Whoops!

Was President Trump wiretapped during the presidential campaign? America‘s spy agencies say no. However, that doesn’t seem to be the end of the story.

The American Thinker posted a transcript today of an interview of Larry Johnson by CNN’s Brian Stelter.

This is the transcript:

STELTER: “Let me ask you about this thing.”
JOHNSON: “Sure.”
STELTER: “So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You’re saying you were one of those sources, but you didn’t know Napolitano was going to use you like that?”
JOHNSON: “What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let’s be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting.”
STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others.
JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”

Obviously, there will be more information on this story in the coming days. The question is, “Who ordered the surveillance?”

Circumstantial Evidence

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today that explains why President Trump may be right in stating that he was wiretapped.

The article reports:

“As far as I know from people I’ve spoken to and sources that I’ve reached out to about this, it is entirely plausible that in fact Trump in some way or fashion was bound up in some sort of wiretap,” Kredo (Adam Kredo, senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon) said. “My understanding is that during an investigation into possible ties to Russia and business dealings that a FISA warrant reached this kind of stuff.”

Kredo then presented a question that he believes Clapper should answer to clarify what he knows about the issue.

“If there was no such wiretap and that did not exist as he says, where did the transcripts of the conversations that reporters at the New York Times and others were passed along about conversations between Michael Flynn and Russian officials, where did those come from?” Kredo asked. “I think it is very curious that, if in fact there was no sort of wiretap, there would be no record of those conversations, when in fact we all know there is.”

It is time for Congress to take a really good look at this. Who else was or is being wiretapped? Has privacy become a thing of the past for all Americans?

 

Not All Previous Scandals Have Gone Away

Judicial Watch posted the following Press Release on Thursday:

Federal Court Hearing Tuesday, March 7, in Clinton Email Case, Judicial Watch Seeking Answers on Abedin/Weiner Laptop Emails

MARCH 02, 2017

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced a hearing will be held Tuesday, March 7, 2017, regarding Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails that were sent or received during her tenure from February 2009 to January 31, 2013, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Clinton regarding her non-‘state.gov’ email address (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). The case is before Judge James E. Boasberg.

Items of discussion at the hearing will be the emails of Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, Abedin’s estranged husband. Judicial Watch also will be seeking answers as to the timing of the release of Clinton’s emails that were recovered by the FBI in its investigation of the server used by Clinton and others.

The State Department has previously been ordered to produce documents to Judicial Watch, and is currently processing 500 pages per month from disk one of seven available disks. At the upcoming hearing, the State Department must address the number of documents subject to FOIA on the remaining disks.

The hearing details are:

Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Time: 9:30 a.m. ET
Location: Courtroom 21
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

The lawsuit was originally filed in May 2015.

At Some Point We Are Going To Have To Deal With This

There are some things going on in Washington that are under reported in the news. We as Americans are going to have to deal with these things quickly. Most of them have to deal with the actions of the former President and his undermining of the current President. Evidently the plans for undoing the Trump Administration were laid before the November election. Some of these actions would be envied by the Nixon Administration–they make Watergate look like the third-rate burglary that it actually was.

Breitbart posted the list yesterday. Mark Levin is credited with doing the research:

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5.  January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier.Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “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.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was  part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

President Trump is continuing to move forward on his agenda. That is good, but at some point the Justice Department that former President Obama is attempting to cripple will have to move forward with charges on some of these actions. The actions of former President Obama are a serious threat to our republic. This is not about Democrat or Republican–this is about a former President who is willfully undermining a current President. That is not acceptable behavior.

I Missed This Story Entirely

Townhall posted an article today about the Trump Administration’s war on sex trafficking. This is a story I totally missed, and I suspect that I am not the only one who missed it.

The article reports:

Since President Donald Trump has been sworn in on Jan. 20, authorities have arrested an unprecedented number of sexual predators involved in child sex trafficking rings in the United States. This should be one of the biggest stories in the national news. Instead, the mainstream media has barely, if at all, covered any of these mass pedophile arrests. This begs the question – why?

As a strong advocate for sex crime victims, I’ve been closely following the pedophile arrests since Trump took office. There have been a staggering 1,500-plus arrests in one short month; compare that to less than 400 sex trafficking-related arrests in 2014 according to the FBI. It’s been clear to me for awhile that Trump would make human trafficking a top priority. On October 8, 2012, Trump tweeted:

“Got to do something about these missing children grabbed by the perverts. Too many incidents – fast trial, death penalty.”

So where is the media on this? This is important.

The article further reports a February 23rd press conference:

…Trump gave a press conference from the White House addressing how human trafficking is a “dire problem” domestically and internationally. He gave further confirmation when he said: “Dedicated men and women across the federal government have focused on this for some time as you know — it’s been much more focused over the last four weeks.” Trump’s press conference was barely a blip in the mainstream media and the massive arrests have been almost completely ignored by the MSM altogether.

The article goes on to list the sex trafficking rings that have been broken up since President Trump took office. The article also postulates that the lack of reporting of this has to do with political leanings, not the idea of sharing important information with the public.

