Trump accuses NY Times of ‘virtual treason’…


President Trump is accusing the New York Times of treason because the Leftist rag told the world about a classified U.S. mission to mess with Russia undoubtedly due Russian cyber warfare being conducted against the United States. The most public of which is cyber meddling in U.S. election cycles.

 

I would not be surprised to find out some day the USA and Russia have been exchanging cyber barbs for quite some time. Is it ethical or even legal for the NYT to expose clandestine and probably Classified cyber missions intended as bloodless reprisals to Russian cyber-crimes? It’s definitely not ethical! If exposing Classified actions against a foreign enemy isn’t illegal, IT SHOULD BE!

 

Justin Smith pointed this post on my Facebook Group Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

(yeah I know, lengthy title. I had just emerged from Facebook jail and was quite annoyed at the time. So I created the group. Feel free to join the still relatively small group). The group URL to Justin’s share is HERE.

 

Justin did not include the URL from whence he found the post. Justin’s reason: The “URL is being banned by Facebook”. The banned website is The Patriot Brief. Interestingly The Patriot Brief picked up the article from The National Sentinel. It is from the original source I am cross posting below. In case you are curious The Patriot Brief link to the article is HERE.

 

JRH 6/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Trump accuses NY Times of ‘virtual treason’ after report exposing U.S. cyber-targeting of Russian infrastructure: He’s right

 

By Jon Dougherty

June 16, 2019

The National Sentinel

 

NYT Building

 

(NationalSentinel) We have made the observation before that in the age of Donald Trump, the establishment media has become a national security liability due to the fact that major outlets will publish just about anything in order to undermine him.

 

But in doing so, these same outlets also undermine our country — and some 312 million American citizens — making them as big a threat to our security as any foreign power.

 

The New York Times did it again Sunday with a story claiming that the Trump administration has escalated attacks on Russia’s power grid:

 

The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said.

 

In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow’s disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.

 

Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue, after years of public warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants, oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict with the United States.

 

But it also carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

 

“It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” one senior intelligence official told the Times. “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”

 

You know what else carries “significant risk?” Reporting classified information that provides valuable insight and intelligence for a nuclear-armed adversary.

 

So much for “Russia collusion,” right?

 

The revelations infuriated POTUS Trump, and rightfully so. He said on Twitter the paper committed “a virtual act of Treason” over its report, The Hill noted.

 

“Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia,” Trump tweeted. “This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.”

 

“Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today,” he added. “They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

 

He also claimed the Times report was “NOT TRUE.”

 

The fact is the Times report most likely is true. Rational people understand that in light of report after report regarding Russia/China/Iran/North Korea targeting U.S. infrastructure, it makes sense for America — which is a cyber superpower — to respond in kind.

 

But these kinds of operations are not meant to be revealed. Doing so not only compromises said operations, but foreign intelligence agencies gleaning details from published open source information very often learn things that help them counter our moves.

 

Which, again, puts our country at risk.

 

The Times editors know this. They understand full well what revealing this kind of highly classified information can mean to an adversary.

 

And yet, they published it anyway. Just to ‘get Donald Trump.’

 

What does that say about them? It says — again — that the president has been right about our own press since he took office: They are more of an enemy than some of our adversaries. Or at least the equivalent.

 

Even though we have speech protections written into our Constitution via the First Amendment, you still can’t slander someone, libel them, yell ‘fire’ in a theater, or engage in various forms of “hate” speech.

 

Publishing highly classified information that provides ‘aid and comfort’ to an adversary should be legally actionable as well. Doing so harms our country by weakening our national security.

 

Think about it: Does anyone believe that FDR would not have punished the NYTimes or the Washington Post if either paper had published plans for the D-Day invasion, just because their editors believed Americans ‘had a right to know’?

 

Granted, we were in an actual war then, and we’re not fighting Russia — now. Though you could argue that in places like Syria, where Russian-sponsored mercenaries from the Wagner Group attacked U.S. forces and their allies early last year, amounts to a real conflict. Or Russia putting forces into Venezuela, in our hemisphere. Or encroaching on NATO’s eastern flank.

 

We have argued before that reporting the details about these highly classified operations are harming our national security at a time when the world is more dangerous than ever, not less, and for no good reason. The Times is just as guilty, in our view, as the U.S. officials who leaked the information. If they can be charged under the Espionage Act, then the ‘paper of record’ that published the information should be equally culpable.

 

The president is right.

__________________________

Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10

 

© 2017-2019 USA Features Media LLC.

 

ABOUT The National Sentinel

 

The National Sentinel is a fiercely independent, non-corporate-owned news site dedicated to bringing our readers fresh, informative content and the news of the day, without the bias and political chicanery of the so-called “mainstream” media.

 

Updated daily and throughout the day, rely on us to provide you with unfiltered news and information you won’t find anywhere else that helps you to make informed decisions. Like the media is supposed to do.

 

The National Journal is part of the USA Features Media network of sites. Follow USA Features on Facebook (click here).

 

A note about our advertisers: In accordance with Federal Trade Commission regulations, we are disclosing that our site earns a commission off of items we advertise and sell, as an affiliate. Think of it like a tip for bringing you awesome content! In any event, we have an advertising relationship with the stores we link to. Now you know.

 

See usage rights/permissions here. … READ THE REST

 

Is there really a spy in the White House?


A word from Glenn Beck about the New York Times anonymous op/ed Trump-hater.

 

JRH 9/7/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

Is there really a spy in the White House?

 

By GLENN BECK, CEO/FOUNDER

September 6, 2018

GlennBeck.com

 

There’s a coward in the White House. A spy in the Trump administration wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday that’s not only entirely gutless, but also proves everyone that has ever believed in the Deep State correct.

 

The spy wants everyone to know that:

 

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.

 

The anonymous senior member of the Trump administration goes on to describe how bad the president is, and that he or she and a group of others from within the White House are trying to subvert him.

 

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

 

How dare this person talk about preserving democratic institutions while, at the same time, actually admitting to undermining an elected official. I don’t care how virtuous their intentions are, these people were never elected! President Trump was. They and a good portion of the country may not like it, but that’s how the system works. This person has brazenly admitted to being part of an unelected guerilla movement within the government that’s secretly pursuing their own ideology, their own path for the country, and WE – the voters – never gave them our mandate. They operate with zero accountability.

 

I wonder if it ever occurred to this coward that they aren’t just subverting the president, they’re also subverting the 63 million Americans that voted for him. They may not like Trump and his policies, but is he really doing anything contrary to what he campaigned for? Everything that Trump has been saying and doing since he was elected is exactly why his supporters voted for him. It’s what they want. No one has the right to go behind his back and steer the country in a different direction.

 

This person, this anonymous senior official, probably feels pretty brave – and maybe even a little famous – this morning. But they’re a coward. If they’ve witnessed the President doing something unbecoming of the office or counter to what his voters would agree with, it is their responsibility to come forward the proper way. Show your face, make a public accusation and provide evidence. This is a disgrace.

2 Perspectives of Ongoing Deep State Coup


John R. Houk, Editor

1/2/18

 

It is looking more and more Dem conspirators in the FBI and DOJ tried to fix the November 2016 election to Crooked Hillary’s favor. AND barring the failure of a Crooked Hillary election, then the conspiracy appeared intending to take out President Trump with fake evidence.

 

Here are two perspectives on Deep State intentions that essentially overthrows the U.S. Constitution with behind the scenes criminal-political coup d’état behavior.

 

JRH 1/2/18

Please Support NCCR

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

DEEP STATE DOSSIER DISINFORMATION

Establishment media ignore the real sources of the Russia investigation.

 

By Lloyd Billingsley

January 2, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

 

Mueller Deep State

 

George Papadopoulos was the “improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration.” Like the Trump campaign itself, advisor Papadopoulos “proved to be a tantalizing target for a Russian influence operation.”

 

Thus opens a 2500-plus-word December 30 New York Times piece headlined “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt,” by Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazetti and Matt Apuzzo, with reporting by Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Matthew Rosenberg. The multiple authorship betokens serious investigation but this piece shapes up as dezinformatsiya and the Times gives it away in the early going.

 

“It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign,” that started the investigation, and there is some truth to that. The dossier, one of the dirtiest tricks political tricks in US history, was only part of a plan revealed by FBI counterintelligence boss Peter Strzok in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. As a Strzok email explained: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40. . .”

 

Like FBI boss James Comey, Strzok was a partisan of Hillary Clinton, the likely reason he got the job of spearheading the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. It was Strzok who changed “gross negligence” to “extremely careless,” freeing the Democrat from the prospect of criminal charges. As David Horowitz said, it was the greatest political fix in American history.

 

Donald Trump went on to win the White House but for Democrat “progressives,” that meant that Trump and Putin must have teamed up to steal the election from Hillary. That is the real source of the Russia investigation, sanctified in December 2016 by Senators Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jack Reed. None was a fan of Trump and it recently emerged that McCain associate David Kramer, formerly with the State Department, met with dossier co-author Christopher Steele. The New York Times piece fails to mention Mr. Kramer and remains reluctant to follow the money, supposedly the first rule of investigative reporting.

 

The Clintons are not exactly short on cash and FBI deputy director “Andy” McCabe got some $500,000 from the Clintons for his wife’s political campaign. The establishment media are not curious whether Peter Strzok got a piece of the action, and if so how much. The Clinton’s faithful Odd Job would not be the first FBI man to grab the gold from under the table.

 

The FBI’s Robert Hanssen gave thousands of pages of classified material to the KGB and its Russian successor agency the SVR.  In return, the Russians gave him $600,000 in cash and diamonds, plus another $800,000 in a Russian bank. The FBI’s Richard Miller engaged in an affair with Svetlana Ogorodnikova and gave the Russian an FBI counterintelligence manual in exchange for sexual favors, $15,000 in cash and $50,000 in gold. FBI agent Earl Pitts gave KGB agent Aleksandr Karpov classified information and unmasked an FBI agent working in counterintelligence. The KGB and its Russian SVR successor paid Pitts $224,000.

 

Strzok works counterintelligence but on his watch Pakistani-born Iman Awan enjoyed access to the computers of the House Intelligence Committee and the Democrats’ favorite IT man performed his IT work from Pakistan for several months a year. If Peter Strzok knew about Awan’s illicit data-mining operation it seems clear he did nothing to stop it. On the other hand, POTUS 44 had commanded the FBI to look the other way when Muslims were involved, and the Bureau, which wields a budget approaching $9 billion, duly followed orders.

 

In the office of Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok discussed the “insurance policy” with his consensual flame Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and Clinton devotee. When that emerged, new FBI boss Christopher Wray did not fire Strzok and take his gun and badge. Instead Wray stashed Strzok in human resources, where he will still command access to FBI records.

