Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

 

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look at some definitions:

 

Merriam Webster:

 

a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

 

Wikipedia:

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the “outgroup“). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup”.

 

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

 

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studiespolitical sciencemanagement, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

 

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as “conservatism” and “liberalism” in the U.S. political context [4]) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

 

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] READ THE REST

 

Psychology Today:

 

What Is Groupthink?

 

Groupthink occurs when a group with a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore any ethical or moral consequences of any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is common, and the lack of creativity and independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful outcomes.

 

 

READ THE REST

 

In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral principles and values.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.

 

JRH 8/27/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

By ELIZABETH VAUGHN 

AUGUST 26, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

 

There have been periods of history when large groups of people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic results.

 

The larger the group, the less responsibility individual members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because “everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.

 

America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which America was founded.

 

In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own vulnerabilities.

 

1. Have you forgotten about the Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s, preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?

 

Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign.

 

Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.

 

What happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the audiotapes –videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.

 

I didn’t name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is. His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ [Wright’s church].

 

Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him $150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election in November 2008.

 

Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know. And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut up and not criticize Obama anymore.

 

Then, after Rev. Wright said, ‘no thank you,’ Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in March 2008, 10 days after Obama’s famous “race speech” took place.

 

Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev. Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.

 

There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment, but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely, this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.

 

2. It is well known that, when members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.

 

Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.

 

The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered this question: Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed? They concluded this was false.

 

Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false because the fund is completely legal. It is not secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.

 

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

 

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports.

 

The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual transactions remain confidential.

 

Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?

 

3. Why wasn’t the money paid for the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law firm and billed it as a legal expense.

 

This bogus dossier has become the most consequential political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on his home and office so we can find out?

 

4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute the plan.

 

They are the trained professionals and we are the clients. Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what they’re doing.

 

If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

 

And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?

 

Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI investigation. It would have been fair game.

 

Summing Up: 

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

The only thing that will end it – declassifying the necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I certainly hope so.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com

______________________

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

_________________________

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

 

About Freedom Outpost

 

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas


John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

 

Yesterday guilty verdicts came to light against Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, both have a connection to President Trump. If you were paying attention to the Leftist MSM you would think blood was in the water stirring a shark frenzy was erupting with bloodthirsty glee. They all believe Trump association to guilty parties means Trump’s Administration is about to come tumbling down.

 

The poor delusional Left are forgetting to report the guilty verdicts have ZERO to do with collusion between Trump and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election.

 

Manafort was found accused of 18 counts but the jury could only agree on eight counts of guilt:

 

In a verdict announced at the same hour as President Trump’s longtime fixer pleaded guilty to other financial charges, Manafort was convicted of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 to 2014, failing to report a foreign bank account in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.

 

 

But the panel of six men and six women deciding Manafort’s fate in Alexandria, Virginia, deadlocked on 10 counts. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on those charges.

 

 

The 10 deadlocked charges were three instances of failing to file a foreign bank account in 2011, 2013 and 2014, two counts of bank fraud, and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

 

… (Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts in first trial conviction from Mueller probe; By Jeff Mordock; Washington Times; 8/21/18)

 

Michael Cohen chose a guilty plea deal rather than face a jury:

 

Cohen pled guilty to eight felonies. While the five counts of failure to pay taxes on over $4 million in income are the most consequential to him, most significant to the country are two counts of illegal “in kind” campaign contributions. …

 

… The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit. (Bold text by blog Editor)

 

… (What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 8/22/18 10:28 AM)

 

So what’s the deal with the press? Why the shark-fest of glee? Could it be because the Left is planting Fake News against Trump to stir-up hatred to enhance future impeachment sentiment and plant more Dems in Congress for such a proceeding?

 

JRH 8/22/18 (Hat Tip Elvis Knot in G+ Community The Resistance)

Please Support NCCR

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

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

By Jim Hoft

August 21, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

 

Cohen-Trump

 

Conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin interviewed the former FEC Chairman on his show.

 

Professor Bradley Smith said the payment Cohen pled guilty to DO NOT qualify as campaign violations.

 

Last night Mark Levin interviewed a former FEC Chairman who explained why a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be considered an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign, thus violating campaign finance law.

 

Via The Right Scoop:

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

 

Here’s the audio:

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation

 

[Posted by TheNewsCommenter

Published on Aug 21, 2018]

 

Professor Bradley Smith wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal in April.

 

Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.)

 

Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.

 

But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.

 

Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.

 

FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.

 

If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.

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

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

By Frieda Powers 

August 22, 2018 

BizPac Review

 

No sooner had Michael Cohen pleaded guilty than a Democrat lawmaker called for a new investigation to determine if President Donald Trump committed a crime.

 

Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator” and called on Congress to launch a probe into possible criminal action by the president.

 

VIDEO: Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump – MSNBC

 

“And now the question is what will the US Congress do about that,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “I believe that the judiciary committee in both the House and the Senate should open an investigation tomorrow morning.”

 

But conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin provided a hard lesson in how the law actually works, noting how what the president is accused of doing is not even illegal.

 

“I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course the professors and I want to help them understand what the law is,” Levin told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin slams Michael Cohen’s plea deal

 

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 21, 2018

 

‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ host Mark Levin says Lanny Davis had Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of criminality that don’t exist on ‘Hannity’.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.]

 

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist,” he added. “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.”

 

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his point.

 

“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done,” Levin explained. “Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal. Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York, it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point?”

 

The former head of the Federal Election Commission, appearing on Levin’s show, also clarified how Cohen’s alleged “hush” payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election is not an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign or a violation of campaign finance law.

