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


John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

YES, THAT INCLUDES FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

 

AllenWestRepublic.com Intro:

 

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

 

JRH 4/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

By JOHN NOLTE

APRIL 17, 2017

Daily Wire

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Q: So what exactly is this “sigint”?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

+++

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

 

By JOSEPH CURL

APRIL 20, 2017

Daily Wire

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Guardian painted the “facts” in dull hues:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Huh. What a very different story.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But The Spectator cuts to the point far more succinctly:

 

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

 

_______________

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

John R. Houk

© April 20, 2017

_____________

BOMBSHELL Report: Entire Western World Helped Obama WIRETAP Trump

 

AND

 

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

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, THE DAILY WIRE

 

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?


John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

 

Susan Rice is a typical lying Dem that unmasked Trump campaign staff names that did NOTHING illegal while using an investigation of Russian collusion/voting interference as a MERE excuse to politically impugn Donald Trump during the 2016 election and during the Obama lame duck period leading President Trump’s inauguration!!!!

 

AND even more reprehensible is the Left Stream Media either didn’t report on Ly’n Rice or defended her for doing nothing wrong while simultaneously still stick to the UNPROVEN – ergo lie – accusation the President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Crooked Hillary in the 2016 election cycle.

 

Susan Rice Lying to Americans on 5 MSM Networks

 

 

For any American to believe Rice’s words that she “leaked nothing to nobody,” were also duped by her lies about Benghazi and her lies the traitor Bergdahl was an upstanding loyal American: “He served the United States with honor and distinction …”

 

VIDEO: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With ‘Honor and Distinction’

 

Posted by PoliticalTurkey1

Published on Jun 2, 2014

 

Hmm … IF SUSAN RICE SAYS SHE DIDN’T UNMASK TRUMP SURVEILLANCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE HER!”

 

I have found loads of articles that question the veracity of Susan Rice and Barack Obama. The Left Stream Media will not take up the question of reliability because they are essentially a propaganda of Obama, The Dems and the Left in general.

 

I am cross posting two articles. One from The Federalist posted today and another from Fox News’ Adam Housley post on April third. At the end, I will provide some links (perhaps some excerpts) from other sources that pretty much have the same opinion about Susan Rice but may add some details lacking between each article.

 

JRH 4/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

By Mollie Hemingway

April 5, 2017

The Federalist

 

Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates’ information that was widely disseminated. Here’s why that’s significant.

 

Since Donald Trump won the election for president in November, U.S. media outlets have received and eagerly published selective, damaging leaks about him from anonymous intelligence officials. The general effort, which appeared highly coordinated, was an effort to delegitimize Trump’s election and paint him as a stooge of Russia or otherwise unfit for office.

 

The media outlets claimed their information came from very highly placed officials in the Obama administration. Even if they hadn’t claimed their anonymous sources were Obama officials, the information they were leaking, such as the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in surveillance by the Obama administration, would have been known only by highly placed intelligence officials.

 

As the publishers of the information that was illegally disclosed, many media outlets weren’t keen to make a story, much less a big story, about the leak campaign by Obama officials. This despite the fact that the same Obama officials who had run the infamous Iran Echo Chamber operation, in which reporters were duped into reporting the Obama administration’s spin on the Iran deal, had bragged that they’d continue a highly developed communications operation in the Trump era.

 

In early March, Donald Trump tweeted out a series of unsubstantiated claims:

 

Trump Tweets on BHO Wiretapping

 

 

Two weeks ago, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed that he’d seen dozens of reports featuring unmasked information on Trump and his associates and family members. He said these reports arose out of incidental collection during FISA surveillance, had nothing to do with Russia, were disseminated widely throughout the intelligence agencies, and contained little to no foreign intelligence value.

 

It should go without saying that the country’s powerful surveillance capabilities are not to be used against American citizens so that such unmasking should be exceedingly rare, be done for only the strongest reasons, and make pains to avoid the appearance of politicization. Nunes said the incidental collection might be legal but the unmasked dissemination of information about political opponents was disconcerting.

 

Despite the bombshell allegations, many in the media responded by downplaying or denigrating his news, distracting with process complaints, or quickly thrown-together stories from anonymous sources with no evidence claiming more breathless wrongdoing with Russia.

 

On Monday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg Views reported that sources said “Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, was conducting a review of unmasking procedures when he “discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities.”

 

Susan Rice was Obama’s National Security Advisor for his second term.

 

Again, many in the media are attempting to downplay, denigrate and distract, some are doing so shamelessly. Here are five reasons why this is a story worth covering:

 

1) Susan Rice’s Story Changed Dramatically From Two Weeks Ago

 

Two weeks ago, PBS’ Judy Woodruff asked Rice a very general question about Nunes’ claims:

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.

 

SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

 

I know nothing about this, she said.

 

Yesterday, in a damage control interview with prominent Democratic journalist Andrea Mitchell, Rice admitted her unmasking efforts and said they were routine. Mitchell’s 16-minute interview involved no tough questions. Mitchell asked, “Did you seek to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition?” Rice responded in the Clintonian fashion, “Absolutely not for any political purposes.” A natural follow-up would have been if she requested the unmasking for any other purpose. It didn’t occur to Mitchell. Instead she followed-up with the related question, “Did you leak?” to which Rice responded, somewhat confusingly, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”

 

Somehow Rice tried to claim later that her initial statement of having no clue about Nunes’ earlier claim was not at odds with her 16-minute answer about her unmasking efforts.

 

Rice has a reputation for dishonesty, most notably for her claim that a September 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans was a spontaneous result of anger at a video critical of Islam. At the time she said this, the State Department knew well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.

 

Rice also falsely claimed that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” when critics began raising questions about why President Obama traded high-value Taliban detainees and a ransom for the Army deserter. Bergdahl is expected to face a court-martial in August for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. His desertion was already known at the time Rice made her comments.

 

2) The Unmasking Was Related To Political Information

 

When Nunes first alerted the public about his concerns over the unmasking and dissemination, he noted that the information had nothing to do with Russia and had little to no intelligence value. Lake reported that Rice’s multiple unmasking requests were related to reports on Trump transition activities. She is said to have requested the identities of Americans in reports of monitored conversations between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition and in surveilled contact between the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.

 

“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration,” according to Lake.

 

When Rice gave her interview to the friendly journalist Mitchell, she gave a hypothetical example of when it would be appropriate to request an unmasking of a U.S. citizen’s name that was caught up in foreign surveillance. She said that if two foreigners were talking about a terrorist attack to be committed with a U.S. citizen, she would seek out that name. That’s a great hypothetical. And no one is making the claim that Susan Rice sought to unmask a Trump family member or transition member’s name because she believed they were about to set off a bomb. They are making the claim that the information in the reports was politically valuable and related to the Trump transition.

 

3) Susan Rice Worked In The White House

 

Rice was known as Obama’s “right-hand woman,” “like a sister,” and was his National Security Advisor throughout his second term.

