big brother is watching you

Smoke Rises over the Russian Influence Campaign

When FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20th, he made an announcement that the national law enforcement agency was investigating allegations of possible Russian influence during the 2016 Presidential Election campaign.  It was a veritable thunderclap.  It was unexpected, as the primary purpose of the House Intelligence Hearings was to focus on whether FBI Director Comey and NSA chief Admiral Rogers could confirm Trump tweet allegations about possible unauthorized wire taps at Trump Tower during the campaign and transition.

Both Comey and Rogers could find no such evidence, despite the President and White House spokespersons doubling down insisting that there was surveillance. The five hour public hearing evidenced what appeared to be partisan bickering over the Comey Russian investigation with Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes (R-CA), a member of the Trump Transition, tangled with Ranking Member Adam Schiff, (D-CA)  a former federal prosecutor and other minority members.

Nunes took it on his own recognizance to meet late Tuesday night, March 21st with unnamed National Security officials in the secure setting of the White House Eisenhower Executive Office Building where he allegedly received confidential information indicating that there was evidence of incidental surveillance of members of the Trump transition as part of an authorized FISA order concerning a third party foreign government, but not Russia.

Moreover, Nunes alleged subsequent to briefing the President the following day about the contents of the information, without providing it to Ranking Member Schiff and both Republican and Democratic members of the Committee,  that several members of the Trump Transition had been unmasked in the process, especially former National Security Director General Michael Flynn.  That gave rise to calls from Senate Democrat Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) and House Intelligence Ranking Member Schiff that Nunes should recuse himself from the Hearings. Nunes retaliated with changing the upcoming Hearing on the Russian investigation to a confidential one that FBI Director Comey said he declined to participate in. Nunes was under a cloud of his own making as a partisan supporter of the President. Many found his behavior inexplicable. Despite calls for his removal, House Speaker Paul Ryan, himself under a cloud given the withdrawal of pending House  Health reform  legislation on Friday, March 24th, said that he still had confidence in Nunes as Intelligence Committee Chairman.

The Senate Intelligence Committee  appeared more bi-partisan in conducting its own investigation into the Russian campaign influence charges.  There was unanimity of purpose from both Chairman Burr (R-NC) and Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA). They made their own shocking revelation. They were inviting Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to testify about his encounters during the Trump campaign and transition with the head of a  sanctioned Russian State Bank.  Reuters reported on Monday, March 27th, “Trump son-in-law met executives of sanctioned Russian bank; will testify:”

Kushner previously acknowledged meeting the Russian ambassador to Washington last December and only on Monday did it emerge that executives of Russian state development bank Vnesheconombank (VEB) had talks with Kushner during a bank roadshow last year.

The bank said in an emailed statement that as part of its preparing a new strategy, its executives met representatives of financial institutes in Europe, Asia and America.

It said roadshow meetings took place “with a number of representatives of the largest banks and business establishments of the United States, including Jared Kushner, the head of Kushner Companies.” VEB declined to say where the meetings took place or the dates. U.S. officials said that after meeting with Russian Kislyak at Trump Tower last December, a meeting also attended by Flynn, Kushner met later in December with Sergei Gorkov, chairman of Vnesheconombank.

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks confirmed the meetings, saying nothing of consequence was discussed.

[…]

Gorkov was appointed head of VEB in early 2016 by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He graduated from the Federal Security Service, or FSB, Russia’s internal security agency. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Merit for Services to the Fatherland, according to the bank’s website.

According to two congressional staffers, some Senate investigators want to question Kushner and Flynn about whether they discussed with Gorkov or other Russian officials or financial executives the possibility of investing in 666 Fifth Avenue in New York or other Kushner Co or Trump properties if the new administration lifted the sanctions.

preet bharara

Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York.

Simply meeting with a sanctioned bank is not a federal crime. However, there is more to Vnesheconombank activities in the US. Russian foreign intelligence service (SVR) agents  were using the bank as cover for conducting economic espionage.  A guilty plea deal in March 2016 with a Russian spy was announced  by former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,  Manhattan, Preet Bharara. Bharara was  fired by Trump Attorney General Sessions, on March 10, 2017, along with 45 other US attorneys appointed by President Obama. This despite President Trump suggesting in a meeting at Trump Tower in November 2017, that he wanted to keep the talented prosecutor on. The basis for the plea deal had been  an investigation by the FBI Counterintelligence Division into the activities of the Russian spy ring.  A news release by The U.S. Department of Justice on March 11, 2016 reported, “Russian National Pleads Guilty in Connection with Conspiracy to Work for Russian Intelligence“:

Evgeny Buryakov, a.k.a. Zhenya, 41, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to act in the United States as an agent of the Russian Federation without providing prior notice to the Attorney General.

“An unregistered intelligence agent, under cover of being a legitimate banker, gathers intelligence on the streets of New York City, trading coded messages with Russian spies who send the clandestinely collected information back to Moscow,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “This sounds like a plotline for a Cold War-era movie, but in reality, Evgeny Buryakov pled guilty today to a federal crime for his role in just such a scheme.  More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, Russian spies still seek to operate in our midst under the cover of secrecy.  But in New York, thanks to the work of the FBI and the prosecutors in my office, attempts to conduct unlawful espionage will not be overlooked.  They will be investigated and prosecuted.”

Here are some of the details of the Russian spy ring that sound like a scenario for the AMC acclaimed cable TV series, “The Americans:”

Buryakov worked in New York with at least two other SVR agents, Igor Sporyshev and Victor Podobnyy.  From on or about Nov. 22, 2010, to on or about Nov. 21, 2014, Sporyshev officially served as a trade representative of the Russian Federation in New York.  From on or about Dec. 13, 2012, to on or about Sept. 12, 2013, Podobnyy officially served as an attaché to the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.  The investigation, however, showed that Sporyshev and Podobnyy also worked as officers of the SVR.  Sporyshev and Podobnyy were charged along with Buryakov in January 2015, however, Sporyshev and Podobnyy no longer lived in the United States at that time and were not arrested.

The directives from the SVR to Buryakov, Sporyshev and Podobnyy, as well as to other covert SVR agents acting within the United States, included requests to gather intelligence on, among other subjects, potential U.S. sanctions against Russian banks and the United States’ efforts to develop alternative energy resources.

During the course of their work as covert SVR agents in the United States, Buryakov, Sporyshev and Podobnyy regularly met and communicated using clandestine methods and coded messages in order to exchange intelligence-related information while shielding their associations with one another as SVR agents.  Sporyshev was responsible for relaying intelligence assignments from the SVR to Buryakov.

On or about March 28, 2014, Sporyshev was recorded telling Buryakov that he needed help researching the “effects of economic sanctions on our country,” among other things.  A few days later, on April 2, 2014, Sporyshev called Buryakov and stated, in an intercepted conversation, that he had not seen Buryakov in a while, and asked to meet Buryakov outside VEB’s office in New York in 20 minutes.  A court-authorized search of Buryakov’s computer at VEB revealed that, at around the time of this telephone call, Buryakov conducted the following internet searches: “sanctions Russia consequences” [sic] and “sanctions Russia impact.”