This is a story that should be shouted from the rooftops. It should put those people who engage in this horrendous activity on notice that their days are numbered–the authorities will be paying them a visit. Please share this story with everyone you can. Also, follow the link above to read the entire article.

A Question That Needs To Be Asked

You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, but you can ask questions about how it got out of the tube in the first place. Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today that asks a very obvious, but overlooked in the media, question about what happened to General Flynn.

Andrew McCarthy is a lawyer experienced in dealing the terrorism and other national security matters. In the article at National Review, he asks, “Why Was the FBI Investigating General Flynn?”

The contact between General Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak was appropriate–General Flynn was slated to be National Security Advisor under President Trump. He was making contacts in preparation for taking that job. It is also understandable that the conversation would have been recorded–the article states, “We are told that the FBI was monitoring the phone calls of Russian ambassador Kislyak under FISA. Makes sense — he’s an overt foreign agent from a hostile government.”

However, there is more to the story.

The article reports:

The call to Kislyak, of course, was intercepted. No doubt the calls of other American officials who have perfectly valid reasons to call Russian diplomats have been intercepted. It is the FBI’s scrupulous practice to keep the identities of such interceptees confidential. So why single Flynn out for identification, and for investigation? FBI agents did not need to “grill” Flynn in order to learn about the call — they had a recording of the call. They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.

The article also notes the timing of these events. The information about the phone call was released at a point where it was designed to do the most damage. We had the FBI and the press working together to undermine the new President.
The article concludes:
And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.
There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is rather lengthy but explains the matter much more clearly and fully than I did. It is time for all of us to become our own news reporters and investigate everything the major media tells us. Otherwise we will tend to believe the lies the press is promoting.

This Needed To Be Done

The New York Post is reporting today that the Trump Administration is beginning to make major changes in State Department personnel.

The article reports:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is cleaning house at the State Department, according to a report.

Staffers in the offices of deputy secretary of state for management and resources as well as counselor were shown the door Thursday, according to CBS News.

Many of those let go were on the building’s seventh floor — top-floor bigs — a symbolically important sign to the rest of the diplomatic corps that their new boss has different priorities than the last one.

The staffing changes came as Tillerson was on his first foreign trip — attending a G-20 meeting in Bonn, Germany.

“As part of the transition from one administration to the next, we continue to build out our team. The State Department is supported by a very talented group of individuals, both Republicans and Democrats,” State Department spokesman RC Hammond told CBS.

There are some of us who felt that the State Department worked against George W. Bush when he was president. It is encouraging to see the Trump Administration taking steps to prevent that from happening during the Trump Administration. This is just another appropriate part of draining the swamp.

Why It Is Necessary To Drain The Swamp

Yesterday Lifezette posted a story about problems with leaks in the State Department. This is a security problem as well as a political problem. We need to remind all those in the State Department that they work for the President. We also need to remind them that they are not the elected President and do not have the authority to run the government. Leaking information for the purpose of embarrassing an administration you don’t like should result in job loss. Hopefully under President Trump, it will.

The article reports:

Serious leaks have rocked the White House and likely sent top staffers searching for the individuals in the West Wing and Cabinet-level agencies responsible for the disclosures — some of which may have included classified information.

Washington and the diplomatic enclaves across the world were jolted on Wednesday night when two reports — one by the Associated Press and one by The Washington Post — outlined what Trump said to the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

…Since Trump took office on Jan. 20, the administration has been plagued by a number of leaks about the internal process. Some leaks have panned out, while others have been hotly denied by the White House.

The leaks include: a charge that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was not briefed on the executive order on restrictions on travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations; a charge that Trump ended a call with Turnbull; a charge that Trump said he could send troops to deal with Mexico’s “bad hombres”; and a charge that Trump asked U.S. Judge Thomas Hardiman to drive toward D.C. to increase speculation before the selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

There is no excuse for this. Cleaning up the worldwide mess that President Obama left behind needs the full attention and cooperation of those in the State Department. Using leaks to destroy a President for political purposes is not patriotic, in fact it borders on treason.

This Is A Problem

I grew up watching three major television stations report the news and reading one newspaper. I was lulled into a false sense of security that what I was reading and what I was hearing was reasonably fair and accurate. Unfortunately, even if that was true then, it isn’t true now.

 
Sean Hannity posted a list on his website of the stories the mainstream media misreported this week. These are important stories, and believing the mainstream media could easily lead you to numerous false conclusions.

 
This is a list of the stories from the article:

1.The left lost it after it was reported that Trump was easing restrictions on Russia. The news seemingly confirmed the Democratic narrative that Trump showed favoritism to Vladimir Putin.
In truth, it turned out that the “easing of sanctions” had been a “technical fix” planned under the Obama administration.

2. Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that President Trump threatened to send U.S. troops into Mexico.
The reports were based on a White House readout of a call between Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Trump.
Upon the release of the actual transcripts of the conversation, it turned out that President Trump actually offered to send U.S. assets to assist in Mexico’s fight with drug cartels.
Even the Mexican government vehemently denied the story.