 

Weeks ago, diplomat Richard Grennell said that if Rice were involved, that would implicate President Obama:

 

‘But within that realm there could have easily been a political calculation to listen in, and then to take those transcripts and the summaries of those transcripts, make sure that those in the NSC and the political people – like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice – make sure that they have them so they can leak them to reporters.’

 

‘I think that it would be easy to figure out if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes knew about this,’ he added, ‘because if they did, clearly President Obama knew about it.’

 

Even if Rice wasn’t working with Obama on this effort or informing him of her activities, her role as National Security Advisor means her unmasking request in this instance doesn’t make sense, according to Andrew McCarthy. If the identities of U.S. citizens had intelligence value, it would have been unmasked by agencies that conduct investigations, he wrote:

 

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence ‘products’ for the rest of the ‘intelligence community,’ they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under ‘minimization’ standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as ‘obsessive’ in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.

 

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

 

It is unclear what President Obama knew about Rice’s successful request to unmask information on Trump transition members.

 

4) This Substantiates Nunes’ Claim

 

When Nunes told the public that information about the Trump team had been collected, unmasked, and widely disseminated, many media figures questioned the legitimacy of his claim. With the news that no less than Susan Rice requested unmasking of political operatives, it appears that Nunes was onto something.

 

Also of note, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the committee, had been very upset with Nunes for telling the public and the White House about the reports he’d seen before briefing the committee. However, after Schiff saw the information, he more or less went quiet. He didn’t say the reports were a distraction or unimportant, unlike other Democratic operatives.

 

5) Civil Liberties Questions Remain

 

The most frequent defense of the Obama administration’s unmasking efforts is that incidental information collection on U.S. citizens is routine, and that requests to unmask that information about U.S. citizens is also routine. When we learn more about the widespread dissemination of such information, we can anticipate that the media and other Democrats will say that such dissemination is more than routine.

 

When Nunes revealed the collection, unmasking, and dissemination news, he specifically referenced the incidental information collection on members of Congress during the Iran deal. The U.S. spies on foreign leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. As a result, the Obama administration picked up information on politically valuable information:

 

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ‘a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ‘

 

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

 

The Bush administration also collected and used information on members of Congress this way.

 

In some ways, this “routine” defense of collecting and disseminating information on political adversaries is the most disconcerting. The federal government’s surveillance powers are intense, from metadata collection to surveillance of communications. Such information is easily weaponized and exceedingly difficult to oversee for accountability purposes.

 

As one journalist who used to be worried about such things wrote a few years ago:

 

Instead, the NSA’s approach of grabbing up every bit of information that it can guarantees that the metadata and sometimes even the content of legislator communications are swept up, and will continue to be available to a secretive class of executive branch employees for years to come. There is obvious potential that this will be exploited with abusive intent–it isn’t like we’ve never had a president try to spy on his political opponents before! But even absent any nefarious motives, incidentally collected data could damage the integrity of our political system.

 

Members of the media should try to cover, rather than cover up, this aspect of the story. The civil liberties of U.S. citizens are of vital importance and the unmasking of information on them should not be routine, not regular, and not a light matter.

 

The media have thousands of questions to force answers on regarding this important story. As Ari Fleischer wrote on Twitter:

 

About Susan Rice: The President’s National Security Advisor has authority to request unmasking of American names from intel agencies.

 

But in this instance, I am stunned by the lack of curiosity most media have shown about the facts and circumstances present here.

 

This is a good example of media giving soft coverage to President Obama while they’re hard on the GOP in general & Trump in particular.

 

Bear in mind, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his ‘honorable service’ & claimed he was captured ‘on the battlefield.’

 

She also said two weeks ago in a TV interview that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

I would have thought the media would ask tough questions. There is no reason this should be a FOX News and conservative press issue only.

 

If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collusion, not the WH.

 

How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)

 

The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?

 

If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?

 

One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.

 

It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.

 

It’s not just Rice. She wasn’t the only person to request the unmasking of Trump officials regarding politically sensitive operations, and she wasn’t the person who requested that Flynn’s name be unmasked, meaning she requested at least one other Trump associate’s unmasking. We still don’t know who committed the crime of leaking Flynn’s name to the Washington Post. It’s time to start working on covering this story, rather than running interference for anonymous sources.

 

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

 

+++

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

By Adam Housley

April 03, 2017

Fox News

 

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

 

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

 

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

 

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. “Spied on before nomination.” The real story.

 

5:15 AM – 3 Apr 2017

 

“What I know is this …  If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.

 

“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.

 

When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.

 

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

 

Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.

 

Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”

 

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

 

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s [sic] later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

 

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”

 

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

 

Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.

 

+++

SOURCES: SUSAN RICE BEHIND UNMASKING OF TRUMP OFFICIALS

White House counsel reportedly ID’d former national security adviser

 

By GARTH KANT

Updated: 04/03/2017 at 11:05 PM

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Multiple reports indicate former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was the Obama administration official who requested the unmasking of incoming Trump administration officials.

 

Mike Cernovich broke the story in an article in Medium on Sunday that said, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests.”

 

Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens whose communications were monitored during foreign surveillance.

 

According to Fox News, the unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were sent widely to top officials in the Obama administration.

 

That is a potential felony.

 

The unmasked names were reportedly sent to every member of the National Security Council, former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and some officials at the Defense Department.

 

The NSA is required to remove the names of Americans incidentally collected during foreign surveillance before sharing intelligence with other agencies unless there is an issue of national security, but Rice reportedly requested the unmasking of the identities of Trump associates.

 

Sources said …….

 

+++

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

APRIL 3, 2017

Daily Wire

 

In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.

 

Here’s Lake:

 

In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. 

 

Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.

 

This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.

 

And here’s another inconvenient fact …

 

+++

Benghazi Liar Susan Rice’s Treachery Continues

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

April 4, 2017

American Thinker

 

Call it the tale of two National Security Advisers, Michael Flynn and Susan Rice. As much as Flynn has taken fire as being an architect of unspecified “collusion” with the Russians, Susan Rice has been like the iceberg that sank the Titanic — barely visible above water but dangerous enough to threaten the Trump administration’s ship of state.

 

As reported by Circa News, Rice, while serving as Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested the unmasking of the names of Team Trump officials mentioned in the so-called “incidental” surveillance  of the Trump transition team:

 

Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.

 

Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.

 

The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.

 

Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.

 

Well, isn’t that special? While Trump’s pick for this sensitive post was under scrutiny, Obama’s adviser was doing opposition research which involved data mining classified intelligence reports. Rice requested the unmasking of names, something only three people, according to Circa, were authorized to do:

 

Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

 

If Susan Rice had worked for Richard Nixon, she could have been one of his Watergate “plumbers”, perhaps retiring as plumber emeritus. We are all familiar with Susan Rice’s tour of the Sunday talk shows after the Benghazi terrorist attack. That was no accident, but a calculated part of the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign to protect President Obama’s reelection chances and …

 

+++

‘Absolutely false’: Top Obama adviser denies she ‘unmasked’ Trump associates for political purposes

 

By Natasha Bertrand

April 4, 2017

Business Insider

 

Former national security adviser Susan Rice told MSNBC on Tuesday that allegations she “unmasked” associates of Donald Trump for political reasons while she served in the Obama administration were “absolutely false.”

