Subscribe: The Elephant Bar
Preview: The Elephant Bar

The Elephant Bar

Updated: 2018-01-20T12:35:50.131-05:00


#ReleaseTheMemo: WikiLeaks wants to see it


More#ReleaseTheMemo: Do you know someone who has access to the FISA abuse memo? Send them here:  WikiLeaks will match reward funds up to $1m sent to this unique Bitcoin address: 3Q2KXS8WYT6dvr91bM2RjvBHqMyx9CbPMN or marked 'memo2018': [...]

If you wrong us shall we not revenge?


Join the social media campaign to release the memo on Obama's abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to the public by tweeting #ReleaseTheMemo, posting this article on Facebook and other social media and calling your Representative (The Toll-Free Capitol Switchboard is 1-866-220-0044) to tell your Member of Congress you want the document released to the public immediately. allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">FISA abuse memo, #ReleaseTheMemo campaign send Congress, Wikileaks and Twitter into a tailspinBy Dan Boylan - The Washington Times - Friday, January 19, 2018Interest in a classified House Intelligence Committee memo, which reportedly outlines how the anti-Trump dossier was used by the FBI to justify surveillance against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, has caused an online frenzy.Late Thursday, WikiLeaks jumped into the proceedings, offering a reward of up to $1 million to anyone who could send them a copy.Meanwhile, reports emerged that the Twitter hashtag calling for the memo’s public release — #ReleaseTheMemo — was receiving a major online push by Russian-linked Twitter accounts.According to the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, an independent tracker of Russian online influence campaigns, #ReleaseTheMemo received a massive boost over the past 48 hours, from more than 500 Twitter accounts suspected to have connections to Kremlin online propaganda efforts, the Washington Examiner reported. Some accounts, but noted, clearly behaved like automated “bots” deigned to amplifying American conspiracy theories and disinformation.On Thursday, the House House Intelligence Committee voted along party lines to release the FISA abuse memo. According to sources close to the committee, it addresses text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page which prove the dossier was used to justify FISA warrants.Previously the FBI’s deputy head of counterintelligence, Mr. Strzok played a primary role in investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. He also worked on the FBI’s probe into possible coordination between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election until leaving the investigation in July.During the Clinton investigation, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Paige, who worked for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, had a romantic relationship, according to multiple reports. Defenders of Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok told the Washington Post that there was no misconduct between the two.On Thursday, when Democrats voted against making the memo available for all House members, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, dismissed it as a “profoundly misleading set of talking points drafted by Republican staff attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation.”“Rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most of Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read, this is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI,” Mr. Schiff said a statement widely quoted by media. “This may help carry White House water, but it is a deep disservice to our law enforcement professionals.”Republicans, however, pounced on the document as a long-awaited vindication of their argument that Mr. Trump was smeared politically by the Washington Establishment after his election, which grossly exaggerated his connection to Russia.“I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called ‘Russian collusion.’ What I saw is absolutely shocking,” tweeted conservative Freedom Caucus leader, Rep. Mark Meadows, who also called for its release.“It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan was quoted as saying.“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is t[...]



‘Worse Than Watergate’: ‘Shocking’ House Intel Memo Allegedly Reveals FISA Abuse by Senior DOJ and FBI OfficialsKristina Wong18 Jan 2018 allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">Members of the House on Thursday said they viewed a “shocking” classified memo allegedly detailing abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by senior Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigations officials in relation to the investigation of the Trump campaign and called for it to be declassified and available to the public immediately.“It’s troubling. It is shocking,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Fox News. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.”“The facts contained in this memo are jaw-dropping and demand full transparency. There is no higher priority than the release of this information to preserve our democracy,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DOJ and the FBI.Another Judiciary Committee member, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), called what he saw in the memo “sickening” and said it was “worse than Watergate.”Steve King‏Verified account @SteveKingIAFollowFollow @SteveKingIAMoreI have read the memo. The sickening reality has set in. I no longer hold out hope there is an innocent explanation for the information the public has seen. I have long said it is worse than Watergate. It was #neverTrump & #alwaysHillary. #releasethememo7:32 PM - 18 Jan 2018 from Washington, DCRep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), another Judiciary Committee member,  called the memo “deeply troubling” and said it raises questions about the “Obama DOJ and Comey FBI.”“The classified report compiled by House Intelligence is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about the upper echelon of the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI as it relates to the so-called collusion investigation,” he tweeted.Ron DeSantis✔@RepDeSantisThe classified report compiled by House Intelligence is deeply troubling and raises serious questions about the upper echelon of the Obama DOJ and Comey FBI as it relates to the so-called collusion investigation.3:10 PM - Jan 18, 2018“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That’s how alarming it is,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-VA) told Fox News.“It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, also said to network.The viewing of the memo came after all Republican members of the House intelligence committee, whose investigators compiled the classified memo, voted Thursday to make it available to all House members. Every Democrat on the committee voted against it.According to Gaetz, the memo’s contents could lead to the firing — and perhaps even jailing — of senior DOJ and FBI officials.“I think that this will not end just with firings. I believe there are people who will go to jail,” he said on Fox News’ Hannity.He said what he saw in the memo also explains why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently referred the Fusion GPS dossier author Christopher Steele for a criminal investigation.“I think there will be criminal implications here,” Gaetz added.The memo also reportedly contains information about the dossier put together by Fusion GPS that alleged Trump and members of his team colluded with Russians in the 2016 election, according to a report by investigative journalist Sara Carter.It was revealed in October that the dossier was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Despite being a political document, the dossi[...]