 

After all this, and a lot more, the New York Times opts to point the finger at George Papadopoulos. The establishment media prefer to claim that the FBI’s Clinton fan club and the bogus dossier had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

 

Did the FBI perchance deploy the dossier to secure a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign? Russophile Nellie Ohr, wife of demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr, duly hired on at Fusion GPS. What was Nellie’s role in the dossier?  Who paid for the dossier? Congress has been trying to get answers but the FBI has been stonewalling. What are they trying to hide?

 

Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, wants the DOJ and FBI to hand over all documents related to the dossier on Wednesday, January 3, 2018. The committee also seeks to interview Ohr, Strzok, FBI attorneys James Baker, Lisa Page, and Sally Moyer and FBI assistant congressional affairs boss Greg Brower.

 

If the FBI and DOJ fail to comply in full, that will certify their partisan corruption, the larger back story of the Russia investigation. All testimony should be public so the people can watch on C-SPAN and avoid the deep-state disinformation of the old-line establishment media.

 

+++++++

TABLES TURN: NOW FBI PROBED FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE

House Intel Committee investigates plot to stop Trump


January 1, 2018

WND

 

President Donald Trump

 

WASHINGTON – What began as an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election has now become a probe into how federal law enforcement conspired to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.

 

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expanded its investigation that began with claims of Russian collusion and a fraudulent memo paid for by Trump opponents to one that focuses on members of federal law enforcement – both in the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI – and how they actively worked against the Trump campaign and the eventual Trump presidency.

 

In a startling turnabout, committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is accusing the Justice Department and the FBI of misleading him in “a pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated.” He charges that Justice claimed it possesses no documents related to the infamous Trump dossier, then, under pressure, produced “numerous” such papers.

U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

 

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is already opposing the move, even though he and other Democrats have conceded recently that finding a Russia-Trump conspiracy has produced no real evidence.

 

Nunes has put in place what amounts to a separate investigation of the FBI and the Justice Department hierarchy.

 

According to reports, the major components are:

 

  • Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that prepared the bogus Trump-Russia dossier with money from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

 

  • How the FBI allowed that dossier to fuel investigations since July 2016.

 

  • Investigative bias that has been discovered regarding several key investigators.

 

A key subpoenaed witness is David Kramer, an associate of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Kramer is one of the few people known to have possessed a hard copy of the dossier. McCain asked Kramer to represent him at a Nov. 28, 2016, meeting with Christopher Steele in Surrey, England. Steele compiled the 35 pages of memos making up the dossier based on his paid Kremlin sources.

 

Kramer then obtained a copy of the dossier from Fusion GPS and McCain hand-delivered a copy to then-FBI director James B. Comey in December 2016.

 

Thank President Trump for all his accomplishments during his first year in office. Send him a FREE card of your choice. Go to ThankTrump.us

 

According to an interview in Mother Jones magazine, Steele said he supplied his memos accusing Trump of a Russia conspiracy to the FBI in “early July” 2016. Comey has testified he began the counterintelligence investigation in “late July.” The memos accused the Trump team of a conspiracy with the Kremlin to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

Nunes wants more information on how the bureau used the document to investigate Trump people. He has been unsuccessfully trying to gain access to FBI documents.

 

In a Dec. 28 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Nunes said the Department of Justice at first said dossier-related FBI interview summaries, known as 302s, “did not exist.” Weeks later, under an Aug. 24 subpoena, DOJ suddenly located “numerous FD-302s pertaining to the Steele dossier, thereby rendering the initial response disingenuous at best,” the House intel committee chief wrote.

 

Based on the record of stonewalling, Nunes said the committee no longer can accept Justice’s position that it cannot turn over other official investigative forms, called 1032s. They document meetings between the FBI and confidential human sources.

 

He gave the Justice Department until Wednesday to comply with his requests.

 

“Unfortunately, DOJ/FBI’s intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part of a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated,” Nunes wrote. “At this point, it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves.”

_________________

DEEP STATE DOSSIER DISINFORMATION

 

About Lloyd Billingsley is the author of the new crime book, Lethal Injections: Elizabeth Tracy Mae Wettlaufer, Canada’s Serial Killer Nurse, and the recently updated Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

About FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

READ ENTIRETY

_______________

TABLES TURN: NOW FBI PROBED FOR ELECTION INTERFERENCE

 

 

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.


About WND

 

WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

 

“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”

 

Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.

 

Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.

 

WND has broken some of the biggest, most significant and most notable investigative and enterprising stories in recent years. READ THE REST

 

Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano


John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano has caused quite a stir amongst the Media, the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and officials in the U.S. government when the Judge stipulated that GCHQ surveilled the Trump campaign for the treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama. Here is the segment on Fox & Friends Tuesday March 14 morning:

 

VIDEO: Obama went to British intelligence to spy on Trump says Judge Napolitano

 

 

Posted by HX Video

Published on Mar 14, 2017

 

Very shortly after the Judge said he had three sources, the Judge mysteriously – without comment – was removed from Fox News air time. Incidentally, if you listened to the segment, the Judge remarked that the GCHQ person who complied with Obama resigned after Trump was inaugurated. Fox’s censorship means Napolitano can neither name the three intelligence sources nor the name of the person who resigned from GCHQ. ALSO, Fox News used later-in-the-day news anchors to walk back Napolitano’s GCHQ/Obama assertion.

 

OF COURSE, GCHQ denied any connection to wiretapping (i.e. surveilling) the Trump campaign AND the U.S. government has apologized of the implication because the GCHQ story showed up in official channels via Press Secretary Sean Spicer answers to press questions.

 

Fox censorship, Napolitano silence on suspension, GCHQ public denial and an U.S. apology is a set-up the typically credible Napolitano to look like a tinfoil conspiracist.

 

AND YET, is Judge Andrew Napolitano a discredited source on Obama surveillance of President Trump’s campaign? Since I have contended that Barack Hussein Obama was a crooked President from day one of his Administration, I am not prepared to throw the Judge under the bus as all others have seeming done.

 

Below are two articles that should give you pause before you consider throwing Napolitano under the bus. The first article is from today (3/22/17) from Bob Unruh and the second is from Cliff Kinkaid of AIM posted on 3/21/17.

 

The first is close to breaking news corroborated by Fox News. The second article pretty much elaborates the details that Judge Andrew Napolitano alluded to in his 2-minute 50-second Fox & Friends segment. In fact, there is so much detail in the second article it is a bit lengthy. You may want to come back a few times to complete and digest the information that demonstrates a Crooked Obama and a nefarious Intel community, not to mention an extremely untrustworthy Director James Comey of the FBI.

 

JRH 3/22/17

Please Support NCCR

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

WHISTLEBLOWER’S LAWYER: COMEY ‘FALSELY’ DENIED EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE

 

By BOB UNRUH

March 22, 2017

WND

 

Larry Klayman

 

The lawyer who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, Larry Klayman, has sent a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asking him to look at a whistleblower’s evidence of “systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, again including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly.”

 

That spying was done, Klayman’s letter contends, by the FBI.

 

It’s become a major issue following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as secretary of state.

 

Klayman has been working with Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA and Central Intelligence Agency contractor who “left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified.”

 

Montgomery then “sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”

 

Explained Klayman: “Working side by side with former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who lied in congressional testimony, and former Obama Director of the CIA, the equally ethically challenged John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed ‘up close and personal’ this “Orwellian Big Brother’ intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.”

 

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

 

But he said the testimony has been essentially ignored.

 

Now, however, with the issue pending before Congress, there even are media reports that appear to substantiate the general claims that the government has been spying. The New York Times in January referenced wiretapping at Trump Tower, and just this week ABC News documented that the FBI monitored Trump Tower.

 

The report claimed, “But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.”

 

It resulted in the indictments of more than 30 people, ABC said.

 

Explained the report: “The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper – just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence – running what prosecutors called an ‘international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.’”

 

Klayman, a Washington watchdog who repeatedly took on the Clinton political machine to investigate suspicion of wrongdoing, explained in his letter to Nunes, which was copied to other members of Congress, that he previously won a judgment from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon preliminarily halting the “illegal, warrantless, and massive surveillance of U.S. citiznes [sic] and lawful residents” in 2015.

 

As part of Nunes’ hearing on claims of government spying, he invited “anyone who has information about these topics to come forward.”

 

Klayman said that is exactly what Montgomery has done.

 

“There is a myriad of evidence, direct and circumstantial, of the illegal and unconstitutional surveillance disclosed to the FBI by Montgomery,” said Klayman, describing how his client made an on-camera interview with the agency about the misdeeds some time ago.

 

He said Montgomery “holds much of the roadmap to ‘draining the swamp’ of this corruption of our democracy.”

 

Montgomery, Klayman said, has information “that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”

 

During Montgomery’s interview with FBI General Counsel James Baker, under grants of immunity, he “laid out how persons like then businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.”

 

“He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, where illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.”

 

But that interview, “conducted and videotaped by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since.”

 

Klayman wrote that it appears to have been “buried” by Comey, possibly because “the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance.”

 

He said he previously visited with a staff lawyer, Allen Souza, to inform Nunes of questions that needed to be put to Comey while under oath.

 

“My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation while, on the other hand, the FBI director recently claimed publicly, I believe falsely, that there is ‘no evidence’ of surveillance on President Trump and those around him by the Obama administration.

 

“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.

 

He tells members of Congress that Comey needs to be grilled during a subsequent hearing, now set for March 28. He asks Nunes to respond by March 24 to let “the American people, and Mr. Montgomery … know where you and the other members of your committee stand.”

 

“Do you intend to get at and investigate the full truth, or as has regrettably been the case for many years in government, sweep the truth under the carpet?”

 

Other recipients of the letter were Reps. Adam Schiff, Mike Conaway, Peter King, Frank LoBiondo, Tom Rooney, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rich Crawford, Trey Gowdy, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd, Jim Hines, Terri Sewell, Andre Carson, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Joaquin Castro and Denny Heck.

 

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

 

+++

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

By CLIFF KINCAID

March 21, 2017

Family Security Matters

 

NYT Front Page – Trump Wiretapped

 

A special report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director.

 

[AIM CIJ Director’s Note:

 

UPDATE: Former NSA/CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery has told Accuracy in Media through his attorney Larry Klayman that it is entirely possible that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was used as a back channel to collect and pass information-based on electronic surveillance of Trump associates and Donald J. Trump personally-to officials in the Obama administration. Montgomery said the procedure known as shell-game eavesdropping, in which the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can also deny that they are wiretapping, could have been used in this case. In other words, the NSA, CIA or FBI would ask the British to conduct the surveillance on behalf of the U.S. government so that U.S. officials could deny their own involvement.

 

Montgomery said that he has provided extensive evidence of illegal wiretapping by U.S. intelligence agencies to the FBI, but that the Bureau has failed to act on the evidence since he provided it almost two years ago.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News had said, “The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ – a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms – has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s.” [Bold Text Editor JRH] However, it may be difficult to find Obama’s personal “fingerprints” on what happened, Napolitano warned. Under these circumstances, the House Intelligence Committee should ask FBI Director James Comey about Montgomery’s evidence of illegal wiretapping and then call in Montgomery for his own personal testimony. Klayman says Montgomery can shed important light on how Trump and many other innocent people can be targeted.