 

Bloomberg and Fox on Monday reported that Rice had tried to unmask, or learn the identities of, officials on Trump’s transition team whose conversations with foreign agents — or conversations those agents were having about the transition officials — were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations. The Daily Caller then reported that Rice had created a “spreadsheet” with the names she had unmasked.

 

“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. [Yeah right, & she never lied about Benghazi either]

 

“I was the National Security Adviser.  My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s …

 

+++

Rand Paul calls for Susan Rice to testify on unmasking Trump officials

 

By Juliegrace Brufke, DCNF

April 4, 2017 

BizPAC Review

 

GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he believes former National Security Advisor Susan Rice should testify before Congress on her request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.

 

Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.

 

“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama?  I think she should testify under oath on this.”

 

Paul said he has long thought there are too many people with the ability to unmask individuals.

 

“The law says you can’t reverse target people, but how would you know that once you get inside the brain and the people that are unmasking people,” Paul continued. “So, what if I decided to unmask and I’m there and I only unmask the conversations of my Democrat opponents — shouldn’t there be more restrictions for unmasking people in the political process?”

 

He said he believes there should be …

++++++++++

VIDEO: Susan Rice Requested Intel to Unmask Names of Trump Transition Officials

 

Posted by Lionel Nation

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

BloombergView’s Eli Lake reports that White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.” Not this time. It was Suzie, kids.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

The Official Lionel READ THE REST

 

+++

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOSEPH DIGENOVA: SUSAN RICE ORDERED SPY AGENCIES TO PRODUCE ‘DETAILED SPREADSHEETS’ INVOLVING TRUMP

 

By ALICIA

APRIL 4, 2017

Patriot Tribune

 

I CAN’T SAY I’M REALLY SURPRISED CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SAME LYING FRAUD WHO GOT HER JOB AS NSA ADVISER AS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM OBAMA/CLINTON FOR BEING THE FRONT-PERSON IN THE BENGHAZI VIDEO LYING SCHEME.

 

And she did this all on her own, huh? Do you believe that?

 

Daily Caller:

 

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

 

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

 

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

 

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election. More

 

VIDEO: Hannity: Susan Rice has a lot of explaining to do

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Multiple reports reveal the former Obama adviser requested the names of Trump transition team members be unmasked.

 

+++

Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

 

By Richard Pollock

04/03/2017 10:08 PM 

Daily Caller

 

Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.

 

In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.” 

 

 

+++

No Proof of Trump-Russia Collusion but Lots of Evidence of Obama Spying

 

By Onan Coca

April 4, 2017

Constitution.com

 

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped the national media to shreds while condemning the Obama era White House for wrongfully spying on American citizens for political purposes.

 

Carlson argued that while media continues to focus in on some phantom collusion between President Trump and the Russian government, something for which they have NO PROOF, they are actively ignoring the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. Susan Rice, one of President Obama’s closest advisors, has been caught wrongfully unmasking members of the Trump campaign and transition teams for what seem to be nakedly political purposes. How do we know she did it for political purposes? Many of the reports now being produced show that the data that Rice was collecting had nothing to do with Russia or other national security issues, meaning that she unmasked the names of members of the Trump team without cause.

 

This fact is what Carlson finds most disturbing because it means that civil libertarians were right all along – there really is NOTHING we can do to stop the government from spying on us.

 

 

VIDEO: Tucker: Susan Rice revelation more disturbing than Russia

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Carlson then transitioned into a conversation with former Obama advisor David Tafuri, a conversation that grew quite heated when Tafuri argued that the Russia story was the real issue here. Carlson pressed, as he has done time and again with liberals and journalists, for Tafuri to present ANY EVIDENCE that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, for that matter, for Tafuri to present any evidence that Russia had any impact on the recent election. Of course, Tafuri could provide none, nor has any liberal politician or liberal member of the media been able to show a tangible connection between Russia and recent events.

 

 

VIDEO: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

+++

FAKE-NEWS GIANTS CLAIM SUSAN RICE SPY SCANDAL IS ‘FAKE’

Chorus of legacy media: Nothing to see here

 

By ALICIA POWE

April 4, 2017

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Is it a real story, or is it fake news?

 

That’s the raging debate about the exploding scandal over Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of incoming Trump administration officials when she served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

 

Despite some likening the White House use of classified leaks for political purposes to a scandal bigger than Watergate, media outlets Tuesday were shooting down – or flat-out ignoring – the blockbuster report that verified the Obama administration surveilled the Trump team.

 

 

+++

Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”

 

By Tyler Durden

Apr 4, 2017 9:47 PM

ZeroHedge

 

If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.

 

[Several MSNBC Tweets of Mitchell/Rice interview]

 

We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

Unfortunately, Mitchell’s list of questions did not go so far as to ask about her false claim in the PBS interview, in which she said “I know nothing about unmasking Trump officials.”

 

It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.

 

On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on …

______________

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

___________

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

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

____________

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: FYI, I did not get Fox News permission to cross post. If requested, this cross post will be removed.]

ACLJ Requests Records from DOJ and Intelligence Agencies …


bho-shadow-govt-2017

Even the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is sensing the existence of a Shadow Government within the American government. The shadow is being cast from the Leftist Democratic Party.

 

JRH 2/25/17

Please Support NCCR

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

ACLJ Requests Records from DOJ and Intelligence Agencies on Obama Administration’s Last Minute Expansion of Access to Intelligence Information

 

By ACLJ.org

February 24, 2017

American Center for Law and Justice

 

Today we delivered Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of the Director of National Security (ODNI), and the National Security Agency (NSA) to find out why the Obama Administration waited until mere days before a new Administration took over to implement a significant change in intelligence policy.

 

As we’ve stated before, this significant policy change appears to have a direct correlation to the exponentially increased number of intel leaks the Trump Administration has been dealing with.

 

By greatly expanding access to classified information by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, the Obama Administration paved the way for a shadow government to leak that classified information, endangering our national security, in an attempt to undermine President Trump.

 

While sharing information among intelligence agencies is not a new concept, and this isn’t the first time an Administration has made amendments to intelligence policy, the timing is suspect.

 

According to the New York Times, “[i]n its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” On December 15, 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper executed a document entitled “Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency Under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333.” In turn, on January 3, 2017, then-Attorney General Lynch approved these new procedures.

 

The significance of the Obama Administration’s new rules is a relaxation of previously established “limits on what the N.S.A. may do with information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.” What is also not clear, and what the ACLJ seeks to determine through its FOIA request, is why, after having the opportunity to expand the policy during its 8 years in power, the Obama Administration waited to change the policy just days before a new administration was set to begin.

 

Even the ACLU called this an “erosion of rules intended to protect the privacy of Americans.”

 

We submitted our FOIA requests so that we can get to the bottom of this significant intelligence policy change and expose whether this last minute move of an outgoing Administration was meant to facilitate leaks detrimental to the incoming President – by dramatically expanding the raw information that career intelligence agency employees can access.