[ … ]

In the summer of 2014, Buryakov met multiple times with a confidential source working for the FBI and an FBI undercover employee, both of whom purported to be working on a casino development project in Russia.  During these meetings, Buryakov accepted documents that were purportedly obtained from a U.S. government agency and which supposedly contained information potentially useful to Russia, including information about U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Unlike the other spy ring operatives who escaped prosecution, Buryakov was sentenced on May 25, 2016 to serve 2.5 years in a federal prison.

Thus, the smoke rises over the Trump White House and Chairman Nunes about relations with sanctioned Russian Banks engaged in economic espionage amid concerns about a possible 2016 Russian influence campaign during the 2016 Presidential election. What did Alice say in Chapter two, “Down the Rabbit Hole “ in Adventures in Wonderland, “curiouser and curiouser.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Surveillance on Donald J. Trump and Others

maga flag

What American Populism Really Means by David Smith

The people had finally found their leader, a champion for those who had built the country with their hard work and yet now believed themselves to be silenced and ignored—left behind by the artificial currents of contemporary life. He would make their voices heard again. They didn’t think of themselves as angry—at least not without a good cause—but they were no longer going to go gently into that political good night.

The year was 1896, and a new century loomed just four years away. They believed they had one last chance to change the errant course on which the country was set, and William Jennings Bryan was ready to lead them.

Man the Barricades

With the triumph of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, magazines from Vanity Fair to The Economist suddenly began writing about populism and trying to analyze that amorphous identity that periodically returns to American politics. Far less defined than a political movement or agenda, American populism is an impulse, rooted in Jeffersonian individualism and animated by a conviction that something essential in our culture is under siege by powerful currents in the wider world.

While politicians may choose to use populist rhetoric to rally their voters, it’s not an identity that many would choose on their own because it’s borne of crisis, understood by those who take it up as being nothing less than a state of emergency. Populism amounts to a last desperate manning of the barricades, when all others have decided to jettison something that, in a significant number of hearts, is still worth fighting for.

The populism of the 1890s came at a crucial moment of transition from one economic framework to the next, as an America of farmers and craftsmen was giving way to an America of industrial workers, leviathan corporations, and new immigrants.

Today, the country faces another transition to a more interconnected and, some say, post-national world, and populists have again reappeared, fearful of rocky shoals along the passage. The impulse is no longer tied to the agrarian identity and way of life that was so tenaciously defended by populists at the close of the 19th century, but it is now expressed by those for whom something just as sacred is at stake.

Cultural Power

More than economic or political power, cultural power—the power to define what ought to be the true iconic representation of America, from which comes ideas of right and wrong—has always lain at the heart of populism, even if more specific economic concerns are easier to identify. This is why the emergence of a multi-billionaire as populist champion isn’t as baffling as it would be if the primary engine was class-based resentment of the wealthy (and it’s why Bernie Sanders is actually less of a populist than Trump).

As historian Alan Brinkley showed in his book Voices of Protest, despite the ways that the populist impulse has varied among its adherents throughout the decades, its “central, animating spirit” remained the determination to restore “to the individual the control of his life and livelihood.” Brinkley notes that Depression-era rousers like Huey Long and Charles Coughlin connected “their messages so clearly with the residual appeal of the populist tradition,” and future historians will undoubtedly note the same about Donald Trump.

But his current success shows that its appeal is not merely residual but continues to animate millions of people. The lesson of Trump’s surprise victory is that populism remains at its core an evergreen cultural force that is as intertwined with our ideas about democracy as notions about voting, representation, civil rights, or economic fairness.

Today’s drive toward populism is not primarily because of big business or big banking, but because of a perceived threat of similar size and danger to the concept of Jeffersonian individualism. Now it is the cultural triumph of identity politics that’s pushing people toward populism, as surely as monopoly and industrialization did 120 years ago. Ascendant globalism is another: just as the farmers of the 1890s felt displaced from what they considered their time-honored position within the country’s culture and economy, those who recently rallied to the populist tone of the current president felt much the same.

In his 1955 Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Age of Reform, Richard Hofstadter mused that,

While its special association with agrarian reforms has now become attenuated, I believe that populist thinking has survived in our own time, partly as an undercurrent of provincial resentments, popular and ‘democratic’ rebelliousness and suspiciousness, and nativism.”

Indeed, Hofstadter’s account of those who flocked to William Jennings Bryan in 1896 is a caustic one and caused an outcry among historians who had long looked upon the populists as virtuous Jeffersonian Democrats. But Hofstadter substantially changed the way the mainstream thinks about our periodic outbursts of populism, and today, charges of nativism, provincialism, and intolerance are even more commonly attributed to Trump’s supporters than to Bryan’s.

Canary in the Coal Mine

I don’t believe populism is inevitably as xenophobic as that, but I do believe the impulse is inherently defensive. The Economist recently reported that populism in Alabama “has not always been driven by prejudice, as might be supposed.” Rather, explained the former director of the Alabama state archives, populism is always and everywhere fired by fears of “the rise of a new aristocracy,” and Alabamans who turned to populism were “not simply emotional victims of demagogues.”

Contemporary ideologies that divide people into grievance groups are a cultural echo of the process of industrialization that once divided people into competing economic classes. In both, the deck is stacked against the individual.

The proper response to populism isn’t to dismiss it as fringe, bigoted, or anti-intellectual, but to remember that threats to individualism come from every angle, sometimes in unexpected ways. Populism is the canary in our political coal mine—a warning that individual liberty may be having its oxygen drained away. Those who are concerned about freedom should pay attention to it.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

David Smith

David Smith

Dr. David A. Smith is a senior lecturer in American history at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He received his undergraduate degree from what is now Texas State University in San Marcos, and his Ph.D. in modern American history from the University of Missouri.

wilderspvv

Media spins Dutch election as loss for Geert Wilders, who is actually stronger than ever

“Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election: The patriotic revolution continues,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage, March 16, 2017:

The Dutch Labor Party used to dominate Maastricht. The ancient city gave its name to the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union. In this election, the Labor Party fell from a quarter of the vote to a twentieth.

Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, which advocates withdrawing from the EU, is now the largest party in the birthplace of the European Union.

And the growing strength of the Freedom Party can be felt not only on the banks of the Maas River, but across the waterways of the Netherlands. A new wind of change has blown off the North Sea and ruffled feathers in Belgisch Park.

In The Hague, where Carnegie’s Peace Palace hosts the World Court while the humbler Noordeinde Palace houses King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima, the internationalist institutions colliding with the nationalist ones, the United Nations rubbing up against the Dutch parliament and Supreme Court, the Freedom Party has become the second largest party despite the 15% Muslim population.

In Rotterdam, where Muslim rioters shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and anti-Semitic slurs and where Hamas front groups are organizing a conference, the Freedom Party is now the second largest political party. In that ancient city on the Rotte that had the first Muslim mayor of a major European city, Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb of the Labor Party who was being groomed for Prime Minister, estimates are that Labor fell from 32 percent to just 6 percent. That is strikingly similar to what took place in Maastricht.

But nearly half of Rotterdam is made up of immigrants. Muslims make up 13% of the population. But turnout hit 72% and after the Muslim riots, the Freedom Party only narrowly trails the ruling VVD.

The Freedom Party has become the largest party in Venlo while the Labor Party has all but vanished.

And that is the real story of the Dutch election.