 

  • Please call the office of Rep. Devin Nunes at 202-225-4121 and urge that Congress question FBI Director Comey about the Dennis Montgomery case.]

 

(Editor’s Note: Public hearings on this controversy are scheduled for March 20 and 28 by the House Intelligence Committee.)

 

Senate Intelligence Committee leaders from both parties, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA), have issued a disingenuous statement [1] that “no element of the United States government” surveilled “Trump Tower.” They dishonestly evade the fact that media reporting [2] two days earlier had said that British intelligence operating at U.S. behest had likely been implicated in wiretapping Trump and Trump associates, all at the instigation of the U.S. government.

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on March 16 that Fox News [2] sources have reported [3] through retired Judge Andrew Napolitano that then-President Obama had used two officials to arrange with the British NSA, called GCHQ or Government Communications Headquarters, to carry out the wiretapping of both Trump and Trump associates. (See this AIM [4]guest column.) The British now dispute this claim.

 

This evasive use of British spying is done in order to leave no American “fingerprints [5]” on the highly illegal operation, as the White House quoted Judge Napolitano. It is a long-standing practice under treaty-like intelligence agreements that British intelligence can use NSA facilities, and vice versa, for shell-game eavesdropping.

 

The trick is for the two agencies to swap places so that the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can deny that they are wiretapping. The Brits are trying to escape in between these moves of what a key expert has called the US-UK “wiretapping shell game.”

 

This is the first time that news sources [2] have explicitly stated that Obama personally ordered the wiretapping of Trump himself, through Obama officials going to the British, though it has been implied in the past by the suspicious lack of any circumspect denials, even when The New York Times said on January 19 and 20 that “wiretapped communications” went to the Obama White House. No one in the article said “Obama White House-but not Obama personally.”

 

Consider how one important person-President Trump-got the clear media message that he was indeed the target of the spying: President Trump told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that he read this New York Times story of January 20 before he tweeted about Obama “wiretapping” him. White House spokesman Spicer quoted from this article.

 

President Trump told Carlson on Fox [6] on March 15 why he tweeted what he did: “Well, I’ve been reading…I think it was January 20…New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping….I think they used that exact term.”

 

NEW YORK TIMES (print edition) Jan. 20, 2017, Headline:

 

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”

 

“found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing … [but]

 

“… Wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.”  [Emphasis added; bracketed [ ] text added.]

 

And since the “wiretapped communications” had been given to the Obama “White House,” according to The New York Times [7], it naturally leads to the inference that Obama himself knew and approved of the “wiretapping” of the Trump team. Otherwise, the question would indeed be Watergate déjà vu: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

 

Remember, this is the same New York Times, along with other hostile media, that is attacking President Trump for making what it calls “baseless” and “unsubstantiated” claims of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump. It is its own reporting that President Trump was referring to.

 

The Times hypocritically suppresses its own front-page headline stories about “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” which claimed that these “wiretapped communications” reports went to the Obama White House (New York Times [7], Jan. 20, 2017).

 

White House spokesman Spicer forcefully made this point to the press, which viciously dodged his points to continue insisting [8] that “there’s no evidence of this” at all, repeatedly and rudely interrupting Spicer in an acrimonious confrontation.

 

Again, the question is: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

 

How the “Wiretap Shell Game” Works

 

Some reports claim that the Obama administration sought and/or obtained FISA Court warrants to tap phone calls and hack emails in Trump Tower.

 

But FISA warrants are routinely avoided by a little-known intelligence trick of using U.S.-British intelligence “reciprocity agreements” to dodge U.S. laws and vice versa. There are now direct reports [5] of this Obama-orchestrated British wiretapping of Trump, cited by the White House to back up President Trump’s statements and tweets.

 

The British are issuing denials [9]. But it is well-known that U.S. intelligence agencies can routinely arrange for British intelligence officers to use NSA facilities to spy on Americans, so that the U.S. agencies can claim that “they” (the U.S.) did no wiretapping or surveillance of Americans. It is a type of “plausible denial” government lie (see more on this in the appendix to this article). [Bold Text Editor JRH]

 

The strange involvement of an “ex” British MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, in conducting “opposition research” during a U.S. election has raised no questions in the left-wing media. It bears consideration, as it could represent in reality a British “reciprocity” covert operation on behalf of Obama’s CIA, one to fabricate discrediting disinformation about Trump, not a mere intelligence-gathering or wiretapping operation.

 

The exact means and exact agency by which this wiretapping, or much of it, has been done had been left unclear until now, when the claimed British connection surfaced. These types of British surveillance wiretaps are known as operations under “UKUSA” and “BRUSA” intelligence “reciprocity” agreements, which are the functional equivalent of formal treaties in the spy world.

 

Such “reciprocity” operations are designed to evade the laws of each country, the U.S. and the UK, by having the British spy on Americans who the Americans want spied on, and having the Americans spy on the British who the Brits want spied on. [Bold Text Editor JRH] Each side then exchanges the wiretap and other data the other side wants, thus without directly incriminating themselves. UKUSA reciprocity treaty “requests” have the force of direct orders to the other country’s intelligence agencies.

 

The wiretap data is exchanged under bogus traditional claims of the “extreme sensitivity” of “foreign liaison” intelligence, in order to obstruct outside oversight and thus in reality conceal surveillance of questionable legality. The UKUSA arrangements go beyond mere data searches and exchanges, by having, for example, British agents use NSA equipment and facilities on a rental lease basis to spy on the Americans that U.S. agencies want surveilled (and vice versa) so that the best equipment in the best position of access is used.

 

Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter John Loftus has documented how this British-U.S. “wiretap shell game” works, and pointed out how it is used to spy on political candidates in elections, and is covered up from Congress. Loftus reported:

 

“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus [10]Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997, p. 195]

 

The media have been saying that their government sources report that the CIA-NSA-FBI intercept targeting of Russians shifted to the targeting of the Trump team by September, 2016-possibly as early as June, 2016. There are reports of rejected FISA court applications in June [12] and July [13] of 2016 which would indicate that change of focus. (Incidentally, rejections by the FISA court are normally almost unheard-of.)

 

The BBC’s twist on the third alleged try at a FISA warrant, allegedly granted on October 15, was that it was narrowly drawn against only two Russian banks. But the BBC was at pains to assure us that they had an unnamed source who said that “three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry.”

 

“But it’s clear this is about Trump,” the source told the BBC [13].

 

New York Times Lies About Its Own Reporting

 

Meanwhile The New York Times [14] is doubling down on its lies, pretending it never reported that Trump or his aides had been wiretapped [7], and with supreme chutzpah claims, “It is not clear why Mr. Trump thought he was wiretapped or what led him to make the claim.” Again, look at the front-page New York Times headline.

 

The New York Times has been forced by confused readers to grudgingly admit [15] that President Trump’s tweets on Obama’s wiretapping actually do “echo certain aspects of The New York Times’s reporting from recent weeks.” But they try to offer up sorry excuses to explain away the glaring contradiction in their own reporting of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump and/or Trump people-and then their denials of it. The New York Times claims [16] that what they originally said was that Obama officials merely investigated past wiretap data in archives of “routine” surveillance already done, but did not wiretap into future data.

 

But the New York Times stated in January [7] that after past recordings of phone calls of Trump people had been checked, that the FBI “asked” the NSA to continue to “collect as much information as possible”-evidently without restraint or limitations-in what were clearly all future wiretapped calls between Russians and Trump people. It’s known as an intelligence “collection requirement.” (New York Times on January 20 [7] and February 14 [17];  see also the BBC [13] on January 12.)

 

White House spokesman Spicer, days before the Times’ excuse-making, clearly explained [16] that President Trump’s tweets on March 4 were based on open-source news media reporting of the wiretaps-thus including The New York Times-over the last few months.

 

In fact, the news media have been reporting [18] since at least September 23, 2016, that U.S. intelligence has been “actively monitoring” the “talks” (conversations), “wiretapping” the phone “calls,” and intercepting other communications of Trump aides or Trump himself-communications allegedly made with the Russians.

 

“Active monitoring” means wiretapping and surveillance of future phone calls, emails, texts, and other communications on an ongoing basis.

 

Not a shred of any New York Times or other reporting since September, 2016 on the “wiretapping” of Trump and/or his aides has demonstrated any concern whatsoever for Trump’s civil rights or the sanctity of the election process. No concern was expressed by the CIA, FBI, NSA or other agencies, or by the Obama White House-or by the media doing the reporting. In fact, they have been quite excited and eager about the prospect of illegal snooping on Trump.

 

As White House spokesman Spicer pointed out, efforts were made by Obama officials during their last days in office to lessen the protections of wiretap data in order to spread more widely any highly-sensitive wiretap data on Trump. The New York Times reported [19] on March 1 that the Obama administration’s lowering of “classification levels” of NSA data was done to “spread” the Trump wiretaps around various agencies and even foreign governments (see Obama DNI James Clapper’s orders lowering security protections of raw NSA intercept data, December. 15, 2016).

 

The New York Times had originally reported [20] on January 12 that this massive lowering of NSA wiretap data security was in contrast to Obama’s previous tightening of regulations in 2014, after the Snowden mass leak, to give “privacy protections to foreigners,” like they were Americans. But not for Trump.

 

The New York Times headline story [19] on March 1 that said Obama officials had “Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking” also admitted that officials say that alleged Trump collusion with Russia “has not been confirmed” in any of that intelligence wiretap data.

 

So what were they “rushing” to “preserve?” It is the purported Trump “conspiracy” with Russia that is utterly unsubstantiated and baseless. Wiretapping one’s political opponents in an election, as Obama or his minions have done, is a classic Watergate-style threat to the democratic process.

 

The Fake “Trump Dossier”

 

“As part of the inquiry,” wrote The New York Times, this “wiretapping” was done by the CIA, FBI and/or NSA to try to “investigate” the alleged Trump-Russian connections claimed in what is known as the (fake) “Trump dossier”-within a broader investigation of alleged Russian hacking and other supposed election interference (NY Times, January 20 [7]February 14 [17], 2017).

 

This “Trump dossier” is the controversial document composed by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton’s still unidentified backers to do election “opposition research” against then-candidate Trump. It is riddled with absurd self-contradictions and vile allegations against President Trump.

 

The “dossier [21]” cannot even make up its mind, so to speak, as to whether the Russians did spend “years” passing political dirt on Hillary Clinton to Trump to help “cultivate” relationship with him-or did not in fact ever pass such info to Trump (Steele report [21], June 20, 2016). There are at least eight different origins of the hacked or leaked DNC emails claimed in the “dossier,” including that Trump hacked them, not the Russians, or that they were all just “created” or “made up.”

