culture & maintain its moral authority? It can’t. The Supreme Court begins each day with the proclamation “God save the United States and this honorable Court.” This phrase was not adopted as a ceremonial phrase of no meaning: it was adopted because justices in the 1820s actually wanted to call on God to save the US & the Court

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Education: Removing “God” from Pledge assaults our identity

 

There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square. The 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the phrase “under God” is unconstitutional represents a fundamental assault on our American identify. A court that would unilaterally modify the Pledge of Allegiance as adopted by the Congress in 1954, signed by President Eisenhower, and supported by 91% of the American people is a court that is clearly out of step with an America that understands that our unalienable rights come from God.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 6 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God

 

For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.

 

For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.

 

For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.

 

Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite. Our schools have been steadily driving the mention of God out of American history. Our courts have been literally outlawing references to God, religious symbols, and prayer.

 

We have passively accepted the judiciary’s assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history, Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Insist on judges who understand our rights come from God

 

·         For most Americans, the blessings of God have been the basis of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as a unique country.

 

·         For most Americans, prayer is real, and we subordinate ourselves to a God on whom we call for wisdom, guidance, and salvation.

 

·         For most Americans, the prospect of a ruthlessly secular society that would forbid public reference to God and systematically remove all religious symbols from the public square is horrifying.

 

Yet, the voice of the overwhelming majority of Americans is rejected by a media-academic-legal elite that finds religious expression frightening and threatening, or old-fashioned and unsophisticated.

 

It is time to insist on judges who understand that throughout our history–and continuing to this day–Americans have believed that their fundamental rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 9-10 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Our rights come from God, not from government

 

As the most consequential document of freedom in human history, the Declaration of Independence is the most important document held in the National Archives. It was influenced by the Magna Carta of 1215, a contract of rights between the British king and his barons generally regarded as the first step toward guaranteed liberties in Britain. However, the Declaration of Independence differs from the Magna Carta in one essential way: The Founding Fathers believed that our rights as human beings come from God, not from the kind or the state. Thus, they rejected the notion that power came through the monarch to the people; but rather, directly from God.

 

The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: as lawmaker, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, and as Protector. The Declaration of Independence represents both the genesis and heart of American liberty. Our rights come from our Creator, not the government, sovereign, or King.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Constitution says freedom OF religion, not FROM religion

 

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment I begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

The language clearly prohibits the establishment of an official national religion, while at the same time protecting the observance of religion in both private and public spaces. In fact, two of the principal authors of the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were also our third and fourth presidents, respectively, both attended church services in the Capitol building, the most public of American spaces. During Jefferson’s presidency, church services were also held in the Treasury building and the Supreme Court. Therefore, these Founding Fathers clearly saw no conflict in opposing the establishment of an official religion while protecting the freedom of religious expression in the public square.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 31-32 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Supreme Court hostile to religion, but building based on it

 

While recent years have seen increasing hostility from the courts to public displays of religion, the Supreme Court is filled with them. Notice that all sessions begin with the Court’s marshal announcing: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

 

Throughout history, decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized that we are a religious nation. For example, in the 1952 case Zorach vs. Clauson, the court upheld a statute that allowed students to be released from school to attend religious classes.

 

The most striking religious imagery at the Supreme Court building is that of Moses with the Ten Commandments. Affirming the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system, they can be found in several places: at the center of the sculpture over the east portico of the building, inside the actual courtroom, and finally, engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice, and on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court itself. There is also a sculpted marble depiction of Mohammad on the wall.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 85-89 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Creator as source of liberty is literally written in stone

 

The first rays of sun on our Nation’s Capital each morning illuminate [the Washington Monument]. And there on the top is inscribed Laus Deo (“Praise be to God”). These simple words, for the eyes of heaven alone, are a fitting reflection of George Washington’s conviction that liberty is owed to divine blessing.

 

[One can see in any tour of Washington DC] that our Creator is the source of American liberty–it is literally written into the rock, mortar, and marble of American history.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.130-131 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Principles & Values: Media-academic-legal elite imposes radical secularist vision

 

A media-academic-legal elite is energetically determined to impose a radically secularist vision against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This outlook rejects the wisdom if the founding generation as outdated and treats the notion that our liberties come from God as a curious artifact from the 1770s but of little practical importance for more enlightened times.

 

This elite is especially hard at work in the courts and in the classrooms where it is attempting to overturn two centuries of American self-understanding of religious freedom and political liberty.

 

In the courts, we see a systematic effort by this elite to purge all religious expression from American public life. The ongoing attempt to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is only the most well-known of these mounting efforts.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.131-132 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Civil Rights: Five justices banned school prayer against American majority

 

The views by the media-academic-legal elite are completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.

 

They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Government Reform: Supreme Court has become permanent Constitutional Convention

 

The media-academic-legal elite have been successful to date at purging all religious expression from American public life. Their success is because for the last 50 years the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention in which the whims of five appointed lawyers have rewritten the meaning of the Constitution. Under this new, all-powerful model of the Court, the Constitution and the law can be redefined by federal judges unchecked by the other two coequal branches of government.

 

This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break in American history. The danger is that the courts will move us from a self-understanding that we are one nation “under God”, to a nation under the rule of the state, where rights are accorded to individuals not by our Creator, but by those in power ruling over them. History is replete with examples of this failed model of might-makes-right–Nazism, fascism, communism–and their disastrous consequences.

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

 

On Education: Replace multiculturalism with patriotic education

 

In the classroom, the very concept of America is under assault. The traditional notion of our country as a union of one people, the American people, has been assaulted by multiculturalism, situational ethics, and a values-neutral model in which Western values and American history are ignored or ridiculed. Unless we act to reverse this trend, our next generation will grow up with no understanding of core American values. This will destroy America as we know it, as surely as if a foreign conqueror had overwhelmed us.

 

It is absolutely necessary to establish a firm foundation of patriotic education upon which further knowledge can be built; otherwise, Americans will lack understanding of American values & how important & great it is to be an American.

 

It is important to understand what makes America so unique and why generations of diverse people immigrated to this great land for freedom and opportunity. If Americans do not appreciate America, then how can they be ready and willing to defend her?

 

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.133-134 Dec 31, 2006

 

The above quotations are from Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future, by Newt Gingrich (published October 10, 2006).

 

For all the criticism about Newt Gingrich’s past we must understand these are the thoughts of a man with Christian Values and a person that is a fiscal Conservative.

 

On the other hand Mitt Romney is not a Christian. He is a Mormon. Romney’s business experience is undoubtedly excellent; however his Conservative bona fides are definitely sketchy. Romney if elected will be a RINO that will make his goal to satisfy the Left and the Conservative Republicans. The cost will be the continued influence of the Left in Congress and a Leftist Activist Judiciary to continue to transform America away from its heritage by erasing the influence of Christianity.

 

JRH 1/29/12 (Hat Tip: Newsmax and The Hill)