3.It was reported that the mother of an Iraqi-born veteran of the fist Gulf war died due to being denied entry under Trump’s so-called Muslim ban.
According to the original report:
A local business owner who flew to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment said she was blocked from returning home under President Trump’s ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations.
The story eventually fell apart when the man’s Imam came forward and said that the man’s mother had died before the ban had even been signed.

4. On Thursday, the media ran with reports that Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch founded and presided over a club called the “Fascism Forever Club” while he was in high school.
The “evidence” for the claim came from the Georgetown Preparatory School yearbook from Gorsuch’s time at the school, and was first reported on by the U.K. Daily Mail.
As it turns out, no such club ever existed.
The “Fascism Forever Club” had been a sophomoric joke amongst the students.

5.Trump renamed “Black History Month” to “African American History Month.” “Donald Trump, turns out, did not officially change Black History Month to National African American History Month … it’s been that way for decades,” TMZ laster reported. “Trump’s official presidential proclamation uses the words, ‘African American History Month’ — but President Obama did the same. In fact, since President Carter … almost all Commanders-in-Chief have used the same language in proclamations.”

6. Last, but not least–the following tweets:


If you get your news from the mainstream media, there is a good chance that you are being misinformed.

George Washington Didn’t Have These Problems

When George Washington became President, he was a very wealthy man. He had been a successful land surveyor who used his profits to buy land in Virginia. He was a successful farmer, and eventually grew his Mount Vernon farm from 2,000 acres to 8,000 acres. Because America was a very different place then, he was allowed to enjoy the profits of his farm by putting other people in charge of it during his time in the White House. Class warfare had not yet reared its ugly head, and Americans were working together to build their country. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that spirit.

On Thursday, Townhall.com posted an article about the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Ben Carson as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spent a large part of her questioning wanting to make sure that no company connected with Donald Trump would be involved in any HUD projects during the time that Donald Trump was President. I agree that no company connected with Donald Trump should be given preferential treatment, but should they be discriminated against if they are the lowest bidder on a project?

The article reports:

Warren repeatedly pressed Carson over whether he could assure the American people that not a single taxpayer dollar would go towards contracts with any real estate companies linked to the president-elect.

“Can you assure me that not a single taxpayer dollar you give out will financially benefit the president-elect or his family?” Warren asked Carson.

The retired neurosurgeon promised he would not “play favorites.”

“I can assure you that the things that I do are driven by a sense of morals and values,” he said.

“It’s not about your good faith,” she replied. “My concern is whether or not, among the billions of dollars you will be responsible for handing out in grants and loans, can you just assure us that not $1 will go to benefit either the president-elect or his family?”

The article concludes:

“The problem is that you can’t assure us that HUD money — not of $10 varieties but of multimillion-dollar varieties — will not end up in the president-elect’s pockets,” Warren responded.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, the lead Democrat on the banking panel, echoed concerns raised by Warren.

Trump has an interest in at least one low-income hosing development — Starrett City — which Brown said posed an inherent conflict for the new leader of HUD.

Starrett City is a massive development in Brooklyn that sends Trump millions in revenue through rent. In his financial disclosures filed as president, Trump lists his 4 percent share in the asset as being worth between $5 million and $25 million. 

Brown pressed Carson to stay in contact with the committee if he — or anyone at HUD — has communications with anyone in the Trump Organization or the White House about development projects.

Carson said he would be happy to set up a process that identifies conflicts.

This is an example of why Ben Carson, as smart and honest as he is, should never be President. He was just too nice to this awful lady. I am not supporting corruption, but if Trump Enterprises can do a job better and cheaper than another company, Trump Enterprises should get the job. All you need is a blind bidding process. This is much ado about nothing.

One thing we all need to remember about having Donald Trump in the White House is that he is very rich. He doesn’t need to cheat to get rich. He doesn’t need to take donations to a foundation from foreign countries that want favors. He doesn’t need to take million dollar vacations on the taxpayers’ money. He doesn’t need to take items out of the White House when he leaves (if you doubt that the Clintons did that, read the GAO report (link and article here). There are also enough Trump resorts around the world to accommodate his vacations.

Senator Warren wasted her time during the confirmation hearings. She should have asked Dr. Carson how he plans to help poor families escape poverty. He is certainly an example of the fact that it can be done. If the government were more concerned about helping people escape poverty rather than simply adding to the bloated bureaucracy that only continues if they remain in poverty, the federal deficit would be considerably lower. It will be refreshing to see a HUD Secretary who wants to decrease the number of people dependent on government rather than grow the government infrastructure that benefits the government more than the poor.

Counting Your Chickens Before They Hatch Can Be A Problem

The process of making Hillary Clinton President of the United States began in 2012. Unfortunately for the Democrats (and fortunately for America), it did not go entirely as planned. But the party leaders were convinced that 2016 would see a Democratic sweep of the White House and the Senate (and maybe even the House of Representatives). That part didn’t go as planned either. But the Democrats knew they had the media on their side (some pundits believe that in the past having the media was worth 10 percentage points in an election) and they began to make plans. One of the plans was the ‘nuclear option’ passed by the Senate in 2013, led by the efforts of Senator Harry Reid. The ‘nuclear option’ changed the way Presidential appointments are approved by the Senate.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted a story explaining the irony of the situation.