 

Among other things, our FOIAs request any records or communications among and between government agencies and officials

 

referencing, connected to, or regarding in any way their approval of the procedures set forth in the document entitled “Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency Under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333,” which Director of National Intelligence Clapper executed on December 15, 2016, and which then-Attorney General Lynch approved on January 3, 2017.

 

The American people deserve to know the truth about how their government operates and the true reasons for the decisions it makes.

 

We will hold our government accountable by obtaining and examining authentic and authoritative sources for what actually happened, who was involved, and the reasons underlying these governmental activities.

 

_______________

DONATE to ACLJ

 

American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2017, ACLJ

 

The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.

 

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center’s purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution. A copy of our latest financial report may be obtained by writing to us at P.O. Box 90555, Washington, DC 20090-0555.

 

More Sifu/John Debate on Trump


John R. Houk

Sifu Mode

© October 13, 2016

hillary-the-criminal

Sifu and I continue our debate on Donald Trump. He posted the comment on the post that inspired the debate: “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. However Sifu’s thoughts are based on the cross post of his original comment on the newer post, “Trump the same as a Dem Administration?

 

I thought Sifu was a Leftist the way he came after Trump, but it appears I am mistaken. I went to his G+ page and it looks to me that Sifu is a bona fide Conservative. I can only guess he is a NeverTrumper. That is absolutely Sifu’s right, but I think NeverTrumpers will insure a Crooked Hillary election even if they vote for neither Hillary or Trump. Crooked Hillary will take America further down the tubes with a large amount of certainty. I’m willing to give Trump a shot to follow through or modify his campaign promises to make America great again.

 

If the NeverTrumpers turn out to be correct or Crooked Hillary is indeed elected, then I will abandon the GOP completely as in never voting for a Republican because of ineffectiveness. If bad scenarios evolve it will be time to replace the Republican Party with politicians actually accountable to Conservative voters rather than some elitist Establishment with an elitist agenda out of touch with constituents.

 

Since I was unaware of Sifu’s political persuasion I am not going to search for where I may have called him (or her) a Leftist. NeverTrumper Conservatives are still Conservatives. It is my humble opinion an elected Crooked Hillary will corrupt America absolutely. A corrupt America is not a good America. On a personal level a Trump gamble is better than a crooked and corrupt Hillary Clinton.

 

Sifu, if you are reading this, I have been researching and writing this piece for the better part of the day. I am too lazy to fix any of my accusations of you being a Leftist. I apologize ahead of time.

 

Sifu quotes me in italics text then offers his thoughts criticizing Donald Trump. I answer Sifu in bold text primarily defending Trump but also tossing in some Crooked Hillary barbs.

 

JRH 10/13/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Sifu Mode

10/12/16

 

+John Houk

 

I don’t see any massive growth of government

Look at everything he says he wants to do. Everything. It is by federal programs. He will have to create departments with staffs and budgets. He wants to continue Obamacare. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to try to run the economy like it is one of his businesses. If you don’t see it, that is you choosing not to.

 

I want Trump to run the Executive Branch like his business. Efficient spending rather than wasteful spending. If a project isn’t working, rather than making excuses or blaming someone else then scrap and start over – much like a high dollar bankruptcy restructuring for success. Frankly unlike most of my fellow Conservatives I don’t have a problem Big Government. My problem with government is private citizen intrusion and wasteful spending. Obamacare is a debacle of good intentions ruined by lies and deception and worse – INEFFICIENCY. I have no problem with healthcare reform, but a socialist system will be too costly and inefficient much like Veteran’s Healthcare has led to deaths.

 

Obama’s military reduction, idiotic rules of engagement and a strategy to lose rather than win has made America less secure. AND I like the idea of our allies contributing a fairer share of defense money or making a deal that makes our protection worthy of our cost.

 

Donald does want a higher minimum wage but not as high as the Dems AND he favors an Amendment 10 (10th Amendment Explained) action rather than Federal action on a minimum wage.

 

Donald Trump on 5/8/16:

 

No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number. You know, with what’s happened to the economy, with what’s happened to the cost. I mean, it’s just– I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide.

 

I understand the fiscal difficulties with rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them en masse; however, preventing more illegal aliens should be preeminent then work on getting rid of criminal illegal aliens then amnesty for working illegal aliens so that they can pay taxes and responsible for the rule of law like American citizens.

 

Trump Policy Page

 

 

Blog Editor: I suspect Crooked Hillary has her own version of cybersecurity that probably includes Bit Bleach and a hammer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Editor: The Child Care policy seems to me to be Liberal slanted rather than Conservative; however, it is practical for lower income citizens.

 

 

All these policies may have some government growth BUT they also enable government streamlining as well as economic growth which means job creation which means more tax revenue without raising personal taxes. That works for me as opposed to Hillary’s Leftist Transformative Obama-utopianism that destroys social and personal Liberty fabric of American culture.

Trump is not Hitler!

I never suggested he was. I pointed specifically to the fact that nationalism is not a binary good or bad, yet that is one of the only differences between him and Obama. This is not necessarily a good thing.

 

Hmm Sifu … You said, “Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good.”

 

Binary or not, the imagery alludes to the picture that Trump’s nationalism is comparable to Hitler’s Socialist Nationalism (Nazi: Comes the German “Nationalsozialist”, in English “National Socialist which is derived from “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”). It sounds like a Trump=Hitler image to me. I understand that “binary” in this case refers to the potential of good and bad, but there is a large disparity between Trump’s Nationalism and Hitler’s racial supremacist socialistic Nationalism. Trump’s Nationalism makes America exceptional and Hitler’s Left Wing Nationalism was imperialistic and genocidal.

Is Trump fascist? Well, remember, fascism doesn’t have to include genocide as Hitler did.

 

But fascism is despotic, supremacist and worse elitist statism as opposed to American Constitutional Originalism that limits the power of National Government.

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So, if we made a checklist
1. Nationalist
2. What the leader says, goes
3. Not allowed to criticize the administration
4. Harsh social regimentation
5. Harsh economic regulation
6. Strong central government
This description is more relevant to the current makeup of the Obama/Crooked Hillary domination of America rather than a limited government.

  1. We know Trump is a nationalist, so CHECK

BUT not a Socialist/Fascist National, so NOT CHECK!

  1. He is constantly saying he will impose his ideas, regardless of anyone else’s opinion, so the second point is CHECK

Again, NOT CHECK! If a person given a job fails, they are fired. That has nothing to do with imposing Trump’s will on WE THE PEOPLE such as Obama has done and the Obama third term via Crooked Hillary.

  1. http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/trump-promises-to-make-harsh-media-criticism-of-him-illegal-if-he-becomes-president/

Counter Current News – really? Sounds more like a Leftist rag concerned about litigation from a deep pockets billionaire when spin something into a lie.

 

From the link:

 

It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.

 

He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.

 

But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.