The truly final results will only be known next week. But the current numbers show that the Freedom Party has become the second largest political party in Parliament having gained five seats while the Labor Party has disastrously lost 29 seats.

Labor hit a post-war low. The media is spinning this as Prime Minister Rutte’s defeat of Geert Wilders, but the Labor half of the Second Rutte Cabinet just went up in flames. VVD lost quite a few seats, but remains the largest party only because so much of the overall vote had dissipated. Rutte will now have to awkwardly build an unstable coalition out of four parties just to avoid dealing with Wilders.

It is quite possible though that Rutte will be trading the somewhat moderate Labor for GroenLinks which was formed out of, among others, the Communist Party of the Netherlands. When the media cheers that the “moderates” have defeated that terrible extremist, Geert Wilders, what they aren’t mentioning is that the alternative “moderate” coalitions may include the daughter party of the Communist Party.

The election was, in a sense, always rigged. The political system of the Netherlands fragments the vote and then puts it back together in government coalitions. The demonization of Wilders and the PVV was meant to ensure that even if his political party had won a majority, it would not have been allowed to form a government. And so Wilders won more by being in the second spot than by achieving the majority that some polls had predicted, while leaving the PVV unable to form a government.

Despite the attempts to kill it, smear it and destroy it, the Freedom Party continues to rise. And its enemies are being forced to respond to its ideas. The dangerous campaign by Turkey’s Islamist butcher, complete with threats and intimidation, helped Rutte salvage his government. But not his coalition.

The centrist politics that made Rutte’s government possible are imploding. The decline of Rutte’s VVD and Labor is an unmistakable rejection of the status quo. The gains in this election flowed to parties further out on the spectrum on the right and the left. The traditionally moderate Dutch are losing their patience. The polarization is eliminating the center and replacing it with some hard choices.

Geert Wilders and the PVV remain the embodiment of that choice.

Wilders had spoken of a “Patriotic Spring” sweeping the West. After the election, he said that the election results were a thing to be proud of. “The Patriotic Spring continues onward. And it has only begun.”

The media’s celebrations may also be badly misguided for another reason. In the wake of Brexit, the media largely forgot how it had mocked UKIP and Farage as failures. But a political party doesn’t always have to win elections to have an impact. Rigging the system against UKIP didn’t keep the UK in the EU. Instead it ultimately had the opposite effect. Keeping Wilders and the PVV down may backfire.

Geert Wilders has fundamentally changed the conversation about Islam and immigration. And the political parties of the Netherlands are increasingly reacting to him. Wilders took an election in a country whose political shifts are generally of little interest to those living outside it and made it a matter of international interest. His courage and common sense have made him into a world leader.

Wilders had the courage to defy the assassins and murderers, the politically correct scolds and the bleeding hearts, the pallid men and women who counsel moderation in all things and at all times, to tell the truth about Islam and Islamic migration. That is what he will go on doing even as he lives under threat. And his courage inspires opponents of the Jihad in the Netherlands and around the world.

This election was an erosion of faith in the establishment and a show of support for Wilders. To become Prime Minister Wilders, the PVV will either need a truly massive victory or a fundamental change in the political environment. Wilders understands this. He knows that the role of his party is to fight a failing establishment. Everything he does builds support and momentum for either of the two roads.

The media is cheering a defeat that never happened. And just as with Brexit, it may find that it had overlooked the seeds of its own destruction in the dirty politics of its own making.

“This patriotic revolution,” Geert Wilders said, “whether today or tomorrow, will take place anyway.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi Columnist: The Future of Arabs and Muslims Will Remain Dark Unless They Subject Their Values And Heritage to a Critical Assessment – MEMRI

Geert Wilders’ Post-election Statement: ‘The Genie cannot be put back in the bottle’

Iran deal architect is now running Tehran policy at the State Department

Turkish Foreign Minister: “Religion wars will soon begin in Europe”

geert wilders black and white

Geert Wilders’ Post-election Statement: ‘The Genie cannot be put back in the bottle’

geert wilders party logoDear friends,

Yesterday, the Party for Freedom (PVV) gained 33% and rose from 15 to 20 seats. That is a result to be proud of. However, Prime Minister Rutte won the elections, despite losing 8 seats.

We were the third biggest party, but now we are the second biggest party in the Dutch Parliament and a major political force. I promise you: Next time we will be first! The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

I assure you: We will not stop trying to save our beautiful country, the Netherlands, our European civilization and our Western freedoms.

We are grateful for the interest and sympathy of freedom loving people all over the free world. And we will continue to inform you about our efforts and progress in the years ahead.

As ever,

Geert Wilders

dutch parties seats

geert wilders at protest january 23rd

Did Geert Wilders Win by Losing?

geert wilders party logoGeert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) lost in the March 15, 2017 elections to Mark Rutte of the conservative Freedom and Democracy VVD, who will be asked by King Willem to form a new ruling coalition government.

Rutte’s VVD won 32 seats, while Wilders’ PVV won 22 seats in the 150 seat lower house of the Hague parliament, the tweeder kamer.

While the PVV won second position in the general election results there is a razor thin margin over third place Christian Democrats (CD) which might change in the final vote tally. Wilders did win the port city of Rotterdam despite its Muslim mayor. Moreover the Dutch Labor Party (PDVA) took a shellacking.

Wilders touts that he won more votes than in 2012, while Rutte’s VVD lost 9 seats; 32 versus 41.

Wilders indicated he might join a coalition government headed by Rutte if asked. Rutte was fairly adamant during the campaign that he and other center parties would not invite Wilders and PVV. Wilders loss today ensures that a Rutte led government would remain in the EU. Wilders had proposed a NExit from the EU.

Rutte’s victory reflected his move to some of the nationalist and anti Muslim immigration positions of Wilders. That figured in his ousting one Turkish cabinet minister and denying the Foreign minister from holding rallies in the Netherlands seeking Dutch Turkish votes in a national referendum that wound confer executive powers on Turkish autocrat President Erdogan. Erdogan had accused Rutte of acting like “Nazi remnants” that the latter strenuously condemned.

Some analysts we had posted on thought that Wilders losing the Dutch Premiership may still have won reflected in the shift by Rutte and other parties to some of Wilders’ more nationalist and Dutch values views. Further, Wilders might have some leverage as Rutte is unlikely to enlist the vanquished Labor Party in order to reach the required 76 seats plurality to form a ruling coalition.

Hence the formation of the new government under Rutte’s third term as PM could take a while.

RELATED ARTICLES:

European Populism Not ‘Going Away’ Despite Dutch Election Result

Dutch Elections: Pyrrhic Victory As Mainstream Party Clings to Power

Geert Wilders

If Geert Wilders’ wins today could there be a political crisis in The Netherlands?

On Israel News Talk Radio’s -Beyond the Fringe  program  this  week  listen here , co- host Rod Bryant and I devoted a segment to the fracas between The Netherlands and Turkey this past weekend in the run up to today’s general election in what could be a crucial test of rising nationalist populism in Europe.

The race pits current ruling coalition Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Freedom and Democracy Party VVD versus Geert Wilders, the tall bleached blonde leader of the breakaway Freedom Party (PVV) who espouses anti-Islam, anti EU and anti mass Muslim immigration stands crystallized in his campaign call to “take back our Netherlands.”