Truth to Marxist militant feminist dogma


Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">"To be able to think, you have to risk being offensive."A professor's refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, and the vicious campus war that followedJanuary 25, 2017 AT 11:53 amToronto LifeOn September 27, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson posted a video titled Professor Against Political Correctness on his YouTube channel. The lecture, the first in a three-part series recorded in Peterson’s home office, was inspired by two recent events that he said made him nervous. The first was the introduction of Bill C-16, a federal amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code that would add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination. Peterson’s second concern was that U of T’s human resources department would soon make anti-bias and anti-discrimination training mandatory for its staff—training he believed to be ineffective, coercive and politically motivated. “I know something about the way that totalitarian, authoritarian political states develop,” Peterson said in the first video, “and I can’t help but think I’m seeing a fair bit of that right now.”Other profs in his position might have written op-eds, circulated petitions or negotiated with university officials. But Peterson is a big believer in the power of YouTube—“a Gutenberg revolution for speech,” he calls it—and, as it turns out, he had a lot to get off his chest. He carpet-bombed Marxists (“no better than Nazis”), the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“perhaps the biggest enemy of freedom currently extant in Canada”), the Black Liberation Collective (“they have no legitimacy among the people they purport to represent”) and HR departments in general (“the most pathological elements in large organizations”).Peterson also said he would absolutely not comply with the implied diktat of Bill C-16, which could make the refusal to refer to people by the pronouns of their choice an actionable form of harassment. He believes the idea of a non-binary gender spectrum is specious and he dismisses as nonsensical the raft of gender-neutral pronouns that transgender people have adopted—ze, vis, hir, and the singular use of they, them and their. “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them,” he said grimly. “I think they’re connected to an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations. I think uttering those words makes me a tool of those motivations. And I’m going to try and be a tool of my own motivations as clearly as I can articulate them and not the mouthpiece of some murderous ideology.”A good number of reasonable people are also skeptical about the newly developed assortment of personal pronouns. How will all the new pronouns work in practice? How will we know what to call someone? And can people call themselves whatever they wish? This is new territory where the usual maps don’t apply, where some of the tiniest words in the English language can cause offence. But it’s a problem that, to my mind, can be resolved with little difficulty—just ask people what they want to be called. It’s not so different from learning how to correctly pronounce a name that’s foreign to you. Peterson seized on the pronoun issue, above all other free-speech-related matters that bother him, because it’s an effective dog whistle. It underscores the lengths to which people will go in the name of political correctness while exposing and exploiting the anxiety that already exists around trans culture.Within days of going live, Professor Against Political Correctness had created the most intense campus firestorm since the University of Western Ontario psychology professor and race scient[...]