 

“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” Trump stated. “They’re terrible.” (Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President; By Counter Current News Editorial Team [too cowardly to pin a writer’s name]; Counter Current News; 2/27/16 9:51 am)

 

Time.com is a part of the Left Stream Media meaning it also provides slanted anti-Trump and pro-Crooked Hillary news bytes was a bit more even handed than Counter Current News:

 

Donald Trump won raucous cheers from his Fort Worth, Texas, crowd on Friday when he promised supporters that he would make it easier for them to sue journalists with whom they disagreed.

 

 

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said of a litigation wave against major news organizations. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said. (Donald Trump Promises to Make America Litigious Again; By Philip Elliott; Time.com; 2/26/16)

 

How is this an attack on the First Amendment? Trump is working within the law threatening litigation for a lack of honesty in reporting. It would not be a questionable Executive Order such as has President Barack Hussein Obama has done frequently in his bully politics.

 

  1. Just look at how he intends to shape society. He isn’t planning to free us to shape ourselves. He wants to do it himself with government authority.

Again Sifu you are confusing Trump’s government streamlining and waste-fighting with the Big Government despotism of Democrats under Obama. Which again, Crooked Hillary vows to continue:

 

 

 

 



  1. Trump plans to run the economy like he is used to running one of his businesses, NOT allowing the free market to work
    https://fee.org/articles/trump-s-economic-plan-higher-taxes-higher-inflation-and-higher-minimum-wage/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw3s6-BRC3kKL_86XDvq4BEiQAAUqtZ08FoUgqKY9afGUHmbY-aMZ9I66G8_CYHEaYydTHH_4aAuKA8P8HAQ

 

Hmm… The above link is largely the Dem talking points cherry picking Trump’s words and twisting them to offend Conservative Less-Government proponents. The whole article is such but here is an excerpt that mirrors Sifu’s above sentiments on the economy:

 

Usually presidents run on a platform of reforming government, cutting government, improving government, controlling government, etc.. After all, government — not the whole country — is their bailiwick.

 

But not Trump. He posits himself as the head of the whole country, running America the same ways he runs his businesses. He would stamp his name brand on the nation, as he does with everything else he owns, thereby imparting it with his own purported greatness. Probably the last president who was so open about his belief that he runs the nation was FDR himself. (Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage; By Jeffrey Tucker; Foundation for Economic Education; 5/9/16)

 

Now what gives weight to this evaluation by FEE is that the organization is guided by the Conservative/Libertarian thought of Austrian Economics. So the perspective definitely not Leftist, ergo kudos to Sifu for finding the Trump criticism. Nevertheless, I have said Trump is no Conservative in the traditional sense but rather an apolitical realist on making profitable deals that have little to do with ideology.

 

I wonder what FEE profiles about Hillary Clinton?

 

 

After years of toiling in the halls of power, the presidency finally seems hers for the taking. Yet, the closer Hillary comes to assuming the presidential chair, the closer Americans examine her public pose only to recoil.

 

 

In a word, many Americans find her “mendacious,” and the revelations regarding the appearance of the Clinton State Department’s “pay-to-play” scheme – delivering special access and favors to Clinton Foundation donors – is only the latest episode in a long series of scandals besmirching her trustworthiness.

 

The revelations – and there are more to come and they will never end – is shocking and not shocking. If you think government is good, clean, and constantly striving for the public good, seeing all this up close must be startling. Most thinking people long ago let go of their naïveté about government and therefore find nothing particularly surprising about any of this.

 

 

Where power may begin as simply a means to achieve one’s dreams, winning and wielding power ultimately becomes the dream itself. Compromise after compromise of principles is made for the sake of power. Sacrifice after sacrifice of others is offered for the sake of power. Lie after lie is told for the sake of keeping the truth of power-hungry dreams alive. One’s ideals become hollow pretense, mere words, and the curse of power takes hold, i.e. for every good deed done, two or three “necessary” evils must be committed.

 

Such appears to be the tragic tale of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

The Radical Turned Establishment Figure

 

In 1969, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis, titled “There Is Only the Fight,” on the work of that now infamous radical, Saul Alinsky. … At the beginning of his own book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky quotes himself:

 

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

 

That said, Hillary diverges with her role model Alinsky in her thesis on one crucial point. Rather than rebelling against the establishment to win her own kingdom, she would become the establishment. 

 

 

At this point, Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the establishment. 

 

 

Power Corrupts

 

Do Hillary Clinton’s “noble” ends justify her choice of means, her ambitions for state power?

 

In my opinion, the answer is a firm “no,” but I do not say this as something unique to Hillary Clinton. She comes from a long line of murderers and thieves dressed up in high ideals – the type of person Isabel Paterson once called the “humanitarian with the guillotine,” – those who, as Paterson wrote, cause great harm as “the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.” In step, Hillary is quick to downplay her mistakes and the “collateral damage” left in her wake in the name of her “virtuous ends.”

 

 

Faith in state power and the corruption that follows may not be unique to Hillary Clinton – before writing Clinton Cash, author Peter Schweizer wrote another excellent book, Extortion, outlining how our dear public servants systematically use their political power to manipulate those they supposedly serve – but Hillary’s career in politics certainly provides a crash course in how such a faith corrupts.

 

Whether it be her support of NSA mass surveillance programs, her penchant to centrally plan the American economy through a morass of crony capitalists enabling job-killing policies, or the Clinton Foundation’s global pay-for-play scheme, Hillary has in many ways become the very establishment she used to dream of replacing. She makes the ‘69 establishment President Richard Nixon look like a domesticated pussy cat, as she escalates America’s imperial wars, facilitates arms deals for Clinton Foundation donors, and continually lies to the American public about her own record.

 

Break with Alinksy [sic]

 

When did Clinton READ ENTIRETY (Hillary Clinton: A Portrait of Power and Corruption; By Joey Clark; Foundation for Economic Education; 8/26/16)

 

Sifu, there is the reality of the matter according to FEE. The Austrian Economic organization does not Trump’s economic plan because the Trump numbers do not conform to the Austrian model, BUT Mrs. Clinton is soooo Crooked that our government would slide further into a quagmire of corruption and despotism to elicit Leftist utopian ideology by hook or crook.

 

I’ll go with FEE’s description of Crooked Hillary and give Donald Trump at least a chance!

 

  1. Everything he says/promises, he intends to do through government power. He intends to grow government and its authority.

Trump worked within the law.

Legal! = right

A thing can be legal and still not right. Look to his usage of eminent domain.

 

Hmm… Trump has been criticized for using eminent domain to bulldoze widow Vera Coking’s house for a Casino parking lot, right? Well, not actually factual:

 

A Ted Cruz TV ad says Donald Trump “colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow” for a casino parking lot. Trump called that claim “false.” We wouldn’t go that far. He wanted to bulldoze the home but lost an eminent domain case. However, the ad leaves the false impression that the widow lost her home, and she didn’t.

 

After a long court battle, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Vera Coking of Atlantic City and said that she could keep her home. Trump eventually decided not to fight the ruling.

 

 

Two months later, the CRDA officially dropped the case, deciding not to appeal the judge’s ruling because the Trump organization said it was no longer interested in the properties.