 

The one-party opposition media have managed to ignore the ridiculous contents of the bogus “Trump dossier” with its raving lunatic absurdities.

 

For example, thousands of Russian retirement “pensioners,” according to the “dossier,” did the hacking of the DNC emails and passed them on to Russian officials, apparently in secret meetings at (we infer) park benches and shuffleboard affairs in Miami and elsewhere (Steele reports 095 and 111 [21] and Newsweek [22], November 4, 2016).

 

These Russian retirement pensioners living in the U.S. are “hacking…cyberoperatives” according to Newsweek, in its pre-election article [22] heavily based on Steele’s “Trump dossier,” oblivious to the patent absurdity of the claim.

 

You will not hear about that from the anti-Trump media, which so desperately wants the “Trump dossier” to be believed, regardless of whether any of it is true.

 

Appendix:

 

Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter, John Loftus, has explained how this US-British reciprocity scheme-or “wiretap shell game,” as he calls it-works. Loftus’ evidence of the top secret trick of US-British, NSA-GCHQ wiretapping of Americans is based on numerous NSA sources and others from many agencies stretching back decades, including censorship of this information from his and another expert’s early book manuscripts because of “classification” (Loftus [10]Secret War Against the Jews [11], 1997, pp. 188-195, 548-9).

 

According to Loftus this is how the illegal wiretapping “game” is played:

 

“… the NSA headquarters [at Fort Meade, Md.] is also the chief British espionage base in the United States. The presence of British wiretappers at the keyboards of American eavesdropping computers is a closely guarded secret….”

 

“The NSA is a giant vacuum cleaner. It sucks in every form of electronic information, from telephone calls to telegrams, across the United States. The presence of British personnel is essential for the American wiretappers to claim plausible deniability.

 

“Here’s how the game is played. The British liaison officer at [NSA Hq] Fort Meade types the [NSA-supplied] target list of ‘suspects’ into the American computer. The NSA computer sorts through its wiretaps and gives the British officer the recording of any American citizen he wants.

 

“Since it is technically a British target of surveillance, no American search warrant is necessary. [Loftus’ italics] The British officer then simply hands the results over to his American liaison officer. Of course, the Americans provide the same service to the British in return….”

 

“According to our sources, this duplicitous, reciprocal arrangement disguises the most massive, and illegal, domestic espionage apparatus in the world….

 

“Through this charade, the intelligence services of each country can claim that they are not targeting their own citizensThe targeting is done by an authorized foreign agent, the intelligence liaison resident in Britain or the United States” [Loftus, pp. 189-190; endnotes omitted].

 

Loftus describes how the courts tried to shut down some of the domestic wiretapping abuses, and how the FBI succeeded in evading the judiciary. Then the Bureau got its dream come true with the FISA law, which only applied to U.S. agencies, not the British:

 

“In 1978 Congress finally passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Act [or FISA], a feeble attempt to stamp out some of the worst excesses of domestic espionage…. [But FISA] was restricted only to targeting by American agencies, leaving the British liaison officer with a major loophole. The restrictive language added to the FIS Act [FISA] left unchanged the arrangement under which the British wiretapped American suspects and then passed on the information to the NSA.”

 

“To this day Congress does not realize that the British liaison officers at the NSA are still free to use American equipment to spy on American citizens. And, in fact, they are doing just that. Congress has been kept in the dark deliberately” [Loftus, pp. 191-2].

 

Naturally, such dirty-trick U.S.-British spying schemes have led to political abuses. In a comment of eerie timeliness today, with the claims of Obama directing the wiretapping of candidate Trump through British intelligence, Loftus states that:

 

“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus, p. 195]

 

___________

 

[1] statement: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/senators-no-indications-trump-tower-subject-surveillance.html

 

[2] media reporting: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/14/judge-napolitano-three-intel-sources-say-obama-looked-to-brit-agency-to-spy-on-trump/

 

[3] reported: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/14/judge-napolitano-why-there-may-never-be-proof-even-if-obama-spied-trump

 

[4] AIM: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obama-british-intel-agency-conspiracy-to-spy-on-trump-exposed-by-nj-judge/

 

[5] fingerprints: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/14/plot-thickens-in-probe-house-it-contractors.html

 

[6] Fox: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/16/carlson_to_trump_why_not_gather_evidence_confront_intelligence_agencies_if_you_were_wiretapped.html

 

[7] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

 

[8] insisting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/16/sean-spicers-angry-lonely-defense-of-trumps-wiretapping-claim-annotated/

 

[9] denials: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39300191

 

[10] Loftus: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Jews-Espionage/dp/0312156480

 

[11] Secret War Against the Jews: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0312156480

 

[12] June: https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

 

[13] July: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

 

[14] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-wiretap-claim-obama-comey-congress.html

 

[15] admit: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/public-editor/trump-obama-wiretap-liz-spayd-public-editor.html

 

[16] claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/politics/kellyanne-conway-obama-microwave-surveillance.html

 

[17] February 14: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

 

[18] reporting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

 

[19] reported: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

 

[20] reported: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

 

[21] dossier: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

 

[22] Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

 

______________

Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano

John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

Further Reading:

 

https://www.intellihub.com/fox-news-pulls-judge-napolitano-off-air-after-trump-wiretap-claims

 

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2017/03/21/trump-vs-fox-news-on-wiretapping/

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/judge_napolitano_pulled_from_fox_news_airwaves.html

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/silenced-judge-napolitano-reportedly-suspended-by-fox-news-after-claiming-obama-used-british-intel-to-spy-on-trump_03212017

 

___________

WHISTLEBLOWER’S LAWYER: COMEY ‘FALSELY’ DENIED EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE

 

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2017 WND

_________

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism. He can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

 

 

The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office. COPYRIGHT 2016 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

Obama’s Saboteurs


Justin Smith nails the Obama criminal spying on political opponents straight on the head.

 

JRH 3/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Saboteurs

Undermining Our Republic

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/13/2017 12:30 PM

 

Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.

 

Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street [HERE & HERE], a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.

 

Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election [HERE & HERE]. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won, they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.

 

If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM [HERE & HERE] in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the Obama administration’s extensive surveillance of Trump’s presidential campaign was troubling but not surprising. Hatch “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.”

 

How could the media and the Obama machine — the Obama Foundation, billionaire George Soros and Organizing for America — not expect Trump to counter-punch? But incredulously, they were unprepared for President Trump’s March 4th 2017 allegation on Twitter that former President Obama “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory”.

 

Who in the Obama administration ordered the FISA wiretaps and why?

 

U.S. citizens normally cannot be searched or subjected to electronic eavesdropping without probable cause of a crime, however FISA makes exceptions if there is probable cause they are agents of a foreign power. No one person can state with a straight face that “Trump is a Russian spy”.

 

Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a defense intelligence officer trained by the CIA (Fox News), said, “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before [Obama} left”. He also asserted that it was clear sensitive information was divulged to the media by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Shaffer on Fox & Friends Weekend

 

VIDEO: Lt. Col. Shaffer: Potential Obama Wiretapping Is ‘Soviet-Level Wrongdoing’ @OBAMAFORPRISON2017

 

Posted by Wesley Veras

Published on Mar 4, 2017

@OBAMAFORPRISON2017 SHARE IT/MAKE IT VIRAL.]

 

On the same day of President Trump’s bombshell, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, told Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox News) that the Obama administration was also “listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the Ambassador from Russia while he was in his U.S. Senate office’. (And) the fact that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act is being used to listen to a political opponent is “very, very damaging”.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Pirro/Lewandowski interview:

 

VIDEO: Corey Lewandowski: Obama Bugged Sessions Meeting With Russian Ambassador

 

Posted by The PolitiStick

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

Full Pirro/Lewandowski interview HERE.]

 

Please note that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many other Democrats met with this same Russian Ambassador. Their hypocrisy is on full display.

 

Some sort of surveillance of the Trump campaign occurred, if one can believe James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. Clapper told NBC and ABC News that during his tenure in the Obama administration, up to January 20th 2017, there wasn’t any collusion or collaboration between Donald Trump’s campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

The NYT’s story “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” on January 19th 2017 states: “The FBI is leading the investigation, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks … intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.

 

With FBI Director James Comey’s motivation suspect, he asked the Justice Department to confirm that President Trump’s allegation was “absolutely false”. This was followed recently with Congress’s demand for any and all documents concerning any Department of Justice investigation of President Trump and his campaign.

 

Once the Democrats had their “uh oh moment”, as Garth Kant of WND called it, they realized that a scandal bigger than Watergate was beginning to unfold. The Obama Justice Department had apparently used its legal authorities to target a political opponent and a presidential candidate.

 

Any outrage from the Obama White House is extremely exaggerated. Obama does not deny that Trump was being monitored by his Justice Department, and any spying on his arch rival, a man with the ability to diminish his legacy, was done with Obama’s blessing. Only a fool could believe that Obama was ignorant of the spying. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

From the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email records, to heavy IRS scrutiny of the Tea Party and on to the NSA’s warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. Obama’s and the Leftists’ so-called “Resistance” to the Trump administration has developed the feel of a not-so-covert coup against President Trump. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

Americans are entitled to the full truth surrounding former President Obama’s use of nation-state resources for the purposes of political gain. Sycophantic rogue agents of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department, all Democrat ideologues and communists, have apparently subverted the U.S. Constitution and spied on President Trump’s presidential campaign in a manner that was not approved by any court, in order to derail his election and the Democratic process, leaking sensitive national security secrets along the way. And anyone involved, including Obama, must be prosecuted and placed behind bars. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Russia/Trump Hacked DNC? NOT!


hillary-worked-married-is-liar

John R. Houk

© November 2, 2016

 

Do remember in the Trump-Hillary debates that Crooked Hillary said the Russians are trying to elect Trump and the proof is that seventeen different U.S. Intelligence agencies claimed that Russia was behind the DNC hacks that Wikileaks was/is dumping for Americans to read?

 

VIDEO: The Quint: Final US Presidential Debate: Clinton and Trump on Vladimir Putin

 

Posted by The Quint

Published on Oct 19, 2016

 

The U.S. presidential candidates clashed over the issue of Russian hacking during Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas.

Both accused the other of not doing enough to combat foreign interests from influencing the US election campaign.
Republican Donald Trump said Russian president Vladimir Putin had no respect for his rival Hillary Clinton who accused Trump of failing to condemn Russia for an alleged cyber attack.

 

READ THE REST

 

YUP, SHE LIED!

 

JRH 11/2/16

Please Support NCCR

____________________

FBI: No Tie Between Trump and Russia

 

By Philip Hodges

November 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

The New York Times is reporting that the FBI has found no evidence that ties Donald Trump to the Russian government.

 

Most of what has been said by Democrats and Hillary’s campaign regarding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia and Putin are unsubstantiated claims. They’re pure conjecture. But if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes self-evident. And it gives Hillary’s supporters something to blame for all of her woes.