 

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation [SEE ABOVE in The Gateway Pundit post]

 

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told Levin Tuesday.

 

The expenditures alleged by Cohen, Smith explained, are not violations of campaign finance law even though they “might incidentally benefit your campaign,”

 

“The argument seems to be, and it hasn’t changed,” Levin summed up, “is that, if I spend money to make myself look better, or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life and use my own money, then somehow that is a campaign contribution…which it is not.”

____________________

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

___________________

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

_________________

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

 

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPac Review

Who is betraying America?


Caroline Glick has written an outstanding essay relating to former Obama comrades, Dems and the Leftist MSM are losing their minds on who can accuse President Trump louder of treason. In wondering who was more actually treasonous, Glick goes on to list Obama actions that actually benefitted Russian National Interests.

 

JRH 7/20/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Who is betraying America?

 Pelosi & Schumer

Pelosi & Schumer

 

By Caroline Glick

07/20/2018

CarolineGlick.com

 

Did US President Donald Trump commit treason in Helsinki when he met Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin? Should he be impeached?

 

That is what his opponents claim. Former president Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan accused Trump of treason outright.

Brennan tweeted, “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki [with Putin] rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”

 

Fellow senior Obama administration officials, including former FBI director James Comey, former defense secretary Ashton Carter, and former deputy attorney general Sally Yates parroted Brennan’s accusation.

 

Almost the entire US media joined them in condemning Trump for treason.

 

Democratic leaders have led their own charge. Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee insinuated the US military should overthrow the president, tweeting, “Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

 

Senate minority leader Charles Schumer said that Trump is controlled by Russia. And Trump’s Republican opponents led by senators Jeff Flake and John McCain attacked him as well.

 

Trump allegedly committed treason when he refused to reject Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the US elections in 2016 and was diffident in relation to the US intelligence community’s determination that Russia did interfere in the elections.

 

Trump walked back his statement from Helsinki at a press appearance at the White House Tuesday. But it is still difficult to understand what all the hullaballoo about the initial statement was about.

 

AP reporter John Lemire placed Trump in an impossible position. Noting that Putin denied meddling in the 2016 elections and the intelligence community insists that Russia meddled, he asked Trump, “Who do you believe?”

 

If Trump had said that he believed his intelligence community and gave no credence to Putin’s denial, he would have humiliated Putin and destroyed any prospect of cooperative relations.

 

Trump tried to strike a balance. He spoke respectfully of both Putin’s denials and the US intelligence community’s accusation. It wasn’t a particularly coherent position. It was a clumsy attempt to preserve the agreements he and Putin reached during their meeting.

 

And it was blindingly obviously not treason.

 

In fact, Trump’s response to Lemire, and his overall conduct at the press conference, did not convey weakness at all. Certainly he was far more assertive of US interests than Obama was in his dealings with Russia.

 

In Obama’s first summit with Putin in July 2009, Obama sat meekly as Putin delivered an hour-long lecture about how US-Russian relations had gone down the drain.

 

As Daniel Greenfield noted at Frontpage magazine Tuesday, in succeeding years, Obama capitulated to Putin on anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, on Ukraine, Georgia and Crimea. Obama gave Putin free rein in Syria and supported Russia’s alliance with Iran on its nuclear program and its efforts to save the Assad regime. He permitted Russian entities linked to the Kremlin to purchase a quarter of American uranium. And of course, Obama made no effort to end Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

 

TRUMP IN contrast has stiffened US sanctions against Russian entities. He has withdrawn from Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. He has agreed to sell Patriot missiles to Poland. And he has placed tariffs on Russian exports to the US.

 

So if Trump is Putin’s agent, what was Obama? [Bold text Blog Editor’s]

 

Given the nature of Trump’s record, and the context in which he made his comments about Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, the question isn’t whether he did anything wrong. The question is why are his opponents accusing him of treason for behaving as one would expect a president to behave? What is going on?

 

The answer to that is clear enough. Brennan signaled it explicitly when he tweeted that Trump’s statements “exceed the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’” The unhinged allegations of treason are supposed to form the basis of impeachment hearings.

 

The Democrats and their allies in the media use the accusation that Trump is an agent of Russia as an elections strategy. Midterm elections are consistently marked with low voter turnout. So both parties devote most of their energies to rallying their base and motivating their most committed members to vote.

 

To objective observers, the allegation that Trump betrayed the United States by equivocating in response to a rude question about Russian election interference is ridiculous on its face. But Democratic election strategists have obviously concluded that it is catnip for the Democratic faithful. For them it serves as a dog whistle.

 

The promise of impeachment for votes is too radical to serve as an official campaign strategy. For the purpose of attracting swing voters and not scaring moderate Democrats away from the party and the polls, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer say they have no interest in impeaching Trump. Impeachment talk, they insist, is a mere distraction.

 

But by embracing Brennan’s claim of treason, Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer and other top Democrats are winking and nodding to the progressive radicals now rising in their party. They are telling the Linda Sarsours and Cynthia Nixons of the party that they will impeach Trump if they win control of the House of Representatives.

 

The problem with playing domestic politics on the international scene is that doing so has real consequences for international security and for US national interests.

 

Consider, for instance, Europe’s treatment of Trump.

 

Europe is economically dependent on trade with the US and strategically dependent on NATO. So why are the Europeans so open about their hatred of Trump and their rejection of his trade policies, his policy towards Iran and his insistence that they pay their fair share for their own defense?

 

Why did EU Council President Donald Tusk attack Trump with such contempt and condescension in Brussels? Tusk, who chairs the meetings of EU leaders, is effectively the EU president. And the day before last week’s NATO conference he chided Trump for criticizing Europe’s low defense spending.