 

So, Coking was able to keep her home for more than a decade longer until she moved to a retirement facility in California. Her house in Atlantic City was purchased at auction for $530,000 in 2014… (Widow’s Home Wasn’t Bulldozed; By D’Angelo Gore; FactCheck.org [A project of Annenberg Public Policy Center – biased to the Left]; 1/25/16)

 

The Leftist Website Think Progress give Donald Trump kudos for his eminent domain in a GOP Primary debate:

 

Donald Trump made the case for eminent domain at Saturday night’s ABC debate, arguing for the government’s right to seize property for infrastructure projects in exchange for appropriate compensation.

 

“Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country for our country. 

 

Trump is right. Eminent domain paved the way for major infrastructure projects now taken for granted in the U.S. Water supplies, highways, subways, and other sprawling public projects required the government’s power to buy private land. … (Trump Makes Surprisingly Reasonable Defense Of Government Power; By Aviva Shen; Think Progress; 2/6/16)

 

I realize the American Left will not agree but it is my opinion a President would utilize government eminent domain for infrastructure and pipelines – job producing projects that Obama failed to institute and undoubtedly so would Crooked Hillary fail.

 

By the way Trump lost his imminent [sic] domain case and complied

So losing means his unethical attempt never happened? His character is less blemished because he was stopped by an external source? No, he is still THAT slimeball.

 

Hmm… Did Trump’s big business agenda kill anyone – ever? Crooked Hillary’s Foreign Policy agenda did kill people – Benghazi! Compare Trump’s “slimeball” accusation to nearly an entire adult life of Crooked Hillary scandals (right along with Slick Willie):

 

  1. Benghazi: Committing Perjury or Lying Under Oath

Hillary has repeatedly committed perjury or lied under oath throughout her career. One of the most telling examples was during her Benghazi testimony when she claimed a video had inspired a protest that ended up killing Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. This was subsequently shown to be a lieHillary famously declared, “What difference does it make?” when the questioning got too tough, in regards to the causes of the American deaths and personnel she was supposedly in charge of protecting. She stated she had submitted all documents, but 20 months later, FOIA requests uncovered 41 new documents. Yet another lie.

 

  1. Faking Uncontrollable Fits of Coughing

Check out this compilation of clips where Hillary pretends she can’t stop coughing in order to avoid answering tough questions or testify on an issue at all. On the Benghazi issue, Clinton testified 4 months late to Congress.

 

  1. Email Gate: Illegally Mixing Government and Personal Emails

In the latest scandal over emails, dubbed Email Gate by some, Clinton set up a homebrew server to hold official Government property in terms of classified information. She also used her official Government work email to conduct private and personal business.

 

  1. Email Gate: Endangering National Security and State Secrets

Another aspect of Email Gate was the reckless endangering of Governmental secrets Clinton engaged in. Although many readers of The Freedom Articles will be all too aware of the way Government abuses the concept of national security, the fact remains that there is some need for it. Numerous officials have stated there is no doubt –zero ambiguity– that her emails endangered national security, due to the fact many were classified SAP (Special Access Program). However, she may have been doing this deliberately (see point 6).

 

  1. Email Gate:  Obstruction of Justice, Destruction of Evidence

Email Gate has many aspects to it. A further aspect is Hillary’s deliberate withholding (and deleting) of around 30,000 emails. Her excuse was that these were the personal, private ones, yet Congress had asked to see them all. Given what we know of Hillary as a cover up agent extraordinaire, what are the chances that she wasn’t deleting them to destroy information? It remains to be seen what will come of the deletion, since the FBI is reported to have the server and flash drives (with all the emails) in its possession.

 

  1. Selling State Secrets to Foreign Countries

Mike Rivero (WhatReallyHappened.com) puts forth impressive evidence that Hillary has deliberately sold US Government State secrets to foreign countries. She and Bill did this with China during Bill’s presidency. Hillary may also have intentionally set up her homebrew server with weak security that could easily be hacked, so that the hackers could get the information and Hillary could claim the problem was “weak or flawed security” rather than a deliberately set up situation to leak data.

 

  1. Bill the Rapist, Hillary the Coverup Agent

As I covered in the article Billary Clinton: Rapist and Coverup Team Par Excellence, Hillary has been covering up for Bill’s violent sexual escapades and rape for decades, threatening his female victims into silence, sometimes with death threats. Some of them have been outright killed.

 

  1. Failed Stint as Secretary of State 2009-2013

A State Department spokesperson could not point to a single tangible achievement by Clinton. Hillary wasted $80 million on an Afghan US consulate. She lost $6 billion due to improper filing of contracts. She refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group, leading to the kidnapping of 300 school girls. She called off internal investigations into her State Department involving the endemic engagement of prostitutes by her security, drug use by State Department contractors and the US Ambassador to Belgium soliciting male child prostitutes.

 

  1. A Giant Whopper: Pretending to be Under Fire in Bosnia

Hillary claimed she was under attack by snipers when she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia, 1996, but subsequent CBS footage showed her walking calmly along the tarmac there and even stopping to greet a young girl. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: NAFTA

This video (also embedded above) shows how Hillary has flip-flopped on the issue of NAFTA, saying to some people that she favored it (“NAFTA has proven its worth”) while saying to others she opposed it (“I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning”). Anything to get elected!

 

  1. More Lies: Gun or No Gun?

In the same video, Hillary claimed her grandfather taught her to shoot, yet later on, claimed she grew up in a house without any guns. Which is it?

 

  1. More Lies: Bringing Peace to Northern Ireland?

Hillary claimed she brought Protestants and Catholics together in a Town Hall meeting for the first time. However, as this video states, “negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday agreement in 1998 told the Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the grueling political talks over the years.”

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: Marriage Equality

Hillary has variously claimed that she opposes gay marriage and supports gay marriage at different times. It’s all about opportunism and pandering to a political base.

 

  1. Hillary during Watergate Investigations: An “Unethical, Dishonest Lawyer”

Bill Clinton was asked to serve on the special staff to handle the Nixon impeachment inquiry. He declined and suggested they hire his girlfriend Hillary Rodham instead. As Mike Rivero writes:

 

Hillary Clinton was later fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1974. She was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who stated, “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” he said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Zeifman refused to give Clinton a letter of recommendation, one of only three employees he refused during his entire career.”

 

  1. Blood Gate: Selling AIDS-Infected Blood

When Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas, he awarded a fat contract to a Little Rock company called Health Management Associates (HMA). The company was paid $3 million a year for “medical services” for the state’s prison system. The game was to pay prisoners for their blood ($7 per pint) then resell it at massive profits on the international plasma market ($50 a pint). HMA’s entry into the blood market coincided with the rise of AIDS in America, but HMA did not screen the prisoners’ blood, even after the FDA issued special alerts about the higher incidents of AIDS and hepatitis in prison populations. In Canada alone, more than 7,000 people died from contaminated blood transfusions, many of them hemophiliacs. More than 4,000 of them died of AIDS. In 1986, public outrage forced the cancellation of HMA’s contract.