 

WikiLeaks

@wikileaks

 

No link between Trump & Russia
No link between Assange & Russia
But Podesta & Clinton involved in selling 20% of US uranium to Russia

 

8:48 PM – 31 Oct 2016

 

The New York Times seems to corroborate at least one of those statements made by WikiLeaks: 

 

For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

 

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

 

This seems to contradict claims from the left that FBI Director James Comey is “sitting on” information that indisputably proves Trump to be an “unwitting agent of Putin.”

 

Senator Harry Reid wrote a scathing letter to Comey in response to the FBI Director’s decision to reopen the Bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton.

 

“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Reid wrote.

 

Even in the case of Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the FBI’s concern over his connection to Russia had little or nothing to do with foreign influence over the U.S. election. The concern there was that he didn’t declare income that he had made in the Ukraine. Remember, what’s worse than a drug dealer or a terrorist in the eyes of the U.S. government? A tax cheat.

 

By now, Manafort’s ancient history. And what’s left of any supposed tie between Trump and Russia is so little that it doesn’t warrant any investigation. Ironically, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta have more ties to Russia than Trump does.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

_______________

Russia/Trump Hacked DNC? NOT!

John R. Houk

© November 2, 2016

_____________

FBI: No Tie Between Trump and Russia

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com is a member of Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved.

 

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism


Cliven Bundy 2

John R. Houk

© April 27, 2014

 

Last Thursday I was listening to a Kelly Files report on Fox News. Megyn Kelly was talking about a New York Times exposé on Cliven Bundy. The author of the NYT exposé was Adam Nagourney. The essence of what Nagourney wrote is that in an interview with Cliven Bundy is a racist old bigot proven by statements in Bundy’s own words.

 

Evidently Megyn had not had all the information to form a rebuttal to Nagourney. From memory it seemed Megyn – using an even-handed voice – was regretful that the hero of property rights and the public opinion against Federal government intrusion in appropriating private land or sovereign state land, made racist statements about Black-Americans. I would say public control, but we all know today that Obama and his cadre of Leftists in government does not view “public” as We the People, rather the Obama cadre system considers “public” the bailiwick of top to bottom control of the Federal government’s whim – even ignoring the Constitutional checks and balances of the U.S. Congress.

 

So at this point I kind of shut down on listening to any other reports on television news knowing that even if Nagourney’s information was refutable I probably would not hear. Even when everyone knows the NYT is an in-the-tank Leftist rag these days, its past reputation as an honest source of the news is rarely contested when a story is presented as fact rather than an editorial opinion.

 

In my mind I knew Cliven Bundy was an old legitimate western cowboy. I mean literally, he grew up punching cattle on a family ranch. You have to realize these guys have an individuality that brings to mind the old wild west of cowpokes on horseback riding the range. My grandfather passed away in his seventies in the 1990s. That means he would have about 20 years the seniors of Cliven Bundy who I believe is currently in his late 60s. God rest my grandpa’s soul, he was one of these old cowboys that worked both with horses and with sheep. A combination that would have been a bit contradictory professionally in the late 1880s and 1890s. Regardless of the time span I know from experience my gramps was an honest hard working man that worked seasonal jobs in his older age as a ranch hand or a sheep herder in which he worked in what was left of the open spaces. The thing about these old boys, rather they were hard living party cowboys or Church going cowpokes, they had a bit of a rough matter-of-fact demeanor.

 

Let me share a brief story about my grandpa in his last days when he lived in a Nursing Home. Every Sunday while he could get about we picked him up from the Nursing Home for a day at Church and either a home cooked meal or day of lunch at a restaurant.

 

One of those days we went to Church as usual. We stood during worship singing good old fashioned combo Charismatic-Pentecostal songs with a few contemporary worship tunes thrown in. We sat down and listened to the sermon. I have to be I do have a memory that the Pastor’s sermon was inspiring but I do not recall at this time what it was about. But this one thing I do remember. After we were dismissed from the Service by the Pastor my grandpa did his half-step walking thing with his cane to grab the Pastor as he was walking by to do the traditional pastoral well-wishing at the door. My grandpa got our Pastor’s attention because he wanted to say a few brief words. And trust me – they were brief.  My grandpa had his big whiskered smile on his and reached to shake the Pastor’s hand and said this to him:

 

“That was the best g*d d**n service I’ve ever heard!”

 

Check it out! Even today I can’t bring myself to spell out the words.

 

As the words left my grandpa’s lips to my ears, I was standing directly behind him with my draw dropped and my hands covering my eyes and head while it was shaking. I was incredulous even though I suspected something down to cowboy earth would escape his vocal cords. I dreaded the response of our Pastor.

 

Pastor raised his eyes with a twinkle in them and looked directly into my grandpa’s and with mirth in his voice replied to my grandpa, “Why thank you” – followed by a heartfelt chuckle and a firm handshake.

 

My Pastor with much welcome on my part defused a frightful situation for me. But you know, that was the kind of well-meaning sincerity without thought of circumstantial consequences for political correctness that was my old cowboy grandpa.

 

When old cowboys like Cliven Bundy or my grandfather say something like “negroes” instead of more politically correct Black-Americans or Afro-Americans. My grandpa was not as so-much a Church-going man like Cliven Bundy. If the NYT would have talked to my grandpa they would have heard a term pertaining to Black Americans that is considered heinous hate-speech today, but in the days of my grandpa’s youth would not have been among his peers to be a racist word. Just like I can’t spell out the complimentary profanity my grandpa used toward my Pastor, also I am not going to write the Black American word that is considered – and well should be – hate-speech today. I guarantee my grandpa would not have intended the offensive word to be racist any more than I believe that Cliven Bundy’s expression that perhaps negroes were better off in slavery than the slave-dependence of government welfare today. Indeed, I have heard respected Conservative pundits say the same thing but with much more eloquent terms.

 

Anyway, I have since learned that the NYT and Adam Nagourney actually edited the Bundy interview to show Bundy in the most racist light possible. I have discovered that Leftists like the NYT purposefully smeared the ineloquent words of Cliven Bundy and his old cowboy thoughts that not up to date to 21st century pc language that is more cognizant of what is hurtful and what is proper in a social setting.

 

I have three different stories below that expose the NYT and Media Matters exposé as Left Wing propaganda meant to show Cliven Bundy in the worst possible light and disarm sympathetic American voters from expressing derision against Federal government Big Brother overreach.

 

There are two WND articles below. The first WND article has a Bundy Peter Schiff interview. In the second WND article has two videos of Cliven Bundy making his controversial remarks about Blacks and Mexicans at the end: the first video is an unedited that the NYT and Media Matters did not want you to see and the second is the edited version that is being used to smear Bundy. (The Schiff-Bundy interview and the edited and unedited WND videos are not Youtube videos so I am not posting those.) Then last I have an Infowars.com article that has the Youtube version of the unedited version of the Bundy remarks and then Infowars.com places the edited parts in bold print to see the actual context Cliven Bundy was saying.

 

JRH 4/27/14

Please Support NCCR

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

BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST

Contends rancher talking about harm to African-Americans by ‘leftist socialism’

By BOB UNRUH

April 24, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

A prominent black leader is coming to the defense of embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was pilloried on Thursday after the New York Times published a quote by him referencing slavery.

“He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks,” said former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who also is a columnist for WND.

 

The New York Times, in a report by Adam Nagourney, said Bundy, in a daily meeting Saturday with reporters and photographers covering his case, made the comments that critics are calling racist.

 

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Nagourney quoted Bundy saying.

 

Bundy was recalling public housing projects in North Las Vegas.

 

“And in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch – they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do.

 

 They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do,” he said.

 

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

 

Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, told WND that the quotes were taken out of context and that his father was commiserating over the poor situation in which blacks find themselves because of oppressive government programs, regulations and practices.

 

Keyes said that was evident.

 

“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”

 

Discover America’s real black-white history, in “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White.”

 

Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.

“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.

 

“Now it’s racist to point it out.”

 

Ammon Bundy told WND: “They took what they wanted. They knew when they were there his comments were not racist. He wasn’t able to completely articulate. That’s just my dad. He is a very principled person.

 

He said he was “there standing right beside my father when he made those comments.”

 

“He was reaching out to the black community,” Ammon Bundy said.

 

“Growing up around him, and being beside him, I never once heard him say anything negative about any race,” he said. “I wish I could say that about everyone else I’ve been around. The black community, the white community, they joke back and forth. My father’s never lowered himself.”

 

Ammon Bundy said his father’s message “was taken out of context.”

 

The point was that the government “has kept them oppressed,” he said. “They’ve never been given a situation to be able to thrive, get themselves out of slavery.”

 

The Right Scoop blog reported Cliven Bundy confirmed he was wondering about what’s best for blacks.

 

“That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”

Video-Audio: Peter Schiff interviewing Cliven Bundy

 

 

Bundy, 67, has been in the headlines over the past few weeks for his defiance of the federal government’s demand that he pay grazing fees. The federal Bureau of Land Management responded with an operation to confiscate and sell off his cattle.

 

Bundy claims that since his ranch operation, run by his family for more than 100 years, was grazing cattle before the BLM existed, his fees should be paid to the state, not Washington. More than 1,000 supporters, including armed militia members, joined Bundy at his ranch in a standoff with federal agents.

 

The federal agents backed down April 12, released the cattle and left the area.

 

WND reported just days ago Cliven Bundy’s interview with radio talk show host Dianne Linderman on the nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show.

 

On Easter Sunday, he said he respects the federal government, pledging allegiance to the flag.

 

“But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that,” he said.

 

“I don’t stand alone,” he continued, “I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”

_________________________________

BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT

 

By JOSEPH FARAH

4/25/14

WorldNetDaily

 

First of all, let me begin by making an apology to Cliven Bundy.

 

In a slapdash column yesterday, I gave the New York Times more credit and credibility than it deserved.

 

I assumed, inappropriately and incorrectly, that the former newspaper of record had actually recounted the words of the Nevada rancher accurately and in context, given that there was an actual recording of the comments.

 

I was wrong.

 

After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.

 

To say the New York Times bent over backwards to make Bundy look like an unregenerate bigot would be an understatement. I suggest you view the video for yourself at the end of this column. Does he seem like a hater to you? Or does he actually sound like a man with compassion for blacks who have been systematically abused by a new plantation mentality imposed by government dependence?

 

I did get one thing right, however. I explained it wasn’t really Bundy the New York Times was out to get. It was his supporters – especially elected officials who denounced the heavy-handed and militaristic way the Bureau of Land Management went after Bundy and his family.

 

It’s called guilt by association – something “progressives” formerly denounced. But, in this case, there was nothing to feel guilty about, because Bundy didn’t say anything racist.