 

“America,” he said with a voice dripping with contempt, “appreciate your allies. After all you don’t have that many.”

 

That of course, was news to the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East that depend on America and work diligently to develop and maintain strong ties to Washington.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of his remarks, where did Tusk get the idea that it is reasonable to speak so scornfully to an American president?

 

Where did EU’s foreign policy commissioner Federica Mogherini get the idea that it is okay for her to work urgently and openly to undermine legally constituted US sanctions against Iran for its illicit nuclear weapons program?

 

The answer of course is that they got a green light to adopt openly anti-American policies from the forces in the US that have devoted their energies since Trump’s election nearly two years ago to delegitimizing his victory and his presidency. Those calling Trump a traitor empowered the Europeans to defy the US on every issue.

 

Trump’s opponents’ unsubstantiated allegation that his campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections has constrained Trump’s ability to perform his duties.

 

Consider his relations with Putin.

 

If there is anything to criticize about Trump’s summit with Putin it is that it came too late. It should have happened a year ago. That it happened this week speaks not to Trump’s eagerness to meet Putin but to the urgency of the hour.

 

After securing control over the Deraa province along Syria’s border with Jordan last week, the Assad regime, supported by Iranian regime forces, Hezbollah forces and Shiite militia forces began its campaign to restore regime control over the Quneitra province along the Syrian border with Israel.

 

As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and all government and military officials have stated clearly and consistently for years, Israel cannot accept Iranian presence in Syria. If Iran does not remove its forces from Syria generally and from southern Syria specifically, there will be war imminently between Israel, Iran and its Hezbollah, Shiite militia and Syrian regime allies.

 

Israel prefers to fight that war sooner rather than later to prevent Iran and its allies from entrenching their positions in Syria and make victory more difficult. So, in the interest of preventing such a war, Trump had no choice but to bite the political bullet and sit down to discuss Syria face to face with Putin to try to come up with a deal that would see Russia push Iran and Hezbollah out of Syria.

 

From what the two leaders said at their joint press conference it’s hard to know what was agreed to. But Netanyahu’s jubilant response indicates that some deal was reached.

 

Certainly their statements were strong, unequivocal signals to Iran. When Trump said, “The United States will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS,” he signaled strongly that US forces in eastern Syria will support Israel in a war against Iran and its allied forces in Syria just as it fought with the Kurds and its other allies in Syria against ISIS.

 

When Putin endorsed Israel’s position that the 1974 Syrian-Israeli disengagement agreement must be implemented along the border, he told the Iranians that in any Iranian-Israeli war in Syria, Putin will not side with Iran.

 

Time will tell if we just averted war. But what we did learn is that Israel’s position in a war with Iran is stronger than it could have been if the two leaders hadn’t met in Helsinki.

 

And this is exceedingly important.

 

Trump is being condemned for adopting a conciliatory tone towards Putin while employing a combative tone towards the Europeans and particularly Germany at the NATO summit. This criticism ignores how Trump operates in the international arena.

 

Trump views his exchanges with foreign leaders as separate engagements. He has goals he wishes to advance with China; with North Korea; with Russia; with Canada; with Mexico; with Europe; with Britain; with US Arab allies. In each separate engagement, Trump employs a combination of carrots and sticks. In each engagement he adopts a distinct manner that he believes advances his goals.

 

So far, unlike Obama’s foreign policy by this point in his presidency, none of Trump’s exchanges have brought disaster on America or its allies. To the contrary, America and its allies have much greater strategic maneuver room across a wide spectrum of threats and joint adversaries than they had when Obama left office.

 

Trump’s opponents’ obsession with bringing him down has caused great harm to his presidency and to America’s position worldwide. It is a testament to Trump’s commitment to the US and its allies that he met with Putin this week. And the success of their meeting is something that all who care about global security and preventing a devastating war in the Middle East should be grateful for.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

__________________

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

 

@ 2013 All Rights Reserved to Caroline Glick

 

About Caroline B. Glick

 

Caroline B. Glick is a senior columnist at Breitbart News and the senior contributing and chief columnist for The Jerusalem Post. She is also a senior columnist for Maariv. She is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, (Crown 2014) and of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad (Gefen 2008). The Israeli Solution was endorsed by leading US policymakers including Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Ted Cruz and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Shackled Warrior was endorsed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former CIA director James Woolsey.

 

Glick is the adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. She travels frequently throughout the world to brief policymakers on issues related to Israel’s strategic environment and other related topics. She lectures widely on strategic and political issues affecting global security, Israel and the Jewish people, US-Israel relations, Israel-Diaspora affairs and Israel’s changing strategic landscape.

 

In 2008 Glick founded Latma, the Hebrew language satirical media criticism website. She served as editor in chief of the site until it ceased operations in 2015.

 

Latma changed the face of Israel’s social media and revolutionized the Israeli entertainment industry by bringing an alternative voice to the popular culture. Latma launched “Hakol Shafit,” a primetime, half hour satirical newscast on Israel television Channel 1. Glick served as the editor in chief of the program.

 

Glick was born in Houston, TX and grew up in Chicago, IL. She moved to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving her BA in Political Science from Columbia University. She joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

 

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, Ms. Glick served in the Defense Ministry as a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

 

In 1997 and 1998 Ms. Glick served as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

 

From 1998-2000 Ms. Glick studied at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and received a Master’s in Public Policy in June 2000.