 

  1. Whitewater Scandal

The Whitewater Scandal involved Bill using the power of office of Governor of Arkansas to build public roads to the Clintons’ private land. The Clintons and McDougals made money with real estate contracts for Whitewater property that included harsh clauses. This resulted in elderly buyers defaulting on land payments and repossessions. The habit of using State power to personally enrich themselves is a very common theme running through the Clintons’ careers.

 

Hillary was the first woman ever subpoenaed by a Grand Jury in relation to Whitewater. Pervasive conflicts of interest were discovered between Rose Law Firm (Hillary) and Madison Guaranty (McDougal). Billing records disappeared (presumed stolen) from Vince Foster’s office the night he died. They reappeared in the Clinton residence following their acquittal, covered with Hillary’s fingerprints. Susan McDougal refused to testify against the Clintons, so went to prison, but was pardoned by President Bill. 15 Clinton friends were found guilty of 40 federal crimes. This cost US taxpayers around $145 million.

 

  1. Cattle Gate: Insider Trading – Hillary’s Magical Trade

Hillary invested $1000 and turned it into $100,000 through insider trading. She entered and exited the market at the exact right time. According to economists at Auburn and Nth Florida University, 1995, who concluded in their study in the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the probability of Hillary’s trade being genuine and not an insider trade was 1 in 250,000,000! The broker involved was given a 3 year suspension.

 

The trade was connected to Tyson Foods, the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.

 

  1. Eliminating Drug Testing at the White House

In an effort, no doubt, to avoid embarrassment over Bill’s cocaine-snorting habits, the Clintons eliminated random drug testing at the White House through the appointment Patsy Thomasson.

 

  1. File Gate: The Clintons’ Enemy List

The Clinton Administration improperly requested and received FBI background reports on 900 Republican officials in 1996. These FBI files contained sensitive information on average American citizens. It turned into a “Compilations of Enemies” list. Hillary was the source of the requests. The NYT called Hillary a “congenital liar”. Congressman Bob Barr commented:

 

“Clearly what the Clinton Administration is trying to do is an orchestrated systematic effort to thwart justice, to thwart the rule of law, to thwart legitimate investigations by the Congress, whether it is impeachment proceedings or regular oversight  to derail investigations (and) derail prosecutions.”

 

  1. China Gate: The China Connection

Bill Clinton and Al Gore took money from rich Chinese donors who ran prostitution rings. Again in 1996, agents of the Chinese Government and military funneled money into the Clinton re-election campaign, Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Democratic National Committee, in violation of US law.

 

  1. Prison Population Explosion under Bill

The total prison population increased by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

 

READ 23 MORE (44 Reasons to NOT Elect Hillary Clinton;Makia Freeman– Editor; The Freedom Articles [Conspiracy Theory site, but I’m smoke/fire kind of guy]; 2/4/16)

 

A Crooked Hillary/Slick Willie list dwarfs any scandal linked to Trump primarily because the Clinton scandals demonstrate a Teflon get-out-of-jail elitism. Trump hasn’t even been close to felonious jail and potential treasonous activities.

He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics,

Having no principles and going as the wind blows to maximize your personal desires? That is the ESSENCE of “political”.

 

Sifu there is a vast difference office politics in business and politics in government or at least government in America. Office politics is accountable to the Board of Directors, Shareholders and/or the Boss. Politics in government in America are accountable to the voters Constitutionally known as WE THE PEOPLE. The Dems have lost the concept of voter accountability. Unfortunately, I believe, the Establishment Republicans have lost that concept as well. Politics is the art of power agenda to achieve an agenda that can be good or nefarious. I am uncertain if Trump has use Office Politics to break any laws. He certainly has been challenged on a civil level and he has done his share of civil challenges as well. The Clinton clan can easily be called a crime family due to the prosecutions they slinked out of and the prosecutions that never went forward. THAT THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT!

Your blog is attempting to make me sign up for a new g+ account to comment, so my comments will have to remain here.

 

Sifu I apologize for your G+ issue. That is truly odd there is a Google demand to sign up for a new account apart from the one you already have.

URGENT ACTION ALERT: Tell Legislator to Nix More Refugees


bho-welcome-refugee-wolf-sheep-clothing-toon

ACT for America has sent out a call to action email to contact your Congressman and Senator pertaining to Muslim refugee contractors lobbying to bring even more Muslims who more than likely have been taught to hate Americans and Israeli Jews from the cradle to the grave. I am joining ACT for America to get this info out and use the EASY online tool that you simply plug in your zip code and your Representative/Senators become a part of a mass protest.

 

JRH 9/15/16

Please Support NCCR

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

URGENT ACTION ALERT

Email and tell your legislator that you oppose any funding for any additional refugees

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent September 15, 2016 9:37 AM

 

Take action now to voice your strong opposition
to any additional refugee funding

 

We need you to take action now! 

Today, September 15th a group of federal resettlement contractors will be dropping off postcards to all of our elected representatives,demanding of an additional 200,000 un-vetted, third world refugees be admitted into unsuspecting American communities!

Predictably, these pro-refugee organizations have almost no concrete responsibility for the refugees they bring in, or the security risks they pose. After 4 months, the “sponsoring” organization doesn’t even need to know where the un-vetted refugee is living!

These federal contractors have disguised their financial incentive for additional refugees from the public, under the cloak of their “non-profit” status. In reality, these so called “non-profits” are receiving an absurd amount of money for each refugee they settle, courtesy of who else?You!

Think of it, the Obama Administration is taking money you worked for out of your pocket, and using it to not only endanger you, but permanently transform this nation beyond repair.

Further, each year, the U.S. Congress is directed by law to hold hearings on the refugee resettlement issue prior to funding this program.  The new fiscal year (2017) commences on October 1, 2016and as of now, NO HEARINGS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED.  This is unacceptable.

What your country needs from you is simple, yet powerful.

 

Please email your federal legislators NOW and tell them how categorically opposed you are to ANY funding towards ANY additional refugees and demand that they abide by the law and hold hearings on plans to fund any refugee resettlement in fiscal year 2017!

Click here to send our pre-written email to your elected official.

 

Congress has the power of the purse and it’s about time they used it, don’t you think?

We hope that you were able to reflect this past weekend on why your activism is so essential to our survival. It is hard to believe 15 years has passed since our nation received that fateful wake-up call from hell. But remember, “never forget” is more than just remembrance, it’s taking action!

 

Email your legislator now!

 

For Freedom,

ACT for America

 

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN WITH $1 A WEEK

_______________

Copyright © 2016 ACT for America, All rights reserved.

 

Our mailing address is:

ACT for America

869 Lynnhaven PKWY

Ste. 113 #411

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

 

Donate Page

 

About ACT for America

 

ACT for America is the nation’s largest non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots national security organization with 300,000 members and more than 1,000 chapters around the country focused on educating, engaging, and mobilizing citizens and elected officials to impact legislative outcomes to protect America.

 

We’re committed to recruiting, training, and mobilizing citizens community by community to help protect and preserve American culture and to keep this nation safe.