 

Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

For those of you untrained in the tactical and strategic arts of the totalitarian left, let me explain that terminology. “United front” has special meaning to only one group – communists. If you doubt what I, a former commie, have to say about it, just Google the term. See for yourself. What Harry Reid’s use of this term suggests is the left considers Cliven Bundy and all those rallying around his cause to be the most important target of the day. The “progressives” are apoplectic about this showdown in the desert. After all, they are supposed to be the champions of hardworking people. The government is supposed to be the friend and savior of working people. Yet, what Cliven Bundy has done, using “progressive” terminology, is to “heighten the contradictions” of socialist reality.

 

Therefore, as the left often concludes in such cases, he must be destroyed.

 

That’s why Harry Reid calls him a “domestic terrorist.” That’s why Harry Reid calls for a “united front” against this simple, seemingly powerless rancher. That’s why Harry Reid strangely said after the standoff in the desert was defused, “It’s not over.”

 

The left has big plans for Cliven Bundy.

 

The left sees Bundy as a real threat.

 

And I suspect that’s why the official mouthpiece of the establishment left – the New York Times – jeopardized what’s left of its own reputation by misconstruing and misrepresenting Bundy’s remarks.

 

He’s that dangerous!

 

That’s why it was so important to demonize him as a “racist.” They want to use him as a dividing point: Line up behind the “racist” or against him. That’s the strategy – even though race is not even an issue in the controversy Bundy started by merely doing what his family has been doing in the Nevada desert for over 100 years.

 

Do you get it?

 

He’s a symbol. For some of us he’s a symbol of a fight against encroaching tyranny. For others he’s a symbol of resistance to achieving their socialist panacea.

 

It’s the old divide-and-conquer strategy.

 

They can’t win with the facts, with reality, with truth. So they need to create a fog to obscure what’s really taking place on the ground.

 

Unedited video of Cliven Bundy:

Edited video of Cliven Bundy:

 

__________________________________

Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments

 

By Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 25, 2014

 

The controversy over Cliven Bundy’s “racist” remarks has taken a new turn after longer unedited footage emerged showing the Nevada cattle rancher making pro-black and pro-Mexican comments that were excised out of media reports.

 

VIDEO: Cliven Bundy (Full) Controversial Remarks April 19, 2014

 

[Blog Editor: I included the below information from Youtube that was not a part of the Infowars.com news story.]

 

Posted by Allen Gwinn

Published: Apr 24, 2014 8:29 am

**** UPDATED “PRE” REMARKS: http://youtu.be/v6xjGPmAckg
**** CNN soundbite version: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/…

Several comments here point out earlier remarks made by Bundy and claim these are taken out of context. In the interest of fairness, the above is a followup video of those remarks.

Full version of race remarks made by Bundy that have generated some controversy. If you’re looking for a more hacked-up soundbite version that makes him look more like a racist, you might want to check out what CNN did to him at the link (above)

 

The full clip illustrates how the original New York Times report edited out statements made by Bundy both before and after his supposedly “racist” remarks, which when taken in their full context actually constitute a pro-minority position. Media Matters also cut out these crucial comments from their YouTube upload of Bundy’s remarks.

 

Bundy’s full comments are reprinted below, with the parts not printed by the New York Times and other media outlets highlighted in bold.

 

…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

 

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

 

Let me tell… talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.

 

When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.

 

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

 

You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

 

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

 

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

 

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

 

While Bundy’s use of terms such as “negro,” “colored people” and references to picking cotton are undoubtedly politically incorrect (though not unsurprising for a 67-year-old farmer), when taken in its full context, his argument is actually anti-racist in that it laments the plight of black families who have been caught in the trap of dependency on government.

 

The comments that were also vehemently pro-Mexican were not included in any of the mainstream reports which smeared Bundy as a racist.

 

“What’s more sad than the refusal to openly discuss the issues – is how quickly the conservative right is willing to throw Bundy to the wolves based solely on the New York Times and Media Matters opinion,” writes the Conservative Treehouse blog, noting that Bundy’s comments are no more controversial than those made by Shirley Sherrod, who was staunchly defended by leftists.

 

While Bundy’s remarks have been spun as a racist call for a return to slavery, he is clearly using references to slavery only to make a point that blacks are no better off living under the economic slavery of the welfare state.

 

Furthermore, Bundy’s argument that, “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail,” is clearly directed at the government’s treatment of black people and is therefore a defense of and not an attack on black Americans.

 

“It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse,” writes Jack Flash. “And he’s not blaming blacks for the issues of abortions, and crime and broken families, he’s blaming the Feds. This is the exact opposite of a racist, this is an advocate for the welfare and best interests of blacks. Racist? Why is he praising Mexicans as better than whites, if he’s some sort of white supremacist racist?”

__________________________________

Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism

John R. Houk

© April 27, 2014

________________________________

BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST

 

BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
_________________________________

Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments

 

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

 

© 2013 Infowars.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved

Re: U.S. to Reassess Status of Talks on Middle East


BATNA examples 2

Ari Bussel sent an email that was actually an email exchange in which the subject was a New York Times article on Secretary of State John Kerry’s high handed efforts to force Israel to concede to the wants and desires of the Palestinian Authority’s desire for a sovereign Palestinian State at the expense of Israel’s territorial viability. Of course the NYT did not present the article that but that is what is happening under the Obama Administration via John Kerry.

 

The difficulty I am having is in the arrangement of Ari Bussel’s email. Bussel’s reply to his friend is really a great stand-alone article, but then the reader misses some of the context to which Ari Bussel was responding to and also the context of Bussel’s friend’s query about the NYT article to Ari Bussel. So in the end I am going with Bussel’s arrangement, but just in case feel free to read this post backwards. Ari Bussel’s arrangement is his own thoughts, followed by the inspirer of Bussel’s thoughts in Edward Story who in turn was inspired the NYT article by Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler.

 

JRH 4/6/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Re: U.S. to Reassess Status of Talks on Middle East

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 4/5/2014 9:54 PM

 

Dear Ed,

 

This was too good to pass; it deserves an answer.

 

A failure must be recognized for what it is.

 

One must fight the battles worth fighting.  At the very least, one must know history (and the lay of the ground as well).  A proper amount of strategy does not hurt either.  None was exhibited here.

 

Admittedly, there was no other choice.  Our President made up his mind, and since he is the Commander in Chief, we had to follow suit.  But at times, it takes courage to stand up and express a different opinion, to challenge a blind following in a wrong path; one that proved time and again (both Republican and Democrat administrations) it leads nowhere.

 

The only reason the US was involved in this process, whose end result-to-date one could have provided – as I did – with absolute certainty before (or as) it started, is that our President decided to add another Nobel Prize to the one he so richly already deserved (prematurely of course, to any real action to justify such a monumental recognition).

 

The President must be concerned with one thing, and one thing only – the wellbeing of the country he leads.  And when one positions the Israeli-Arab conflict of the past century on the forefront of the agenda, one misleads himself into a false reality.  The world understands there are more pressing issues.  Why can we not?

 

As the last few years under the Obama Administration have shown, we have a President who would rush to apply undue pressure on allies – from President Mubarak to the repented Kadafi.  It is the same president who stood idle in regard to the civil war in Syria, where hundreds of thousands were murdered, mutilated, raped, tortured and injured.  Many escaped from their country and are now real refugees (unlike the eternal refugees and their descendants ad infinitum that the United Nations and the family of nations are so focused on perpetuating, cultivating and supporting).  But Syria is not the focus of the US.

 

Our twice-elected President did wonders elsewhere – with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for instance (how gratifying, refreshing, awakening and effective was the slap on our faces that the infusion of billions from Saudi and the Gulf provided).  And with Iran.  And better yet, with Putin.

 

While the world is busy focusing on the titans, from Putin to Rouhani, the US, under President Obama, is focused on bringing a final solution to the world’s imagined problems – a “peace” between Israel and those who call themselves “Palestinians.”  The false supposition we are given is:  If only there were peace in that region, all the world’s problems would miraculously disappear. 

 

Except, Israel is the only stable country in the Middle East, and the “Palestinian” issue that never before bothered its Arab brethren is unimportant to the Arabs now either.  Billions were spent on these “refugees,” and to what end?  Is there better infrastructure, maybe schools?  There is only the perpetuation of a myth, to one purpose:  harm Israel and bring her downfall.

 

Let us try to understand what it is we are promoting.  Israel needs to make “painful concessions.”  Israel needs to allow the cancer that has spread to conquer another organ, and another.  Here the liver, there the lungs, alas – the brain too! 

 

Has anyone fighting cancer ever “treated” the problem by allowing it to spread?  Yes, take over the kidneys, just leave me alone!  We will live, side-by-side, in peace, for ever and ever!  (If it sounds stupid, it is indeed.)

 

What is clearly needed is not yet another painful concession by Israel or the release of hundreds of murders or terrorists with much blood on their hands.

 

And America has failed in relaying this exact point.  The “Palestinians” do not want “Peace.”  They say so in their own words and they act accordingly.  They feel strength, of a weak world leadership falling into the ditch they dug, getting caught in the web of a thousand and one Arabian nights. 

 

Besides, who exactly are those “Palestinians?”  We chose a side, clearly the wrong side.  There is a democratically-elected government in Gaza that claims to truly and accurately represent the “Peoplehood,” “Nationhood” and the very being of this congregation of clans and tribes.

 

Possibly if we focused on Hamas, which we declared to be a terrorist organization, we would better serve everyone’s true needs.  We would crash the aspirations of those who live in an illusionary world, bringing them back to reality, and we would act – as we should have acted long ago – to crash anyone who promotes terrorism, targets civilians and has no value to human life – theirs, their women or anyone else’s.

 

This is what had to be done, and eventually it will happen.  We must face reality.  Israeli Arabs are part of the Jewish State of Israel.  The vast majority does not want to change the status quo.  The Arabs who for the past 20 years have cultivated an idea they can carve out parts of the Jewish State of Israel and then take over the rest are sorely mistaken, and one must correct them.  “Palestine” under British Mandate extended way beyond the Jordan River.  Today’s Jordan, with a majority “Palestinians” is indeed part of the same “homeland,” but a homeland to whom is it?

 

Those who today define themselves as “Palestinians” are descendants of immigrants from Egypt and elsewhere who came to improve their lives.  They came for better economic conditions.  They multiplied and expanded and became numerous as the grains of sand or the stars in the sky.  But that does not provide them ownership of the land or its three thousand year history.

 

They built huge structures in the air, but they have no roots.  This is why they are working to destroy and remove our own roots.  Temple Mount was never Jewish, they say, and the Jews have no connection to it.  Remove hundreds of truckloads of archeological artifacts and repeat the nonsense so often, one starts believing it.

 

Imagine our own illegal immigrants claiming that the United States of America does not belong to Americans, never did and that the world must fight with all its power against the very idea, the very evil thought, that Americans call the USA their home.  Well, we are not Mexico, nor do I think that we should ever go back to England because illegal immigrants decided that we have no claim here.  (I must admit, though, that my family has only lived here one century, so we should indeed go back to Europe!)

 

The difference is two-fold.  First, our history only goes back to 1776, and maybe a few more years, whereas Israel’s is millennia in the making.