We pointed out to our global and Israeli listeners Wilders’ long held pro Israel stands and heroic opposition to the Islamic Republic in a visit to Tehran that had him ejected as persona non grata. Wilders also espouses the view that Jordan is Palestine.

How the Dutch Turkish faceoff could figure in today’s vote

Current Dutch PM Mark Rutte veered closer to Wilders’ positions with his dramatic actions the weekend prior to the March 15, elections. He denied a visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister preventing him from landing to attend a rally of Dutch Turks in Rotterdam and ejected a Dutch Families Minister to Germany, a move that was protested by Dutch Turks in Rotterdam with a Muslim mayor. The rallies by Turkish ministers of Erodgan’s government in Holland were scheduled to urge the 400,000 Dutch Turks to vote in the April 16th national referendum in Turkey making President a veritable autocrat extending his term by a decade to 26 years. There are 5.5 million Turkish ex pats in EU core countries in France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.  All of whom have, with the exception of France have blocked rallies by Turkish officials of the AKP government in Ankara.

That sparked calls from aspiring neo Ottoman Caliph, Turkey’s President Erdogan, calling Rutte’s actions “Nazi Remnants”. Bryant and I commented that was bizarre coming from a Turkish leader who idealized Hitler.

Both Rutte and Erdogan demanded apologies and called in their respective ambassadors.

The weekend fracas has boosted polls figures on Monday for both Rutte and Wilders with just a three seat spread between the two parties; the VVD with 27 versus 24 for the PVV. Later polls taken following nationalized televised debates showed the results were even closer.

Dynamics behind today’s Dutch general elections

Dutch opinion polls show terrorism, anti immigration and preserving national values as leading issues.  This race  that culminates today could go either way or result in Wilders being first past the post with enough seats to possibly having King Willem  ask Wilders to form a government in the Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer.  However that could be a long shot.  Rutte of the VVD and other smaller center parties have said they would never join a PVV led coalition government making the possibility of Wilders being the next Dutch Prime Minister, Dutch political prognosticators in Holland suggest the prospects might slim to none.

An RT.com article showed final Dutch polls indicating that Geert Wilders Freedom Party (PVV) claiming upwards of 24 to 28 seats as voting opens today in the Netherlands.

The movement by Mark Rutte, leader of the VVD towards nationalist views in the confrontation with Turkish President Erdogan may have shifted un-decided Dutch voters towards the PVV and resurrected Sybrand Buma leader of  the Christian Democrats (CDA) to poll in third position behind Wilders.

Rutte and Buma may have turned more nationalist in the waning days of the campaign. However, they cling to support of Dutch membership in the EU, while Wilders supports NExit which antedated that of the Brexit referendum vote in the UK.

One domestic issue that Wilders has flagged, protection of pension benefits has divided Dutch workers from their union leaders. That was evident in an interview with the union leader in the port Rotterdam. He noted his members would likely vote for Wilders.

It looks like whatever results from final polling results that the wrangling over formation of a ruling coalition from the 28 parties contesting for seats in the Hague parliament, the tweeder kamer, will take a while to sort it out. PM Rutte, as a formality, resigned as government leader on Thursday and informed King Willem setting the stage for today’s general election.

Could there be a political crisis in Holland?

Nevertheless, even if Wilders doesn’t get that opportunity, some observers suggest that by losing he has won because he has led Dutch popular opinion on national issues. A Politico EU article that looked at the prospects of prime contenders in today’s Dutch general elections commented on the masterful role of Geert Wilders staking out parliamentary positions and seizing the news cycle. As one Socialist party figure stated, if Wilders is first past the post “it might create a political crisis.”

None of the leading parties, whether, Mark Rutte’s Freedom and Democracy VVD or resurrected Buma’s Christian Democrats CDA, the latter polling in third position, and other smaller parties may be able to cobble together the requisite 76 votes in the 150 seat Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer, to form a ruling coalition. That is the daunting task that King Willem will have to address when polling ends tonight.

One comment made in the Politico EU article may be prescient. Whatever the results, Wilders looks like the leader of the opposition. Stay tuned for the outcome of today’s momentous Dutch general election results.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sweden Can’t Find Contractor Willing to Build Police Station in Muslim Migrant Suburb — ‘It’s Too Dangerous’

RELATED VIDEO: The day before the Dutch election there were debates. The last of these debates was a debate between the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party Geert Wilders, and the leader of the Christian Union Party. This debate is translated into English.

trump black and white face

VIDEO: Obama had British Intelligence spy on the Trump campaign

Thomas Dillingham for Nation One News reports, On March 4th President Trump learned that former President Obama had him “wiretapped” during the election. He sent out a Tweet to let Americans know what he found. Here is Dillingham’s report on the revelation by Fox News that the British spy agency GCHQ was used to provide data, collected by the CIA, FBI and NSA on candidate Trump and his campaign.

Government_Communications_Headquarters_logo.svgAccording to Wikipedia:

The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is a British intelligence and security organisation responsible for providing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance to the British government and armed forces. Based in “The Doughnut”, in the suburbs of Cheltenham, GCHQ is the responsibility of the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but it is not a part of the Foreign Office and its Director ranks as a Permanent Secretary. Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judge Napolitano: Obama Used British Intel Organization to Spy on Trump

Obama-British Intel agency conspiracy to spy on Trump exposed by NJ judge

Claim: ‘3 intelligence sources’ say Obama used Brits to spy on Trump

Judge Napolitano: ‘Three Intel Sources’ Say Obama Looked to Brit Agency to Spy on Trump

Judge Nap: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

FOX NEWS BOMBSHELL: Fox News Sources Say Obama Used Brits To Spy On Donald Trump

Democratic Congressman Handcuffed During ICE Sit-In

RELATED VIDEO: Fox News report on British used to spy on Donald J. Trump.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright Disclaimer – Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

lee school board logo

Time for the Florida Legislature to Term Limit School Board Members

Term limits are very popular in America. One way to “drain the swamp” is to term limit members of Congress. The surge in term limit legislation has been at the state level.

The Florida Legislature in 2016 passed legislation making it the first in the nation to call for an Article V amendment convention exclusive to the subject of putting term limits on Congress. The memorial, HM 417, passed the State House and State Senate by a unanimous voice vote.

In 1992 Florida passed Amendment 9 term limiting members of the state legislature passed. The amendment was passed with the approval of 76% of voters. Amendment 9 offices covered are: Florida Representative and Senator, Lieutenant Governor, Florida Cabinet, and U.S. Senator and Representative. [Emphasis added]

So while the Sunshine State awaits an Article V amendment convention perhaps Floridians should look at term limiting local school board members?

One state is already on its way to term limiting school board members. In a column titled “Term limits for school board members would get public vote under House measure” by Ed Anderson, from the Louisiana Times-Picaune reports:

Voters across the state would decide this fall whether their local school board members should be subject to a three-term limit, according to a bill approved by a House committee Wednesday.

steve_carter_crop.jpg

Rep. Steve Carter, R-Baton Rouge.

The Committee on House and Governmental Affairs voted 14-4 for House Bill 410 by Rep. Steve Carter, R-Baton Rouge, sending it to the full House for more debate.

The bill is a major education initiative by the state’s biggest business lobby, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry; the Council for a Better Louisiana, an education advocacy group; and the chambers of commerce across the state.