 

In the summer of 2000 Ms. Glick returned to Israel and began READ THE REST

 

Intro to JW’s ‘Exposing the Deep State’


Intro by John R. Houk

© June 30, 2018

I received an email from Judicial Watch wanting to take a look at their 3-minute video on the Deep State. The email says the video is four minutes long but really the actual time is 3:02. The email is dated 6/28/18. The most interesting part for me was the link attached to phrase, “Read more about the Deep State”. That link goes to a 64-page PDF called a JW special report entitled, “Exposing the Deep State”.

 

I encourage to read the Deep State report that includes an appendix of documents won by JW use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Naturally, in the name of National Security many of those documents are redacted.

 

To inspire you to read the whole report I am cross posting the Executive Summary and Introduction. I am also including the Conclusion section. Here is the Table of Contents so that know which sections are missing in my cross post:

 

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary-3

 

I. Introduction and Background-5

 

Four Case Studies-8

 

Case Study # 1: The Environmental Protection Agency-8

Case Study # 2: The Internal Revenue Service-13

Case Study # 3: Outside Organizations, Inside Operations-16

Case Study # 4: The Intelligence/Law-Enforcement Community-19

 

III. Conclusion-37

 

IV. Appendix-41

 

And here is the text of the email:

 

Announcing a compelling new short-form video:
On Issue – “Inside the Deep State!

 

Dear Editor/Broadcaster,

I am pleased to announce that Judicial Watch is now launching an exciting new educational, cutting edge video series I believe many in your audience will find captivating and informative…

And, the first, 4 minute edition is now available HERE!

It’s called On Issue  – “Inside the Deep State”…

And it provides vital insights into a topic that grows increasingly salient with every passing day.

Fast-paced and fact-filled “Inside the Deep State,” features JW’s highly respected Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, laying it all out – in his own captivating and highly informative style.

And he does it all in just under four minutes!

Click here now to watch Inside the Deep State…

And then please feel free to use it however you wish to keep your audience On Issue!

Sincerely,

Carter Clews

 

VIDEO: JW On Issue: Exposing the Deep State

 

Posted by Judicial Watch

Published on Jun 25, 2018

 

The Deep State is comprised of legions of political appointees, career civil servants and powerful private contractors who run the government–no matter who sits in the Oval Office–no matter which political party controls Congress–and no matter what is the will of the American people.

 

No matter who’s in power, they exert control.

 

Read more about the Deep State here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/JW-Special-Report-Deep-State-2017.pdf

 

And now – the Deep State analysis.

 

JRH 6/30/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Exposing the Deep State

 

A Judicial Watch Special Report

September 2017

 

Judicial Watch Logo

 

Executive Summary

 

“They pride themselves on operating below the radar – and above the law”

 

We face a crisis of the Deep State – “Alt-government,” I sometimes call it. The actions of the Deep State constitute a direct challenge to our republican form of government. Working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the Deep State is actively engaged in subversive measures designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail. — Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton

 

This Judicial Watch Special Report analyzes the Deep State, which comprises legions of political appointees, career civil servants and powerful private contractors who run the government no matter who sits in the Oval Office. No matter which political party controls Congress. And, no matter what is the will of the American people. No matter who’s in power, they exert control. Oftentimes, the liberal media effectively operates as the propaganda arm of the Deep State.

 

The shadowy world in which Deep State actors maneuver is characterized by three disturbing proclivities: Secrecy, surveillance and subterfuge.

 

The operatives manning and manipulating the Deep State demand an activist, interventionist government, both domestically and internationally. Importantly, their worldview often rejects the beliefs and values of a majority of patriotic Americans.

 

As time goes on, the disparity between the values and beliefs of the people and those of the Deep State becomes cumulative, and no matter whom the people elect to public office, the Deep State takes the nation in a direction that increasingly diverges from where the people desire to go.

 

Sometimes, as it has with the Trump presidency, the Deep State rises to the surface in rebellion, taking aggressive, seditious measures against a president whose election it opposed and who it perceives to be a threat to its own agenda and, perhaps, its very survival. As already is clear with the Trump presidency, the Deep State can turn on any president that threatens its interests and survival. And left unchecked, it may illegally destroy him.

 

This Special Report explores the workings of the Deep State through four case studies, in each of which Judicial Watch is involved in investigative action and litigation:

 

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), involving three JW Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. One lawsuit focuses on the efforts by agency political officials and civil servants to hide their communications and circum-vent the Federal Records and Freedom of Information Acts. The second law-suit demands to see documents surrounding the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, which Judicial Watch suspects to be “fake science” used to justify the Obama EPA’s health claims in the Clean Power Plan, a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming. The third lawsuit is aimed at EPA’s efforts to propagandize the American People illegally to promote its power grab over a clean water rule it was attempting to promulgate at the time.

 

  • The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), involving four JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the political targeting of President Barack Obama’s political enemies, including conservative non-profit organizations and individuals, and the unlawful collusion among the IRS and other agencies of government, such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, to spy on innocent American citizens, propagandize them and bring criminal charges against political enemies of the Obama administration and/or the Deep State.

 

  • United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Soros Open Society Foundations, involving two JW FOIA lawsuits focusing on the Soros Open Society Foundations’ use of U.S. taxpayer money channeled through USAID to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected governments of Macedonia and Albania.

 

  • The Intelligence/Law-Enforcement Community, involving six JW FOIA law-suits, an additional FOIA request and an advisory/demand letter, all focused on the surveillance, unmasking and illegal targeting of President Trump and his associates during the government’s investigation of purported Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and alleged collusion with the Russians by Trump and his team. The Special Report examines the flood of leaks and innuendos coming out of the government surrounding Trump and his associates, including the Gen. Michael Flynn episode; the Obama administration’s misuse of the NSA database of surveillance intercepts to target and unmask the identities of Americans; the Trump Dossier and the FBI’s involvement in it; along with James Comey’s purloined memoranda and the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump and his associates, including unsubstantiated accusations of obstruction of justice by the president when he allegedly ask Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. The Report assembles the evidence at hand and finds it supports the conclusion that the Deep State, working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, is actively engaged in subversive measures (a “soft coup”) designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail.