The article reports:

In 2013, Sen. Reid and other Democrats pushed forward with a rule change dubbed the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters for all presidential nominations except Supreme Court justices. This means that a simple majority of 51 votes instead of 60 votes is necessary to confirm executive office appointments.

The Republicans are set to enter 2017 with at least 51 senators and can gain another seat with a likely win in the December senate run-off race in Louisiana.

So while Democratic National Committee interim chairwoman Donna Brazile has called for the senate to reject Trump’s nomination of Republican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Trump’s cabinet will get confirmed as long Republicans vote along party lines.

…Sen. Reid’s spokeswoman Kristen Orthman told The Washington Post, “Sen. Reid has no regrets on invoking the nuclear option because of Republicans’ unprecedented obstruction.” She added, “If Republicans want to go on record supporting radicals, that’s their decision and they will have to live with it.”

I find the last comment hilarious. Does anyone remember President Obama appointing Czars so that they did not have to be approved by Congress? Does anyone remember Van Jones?

I wasn’t overly impressed by President Obama’s White House Cabinet Choices, but I believe a President has the right to choose his Cabinet. Oddly enough, the ‘nuclear option’ should allow Donald Trump that privilege. One thing to be prepared for (it has already started) is that the media will attempt to label Donald Trump’s Cabinet choices as ‘radical.’ It has already begun. The Democrats do not have the power to vote down any Cabinet appointments, but they do have the power to work with the media to make the process very ugly. I suspect we will see a lot of that.

Have We Lost Our Minds?

On Thursday, Katrina Trinko posted an article at The Daily Signal about the reaction by some Americans to the results of Tuesday’s election. I guess I should say overreaction.

The article reports:

Just take this comment from someone using the handle “bess marvin, girl detective,” responding to a piece about liberal comedian Samantha Bee noting that a lot of white women had voted for Trump, and addressing “so-called progressive white Jezzies”:

So many comments over over the past few months shows that a lot of y’all don’t want to be liberated, you want to be liked. ‘My (insert relative, loved one here) is voting for Trump but he/she is the nicest, kindest person ever…’ REALLY? How about this? Your loved one or relative is an awful human being. How kind and nice are they that they would push aside everything Trump has said and done to pull the lever?

To which “LesPane” responded:

Some of us white folks did, and it didn’t matter. Some of us asked relatives to leave our houses, and it didn’t matter. Some of us told grandparents that they wouldn’t be see they grandkids again if they talked politics around them, and it didn’t matter.

Though we come from very different places, I’m not actually to blame for this. I understand and share your anger.

Parents denying grandparents access to their grandchildren because the grandparents voted for Trump?  Are the parents afraid that their children might hear both sides of the discussion? What kind of spoiled brats are we dealing with?

The article reminds us:

Again: What? What are the rights that supposedly Trump is going to take away? We’ve been living in a country where, as The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway tweeted, “Obama did sue nuns over birth control for crying out loud,” where religious bakers and florists have been told they have to participate in same-sex weddings, where an African-American fire chief lost his job over a book he wrote about his religious beliefs that included passages on same-sex marriage, and yet, the real threat to rights is from Trump?

Maybe I am looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, but I suspect a Trump Administration will treat most people better than the Obama Administration treated Christians. I would also like to point out that Christians were not rioting in the streets.

I voted for Donald Trump. I read enough Wikileaks not to trust Hillary. I was also around during the 90’s and watched the Clintons play fast and loose with the law back then. The Clinton style has not changed. I couldn’t vote for an obvious crook. I felt the same way when I voted for George McGovern in 1972, although some things I have learned since then have somewhat altered my view on the entire Watergate scandal.

At any rate, the election is over. It is time to remember that all of us want America to be free and successful. How about if the anti-Trump people wait a few months before they start complaining. At least give the man a chance to sit in the Oval Office once before you tear him to shreds.

 

Today’s Shiny Object

One of the main weapons the press uses to manipulate the American public is the choice of which news stories to spend time on and which news stories to ignore. When you look at some of the coverage in this election campaign, it becomes very obvious that the media has taken sides.

Last Friday, The Federalist Papers website reported the following:

Between ABC News, NBC News, and CBS, they covered the Trump tape for 23 minutes during one night of coverage. The Clinton WikiLeaks revelations got just 56 seconds of coverage — with NBC News omitting it altogether.

There are two major differences between the Trump tape (and subsequent spurious allegations) and the Clinton revelations.

First, what Clinton has done has enormous implications for the country and our lives individually. She was First Lady, a senator, and secretary of state. What she’s done as a public servant affects us greatly. What she has said she will do as president if she’s elected has massive implications for the future of this country and the western world.

What Trump said 11 years ago, lewd as it was, has little effect on any of us personally or the future of this country. It’s not terribly likely to have much of an effect on any of our lives — not in the way Clinton’s scandals and policies will.

Today the focus is on an answer to a question Chris Wallace addressed to Donald Trump, but never to Hillary Clinton.