 

ACT for America stands ready to take effective action as the only national security grassroots organization in America. If each of us does just a little, together we can accomplish a lot. We are America.

 

Who We Are

 

ACT for America is the NRA of national security. We are the nation’s largest nonprofit, non-partisan, grassroots national security organization with 300,000 members and 1,000 chapters focused on educating, engaging, and mobilizing citizens and elected officials to READ THE REST

 

State Dept.: No Mention of Netanyahu Quid Pro Quo


islami-jew-hatred-in-color

John R. Houk

© September 13, 2016

 

While examining some of the G+ Communities I belong to, I came across a two-minute video of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the absurdity for blaming Israel for the disruption of talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Of course those talks are about proceeding with the deplorable plan of a so-called Two-State Solution for the existence of both the Jewish State of Israel and a sovereign nation of Jew-hating Palestinians.

 

As Netanyahu points out, the reason for blaming Israel is absurd because the reality it is the PA holding up talks with racist stipulations. The racist stipulation addressed in the two-minute video is that the PA demands that no Jews be allowed – EVER! – within the boundaries of a Palestinian State.

 

Netanyahu says this is comparable to ethnic cleansing because there is already a sizable presence of Jews of what the Israelis call Judea and Samaria and what the Palestinians (and most of the world) call the Occupied Territories or the West Bank.

 

Netanyahu’s reasoning is if the Jews must leave the homes established in Judea-Samaria then how would the world feel about forcibly removing Arabs from the State of Israel? It is absurd! The world would scream Israel is committing ethnic cleansing.

 

VIDEO: Netanyahu: There will be no ethnic cleansing in Judea, Samaria

Posted by Arutz Sheva TV

Published on Sep 10, 2016

 

Watch: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejects the idea that the presence of Jews in Judea and Samaria is an obstacle to peace.
Click here for more: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/217578

 

Unsurprisingly the Obama Administration via the auspices of the State Department were not very pleased with Prime Minister Netanyahu “ethnic cleansing” analogy.

 

VIDEO: Daily Press Briefing – September 9, 2016

[Begin at the 19:01 point]


 

 

Posted by U.S. Department of State

Published on Sep 9, 2016

 

Press Relations Director Elizabeth Trudeau leads the Daily Press Briefing at the Department of State on September 9, 2016. A transcript is available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/08/261239.htm

 

Elizabeth Trudeau the Prime Minister’s use of the term of “ethnic cleansing” but doesn’t address Netanyahu’s analogy of also expelling the million or so Arabs that are citizens of Israel under the same logic used by the PA. Why? Because if Israel expelled Arabs out of the Jewish State the American government would put the finger of ethnic cleansing accusation at Israel.

 

For the State Department to address the quid pro quo analogy would signal Obama’s antisemitism toward Israel. Ergo it is my guess – as is typical of the Obama led Administration – part of the details for condemning Prime Minister Netanyahu are left out merely to smear Netanyahu.

 

That is absurdly ridiculous!

 

JRH 9/13/16 [Hat tip: G+ Community Crushing Jihad and World Israel News (See Also WIN)]

Please Support NCCR

FBI: Yes, Queen Hillary Broke The Law. No, She Won’t Be Prosecuted.


Hillary Short Scandal List

Hillary lies – people died. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says, Don’t worry about it, we cleared the crook to run for POTUS.

 

Here’s an interesting note I heard on Fox News. Did you realize there were two investigations underway? Director Comey gives Crooked Hillary a pass on her illegal email at her private home, but she and other Clintons are still under investigation for receiving suspicious donations from foreign entities as compensation for nefarious political favors.

Clinton Foundation Foreign Donors

JRH 7/5/16

Please Support NCCR

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

FBI: Yes, Queen Hillary Broke The Law. No, She Won’t Be Prosecuted.

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

JULY 5, 2016

Daily Wire

Hillary gets away with lying

On July 4, 1776, the United States announced its independence from Great Britain based on the key principle of rule of law.

 

On July 5, 2016, the United States said, “F*** it. I’m With Hillary!”

 

Just days after the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch held a secret meeting aboard a plane with former President Bill Clinton – whose wife was under FBI investigation; just the day after Hillary leaked that she’d want Lynch for her own administration; just hours after the President of the United States Barack Obama flew Hillary – still under FBI investigation – down to North Carolina on Air Force One; just two hours before Obama was to open his campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton had clearly engaged in criminal activity worthy of prosecution, he had recommended that she not be prosecuted.

 

Because of course he did.

 

Here are Comey’s findings, which demonstrate full violation of multiple provisions of federal law:

 

  • Hillary Clinton utilized multiple “different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.” So she was lying when she said that she only set up the system so that she could use one handheld device.

 

  • Hillary transmitted classified information. Here’s Comey: “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.” So she lied that no classified information was received or sent.

 

  • Hillary did not hand over all her work emails to the State Department. At least three of those emails were classified “at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” Comey was kind here to Hillary – he said that there was no evidence that “any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Except, of course, that deleting such emails would be the entire purpose of having a private server.

 

  • Hillary’s lawyers didn’t read the emails they deleted – they just deleted stuff based on header information and search terms. “It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server,” Comey said. This would be destroying possibly classified material. And as Comey says, there may be a fair bit of data they never saw: “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

 

  • Comey admitted openly that Hillary’s team was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information….None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

 

  • Hillary knew that classified material was passing across her server; as Comey acknowledged, “even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

 

  • Hillary’s server could have been hacked, and some of her emails were likely hacked in other people’s inboxes: “With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” [Bold Text by Blog Editor}

 

So, Hillary lied. She lied that she never transmitted classified information. She lied that she only used a private server because she wanted one device. She lied that the State Department allowed her to jerry-rig this technological set-up. She lied that the emails were never breached.

 

But according to Comey, no biggie.

 

Now, Comey essentially admitted that Hillary violated federal law. As he said, “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” And Comey stated that the FBI had “investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.”

 

But no matter. The law doesn’t apply to Hillary Clinton. As Comey said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

 

No, we’re dealing with the Clintons. There’s a different set of rules for high-profile Democrats.

 

And no, Comey’s excuse-making that similar cases aren’t prosecuted doesn’t cut it. Here’s what Comey said:

 

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

 

Nonsense.

 

Past cases have focused on willful transmission of classified information to outside actors. But that’s not what the rule of law is. The rule of law says that laws must be applied as they are written, and they must be applied equally. Here are just a few of the statutes Hillary clearly violated, according to Comey’s own statement:

 

18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

 

18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

 

18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

 

18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

 

Yes, Hillary broke the law.

 

But the law no longer matters. The woman for whom the executive branch just manipulated the law will likely end up running that executive branch. God help us all.

 

John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that the purpose of separation of powers was to ensure that we establish “a government of laws, and not of men.” So much for that idea. We now have a government by the Obamas, the Clintons, the elites. And thanks to the Divine Right of Kings, they are not subject to the laws of the merely mortal whom they govern.

___________________

© COPYRIGHT 2016, THE DAILY WIRE