 

At the beginning of this Special Report, it is observed that the Deep State is not monolithic but it shares a common mindset and worldview, and it is characterized by three disturbing proclivities: Secrecy, surveillance and subterfuge. Secrecy catalyzes and enables surveillance and subterfuge. The only way to observe and evaluate the workings of the Deep State is to penetrate the veil of Deep State secrecy that shields the actions of political appointees, career civil servants, private contractors and their relationship with the media and outside agents of influence that comprise the Deep State.

 

This Special Report concludes that it is time to tear down the wall of secrecy surrounding the Deep State. President Trump should order federal agencies to stop the stalling and start obeying the nation’s open-records laws. Until they do, the dangerously malignant Deep State will continue to grow and undermine American democracy.

 

Exposing the Deep State

 

“They pride themselves on operating below the radar – and above the law”

 

We face a crisis of the Deep State – “Alt-government,” I sometimes call it. The actions of the Deep State constitute a direct challenge to our republican form of government. Working primarily through the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the Deep State is actively engaged in subversive measures designed to delegitimize Donald Trump, cause the American people to lose faith in their president, destroy the Trump presidency and eventually impeach him or put him in jail. – Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton

 

I. Introduction and Background

 

There is a deeply embedded shadow government in the United States running the affairs of state – The Deep State or Alt Government, as Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton describes it. This shadow government is not monolithic. But, it does not have to be. Its operatives share a common mindset and worldview. They travel in the same social circles. And, they walk the same corridors of power.

 

No matter who’s in power, they’re in control.

 

They pride themselves on operating below the radar – and above the law. And, the shadowy world in which they maneuver is characterized by three disturbing proclivities: Secrecy, surveillance and subterfuge.

 

In the words of Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell, the decidedly left-leaning Deep State is “quite comfortable exercising all of the levers of the organs of the state.” Farrell explains:

 

They come from a Franco-Germanic political philosophy that, historically, has always placed the state over the citizenry. They derive their power and exercise it vigorously through the state.

 

As time goes on, this disparity between the values and beliefs of the people and those of the Deep State becomes cumulative, and no matter whom the people elect to public office, the Deep State takes the nation in a direction that increasingly diverges from where the people desire to go.

 

Deep State operatives are ensconced in every agency of the government; they have their own agendas; and many of them think they don’t have to answer to an elected president, the rule of law or the American people. They also are enmeshed in and interface with outside networks of organizations, media companies, universities, think tanks and corporations that share their views, help shape their views and exert enormous influence on policy and its day-to-day implementation. The “military-industrial complex” President Dwight Eisenhower warned about is a reality but it is not the only complex providing the architecture of the Deep State; there are several of them: the intelligence/security-industrial complex, the environmental/academic-industrial complex, to name but two.

 

The American media complex effectively operates as the propaganda arm and transmission belt of the Deep State. In a 2013 article (updated in 2016), former State Department foreign service officer and congressional policy adviser and analyst, James George Jatras, explains:

 

American media increasingly have operated uncritically in conjunction with the bipartisan Washington political establishment…Among the key features of such cooperation…are:

 

  • Deficiency of geographic and historical knowledge as the American norm (the less people know the more likely they are to believe what they are told, with the least informed most persuaded of the need to “do something”);

 

  • Reliance on government sources, “ventriloquism,” and “information incest” (unknown to the public, much media “information” comes from government sources);

 

  • Centralized corporate ownership (official policy imperatives interface with ratings dollars for six giant corporate conglomerates);

 

  • “Para-journalism,” “infotainment,” and “atrocity porn” as a war trigger (atrocities appear seemingly on cue and then receive saturation coverage);

 

  • Demonization “Hitler” memes and “weaponization” of media (compromise and negotiation have no role in confronting absolute evil – war is the default option);

 

  • America and the “international community,” the “Free World,” and American “exceptionalism” and “leadership;” disregarding “alternative” media, Ameri-can samizdat (accurate information is available in “alternative” media, but the major[s] still decide if it exists or not);

 

  • “We never make mistakes,” “stay the course,” and “MoveOnism” (U.S. policy has no rearview mirror);

 

  • Authors of past blunders are not discredited, while those who said “tolya so” are ignored).

 

  • In turn, media themselves are an integral part of a multifaceted, hybrid public-private entity with broad range and depth. Variously known as the Establishment, the Oligarchy, or the Deep State, this entity includes elements within all three branches of the U.S. government (especially in the military, intelligence, and financial sectors), private business (the financial industry, government contractors, information technology), think tanks, NGOs, the “Dem intern,” both political parties and campaign operatives, and an army of lobbyists and PR professionals.

 

  • Looking into the future in light of 2016 anti-Establishment challenges from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the shortcomings of Barack Obama’s policies in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine on top of those of George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, shrinkage of the American Middle Class, and increasing public skepticism of the “MSM” in favor of digital “alternative media,” both the Washington-based oligarchy and its media component show signs of losing their grip.

 

  • The possibility exists for a peaceful evolution to a less warlike posture (impacting media as well) that would refocus on America’s domestic needs. Alter-natively, the existing order could risk a major war in a desperate bid to save its wealth, power, and privileges – with unforeseeable consequences for America and the world.