[ … ]

Carter said the bill allows local voters to decide the issue, not the Legislature. “Fresh blood is what is needed in education,” he said.

“Every four years, voters have an opportunity to decide to keep or replace school board members,” argued Nolton Senegal, executive director of the Louisiana School Boards Association. He said 60 percent of the board members turned over four years ago.

According to Ballotpedia:

The following statistics about school board elections in 2014 apply to the top 1,000 public school districts, as measured by student enrollment:

  • A total of 2,189 school board seats were up for election in 670 school districts in 37 states.
  • 75.51 percent of incumbents whose seats were on the ballot ran for re-election.
  • 35.81 percent of those incumbents ran unopposed.
  • 124 school districts held elections in which all the incumbents ran unopposed.
  • Only 30 districts with 58 seats up for election featured no incumbents running.
  • 81.31 percent of incumbents were re-elected, including unopposed incumbents.
  • 70.88 percent of incumbents who faced challengers won re-election.
  • 61.40 percent of all seats up for election were retained by incumbents.

There are 67 county school boards in Florida. They wield great power to tax and spend, primarily via property taxes and local referendums. Incumbents are the problem as they become entrenched and typically vote unanimously on issues important to parents, students and teachers. Many parents, students and teachers feel disenfranchised. School choice helps somewhat to empower parents and students.

Another way to “drain the education swamp” is to impose term limits on local school boards.

RELATED ARTICLE: My Local School Board May Begin Silencing Parents Over Transgender Agenda

RELATED VIDEO: Candidate Trump promises to support Term Limits for members of Congress.

geert-wilders

‘Battle of Rotterdam’ — On the Eve of a Historic Election in the Netherlands

geert wilders party logo

Geert Wilders with Freedom Party logo.

Invasion of Europe news….

Western Civilization is under assault: “If this continues, our culture will cease to exist.” – A Dutch citizen of Amsterdam told The Washington Post this week.

All eyes will be on the Dutch election scheduled for this Wednesday!

And, if things couldn’t be more tense in the lead-up to election day, last night Turkish Muslim protestors were driven from the streets of Rotterdam by mounted police officers and water cannons.

Trumpeted The Sun:

THE BATTLE OF ROTTERDAM Dutch riot cops use batons, water cannon and horse charges to clear thousands of Turkish protesters in Rotterdam

DUTCH riot police have broken up protests by supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after Turkish ministers were barred from speaking at a rally in the Netherlands.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam last night after cops prevented Turkey’s family minister from entering the building.

The Washington Post, in a lengthy story written before the Battle of Rotterdam last night, tells us what is at stake on Wednesday:

Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands

AMSTERDAM — Xandra Lammers lives on an island in Amsterdam, the back door of her modern and spacious four-bedroom house opening onto a graceful canal where ducks, swans and canoes glide by.

The translation business she and her husband run from their home is thriving. The neighborhood is booming, with luxury homes going up as fast as workers can build them, a quietly efficient tramway to speed residents to work in the world-renowned city center, and parks, bike paths, art galleries, beaches and cafes all within a short amble.

By outward appearances, Lammers is living the Dutch dream. But in the 60-year-old’s telling, she has been dropped into the middle of a nightmare, one in which Western civilization is under assault from the Muslim immigrants who have become her neighbors.

“The influx has been too much. The borders should close,” said Lammers, soft-spoken with pale blue eyes and brown hair that frames a deceptively serene-looking face. “If this continues, our culture will cease to exist.”

The stakes have risen sharply as Europeans’ anti-establishment anger has swelled. In interviews across the Netherlands in recent days, far-right voters expressed stridently nationalist, anti-immigrant views that were long considered fringe but that have now entered the Dutch mainstream.

Voters young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural said they would back the Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party — no longer the preserve of the “left-behinds” — which promises to solve the country’s problems by shutting borders, closing mosques and helping to dismantle the European Union.

Ronald Meulendijks (left). Photo: Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post.

“They’ve found a very powerful narrative,” said Koen Damhuis, a researcher at the European University Institute who studies the far right. “By creating a master conflict of the national versus the foreign, they’re able to attract support from all elements of society.”

[ … ]

“The main issue is identity,” said Joost Niemöller, a journalist and author who has written extensively on Wilders and is sympathetic to his cause. “People feel they’re losing their Dutch identity and Dutch society. The neighborhoods are changing. Immigrants are coming in. And they can’t say anything about it because they’ll be called racist. So they feel helpless. Because they feel helpless, they get angry.

Echoing a theme I’ve heard on my travels everywhere in America:

“A government has to treat its own people correctly before accepting new ones. First, you must take care of your own.”

And if the government fails, Meulendijks has dark visions of what’s to come.

“I think Holland will need a civil war,” he said, “between the people who don’t belong here and the real people.”

Continue reading here.

Did the civil war begin in Rotterdam, last night?

Americans should be enormously thankful that we have a window on our own future as we watch the invasion of the European continent.  And, now that Donald Trump is in office, we, God-willing, will not go down the path Europe has been on for way too long.

Go here for our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive.  And, here for The Netherlands, Geert Wilders, here.

BTW, we heard Wilders speak as a side event at CPAC 8 years ago (2009). It was a side event because the organizers of CPAC refused his presence on the main program. (CPAC organizers have been notoriously Republican establishment dolts who never understood where the people were headed on the issues of Islam and immigration.)

NOTE: Ronald Meulendijks has a poster of Geert Wilders in his IJburg apartment. “I think Holland will need a civil war,” he said, “between the people who don’t belong here and the real people.”

VIDEO: Geert Wilders and Fitna at CPAC 2009

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Islamic Republic of Iran’s latest terrorist plots By Heshmat Alavi

Muslims and non-Muslims given guidance on how to fight Trump’s refugee slowdown

Michigan: More confirmation that refugee resettlement is an industry

Why do we take any ‘refugees’ from Russia? Are they even legitimate refugees?

Hawaii needs refugees! Sues feds over refugee pause, travel restrictions from certain Muslim countries

USCRI needs money now that President Trump has slowed the number of their paying clients

Idaho refugee contractor: Refugees pay taxes!

harvard-university

Harvard University Smears Websites that Aren’t Hard-Left as ‘fake news’

“As previously reported, liberal journalists have struggled to come up with a concise definition of ‘fake news,’ even as they declare war on it. Some liberal journalists have lumped in legitimate news organizations with objectively false websites, leading to concerns that a crackdown on ‘fake news’ will be used by liberals to silence their conservative counterparts.”

Exactly so. There are real fake news sites on the Harvard list, sites that publish wholly false or unsubstantiated stories simply as clickbait in order to generate revenue.

But to add to them The Daily Caller, The Drudge Report, Breitbart News, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Free Beacon, Independent Journal Review (IJR), The Blaze, and The Weekly Standard (Never-Trump hysteric Bill Kristol must be climbing the walls over that one), as well as Judicial Watch, The Geller Report, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch and others makes the agenda clear: Harvard, and the Leftist intelligentsia in general, is trying to stigmatize and marginalize every point of view except its own.