Today The Wall Street Journal reported:

Charges that election results might be rigged have moved from the fringes of U.S. politics to a central issue in the closing days of the 2016 campaign as Republican Donald Trump has repeatedly and without corroborating evidence suggested a fair outcome may be impossible.

You will find some form of this story in all of the major news sources. There is no mention of the times in recent history that Democrats claimed fraud.

From an October 2002 issue of Newsweek (posted at prnewswire)::

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. “You know, I’m a fan of Clintonomics,” she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn’s art-filled Bel Air home, “and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress.”

This was two years after the election, and Hillary Clinton was still complaining that the election has been rigged. John Kerry is on the record as saying similar things. There was a definite effort by the Democrats to delegitimize both elections of George W. Bush. The media needs to remember this in their criticism of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Project Veritas has released videos showing illegal activity on the part of the Clinton campaign and wikileaks has released emails showing corruption within the campaign and the media has provided very little information on the subject. It is a safe bet that many voters have little or no idea of any of the information contained in those videos or documents. How are voters going supposed to make an informed decision when the media chooses not to inform them?

Lies And Lack Of Logic

I watched part of the Presidential debate last night and was someone confused by one of the claims made by Hillary Clinton. I remember the Heller case, and I don’t remember hearing anything relating to the case about toddlers. The Federalist website did the research for me. They posted an article late yesterday reminding us of the details of the Heller case.

The article reports:

It’s a lie so absurd that I honestly don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot: No, the Heller decision was not about toddlers. It had nothing to do with toddlers. Nothing. It’s no coincidence that the word “toddler” doesn’t appear in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case. Nor does the word “toddler” appear anywhere in the 110-page transcript of the case’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.

…No mention of toddlers. Because the case wasn’t about toddlers. It was about whether the District of Columbia’s “total ban on handguns” — the Supreme Court’s characterization of the law at issue in the case — was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that Heller, a police officer, had a constitutional right to own and bear a firearm in his home. It had nothing whatsoever to do with toddlers.

If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. But it gets better: after claiming that the Heller decision was all about toddlers, Hillary then claimed that the Constitution guarantees a right to partial-birth abortion, a practice that requires an abortionist to rip an unborn baby from the womb, stab or crush her skull, and then vacuum out her brains. Because Hillary Clinton’s top priority is protecting innocent children from violence.

I can’t even imagine who told Hillary Clinton that the Heller case was about toddlers or who thought the public would buy the lie. In the past, before the advent of alternative media, it might have worked. However, I am hoping the American public will investigate this on their own and see the absurdity of this claim.

Politicians Don’t Like Being Held Accountable

Generally speaking, politicians don’t like being held accountable. They don’t like being held to any standard of transparency either. This has been particularly true in the relationship between the Obama Administration and Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch is an equal opportunity government watchdog organization. The have investigated the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the Obama Administration.

Needless to say, they were more appreciated by Americans who wanted to hold their government accountable than they were by the administrations they were holding accountable. The Obama Administration, however, has reached a new low in its dealings with Judicial Watch.

On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that an Inspector General‘s report revealed the following:

Political operatives within the Obama administration wrongly punished conservative legal group Judicial Watch, stripping it of “media” status and trying to force it to pay higher fees for its open records requests, the General Services Administration inspector general said in a letter released Thursday.

The GSA botched several high-profile open records requests, delaying them for months while political appointees got involved, Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa said. The findings were released while the administration was facing charges of slow-walking open records requests for Hillary Clinton’s emails, as well as other requests.

In the case of Judicial Watch, the order to strip it of media status came from political operatives with long ties to Democratic causes — and even from the White House.

The inspector general said the decision came at the behest of Gregory Mecher, a former Democratic campaign fundraiser who at the time was liaison to the White House. He is married to Jen Psaki, a longtime spokeswoman with the Obama administration and its election campaigns.

 Ms. Ochoa said stripping Judicial Watch of media status violated several agency policies and things got worse when the GSA denied an appeal by the group.

The same person who ruled on the initial request also ruled on the appeal, “contrary to GSA procedures,” the inspector general said.

Judicial Watch ended up suing over the request, the agency finally agreed to waive all fees and even ended up paying Judicial Watch $750 as part of the settlement.

This is disgusting. We have entered a period of unbelievable corruption in Washington that reaches all the way to the top. We have had stories this year of archives of press conferences being altered after the fact to make the administration look better, now we have press credentials pulled on people simply doing a service to America.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. It is a basic course of the relationships among the elites in Washington. It truly is time to throw them all out!

I Guess The Scandal Goes Higher Than Previously Admitted

It seems as if the only people who have never actually read all of Hillary Clinton’s emails are the American people. There is ample evidence that the private server was hacked by at least one foreign intelligence service and some content from the emails has wandered on to the internet. Today The New York Post posted a story that indicates that the scandal went higher than was previously claimed.

The article reports:

President Obama used an undisclosed pseudonym to communicate with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her private email server – shocking her top aide Huma Abedin when she learned of it.

“How is that not classified?” Abedin “exclaimed” to investigators when shown a copy of the 2012 exchange between Clinton and Obama, according to a trove of 189-pages of FBI documents dumped Friday night into Clinton’s use of the private server.