 

The operation of the Deep State is not a meticulously organized conspiracy, mastermind-ed and controlled by any central authority operating out of a fortified bunker. Nor does it need to be. The agendas of the politicians, bureaucrats and contractors that populate the Deep State are frequently the same, or complementary, and the huge sums of taxpayer money involved tie them together inextricably. And, they ineluctably travel in the same, invariably elitist circles. Rather, the Deep State is like a systemic disease of run-away cells, replicating and metastasizing to serve their own interests and survival. In short, a cancer.

 

The Deep State has a life of its own, independent of whoever is president or whichever political party controls the Congress. Though it prefers to operate through sleight of hand, with smoke and mirrors, at times it may rise to the surface and become the handmaiden of overzealous and overreaching presidents who serve its interests – as it did when Barack Obama weaponized the permanent bureaucracy inside the IRS, the FBI and other intelligence and regulatory agencies against the American people and his (and the Deep State’s) political opponents.

 

Most frequently, the Deep State recedes back into the shadows where its agents quietly advance their own agenda and obstruct troublesome elected officials (and the public that supports them) in a million different ways, large and small, deliberate and devious. Sometimes, of course, it rises to the surface in rebellion – as it has with President Donald Trump, taking aggressive, seditious measures against a president whose election it opposed and who it perceives to be a threat to its own agenda and, perhaps, its very survival.

 

The Deep State is more insidious than mere partisanship, and it is more dangerous because it is permanent. While presidents and Members of Congress come and go, the Deep State remains permanently, growing ever more powerful – and predatory. As already is clear with the Trump presidency, the Deep State can turn on any president that threatens its interests and survival. And left unchecked, it may destroy him.

 

III. Conclusion

 

Professor Patrick H. O’Neil of the University of Puget Sound, in a January 2015 article, “The Deep State: An Emerging Concept in Comparative Politics,” concisely elucidates the underlying foundation of the Deep State (p.4):

 

… as a foundational logic, the deep state justifies its existence through the necessity of tutelage over both state and society. The deep state views itself guardian of national values against internal and external foes. In short, the deep state does not necessarily trust the government, state (perhaps even military) or society to pre-serve the nation. Accordingly, actors within the deep state can justify an array of actions against the government, society, and state as necessary to defend against “traitors” to the nation and national ideology. The amorphousness of the deep state is accompanied by the belief that its members are the symbolic core of the nation. (Emphasis added.)

 

At the beginning of this Special Report, it was observed that the Deep State is not monolithic but it shares a common worldview and is characterized by three disturbing proclivities: Secrecy, surveillance and subterfuge. Secrecy catalyzes and enables surveillance and subterfuge. The only way to observe and evaluate the workings of the Deep State is to penetrate the veil of Deep State secrecy that shields the actions of political appointees, career civil servants, private contractors and their relationship with the media and outside agents of influence that comprise the Deep State.

 

That’s why Judicial Watch is in court day after day shining the light on the activities of the Deep State. It is time to put an end to the obsessive, oppressive and destructive secrecy in government. If the rule of law is to survive, if America’s constitutional protections are to endure, it is essential to roll back the sinister secrecy that allows, indeed encourages those operating in the Deep State to hold themselves above the law and beyond the Constitution.

 

There is a way to rein in the Deep State but it requires a commitment to extreme transparency by elected officials. It requires determined leadership from the White House and serious bi-partisan action on the part of a committed Congress to expose the goings on inside the permanent D.C. bureaucracy and the connections between the Deep Staters, the media and the outside agents of influence.

 

 

There is plenty of blame to go around for the transparency failures that foster the Deep State, most recently the Obama administration’s executive over reach and the veil of secrecy President Obama pulled over his administration to hide it. And now, unbelievably, those same secrecy policies seem to be on auto-pilot in the Trump administration. Thank-fully, though, when it comes to sunshine actions, the Trump White House has a solution at hand – if only it would use it – that is both elegantly simple and breathtakingly radical. The Freedom of Information Act allows for the executive branch to make “discretionary disclosures.”

 

As Judicial Watch Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell has noted:

 

“In plain English, that means President Trump and his cabinet secretaries can release whatever they want—whenever they wish to do so. They can exercise their discretion to release records that are of broad general and news media interest concerning important policy issues and/or the operation of the federal government. These discretionary disclosures take nothing more than the stroke of a pen.”

 

Beyond the “discretionary disclosures” provision of the Freedom of Information Act, Executive Order 13526, signed by President Obama in 2009, and the Supreme Court ruling in Department of the Navy v. Egan (484 U.S. 518 (1988)) confirm that under the Constitution, as chief executive, the president has the legal power to declassify information immediately, on his say so alone. As the Court stated in Egan:

 

The President, after all, is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security…flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

 

During the presidential campaign, Candidate Trump pledged to drain the swamp. There is no better way to drain the swamp than to impose extreme transparency on the Deep State where the swamp festers and putrefies. Regrettably, however, instead of applying the transparency remedy, as JW’s Chris Farrell reports, “The Department of Justice under Attorney General Sessions is currently making the exact same legal arguments as the Obama administration—and using all the double-talk and excuses from the Obama era, too.”

 

Freedom of Information Act officers in the executive branch are over-worked and under-appreciated, a situation that has severely restricted the effectiveness of the law. But it doesn’t take congressional action or a spending increase to change that. President Trump could trigger a FOIA revolution simply by ordering a new era of extreme transparency and discretionary disclosure.