Merrimack College’s Melissa Zimdars and those who take her list seriously at Harvard and elsewhere apparently think that if they call every perspective they dislike “fake news,” they will be able to destroy the influence of such perspectives, and attain the hegemony of their own point of view. The only problem with this is that their own point of view contains so many obvious falsehoods and fallacies (Islam is a religion of peace, poverty causes terrorism, etc.) that it will continue to falter at the bar of reality, and people will continue to look to these so-called “fake news” sites for the truth.

Note also that Zimdars labels Jihad Watch as “Unknown.” This classification she explains thusly: “Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed (many of these were suggested by readers/users or are found on other lists and resources). Help us expand our resource by providing us information!”

So a site that purports to identify “fake news” relies on unsubstantiated rumor, hearsay and innuendo to make its classifications. Doesn’t that make Zimdars’ Harvard-endorsed list a quintessential example of…fake news?

“Harvard Smears Conservative Media As ‘Fake News,’” by Peter Hasson, Daily Caller, March 10, 2017:

A list of “fake news” websites recommended to students by Harvard University labels almost every leading center-right website as an illegitimate source of news.

The Daily Caller, The Drudge Report, Breitbart News, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Free Beacon, Independent Journal Review (IJR), The Blaze and The Weekly Standard are all on the list, deemed illegitimate for reasons such as “clickbait,” “bias,” or “unreliable.” Liberal news sources like BuzzFeed, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, Vox.com and Salon aren’t on the list.

The list, compiled by Merrimack College associate professor Melissa Zimdars, is recommended to students as part of a Harvard library guide on “Fake News, Misinformation, and Propaganda.” The list is linked under a banner titled, “Identifying Fake News Sites.” A comment next to the link calls the document a “Huge list of fake news sites.”

As previously reported, liberal journalists have struggled to come up with a concise definition of “fake news,” even as they declare war on it. Some liberal journalists have lumped in legitimate news organizations with objectively false websites, leading to concerns that a crackdown on “fake news” will be used by liberals to silence their conservative counterparts….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Toronto imam says Muslims will eventually kill all Jews

Orlando judge revokes bond for widow of Pulse nightclub jihad mass murderer

march4trump

Observations of a Black Guy at the Orlando for Trump Rally [+Video]

I performed my original song, “We Are Americans” at the Orlando March 4 Trump Rally. It felt like a family reunion seeing patriots from the early days of the Tea Party movement; lots of hugs. The mood of the rally was electric. Everyone was happy, excited and fired-up about President Trump.

VIDEO: March4Trump, Orlando, FL, on March 4, 2017.

To the fake news media and Obama who think their orchestrated lying campaign to destroy Trump is working, I say, “Forget about it! It ain’t workin’!” Trump-mania is alive and well, stronger than ever!

Vendors were selling Trump caps, t-shirts and everything in between including Trump welcome mats. One elderly patriot adorned head-to-toe in red, white and blue Trump paraphernalia told me she feared putting a Trump welcome mat outside her front door. She said it is unfair that we cannot freely support our president without fear of attacks.

The emcee instructed all us speakers to stay close to the stage. However, I knew there were a few speakers ahead of me on the program so I wandered away into the crowd to chat with people.

A white gentleman shared with me his frustration trying to legally bring his foreign wife to the United States. He said after battling incompetence, submitting a mountain of documents and spending $18,000 thus far, his wife still has not been granted entry into the U.S. We talked about the unfairness. He is respecting and adhering to our immigration laws. And yet, Obama opened the flood gates to illegals totally un-vetted, gifting them government freebies unavailable to Americans. I told the brother to hang in there. Trump is cutting bureaucracy.

I met a white woman who is chair of a Republican Club. She said they have been reaching out to blacks in a sincere attempt to add more diversity to their club. She asked my advise. I chuckled and said, “Good luck with that.” I have been trying to get blacks to break their mindless loyalty to the democrats for over a decade. Still, I told the patriot sister to keep trying. With God’s help, suddenly mindsets can change.

I asked a young white kid around 14 years old about the unique flag he was waving; blue with a crescent moon and the word, liberty. The kid was an encyclopedia regarding American flags, giving me the full history. Blown away, I said, “You are way too smart for public school. You have got to be home schooled.” He replied, “Yes sir.” I knew it. In my years of touring the country on 14 Tea Party national bus tours, home schooled kids were strikingly different; calmer, smarter, behaved and well educated. Leftists are at war with parents trying to outlaw homeschooling.

Everyone was excitedly buzzing about Trump tweeting about Obama bugging Trump Tower before the election. Enraged fake news, democrats and other leftists bash Trump for tweeting declaring it un-presidential. Clearly, Trump supporters, over 60 million Americans love it. They love Trump speaking directly to them, bypassing Leftist operatives disguised as mainstream media.

An Asian female speaker addressing the crowd said it took her 35 years to become a legal US citizen with the right to vote. She expressed how proud she was to be an American. The audience went nuts. They loved her.

Representatives from Hispanics, women and blacks for Trump spoke from the stage. They were warmly and enthusiastically embraced by the crowd. We were family, united in our love for our country, excited about President Trump and his agenda; putting America first and making her great again. Such was the theme of the day.

I chatted with blacks at the rally to support Trump. Interestingly, they were entrepreneurs. It is funny how when you’re a business person trying to achieve your American Dream, you are well aware of the road blocks placed in your path by high taxes and the government’s tyrannical, absurd regulations.

The biggest thing I noticed at the Orlando for Trump rally was the obvious political growth and political sophistication of the participants. Back in the early days of the Tea Party movement we were naive patriots. We thought we were fighting only against the socialist policies of a left-leaning president and the democrats.

Today, we know our enemies: radical Leftist Obama and his army of thugs; the fake news media; the corrupt Washington DC political establishment (Republicans and Democrats); and NeverTrumps – united in their mission to destroy Trump’s presidency.

We the People are politically well educated and well-organized. We are spiritually, emotionally and intellectually locked and loaded, really for battle – really to support and defend our new president.

Please continue moving forward, Mr President. We the People have your back!

free speech 1965 to 2017

Democrats and the Deconstruction of Free Speech in America

Growing up in the 1960s I remember a time when Democrats marched for freedom of speech in Berkeley, California. Today Democrats riot to stop free speech in places like Berkeley, California.

As Shelby Steele wrote in a Wall Street Journal article:

The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism.

All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning.

Read more…

free speech movement

Nov. 20, 1965 the Free Speech Movement of the University of California, Berkeley.

Picture This: California Perspectives on American History writes:

On Nov. 20, 1965 the Free Speech Movement (FSM) of the University of California, Berkeley, organized a protest of several thousand students outside a meeting of the Regents of the University of California. The regents were gathered to discuss how to deal with the FSM. The movement had grown out of students involved in the Civil Rights movement and became a sign of the power of student activism that would be a trademark of the 1960s.

The FSM had its beginnings with students involved with CORE (Congress on Racial Equality) and the Southern Civil Rights movement. In the summer of 1964 some U.C. Berkeley students had gone south to work with CORE and returned for the new school year in September 1964. The CORE students set up tables on the Berkeley campus asking for donations and new members.

Read more…

Fast forward to the 2017 March4Trump rally in Berkeley, California.