After learning that the president used email with a pseudonym — apparently to try to protect his identity — Abedin asked her interrogators if she could keep a copy of the email.

A few thoughts on this. If President Obama was emailing Hillary on her private server, he knew she had a private server. That contradicts what he has publicly stated. Why was he using another name? Was classified material discussed?

It is now obvious that the email scandal includes the White House. That may explain why the Justice Department and the FBI decided not to press charges. It really is time to clean house in Washington. Hopefully Americans will remember that in November.

Character Counts

When George W. Bush was sworn in as President and moved into the White House, there were rumors about some destruction in various offices in the White House by the departing Clintons and their staff. I never posted anything about those rumors because I could never find a reliable source. Well, I found one–the Government Accounting Office (GAO). They were the ones that had to clean up the mess. The full report is here. I haven’t seen a source I respect detailing the items the Clintons allegedly stole from the White House, so I will let that story lie for now.

Below are some screenshots from the GAO Report:

gaopage-51gaopage69gao-page-70gaopage-59gaopage-60I have linked to the report above. It is 220 pages long. Reading through the report leaves me with a very negative impression of the Clintons and the people they brought into the White House with them. There is simply no excuse for vandalism.

 

Confirmation Of What We Already Knew

Kimberley Strassel has written a book entitled The Intimidation Game. The book details the attack on conservative speech by elected Democrats during the last two elections. She posted an article on NewsBusters today detailing some of what she discovered in writing the book. One of the more disturbing things detailed in the book is the attack on conservative (or Tea Party) groups through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The fact that no one was held accountable for this abuse of power is an indication that it is time to create a tax code that no longer requires the existence of the IRS. For whatever reason, we have reached the point where the IRS has become a political weapon. That is an indication that the IRS needs to go. In 1974, the Second Article of Impeachment of Richard Nixon read as follows:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to … cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

How far we have fallen.

The article at NewsBusters reports:

So Lerner, the IRS, Obama—they were all correct that the targeting fiasco started with a “line agent” in Cincinnati. They just neglected to mention that within twenty-four hours of that agent’s alert—and every minute thereafter—it was political types in Washington running the show.

When Koester talked about “media interest,” he was undoubtedly referring to the wall-to-wall coverage that had just followed the Citizens United decision. He’d likely seen the White House’s furious reaction to the Court’s decision to free up speech rights, and Obama’s dressing-down of the Supremes. He’d likely seen the Democratic Party and its media allies bang on daily about the evils of conservative “nonprofits.” He’d likely taken in the nonstop stories about the Tea Party gearing up in opposition to Obama, and how they were rushing into the (c)(4) realm. And he likely knew those groups were having an effect. Only a month earlier, Scott Brown had won that Senate race, against all odds. Koester was a prime example of how an executive branch—and a political party—can drive a story and make the bureaucracy take notice.

We know that one person in particular took notice: an ambitious partisan by the name of Lois Lerner.

Lerner shocked Washington with her May 2013 admission that her agency had harassed Americans. The shocking thing was that anyone was shocked.

Lerner to this day won’t cooperate with any real investigation; the nation has been denied the opportunity to hear her story. But e-mail is a wondrous thing. Between her records and the recollections of her colleagues, we have a vivid portrait of the former head of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations unit. She was a brassy, self-assured bureaucrat with Democratic leanings and a near-messianic belief in the need for more speech regulations.

I plan on reading the entire book, but Ms. Strassel’s comments in the article confirm what most Americans already knew–the IRS has been used by the Obama Administration to limit free speech. During the Nixon Administration, using the IRS as a political tool was an impeachable offense. Why? Because the media kept up a constant drum beat about the offense. Unfortunately conservatives do not have that media back-up. It is up to us to fight for our First Amendment rights. Unless more Americans wake up to what is happening, that will be a very long and hard fight.

Every Time I Think President Obama Can’t Further Offend Bible-Believing Christians, He Does

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality and gender. God created Adam and Eve. That’s pretty straightforward. There are a lot of voices speaking out right now in support of the concept of transgenderism. There are also voices stating that transgenderism is a mental illness. Suffice it to say that even among people who don’t believe in The Bible, the issue is not totally clear. Many of us do not want high school boys in high school girls’ locker rooms.

Today The Daily Signal is reporting on President Obama’s latest slap in the face to Bible-believing Christians.

The article reports:

President Barack Obama’s appointment of a Christian transgender activist as an adviser on faith issues represents part of a larger agenda, some social conservatives fear.

Last month, Obama named Barbara Satin, a man who identifies as a woman, to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Satin is the assistant faith works director for the LGBTQ Task Force and a member of the United Church of Christ, where she served on the church’s national executive council. The denomination is among the nation’s most open to the LGBT community. Satin has been the chair of GLBT Generations—an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people—since 1999.

“It makes sense the president would appoint a transgender activist as a faith adviser,” said Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy group. “It would be a bigger surprise if he appointed someone with traditional values.”

I don’t care if President Obama puts this man in charge of something within the administration, but to appoint him as an advisor on faith issues is simply an insult to many people of faith.