 

Second, would any sane American ever raise his head up high and say, “Indeed, we must negotiate with the immigrants to allow them their own cities, rule of law, airports and highways, banking system and infrastructure?”

 

Will any sane American say “we must stop all construction of homes and apartments since the land is not our land?”

 

Or maybe there would be someone promoting the imperative that “all prisoners in our prisons must be released since they are ‘freedom fighters,’ held illegally in American prisons?”

 

Apparently what we are trying to force upon Israel is something we would not spent a fraction of a thought to apply to ourselves.

 

Our Secretary of State wanted to force feed Israel a recipe no one wants, needs or can digest.  So it was bound to fail from the start.  The guaranteed defeat is not “Power,” nor can anyone word-play it into an achievement.  And at times, it is quite healthy to admit a defeat, regroup, derive the lessons and implement a new strategy.

 

Let Israel and her enemies work a “peace” agreement among themselves.  No one in the neighborhood, or the world for that matter, trusts this superpower (us) any more.  Those on the ground will have no choice but to fight it out, until one side or the other gives up, or changes its approach.  Regrettably, I am not sure that Israel will have the upper hand in the immediate future, although I am certain we will survive and prevail as we have done for two thousand long years, for Israelis, too, brainwashed themselves with a notion of a “Palestine” and “Palestinian People.”  (All, incidentally, taken directly from the textbooks of propaganda taught to Arafat in the former Soviet Union.)

 

Our Secretary of State, out of “real” concern to Israel’s wellbeing and her growing “isolation,” came to the rescue.  A rescue that to me looked like an attempt to further drown the person than try to save her or to rape again the victim that was repeatedly and brutally raped out of true concern and care.

 

Everyone in the immediate neighborhood understands the weakness of the US of A.  The signals are clear:  We are weak.  We thrash our friends.  We are afraid and would not dare act against either bullies or enemies.  We are indeed a great, “Peaceful”-loving nation (like a “religion” that touts to be peace-loving).  In the Middle East, the former Soviet Union and apparently everywhere else around the world, no one would even piss on such a creature.

 

These are harsh words, so ask anyone who has ever been to a battlefield, say in Iraq or Afghanistan, how are we looked upon in the world, by our own doing.

 

As much as it aches, this is OUR US OF A.

 

So let us turn to MY ISRAEL.

 

Our (Israel’s) situation is not much better, at all.  For the past two decades, we have immersed ourselves in an illusion that if we only take parts of Israel and give them away, there will be peace.

 

What we should have done is quite different, and very simple.

 

Israel – between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean – is the only Jewish State in the world.  Judea and Samaria (including Jerusalem) should have been annexed.

 

Every country that has its embassy not in Israel’s capital – Jerusalem – should have received a clear, unequivocal message – we only have one capital, where we conduct business, nowhere else.

 

The minute we start taking ourselves seriously, so would the world.

 

And the world would like very much what it sees.  It is evident with Putin’s acceptance and the reaction to his actions.

 

One must learn a lesson from Israel’s experience (say of the last 65 years):  Being on the defensive can never lead to victory.  We have been on the receiving end for way too long.  Did we forget the benefits of going on the offensive?  Twenty some years is a generation, so today’s generation in Israel knows nothing different than capitulation.  But there are still two other generations alive and kicking – one that fought and survived, the other that grew when the wars were raging.  They know.  They have experience.  They should take the leadership.

 

America should have never approached “the process.”  We have further weakened our position by acting like a prostitute:  “Here, take Pollard, give Jerusalem and the Israeli Arab murderers who have been convicted in a court of law for multiple life sentences.”  Luckily, Pollard is the first (and one of the only ones) who stood up and said – never!  Do not use me!

 

Another lesson to learn about character, some would say from a most unexpected place.

 

In America, too, there must be a change of leadership.  From foreign affairs to domestic disasters, we seem to be proceeding in the direction our Founding Fathers would not have approved.

 

Always,

 

Ari Bussel

____________________________

On Apr 5, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Edward Story wrote:

 

I have not always sympathized with Kerry, but in this case I do. He’s a courageous guy to even take on such a mountain of historical enmity, such an installed structure for continuance thereof, and such a multiplicity of parties – some visible, and part of the controllable process, and many, perhaps even most, not.

 

One can only hope that, by stepping away, the vacuum itself, will be persuasive to the sides. That said, it is an easy observation, although one that does have substance in many negotiations. Call it, as it often is: “walk away” power. Usually, it refers to one side or the other; in this case it refers to “the third party”: us.

 

And that moves the thought process toward the now classic term ‘BATNA’ [Blog Editor: Yup it is true. This editor was ignorant to the “now classic term ‘BATNA’. If you are like me you can understand HERE and HERE – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement] or, as it has come to be described: “the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.”  I would posit, here, that the BATNA is too easy, too simple, too “less painful” than a negotiated settlement may be perceived to be by certainly the Israelis and most likely by the Palestinian power structure, too.

 

Indeed, the article below ends with:

 

“Insofar as we find fault here, it is in the inability of either side to make tough decisions,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “For us to continue to invest that kind of bandwidth in the process, we’d need to see some investment from the parties.”

 

I suggest that the benefits of “peace” (however currently perceived) are not great enough to either side to keep this process – at its current configuration – proceeding toward an agreement. The BATNA is too great – for each side or at least for one of the sides to stop or curtail what momentum may exist.

 

IF, that is the case, then, other than our symbolically (or actually), walking away from the process, we, if the we – the U.S. – sees real value in a “peace” between Israelis and Palestinians, if this element of peace in the Middle East is truly a “high value target” for U.S. diplomacy, then we would have to figure out how to make the NA (“negotiated agreement”) far more attractive to both sides than the BATNA.

 

See below and let me know if you come to the same conclusion.

 

Ed

________________________

U.S. to Reassess Status of Talks on Middle East

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER

APRIL 4, 2014

 

RABAT, Morocco — With Israel and the Palestinians falling into a familiar cycle of tit-for-tat retribution, and a peace agreement more elusive than ever, Secretary of State John Kerry conceded on Friday that this week had been a “reality check” for the peace process.

 

But more than anything, it may be a reality check for Mr. Kerry himself. After eight months of diplomacy, more than a dozen trips to the region and endless late-night negotiating sessions with both sides, Mr. Kerry was forced to acknowledge that he may have hit a wall too high even for someone with his seemingly endless optimism and energy.

 

As he wrapped up perhaps the most grueling trip in his 14 months as secretary of state, Mr. Kerry told reporters he was flying home to Washington to meet with President Obama to reassess the peace negotiations and whether there was a path forward.

 

With this latest round of talks at risk of collapse, Mr. Kerry faces a setback familiar to many secretaries of state — the last dozen, to a greater or less degree, have tried and failed to broker a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians — but one that may sting even more, given the enormous personal investment he has poured into it.

 

There was an echo, in Mr. Kerry’s tone, of a frustrated outburst in 1990 by James A. Baker III, secretary of state under President George Bush, who read out the number for the White House switchboard at a congressional hearing and told the Israelis and Palestinians, “When you’re serious about peace, call us.”

 

Mr. Kerry is not about to give up on the process. But like Mr. Baker, he is dealing with two parties that are paralyzed by intransigence and fall back on provocations: Israel announcing new Jewish settlements and refusing to release Palestinian prisoners; the Palestinians, in response, applying to join international organizations and issuing a list of new demands.

 

Defying the failed efforts in Mr. Obama’s first term, Mr. Kerry has pushed the peace process toward the top of the administration’s list of second-term foreign policy priorities. Declaring at one point that his goal was to achieve a comprehensive peace accord within nine months, he pursued it with his own brand of personal diplomacy — and with a nothing-to-lose zeal characteristic of a defeated presidential candidate who views his current job as the pinnacle of his career.

 

But as he made clear on Friday, the peace process is just one issue on a crowded plate, from the Iran talks to Russia’s aggressive moves in Ukraine to the civil war in Syria — all of which are competing for the administration’s attention. On Saturday, Afghans go to the polls to elect a successor to President Hamid Karzai; in three weeks, Mr. Obama flies to Asia to try to revive his strategic shift to that region.

 

“We have a huge agenda,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that his commitment to the peace process was “not open-ended.”

 

Mr. Kerry’s hands-on approach, penchant for reworking his itinerary on the fly and legendary stamina have helped cement the accord to eliminate Syria’s chemical arsenal. But in the Middle East, Mr. Kerry has confronted a much tougher challenge.

 

With officials and analysts in the region preparing post-mortems on his efforts — and some finding fault with how he brokered abortive talks on Israel’s promised release of Palestinian prisoners — the White House rushed to signal its support for Mr. Kerry.

 

At a meeting with his national security team on Friday, Mr. Obama referred to reports suggesting that the White House had reservations about Mr. Kerry’s approach, according to an aide in the room.

 

“I see a lot of senior officials quoted about Kerry and Middle East peace,” the aide quoted Mr. Obama as saying, “but I’m the most senior official, and I have nothing but admiration for how John has handled this.”

 

Resume Video

 

Until recently, the White House had largely left the peace process to Mr. Kerry. But last month, Mr. Obama met separately at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, to urge both to sign on to a framework that would guide negotiations toward a final agreement.

 

When that effort fell short, the White House authorized Mr. Kerry to offer the release of Jonathan J. Pollard, an American convicted in 1987 of spying for Israel, whose freedom Israel has long sought. As part of a quid pro quo, the talks would have been extended through 2015, and Israel would have gone ahead with the release of Palestinian prisoners and slowed down building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

 

Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peacemaker who is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said the injection of Mr. Pollard into the negotiation complicated matters for Mr. Kerry.

 

Mr. Miller said Mr. Kerry was also handicapped by his success in keeping a lid on leaks about the details of the talks over the last eight months. “The zone of silence masks significant, substantial advances on the substance, but he can’t talk about them,” Mr. Miller said.

 

Analysts in Israel, however, also said Mr. Kerry failed to dispel a perception on the part of Mr. Abbas that Israel’s release of 104 Palestinian prisoners would include Palestinian citizens of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu never agreed to that, saying it would require a separate cabinet decision because it raised sensitive questions of sovereignty.

 

“The seeds of this were sown at the very beginning,” an official involved in the talks said, on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering Mr. Kerry. “The gap is, what did each side hear from Kerry?”

 

For all that, some experts said Mr. Kerry was so committed to his Middle East initiative that it was more likely he would push for a change in diplomatic strategy, perhaps by offering an American peace plan, instead of simply walking away from the negotiations.

 

Robert M. Danin, a former American official involved in the Middle East now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said such a plan would be the last card Mr. Kerry has to play. But given how hard he has pushed this process, Mr. Danin said, “That suggests to me that he may be contemplating a pause but not abandonment of his peace efforts.”

 

Mr. Kerry, in fact, was careful to leave open the possibility that the United States would seek a course correction, not a pullback. The months he spent nurturing serious talks, he insisted, were not wasted because the two sides had narrowed their differences on some key issues.