Berkley

Bloodied March4Trump rally member in Berkeley, CA. Photo: iPatriot News

iPatriot News in an article “Radical Liberal Terrorist Bloodies Liberty-Loving Americans at Trump Rally” by Lars Lamonte reports on a March4Trump rally in Berkeley, California. Lamonte reports:

Ten liberal terrorists were arrested in California after physically attacking, bloodying, and in the case of an eldery [sic] gentleman, threatening the life of pro-Trump supporters on Saturday. The liberal thugs attacked the Trump rally in Berkeley, California with metal pipes, bats, 2×4’s, and pieces of wood according to police who arrived at the scene well after violence had gotten out of hand.

“At least two people, with their faces covered up, could be seen on video trying to set fire to an American flag, while a photo on Twitter showed the bloody face of a man who wore a T-shirt that said ‘Trump is My President.’” reported The LA Times.

Typically, the liberal media has barely reported on a story that highlights the thuggery and terrorist actions of the liberal left. Several rally supporters complained about the lack of intervention by police officers despite the violence shown below, a common complaint at pro-Trump rally’s in liberal states like this one in California. Despite the large amount of violence, numerous reports indicate that police officers refused to intervene, and only one suspect was arrested.

Read more…

Freedom of speech has now become “hate speech” if you do not belong to those who support President Donald J. Trump or America. Peaceful protests have turned violent. Those who support the President are bloodied, beaten and harassed, including the Vice President of the United States, whose wife’s email address was made public by the Associated Press.

The so called “resist” movement has the signature of another group known as the Storm Detachment (German Sturmabteilung or SA) the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party.

SA-Logo.svg

Nazi Sturmabteilung logo.

From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was reorganized into a front organization known as the Frontbann to circumvent Bavaria‘s ban on the Nazi Party and its organs (instituted after the abortive Beer Hall putsch of November 1923). Members of the SA were, throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s, often involved in street fights called Zusammenstöße (collisions) with members of the Communist Party (KPD).

Fast forward to today and we have the “resist” movement.

According to Discover the Networks:

The Indivisible Team (IT) was established by a group of five former Democratic congressional staffers in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 presidential election. One of the five founders, IT board president Ezra Levin, had previously served as associate director of government affairs at the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and as an AmeriCorpsVISTA employee in the Homeless Services Division of the San Jose Department of Housing. Another key founder, IT board secretary Angel Padilla, had worked as an immigration policy consultant at the National Council of La Raza, and as an adviser to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois) from 2009-11.

Upon its inception, IT’s first order of business was to launch a website devoted to providing leftists and liberals with strategies for countering the “radical, racist, and sexist” objectives of President Trump. This website features a tool kit for local IT organizers, a daily calendar that lists national events and calls-to-action, and the group’s signature publication, Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. During December 2016 and January 2017, this Guide was downloaded more than 1 million times.

Fear drives the “resist movement” to commit violence. Fear that they have lost power and influence. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

Gird your loins America for more violence, mayhem and destruction. You can thank your Democrat friend for this neo-free speech movement that wants to silence you.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

We Should be Thankful for the Frenzy on the Radical Left

Resist What? The Left’s Resistance Calendar

The Exhaustion of American Liberalism: White guilt gave us a mock politics based on the pretense of moral authority by Shelby Steele WSJ

In day of pro-Trump rallies, California march turns violent | Reuters

DeepStateGate: The Shadow Government Undermining President Trump Theory BACKFIRES!

RELATED VIDEO: In day of pro-Trump rallies, California march turns violent

demonstrators-defy-curfew-ferguson

VIDEO: Former Obama Attorney General calls for ‘more marching, blood, death on streets’

A short video was posted on YouTube by Senate Democrats of former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch calling for violence.

Worldnet Daily reports:

The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

The video is less than a minute long and begins by stating that people are experiencing “great fear and uncertainty,” with the unstated implication it is due to Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House.

Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”

But the strongest words come in a statement that seems to suggest the answer is street action that will inevitably turn bloody and deadly.

“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people,” Lynch says. “I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

obama trump wiretapping

TOWERGATE: Obama uses secret court and FBI to spy on Trump Campaign

Wikileaks released an email dated 2016-04-27 between two Democratic National Committee staffers (roberstske@dnc.org and BrinsterJ@dnc.org). In the email robertske@dnc.org wrote, “[T]he pro-Russia stuff ties in pretty well to the idea that Trump is too friendly with Putin/weak on Russia.”

We now learn that in June 2016 the Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied. A subsequent request in October was approved by the FISA court.

Fox News “White House sources confirm: FISA court issued a warrant to wiretap Trump Towers, “Intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence... they had to do it.” [Emphasis added]

“Due diligence” has no legal basis for spying on a U.S. citizen. There must be “probable cause” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Are the two connected? Was the DNC colluding with the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign?

Breitbart’s  Joel B. Pollack in a column titled “Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump” reports:

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Specifically Levin gives a ten item timeline about the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign. Here are the first four showing two involve using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), Department of Justice and FBI to spy on the Trump campaign:

  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.

Read more…

Heatstreet reports:

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

The FBI agents who talked to the New York Times, and rubbished the ground-breaking stories of Slate ( Franklin Foer) and Mother Jones (David Corn) may not have known about the FISA warrant, sources say, because the counter-intelligence and criminal sides of the FBI often work independently of each other employing the principle of ‘compartmentalization’.

The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates. The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA.

Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear  warrant. [Emphasis added]

This is the first time in history that a sitting president’s administration used government agencies to spy on an opposition candidate.

Senator Lindsey Graham at a town-hall meeting said, “If it is true, illegally, it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate.”

For lack of a better term we have called this “spying on an opposition candidate” Towergate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who is Attorney General Loretta Lynch? FISA court handled two requests to wiretap Donald Trump

WikiLeaks: CIA Uses ‘Stolen’ Malware to ‘Attribute’ Cyberattacks to Nations Like Russia

Phished Wiretap Scandal Implodes by Dennis G. Hurst

Non-Denial “Denial” Demands Criminal Investigation Into Obama’s Silent Coup

Freedom Watch offers to represent President Trump and White House over illegal Obama wiretapping

Obama & FISA: Trump Wiretap May Have Been Sought | National Review

Obama spox says Obama never wiretapped a US citizen — immediately receives harsh history lesson – TheBlaze

DOJ seized phone records for Fox News numbers, reporter’s parents | Fox News

RELATED VIDEO: Barack Obama Funneled BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars Into a SLUSH FUND For Liberal Activists!

donald and melania trump

A Short ‘Honey-Do’ List for President Trump

Although Republican lawmakers were confronted with shouting, screaming mobs during their February recess, they have no one to blame but themselves… or one of their not-dry-behind-the-ears staffers who wouldn’t know a leftist political assault from a Girl Scout picnic.  Someone in their capital offices or in their district offices should have known that a George Soros/Barack Obama-linked organization called “Indivisible” planned to turn their town hall meetings into rowdy shouting matches.  Their goal was to create an impression that the congressman or senator was very unpopular with voters and they were somewhat successful in creating that impression.

Indivisible protesters claim a kinship with the Tea Party, but like almost everything else we hear from liberals and Democrats, those claims are totally without merit.  For starters, it should be noted that Tea Party activists are all people who are for something, while liberals and Democrats, including the troublemakers of Indivisible, refuse to say what they’re actually for… other than the early departure of Donald Trump from the White House.