The article further states:

The council is charged with identifying the best practices for delivering social services, “evaluating the need for improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based and neighborhood organizations,” and making policy recommendations to the president and other administration officials.

The bigger problem is that the council is not representative of America’s faith community, said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council.

“This is more evidence that Obama is attempting a moral revolution pretending the percentages of America is as diverse as his faith council,” Stemberger said. “It’s not a proportional representation of America.”

He added this appointment ties in with the larger debate.

“This is directly related to the bathroom debate,” Stemberger said. “It’s an attempt to push conservative traditional people of faith on this issue. No world religion embraces this moral agenda, at least not in its orthodox form.”

The leadership of America has lost its way. Our leadership no longer represents the Judeo-Christian values our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on. When the foundation is taken out, the house collapses. This is not a good thing.

How This Presidential Campaign Will Be Unique

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal posted a commentary on the role that President Obama is not playing in the current presidential campaign. The commentary is titled, “How Obama Gets Away With It.” The commentary notes that normally in a presidential campaign, the record of the sitting President is part of the campaign. In 2016 that does not seem to be the case.

The commentary observes:

Yet at the same time we were seeing those nice photos, videos and articles, a lot of other important stuff was going on where Mr. Obama was hardly mentioned, seen or questioned. For example, the U.S. economy grew at a meager 0.5% in the first quarter of 2016; Russian military planes lately have been buzzing U.S. Navy ships; and China is building its military forces and expanding their reach in the South China Sea. Early in May, a Navy SEAL was killed in Iraq (the president has assured the American public that U.S. troops there, increasing in numbers, are not in combat roles). Islamic State terrorist attacks in Baghdad in recent weeks have killed scores of civilians. The Taliban are on the march in Afghanistan. The vicious war in Syria continues. The Middle East refugee crisis shows no sign of diminishing. Military provocations by Iran and North Korea keep coming.

President Obama’s media handlers try to keep the president as far away from these crises as possible, leaving others in his administration such as Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford to be their public face. That way the problems don’t appear to be Mr. Obama’s problem, and he is free to bask in the good news.

The mainstream media has worked very hard to avoid painting the true picture of the negative impact of President Obama’s foreign policy and his domestic policies. Most Americans may not even realize there is a problem until it directly impacts them.

The article concludes:

One of the news media’s main jobs is to hold public officials accountable, from the president on down. But Mr. Obama is the beneficiary of news-media managers and reporters who mostly like his style and agree with his policies, from his reluctance to make strong military commitments to his advocacy for LGBT rights, fighting climate change and supporting tougher gun-control laws. Case in point: The administration’s easy orchestration of the media story line about the Iranian nuclear deal, recently revealed by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, only scratches the surface of the White House’s skill at managing a media happy to be managed.

Given such a congruence of opinion, Mr. Obama’s policies don’t receive the scrutiny and analysis they should. Reporters who criticize or dig too deep are cast by the administration as spoilsports or, worse, cut off from sources.

With Donald Trump now the media obsession—and most in the media don’t like him—it is easy to see why Mr. Obama’s performance over the past seven-plus years is still not a major issue in the 2016 campaign. And that’s the way he likes it.

As the presidential campaign progresses, expect to see a focus on any mistakes Donald Trump has made since the age of three. Expect to see the misdeeds and lies of the Clinton’s swept under the rug as if they did not exist. As more information is discovered about the rather twisted finances of the Clinton Foundation, expect to find that information only in alternative media sources. Unfortunately, that is where we are at the present moment.

 

Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Game

Hot Air posted an article today about a federal jobs program for youth. The program is part of President Obama’s Summer Opportunity Project. This is the description of the program when it was announced:

The Summer Opportunity Project is a multi-agency effort in partnership with the National Summer Learning Association and other collaborators to provide support to communities. The Project aims to significantly increase the percentage of youth in evidence-based summer opportunity programs, decrease the percentage of youth experiencing violence over the summer, and—more broadly—make sure that young Americans have the support they need to get their first job.

Research shows that Black and Hispanic teenage boys lag behind their peers in summer employment and year-round jobs. This employment gap broadens as young men get older, making them the highest percentage of the nearly seven million youth 16-24 disconnected from school and work. That’s why the President’s My Brother’s Keeper Task Force recommended to the President in May of 2014 strengthening the case for summer youth employment and launching a cross-sector campaign to reduce summer learning loss and increase the number of job and internship opportunities for all young people.

I am going to ignore the constitutional problem with the government creating jobs and say that this program looks reasonable. However, what you start with is not necessarily what you finish with.

It turns out that the Summer Opportunity Project funds have been diverted:

Utica is among 11 communities nationwide that will share $21 million in grants for summer jobs programs aimed at helping disadvantaged youth, the White House and U.S. Department of Labor said Monday.

Utica will receive almost $2 million to help 400 students in the city’s refugee population receive summer work experience and part-time jobs the rest of the year, White House officials said.

The Utica students also will receive tutoring in English and math as part of the New Americans Career Pathways Project.

The federal money is part of the Summer Opportunity Project launched by the White House in February.

So rather than help the Black and Hispanic Americans who have grown up here and need jobs, we are taking the money away from them and spending it on refugees. Let’s help our own children first please.