 

Micha Morrison said it perfectly in Judicial Watch’s Investigative Bulletin:

 

“Extreme transparency could bring huge benefits. Swamp draining would get super-charged boosters. The president could seize the moral high ground in the Russia-connection case with the re-lease of his tax returns and all relevant White House documents. On the Judicial Watch docket, among the records that could be quickly produced are: the Comey memo; records related to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and the “unmasking” controversy; re-cords related to the so-called “Russian dossier;” records relating to the controversial “tarmac meeting” in Arizona between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch; FBI and intelligence community files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation; never-revealed draft indictments of Mrs. Clinton in the Whitewater investigation; and notes and reports to then-Secretary of State Clinton in the Benghazi affair.”

 

Beyond the president’s imposing extreme transparency through discretionary disclosures, immediate action also is needed to pave the way for activist citizens and outside watchdogs, such as Judicial Watch, to investigate and expose corruption and malfeasance within the government.

 

  • President Trump not only should use the power of discretionary disclosures, he also should commit to a revolution of “extreme transparency” and set it in motion by issuing an executive order to break the logjam of FOIA requests he inherited from President Obama and which are now piling up under his own administration.

 

  • Congress should join the revolution by reforming the Freedom of Information Act and giving private citizens, the press and watchdog groups stronger and better tools to hold the government to account.

 

  • Congress and the president together should seize the opportunity when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act comes up for reauthorization later this year and:

 

  1. Provide for greater public access to government records inside the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, and especially the proceedings in and opinions of the FISA Court; and

 

  1. Place new limits on the NSAs authority to conduct warrantless searches and restrict other agencies’ authority to use NSA intercepts to conduct domestic surveillance on Americans.

 

It’s time to tear down the wall of secrecy surrounding the Deep State. President Trump should order federal agencies to stop the stalling and start obeying the nation’s open-records laws. Until they do, the dangerously malignant Deep State will continue to grow and undermine American democracy.

______________________

Intro to JW’s ‘Exposing the Deep State’

Intro by John R. Houk

© June 30, 2018

_______________________

Exposing the Deep State

 

If you would like additional copies of the report please contact:

 

Judicial Watch 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024

 

Member Services: 1 (888) 593-8442 FAX: (202) 646-5199

 

Email: info@JudicialWatch.orgwww.JudicialWatch.org

 

 

IT’S A LEFTIST MSM LIE!


Intro to ‘IT’S A LEFTIST MSM LIE!’

Intro by John R. Houk

© June 23, 2018

 

Cynthia Derrick Juengel share’s video Exposing lies of viral photo of little girl crying for allegedly being ripped apart from parents.

The video was put together by Youtuber Campus Liberty. The video has the voice of Ben Shapiro with a sliding collage of photos explaining the story told behind the photo is complete utter LIE! Directly after Shapiro is a Shannon Bream interview of Devin Nunes about the MSM LIE.

 

Here is an excerpt of the truth behind the photo:

 

A little girl shown in a viral photo crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent detained her mother – and used by TIME magazine to symbolize the Trump administration’s family separation policy – reportedly was never separated from her mom.

 

 

But multiple outlets interviewed the father of the girl behind the iconic image, and he said he had learned that his two-year-old daughter was detained with her mother at a facility in Texas, and the two were not separated at all. The Honduran government confirmed his version of events to Reuters.

 

The Washington Post reported that the mother, Sandra Sanchez, had previously been deported in 2013 to Honduras. Her husband told the Post that she left without telling him she was taking Yanela with her and couldn’t contact her. But then he saw the picture on the news. [Bold Text Editor’s]

 

“You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter. It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border,” Denis Javier Varela Hernandez told The Daily Mail.

 

He also said he did not support his wife’s decision to make the perilous trek to the U.S. and that they have three other children together.

 

“I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.” READ ENTIRETY (Crying migrant girl on TIME magazine cover was not separated from mother, family says; By Adam Shaw; Fox News; 6/22/18)

 

Now, to the Facebook Messenger text sent by my friend Cynthia Derrick Juengel.

 

JRH 6/23/18

Please Support NCCR

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

IT’S A LEFTIST MSM LIE!

You Were Told Crying Girl was Ripped from Parents at Border

 

Shared by Cynthia Derrick Juengel

Date Shared 6/23/18

 

Mainstream media will lie about anything to get the results they want. No truth, just lies. You confront a Democrat about what their party is doing and you get the run around. More lies, and changing the subject…. always blaming someone else for their own faults. Democrats sound like little children, to say or do anything, blame someone else, play games…. It would be nice if they would act like GROWN-UPS, and used common sense.

 

VIDEO:  “Cat’s out of the bag” Ben Shapiro : What the left never wanted you to know

 

Posted by Campus Liberty

Published on Jun 23, 2018

 

“This girl was never separated from her mother” Ben : this is what the media will never let out.

 

Thanks for watching, please like, comment, share and subscribe to Campus Liberty : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAdli-137WCqW81sHbAjDJg

____________________

Intro to ‘IT’S A LEFTIST MSM LIE!’

Intro by John R. Houk

© June 23, 2018

______________________

IT’S A LEFTIST MSM LIE!

You Were Told Crying Girl was Ripped from Parents at Border

 

Shared by Cynthia Derrick Juengel

Date Shared 6/23/18

 

We Are At War


This post on Blogs for Victory expresses the frustration felt by real American Patriots who have zero interest of a Leftist transformation of American culture. I am one. Are you? If you feel the frustration, then vent it in the comment section. Keep in mind, if your venting is awesome, it will be cross posted on my blogs.

Left Agenda to Destroy America-Clown Stream America

 

JRH 3/10/18

Please Support NCCR

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

We Are At War

 

By Cluster

March 9, 2018

Blogs For Victory

 

We have often wondered if a new civil war would ever break out. If leftists would ever take to arms to defend their ideology, or if they would be too cowardly as many of us have surmised.