What that should tell us is that there are an awful lot of people in Washington with a “D” behind their names who have far too much free time on their hands.  As our mothers used to caution us, “idle hands are the Devil’s play-things.”

It’s time that Donald Trump and congressional Republicans took off the gloves and played a little political hardball.  They might want to give Obama and the Democrats something to think about by preparing a list of “honey-dos” guaranteed to hold the interest of Democrats.  For starters, Republican congressional leaders should announce plans for an audit of Obama’s 2009 stimulus program, a $787 billion boondoggle passed by Congress in February 2009.  What happened to the $787 billion that was to be spent on “shovel ready” projects when, by Obama’s own admission, they couldn’t find many “shovel ready” projects?  Once again, like much of what Democrats do, the stimulus was a solution in search of a problem.  Nevertheless, we do need to know exactly who walked off with nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.

Now that Obama has let it be known that he’s ready to come out of retirement to lead a “shadow government,” Trump may want to lay a little trap for him as payback for the humiliation he suffered at the 2012 White House Correspondent’s dinner when Obama publicly ridiculed him for being a “birther.”  The White House could hint that Trump, after several months in office, was considering inviting Obama back to the Oval Office for a general discussion on several knotty international and domestic problems.  However, in order to accommodate that discussion, it would be necessary to verify that Obama’s security clearance was up to date.  And when the White House staff found that Obama cannot pass the same Homeland Security E-Verify test that all green card applicants must pass in order to work in the United States… all E-Verify attempts using Obama’s name and Social Security number from his federal and state tax returns produce a “no match” response… they would quietly, and without fanfare, appear to drop the issue.

However, the White House press corps, always anxious to add another nail to Trump’s coffin, could be expected to press for an answer, fearful that Obama was being “dissed” by Donald Trump.  The White House press secretary would then attempt to avoid the issue, saying that the idea was still “under consideration.”  But, as pressure built within the White House press corps for a Trump response, a carefully placed “leak” could let the story out.  Then, in Sean Spicer’s daily press briefing, he could finally be forced to “come clean.”  By that time, everyone in the country would know that President Trump would be unable to share classified information with Obama because he has been using a stolen Social Security number for many years and cannot qualify for access to confidential, secret, or top secret information.

Turning to the illegal immigration issue, the Trump administration should not delay plans to implement a cutoff of federal funding to cities and states that have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens.  If those cities and states insist on actively defying U.S. law, acting as accomplices to millions of illegal aliens, there must be a price to pay.  All of those members of the Hollywood entertainment community who couldn’t help but sneak in a few anti-Trump digs as they accepted their awards on Oscar night will have to be taught a bit of humility.

According to estimates prepared by a California legislative committee, the State of California receives some $368 billion each year in federal support, 77% of which (some $283.4 billion) goes to individuals and corporations to cover the costs of Social Security, Medicare, defense contracts, federal civilian wages and salaries, military wages and salaries, veterans benefits, non-defense contracts, federal retiree benefits, etc.  The remaining $84.6 billion goes directly to state and local governments.  Presumably, it is that $84.6 billion that the Trump administration would  target.  So how would Californians respond?  Realizing that the IRS can’t put tens of thousands of wealthy Californians behind bars, what we might expect to see is mass avoidance of federal income taxes.  And how would the IRS respond to that?  More than likely the IRS would choose to levy penalties and interest on individual taxpayers.  And when the tax bills remained unpaid, the IRS would begin to attach bank accounts and to file liens on real property.

And finally, if money truly is the “mother’s milk” of politics, then George Soros and his Open Society Foundation are an entire dairy farm for the Democrat Party and every other radical left pressure group and anti-American organization on Earth.

Soros immigrated to the United States in 1956 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on December 18, 1961.  A Hungarian Jew, Soros worked for the Waffen SS in Hungary during World War II, delivering eviction notices to Jewish businessmen and shopkeepers and helping the Nazis dispose of Jewish property and personal belongings.  Not only has he not expressed remorse for his role in dispossessing untold numbers of fellow Jews, many of whom later died in Nazi concentration camps, he has said in an interview that he considers the year he spent working for the Nazis in Budapest “the happiest time” of his life.

Just four years before Soros arrived in the U.S., another World War II refugee, 32-year-old Ukrainian Ivan Demjanjuk, arrived in New York with his wife and child.  The Demjanjuk’s lived in Indiana for a time but later settled in the Cleveland, Ohio, area where Demjanjuk worked as a diesel engine mechanic at a Ford Motor Company assembly plant.  He applied for citizenship

and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on November 14, 1958.  His story is an interesting one.

At the outbreak of World War II, while working as a tractor driver on a Ukrainian collective farm, Demjanjuk was drafted into the Soviet Army.  However, after being captured by German forces and sent to a POW camp, he and other Ukrainian prisoners, knowing that their lot in life would be far better in the German army than to be subjected to the cruelties of the Russian army, put on German uniforms and agreed to join forces with the Germans to fight the Russians.

Demjanjuk was transferred to a German POW camp at Sobibor, in occupied Poland, where he was assigned duty as a guard.  When the war ended and members of the enlisted ranks were disarmed and sent home, Demjanjuk took his family and sailed for New York.  However, in 1975, a Ukrainian newspaper published a list of names of ethnic Ukrainians living in the United States.  Demjanjuk’s name was on the list and it was only a matter of time before Nazi hunters compared that list to a list of names of those who had worked in Nazi concentration camps.

Demjanjuk’s U.S. citizenship was revoked for failure to disclose the nature of his service in the German army and he was deported to Israel for trial.  However, the Israeli court failed to convict him and he returned to Cleveland where he rejoined his wife and three children.  But the U.S. Government was not finished with him.  And although his citizenship was restored in 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice claimed new evidence was found against him and revoked his citizenship a second time in 2002.  However, when no country would accept him he remained in the U.S. until April 2, 2009, when Germany agreed to try him in a German federal court.

Demjanjuk, gravely ill, was taken from his home in Cleveland on a stretcher, transported to the airport by ambulance, and flown to Munich.  On July 13, 2011, 91-year-old John Demjanjuk was wheeled into a Munich courtroom where he was charged with having been an “accessory” to the murder of 27,900 Jewish prisoners in the Sobibor concentration camp.  He was found guilty on all counts and was sentenced to five years in prison.  He died on March 17, 2012, a free man, while awaiting an appeal of his conviction.

So the question arises: when is the last time someone reviewed George Soros’s citizenship application?  If Ivan Demjanjuk could be hounded to death because he failed to fully disclose his wartime experience as a prison guard in the German army, why was Soros given a pass for his role as a functionary of the Nazi Waffen SS?  Or did he simply lie about his wartime service?

As matters now stand, Trump’s most dangerous and implacable enemies are a “loose cannon” ex-president with delusions of grandeur and an aging international billionaire who hates America and its people and who will spend whatever it takes to do us harm.

Barack Obama and George Soros are the Bobbsey Twins of the “hate America” movement, and so long as they are free to do so they will do everything in their power to bring our great nation to its knees.  As liberals and Democrats accelerate their campaign to delegitimize the Trump presidency, let us hope that he will not hesitate to use the power and the influence of his office to rid the nation of those poisonous influences.