 

On Sunday, American diplomats plan to meet with both Israelis and Palestinians in the region. Even so, American officials said Mr. Kerry told the two sides on Friday that they must shoulder the responsibility of breaking this impasse. Over the coming days and weeks, they said, Mr. Kerry will discuss the prospects for a new approach with members of his team and the White House.

 

Still, Mr. Kerry also noted that the United States was facing an array of foreign policy challenges that were preoccupying senior administration officials. And the White House made it clear that Mr. Obama’s patience for peacemaking was not boundless.

 

“Insofar as we find fault here, it is in the inability of either side to make tough decisions,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “For us to continue to invest that kind of bandwidth in the process, we’d need to see some investment from the parties.”

 

Michael R. Gordon reported from Rabat, and Mark Landler from Washington. Jodi Rudoren contributed reporting from Jerusalem

 

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY

706 COMMENTS

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/kerry-says-middle-east-talks-are-at-an-impasse.html?emc=edit_th_20140405&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=41315241&_r=0

_____________________________

© Ari Bussel

Edited by John R. Houk

Benghazi – The Signs of Al Qaeda


NYT Propaganda Benefitting Hillary

The latest Benghazi Cover-up idiocy has been in the Conservative News Media and Conservative Blogs (Example: HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE) ever since the NY Times has evidently fallen prey (three-days later NY Times sticks to propaganda) to the Obama-Hillary propaganda machine. America’s Leftists/Liberals are running with NYT historical revisionism as an exoneration of Obama-Hillary abandoning Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to their deaths when there was ample time to beef up security and there is evidence a timely rescue could have occurred. Dawn Perlmutter writes an article today further exposing the NYT as a propaganda tool by adding some information about the Islamic terrorist organization Ansar al Shariah’s connection to al Qaeda that the NYT says does not exist. Believing the NYT is placing yourself on the idiotic end of gullibility scale. Read Perlmutter’s analysis of an al Qaeda connection to Ansar al Shariah the murderers of the Benghazi Four.

 

JRH 1/2/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Benghazi – The Signs of Al Qaeda

 

By Dawn Perlmutter

January 2, 2014

Middle East Forum

Also posted at FrontPageMagazine.com

 

The latest version of the Benghazi cover up is being argued with semantics of whether the jihadist group that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was part of the “core” al Qaeda network. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said,

 

“…at this point, we have no indications that core al-Qaida, which I think is what most people are referring to when they talk about, quote, al-Qaida, directed or planned what happened in Benghazi. …..So it is not the U.S. Government’s assessment or position that Ansar al-Sharia is an affiliate of core al-Qaida. We don’t recognize them as an affiliate of core al-Qaida… These folks don’t carry ID cards. They don’t come out and wear a t-shirt that says, ‘I belong to al-Qaida,’ right?”

 

I beg to differ. In addition to the tremendous amount of evidence and statements by members of the House Intelligence Committee claiming that intelligence indicates al Qaeda was involved and that Ansar al Shariah is widely believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda, there are simpler, more obvious indicators. Ms. Harf is correct, they don’t carry ID cards or wear T-shirts that say “I belong to al Qaeda,” but they do throw hand signs and leave graffiti behind in the same manner as gangbangers that just marked their territory after murdering their rival.

 

The quintessential image that is used in almost every news report about the Benghazi attacks depicts one of the assailants in a white T-shirt with an assault rifle posing with his index finger pointing up in front of the burning consulate. The man is seen in several photos making this gesture using both his left and right hands. This does not signify that he is number one. This gesture is one of the most prevalent Salafi jihadist hand signs. There are images of every al Qaeda leader, including Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and others, with their index fingers pointing skywards. Ayman al Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, is often seen in images making the hand sign. His former top lieutenant Mohammed al Jamal, of the Jamal Network, is believed to have had fighters in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound and they would be familiar with this gesture. In October, the State Department designated the Jamal Network as a terrorist group tied to al Qaeda.

 

Benghazi Terrorist Using al Qaeda symbolism 9-11-12

 

The hand gesture also appears on jihadist forums, protest posters, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and in almost every form of al Qaeda propaganda. It is also a favorite gesture among Chechen jihadists, members of the Caucasus Emirate, those most likely responsible for the recent suicide bombings that killed at least 31 people in the city of Volgograd, Russia. Their leader, Doku Umarov, has also been photographed making the jihadi hand sign. For Salafi jihadists groups, the hand gesture of the index finger pointing up represents one God and their willingness to die for Islam, thus attaining martyrdom and entrance into paradise. This Islamist hand sign is also commonly used by radical Imams around the globe while they are recruiting young men to join the global jihad and murder soldiers in their own countries. Although this hand gesture is one of the most recognizable signs of al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist groups, the Obama administration either overlooked, or worse, were unaware of the identifier when they portrayed the attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam film.

 

If there is any doubt that Ansar al Sharia Libya is affiliated with al Qaeda, the hand with the index finger pointing up is the central image of their logo. It also happens to be the primary image in the center of al Qaeda’s logo and al Qaeda-affiliated group logos, such as Jaish al Muhajireen awl Ansar in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, Palestinian Taliban and others. Similar to street gangs, symbols and gestures demonstrate affiliation with their larger organizations, such as Folk Nation or People Nation. Like the Bloods or the Crips, Ansar al Sharia should be viewed as one street gang in the al Qaeda Nation. Distinctions between “core” al Qaeda are irrelevant as these Mujahideen gang bangers share the same goals and the same enemies.

 

If the gesture was not enough, the Jihadist gangbangers also decided to leave their mark in graffiti. Two different spray-painted Arabic-language graffiti messages that read “Allahu Akbar” were scrawled on the buildings of the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya during the 2012 terror attack. Spray painting “Allahu Akbar” is becoming very popular among young jihadists who are vandalizing churches and war monuments with their battle cry in graffiti. Of course, the State Department could claim that the graffiti was just a benign expression of faith, except for the four dead Americans and the burned-out U.S. consulate building.

 

In combination with the quintessential photo of the assailant using the al Qaeda jihadist hand gesture, the messaging was clear that it was not an anti-Islam film protest. Of course, you have to suspend political correctness to be able to interpret the signs that are literally on the wall. Gang identifiers are visual or verbal ways that gang members identify their affiliation. Law enforcement is trained on gang identifiers so that they can recognize violent incidents as being affiliated with particular street gangs or Security Threat Groups. Unfortunately, training on Islamist identifiers is currently prohibited under the Obama administration, which is why obvious signs continue to go unrecognized.

______________________________

Dawn Perlmutter Director and founder of Symbol & Ritual Intelligence and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum is considered one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in the areas of symbols, unfamiliar customs, ritualistic crimes and religious violence.

 

MEFORUM Permission:

 

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. (http://www.meforum.org/3709/benghazi-al-qaeda)

 

©1994-2014 The Middle East Forum

 

About MEFORUM

 

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

 

Mission

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

U.S. interests in the Middle East include fighting radical Islam; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; developing strategies to deal with Iraq and contain Iran; and monitoring the advance of Islamism in Turkey.

 

Domestically, the Forum combats lawful Islamism; protects the freedom of public speech of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and READ THE REST

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left


Careful What Wish For - BHO toon

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

 

I do not own a gun however I am not pro-gun control. I am a gun rights kind-of-guy along the lines of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Leftists like to point out the part that says, “A well regulated militia”. This is as if militia equals a Federal government administered military. The next part brings greater context: “being necessary to the security of a free state”. The implication is that citizens of a sovereign State in the USA can ban together to aid in protecting their State.

 

The Revolutionary War was fought largely by a volunteer army to throw off the oppression of an unjust British government. The British chased that Blue Coat American army all over the place. In the mean time the British deprived Americans of their Private Property as well as confiscating weapons so they could not be used against the British army.

 

The Right to Bear Arms is the right of the “people”. Thus this excludes government control of civilian weapons because those civilian citizens have the right to protect their property from an oppressive government (whether foreign or domestic) or crime.

 

President Barack Hussein Obama is about to use the excuse of crazy people perpetuating massacres as a reason to limit the kinds of arms private citizens can own. Just like everything else this President has down to move the USA slowly to transform into a Socialist society like Europe, this President will eventually confiscate American arms just like the European nations have deprived their citizens to own fire arms.

 

This President is about to take a shot at the Second Amendment by attempting the Presidential power of the Executive Order to begin to take away the gun rights of American citizens to protect themselves from criminal acts  as well as from foreign and corrupted domestic governments.

 

Americans – We the People – need to stand against the intentions to track and disarm citizens depriving of the right to bear arms to protect Life, Liberty and Family.

 

Ann Coulter’s recent article is what started me on the path of indignant thinking concerning our government’s attempt to assault the Constitution.

 

JRH 1/10/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

Ann Coulter helps out Old Gray Lady with digging up actual facts on gun control

 

By Ann Coulter

January 9, 2013

WND

 

In Sunday’s New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing.” She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: 1) anecdotal observations; and 2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

 

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

 

Instead, Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”

 

So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

 

Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them.

 

(In any event, the Lott-Landes study didn’t recommend armed guards, but armed citizens.)

 

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia’s gun laws, as if it’s a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:

 

“‘After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. … Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent …,’ said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.”

 

“Ms. Peters” is Rebecca Peters, a George Soros-funded, Australian anti-gun activist so extreme that she had to resign from the International Action Network on Small Arms so as not to discredit the U.N.-recognized organization – which isn’t easy to further discredit.

 

Could the Times’ public editor weigh in on whether unsubstantiated quotes from radical activists are now considered full and complete evidence at the Times?

 

It would be as if the Times headlined an article, “Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer” with the sole support being a quote from Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry. (Except Terry would have evidence.)

 

Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun-control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn’t, because facts wouldn’t have given them the answer they wanted.

 

Needless to say, the effect of Australia’s gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban.

 

Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 – right after the gun ban was enacted.

 

The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban.

 

But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it’s the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)

 

Curiously – and not mentioned by Rosenthal – the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia’s 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements.

 

It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a “suicide,” it’s classified as “unintentional.” So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the “accident” column.

 

Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: “Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings.”

 

Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn’t even track mass murder as a specific crime category.

 

After Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” killers slaughtered the entire Clutter family in Holcomb, Kan., the murder rate in that quiet farming town went up 400 percent in a single year! Was it Holcomb’s big showing at the 4-H club competition that year?

 

Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach “control groups” at Harvard?)

 

New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia’s gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

 

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth – including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

 

While it’s true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

 

The only thing Australia’s strict gun-control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. Of course, Times reporters don’t have to worry about violent muggings, rapes and robberies because they live in doorman buildings.

 

For those who can’t afford fancy doorman buildings, bad journalism kills.

_______________________

Protect Life, Liberty and Property from the Left

John R. Houk

© January 10, 2013

______________________

Doing the research the N.Y. Times won’t do

 

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.