 

Well make no mistake about it folks, we are at war with a new, hyper-radicalized Democrat Party, aided and abetted by the Progressive Media. The Democrats, spurred on by their media masters, have done a political 180 over the last 20 years and now openly advocate anti-American views, and actively support policies that are completely destructive to our society and way of life.

 

Consider that every single Democrat voted against a tax break for the average American worker; they have opposed all efforts to secure our borders; they defy Federal immigration laws; they obstruct Federal law enforcement, they encourage and financially enrich our foreign enemies; they impose punitive regulations on our domestic businesses, they actively work towards destroying our energy independence; they defer to the World courts rather than our own judiciary; they actively promote domestic policies that disadvantage American citizens; and they harbor deep contempt for anyone who challenges their world views.

 

In other words, they are in the process of trying to demoralize and completely destroy traditional America, and we had all better wake up and realize this very sobering fact. Sowing discord? The Russians are amateurs compared to our progressive media.

 

[Blog Editor: As of this reading, Blogs for Victory had 12 responding comments. They won’t count for cross posting potential unless those individuals comment on the blog.]

____________________

The author “Cluster” aka Carl Shaver.

 

Edited by John R. Houk for this blog.

 

Blogs For Victory

We have often wondered if a new civil war would ever break out. If leftists would ever take to arms to defend their ideology, or if they would be too cowardly as many of us have surmised. Well make no mistake about it folks, we are at war with a new, hyper radicalized Democrat Party aided and abetted by the Progressive Media. The Democrats, spurred on by their media masters, have done a political 180 over the last 20 years and now openly advocate anti American views, and actively support policies that are completely destructive to our society and way of life. Consider that every single Democrat voted against a tax break for the average American worker; they have opposed all efforts to secure our borders; the defy Federal immigration laws; they obstruct Federal law enforcement, they encourage and financially enrich our foreign enemies; they impose punitive regulations on our…

View original post 83 more words

POETICALLY SPEAKING CONSERVATIVELY


While browsing the Facebook Group TheAmericanPatriotsParty I found an awesome essay criticizing the Leftist Gun Control media taking advantage of the Parkland Massacre. It is an awesome read! I couldn’t help myself, I added some source links the author would have difficulty in posting at Facebook.

JRH 2/23/18

Please Support NCCR

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

POETICALLY SPEAKING CONSERVATIVELY

 

By Joe Esposito

February 22, 2018 1:51 pm

Facebook Group- TheAmericanPatriotsParty

 

In the WACKY WORLD OF THE LUNATIC LEFT they once again politicize a shooting tragedy. They never let an opportunity pass to push their GUN CONTROL AGENDA. Nothing has changed. It’s the lunatics with the same strategy. This is the hot topic of the day. There are calls for something to be done. The arming of teachers is being proposed by our President. That is what we hear him say but many find that utterly abhorrent.

 

What we are seeing by the Democrats is their perfection of the art of using sympathetic figures to argue for positions that millions of us reject. When we disagree, we are accused of mean-spiritedness. This is hardly surprising what else would you expect?? Studies show that assault rifles are rarely used in these horrific crimes, but calls are being made for them to be banned. Weapon confiscation is the desire of the Left. It is this that we must fully understand.

 

In a city like Chicago we have the toughest gun laws on the books but gun violence increases [Blog Editor: Chicago Gun violence was highest in nation in 2016. Gun violence actually decreased in 2017, BUT not because of strict gun laws as Leftists claim. Rather the decrease is credited to police use of better technology. STILL, Chicago gun violence higher than LA and NYC combined in 2017.]. It is not on the wane. The Left refuses to realize this. Need I have to explain that their endless machinations just never, ever ceases? It is frankly quite insane. And speaking of insanity let me direct you to a town hall forum that was organized by CNN [Blog Editor: HS Junior Colton Haag says CNN scripted, CNN says no. Colton had the altered question on Tucker Carlson Tonight. We ALL know CNN lies.], the number one purveyor of FAKERY. This is the station dedicated to show you that there is nothing they won’t do to prove how miserable they can be.

 

Of course, we saw how they tried to plant scripted questions. Ask a shooting survivor who refused to take part. The bias that consumes CNN is off the chart. This is a most serious matter. But nothing is out of bounds when you have fake journalists like Wolf Blitzer and that lowlife dirt bag, Jake Tapper. Throw Anderson Cooper in the mix and you have quite a wretched threesome. Their adoration for the disgusting ideology of the Left and it’s pushing for gun control can leave you numb.

 

What we saw on CNN is being said was an abusive, anti-gun show trial. It was criticized severely and was in fact very vile. The agenda, always the agenda, is pushed. It is repugnant to see. There is no one on the Left that has a smidgen of decency. The survivors of the shooting are in an extreme emotional state. See them being used by the gun control advocates so shamelessly. It is enough to make you totally sick. From Someone pass me a barf bag I must regurgitate.

 

That was an abomination we saw last night [Ben Shapiro Show devoted to CNN Town Hall abomination]. The criticism of Tapper was truly justified. How silent this scumbag was when personal attacks were hurled at an NRA spokesman and Senator Rubio. What the hell was wrong with him?? His silence remained even after the audience booed a rape victim! Tapper no doubt approved what was going on that was apparent to see. He never ever misses an opportunity to disgust me.

 

A CPAC panel got it so right in describing the event. They called it for what it truly was. A TROTSKYITE SHOW TRIAL AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT. CNN never disappoints us. It is a truly a disgusting entity that basks in it repugnancy.

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Joe Esposito