 

And The Buck Stops Here

As President Obama’s term of office winds down, some of the background information on some of his really bad foreign policy decisions is beginning to come out. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is speaking out about the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, which was encouraged by the Obama Administration.

The Blaze posted an article today about Secretary Gates’ comments in an upcoming Fox News special.

The Blaze reports:

According to Gates, Obama called for Mubarak’s immediate removal despite his national security team urging him to be cautious.

“Literally, the entire national security team recommended unanimously handling Mubarak differently than we did,” Gates said. “And the president took the advice of three junior backbenchers in terms of how to treat Mubarak. One of them saying, ‘Mr. President, you gotta be on the right side of the history.’ And I would be sitting there at the table, and I’d say, ‘Yeah, if we could just figure that out, we’d be a long way ahead.’”

It matters who sits in the White House and who is on his team. Please remember that when you vote in November.

Can The Second Amendment Be Overturned By Executive Action?

ABC News is reporting today on President Obama’s plan to use an executive order to begin to limit gun rights among Americans.

The article reports:

President Obama plans to announce executive actions he will take on gun control on Tuesday, a source told ABC News.

Obama had announced during his weekly address Friday that he planned to discuss gun control options with Attorney General Loretta Lynch after he returned from his Hawaiian vacation, which ended today.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said in the address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”

The White House had previously announced the Justice Department was examining unilateral action the president could take on gun control, and would be making recommendation.

Gun sales during the Obama Administration have skyrocketed. Gun sales in America have increased since the San Bernardino shootings.

The thing we need to remember here is that a lack of guns by law-abiding Americans does not make us safer. The move for better background checks is the beginning of the effort to register guns. Historically that has been the move that preceded gun confiscation. Note also that most of the shootings involving multiple victims have occurred in ‘gun free’ zones. The shooters knew that the people they attacked would not be armed and they would not meet immediate resistance.

Keep in mind as you hear this debate that there is a Second Amendment that upholds the right of private citizens to own guns. Law-abiding citizens owning guns makes us safer–it does not put us in danger. Hopefully Congress will stand up for the U.S. Constitution in this debate.

The Truth Begins To Leak Out

Fox News posted an article today about an interview former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel published Friday in Foreign Policy. The interview provided some insight into some of the decisions made in the Obama Administration during Secretary Hagel’s tenure.

The article reports:

The interview with Foreign Policy comes nearly a year after his acrimonious exit from the Obama administration. Still smarting from the circumstances of his departure, Hagel told Foreign Policy that the White House tried to “destroy” him even after he resigned.

The interview explored the tensions between Hagel and others on Obama’s team, but offered particularly revealing details about the backstory to the president’s decision backing off his “red line” with Assad.

The former Pentagon chief said that decision in 2013 dealt a big blow to U.S. credibility.

“Whether it was the right decision or not, history will determine that,” Hagel told Foreign Policy. “There’s no question in my mind that it hurt the credibility of the president’s word when this occurred.”

While it is well-known that Obama chose not to go forward with any military action against Assad in 2013 despite drawing that line – and instead pursued a diplomatic path to have Assad hand over his chemical weapons stockpile – Hagel described the military option as robust up until the moment Obama nixed it.

It will be interesting to see what papers will be made public when the Obama Administration opens its library. This administration has behaved like political thugs. They have politicized the justice department, the internal revenue, and anything else they touched. They have created a racial divide that has not existed in this country since the 1950’s. It will be interesting to see how transparent they will be with their internal records.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about American air strikes on ISIS.

The article reports:

President Obama said for the first time this week that U.S. and allied airstrikes are targeting ISIS training camps in Iraq and Syria, but new figures reveal only 20 camps were hit in recent months.

Since May, U.S. and allied air forces conducted 17 attacks hitting a total of 20 camps in Syria and Iraq, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

Critics in the Obama administration and U.S. military say ISIS has been operating more than 60 training camps since 2014 in areas of Syria and Iraq. The camps are said to be producing an estimated 1,000 fighters a month.

Somehow I don’t think 17 attacks in more than six months is the best we can do. The reason given for the lack of attacks is the proximity or the camps to civilians areas.

The article further reports:

Long War Journal reported in June that the number of terrorist training camps in Syria and Iraq continues to increase, for both ISIS and al Qaeda. The journal reported that more than 100 training camps have been identified in the two Middle East states.

“The proliferation of training camps in Iraq and Syria speaks to the strength of the Islamic State and its ability to continue to gather and instruct recruits despite the U.S. and allies’ air campaign,” said Bill Roggio, editor of the Long War Journal.

“It is unclear if U.S. airstrikes have significantly set back the Islamic State’s training program,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “We may not be hitting the training facilities quick enough to make a difference.”

Obama, under pressure from critics at home and abroad over the limited military strategy against ISIS, on Monday vowed that the U.S. strategy is “moving forward with a great sense of urgency” following ISIS-linked attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

We should have learned from past experience that wars need to be fought by the military–not the politicians. If we do not plan to win, we have no business getting involved in a war. When we go half-way to war, Americans die needlessly.