The "Dreamers" are a Nightmare


IMAGINE THAT: ILLEGALS DOING SOMETHING ILLEGALDACA-aged illegals commit crimes at twice the rate of young Americans, says a comprehensive summary of crimes and convictions in Arizona during the past 32 years.BreitbartThe report punctures claims by pro-amnesty advocates that young ‘dreamer’ illegals are vital to U.S. industry and civic life, and indicate that any amnesty will ensure that many more crimes — including murders and rapes — will be inflicted against Americans and legal immigrants, including Hispanics and blacks.  The report says: Unfortunately, if the goal of DACA is to give citizenship to a particularly law-abiding group of undocumented immigrants, it is accomplishing the opposite of what was intended. As Table 8 shows, DACA age eligible undocumented immigrants are 250% more likely to be convicted of crimes than their share of the population. Those too old for DACA status are convicted at a relatively low rates (45.7% more than their share of the Arizona population).The summary of the report, titled “Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona,”  says:   Using newly released detailed data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. These data do not rely on self-reporting by criminals. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens …If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.The report was prepared by John R. Lott Jr. at the Crime Prevention Research Center, in Alexandria, Va. He told Breitbart News: The data there shows the convictions for everybody who entered the prisons system from January 1985 through June of this last year … It just shows that certain groups are convicted at much higher rates than their share of the population …  [roughly 75 percent] of the crime committed by undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens is committed by those who are 15 to 35 years of age.Legal immigrants are very different from illegal immigrants, he said. Illegal immigrants are being convicted at very high rates compared to their share of the population. Legal immigrants appear to be fairly law-abiding, and are convicted at low rates compared to their share of the population.The database used for the report does not describe the race or ethnic identity of the victim, but national data shows that most victims are part of the same group as their criminals, he said. Lott added: What tends to happen across all the different racial groups is that criminals are of the similar race as the victim … the crime literature [shows] that victims tend to be similar to the perpetrators of the crimes … Obviously, a larger share of the victims will also be undocumented illegal aliens.Unsurprisingly, polls show that many legal immigrants want stronger border security. In 2014, for example, a pro-amnesty poll funded by Mark Zuckerberg showed that 78 percent of Hispanic respondents support “substantially increasing security among US-Mexican border.”Asked to rebut likely criticisms of the crime report, Lott said he had seen few criticisms so far. “I don’t know what people will say — it seems like a straightforward set of numbers,” he said.However, he noted that the report does not include any data about unreported [...]

“It is as folke dooe, and not as folke say.”


Sen. Rand Paul: President Trump Cares ‘Deeply’ About Haiti, Financed Medical Mission TripSean Moran15 Jan 2018BreitbartDieu Nalio Chery/ Associated PressPaul said on Meet the Press, “I think it’s unfair to sort of paint him, ‘oh well, he’s a racist,’ when I know for a fact that he cares very deeply about the people of Haiti because he helped finance a trip where they would get vision back for 200 people in Haiti.”President Trump stoked controversy recently as he reportedly called Haiti and other African countries “shithole countries.”Trump allegedly said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” The president reportedly then added that America should have more people from Norway and other similar countries come to the United States.The 45th president repeatedly rebuked reporters on Sunday after they asked him if he was a bigot.“No. I’m not a racist,” he replied. “I’m the least racist person you have ever interviewed. That I can tell you.”Sen. Paul and a team of other doctors from the John A. Moran Eye Moran at the University of Utah performed over 100 surgeries over three days in Salama, Guatemala.In Guatemala, Paul contrasted politics and medicine, saying, “It’s a lot different in the sense that here we see a problem and fix it.”Reporters, including Breitbart News’s Matthew Boyle, as well as NBC’s Meet the Press, the Washington Post, and National Review attended the trip to Guatemala.Breitbart News wrote from Antigua, Guatemala in August 2014, “Paul raised tens of thousands of dollars through various donors, including real estate magnate Donald Trump, to help cover the Moran Eye Center’s trip costs,” which included a $10,000 donation from Donald Trump.Sen. Paul’s communications team confirmed to Breitbart News that Sen. Paul solicited a donation from Trump for the Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah to fund the trip to Haiti and Guatemala.Sergio Gor, Paul’s communications director, told Breitbart News, “It wasn’t to Rand Paul foundation, it wasn’t to Rand Paul, it wasn’t to any of his victory committees—it was directly to University of Utah.”“Well, of course,” Gor confirmed to Breitbart News when asked whether Sen. Paul helped solicit the donation. “It’s not a secret. And he [Paul] admires him [Trump] for it. But it has nothing to do with his political positions. His charity giving was honorable. No one questions that. In fact, it’s been under reported.”[...]



allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">The Blizzard of Lies About Christopher SteeleJanuary 12, 2018, 12:05 amspectatorHe was Hillary’s hired gun, not America’s protector.Christopher Steele was Hillary’s hired gun, paid gobs of money to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. Yet somehow this “brilliant” spy lacked the surveillance skills to know that Hillary had hired him. That’s one of the many whoppers in the released Glenn Simpson testimony in which Steele is portrayed as a “Boy Scout” operating from the highest and purest of motives.Steele’s stenographers in the press invariably describe him as “highly regarded” and apolitical. The propagandistic omniscience behind these descriptions is laughable and amounts to nothing more than liberals presiding over a kangaroo court in which they can endlessly appeal to their own authority: we say he is “highly regarded,” so he is; we say that his motives were pure, so they are; we say that parts of his report have been “corroborated,” so don’t question them.The claim that Steele was operating above politics is a joke. According to the British press, he was a socialist before working for British intelligence as a Russian expert — a career path that should stimulate skepticism, or at least curiosity, in a vigilant press. Steele was the perfect counterpart to John Brennan, who entered American intelligence after supporting the American Communist Party.To whom did the “apolitical” Steele go with his findings at the height of the 2016 campaign? Mother Jones and Harry Reid. He also found other great souls of objectivity in the left-wing British press, to whom he was frantically peddling anti-Trump dirt. Now that we know how much he made from Hillary — she paid Fusion GPS over a million dollars — these stories appear even more audacious, since many of them were premised on Steele as a singularly high-minded and uncompensated volunteer. In reality, Steele was simultaneously taking checks from Hillary and the FBI and was simply putting out those stories about his uncompensated work in the hopes of making more money. It was the kind of racket that only a condescending British socialist could appreciate. (Glenn Simpson tried to keep this fiction going by telling the House that Steele “lives a very modest, quiet life.”)In the kangaroo court that is this story, no lie is too great: Hillary can write about Christopher Steele in her memoirs without mentioning that she paid him; Steele can claim through surrogates he didn’t know about her payments; a Hillary-financed dossier, full of so many errors it might as well have been co-authored by Michael Wolff, can be presented as a reliable and disinterested lead; jaw-dropping bias at the FBI can be sanitized as “free speech” of no import for the investigation; all unmaskings and FISA warrants, ordered up by Hillary supporters, only flowed from the most dispassionate considerations; any foreign interference in the campaign is deemed “friendly” and harmless if it fed the collusion investigation.Turn on cable television at almost any moment and you can get a glimpse of the kangaroo court in session: Andrea Mitchell, on nothing but her own say-so, declaring her buddy Susan Rice “cleared”;  former Obama official turned CNN “correspondent” Jim Sciutto pronouncing on the propriety of Mueller hiring Hillary donors (all very innocent and normal, he says in his oh-so-authoritative anchormanish tones); Erin Burnett, unnerved the other night by a pro-Trump congressman, insisting that Steele went to the FBI “out of concern” (how would she know?); panels assembled throughout the day to mull over the latest partisan conjecture presented as “breaking news.”A week or so ago the kangaroo court had taken Steele out of the doc[...]

The Next Chapter on widespread abuse of FISA by Obama, FBI, DOJ and the MEDIA


Glenn Simpson retracts claim FBI had a mole inside Trump teamBy Rowan Scarborough - The Washington TimesGlenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS founder who sponsored the unverified anti-Trump dossier, claimed in August and again Jan. 2 that the FBI has a source inside the Trump camp who lent credence to the document.When a transcript of his secret August testimony was released on Tuesday, news headlines immediately latched onto the disclosure as a boon to a dossier whose core charges of Donald Trump-Russia collusion have been denied and not confirmed publicly.Then suddenly, as quick as the headlines went up, some one close to Fusion was waving off reporters. Mr. Simpson had “mischaracterized” the source. It was not some one on the Trump inside, but apparently an Australian diplomat.He was featured in a Dec. 30 New York Times story as the source who tipped off the FBI. Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos told him over drinks that a Russian-linked professor knew of “thousands” of Hillary Clinton emails in the hands of Moscow.How Mr. Simpson knew of the diplomat last August was unclear. He would have known of him in January when he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he again told of an insider source.“As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp,” he wrote.Moments after Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, unilaterally released the transcript, the inside-source story spread, especially in London. The city is home base of Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy who wrote the dossier.In his testimony, Mr. Simpson told of Mr. Steele’s meeting with FBI agents in Rome in September 2016. Mr. Steele told Mother Jones magazine he was trying to jump-start an investigation into President Trump.Mr. Simpson testified, “Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”“It was someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report something,” added Mr. Simpson, who said this person was not a Steele source, but an FBI one.Hours after the transcript’s release, the corrections started.“A source close to Fusion GPS tells me there was no walk-in source––that was a mischaracterization by Simpson of the Australian diplomat tip about Papadopoulis [sic],” tweeted NBC reporter Ken Dilanian.Whether the source the FBI supposedly told Mr. Steele about could be Mr. Papadopoulos is doubtful. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about issues surrounding his contacts with the professor. The criminal complain says the FBI did not interview him until January 2017, three months after Mr. Steele met with the agents in Rome.The story corrections correction caught the eye of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican, who on Thursday sent off a letter to Fusion attorney Joshua Levy. Mr. Grassley demanded to know why Mr. Levy did not correct the record after spending hours reviewing the transcript in October and November or contact the committee last Tuesday.” If it is true that your client’s statement to the Committee was a mischaracterization, why did you not attempt to correct your client’s statement as soon as you and/or he realized it was not accurate?” the senator wrote. Mr. Levy did not return a message seeking commen[...]

False Warning from Hawaii Emergency Management


Previous Real False Alarms: allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630"> allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">White House calls false Hawaii missile alert 'a state exercise'Gabby MorrongielloJan 13, 2018, 3:09 PMWashington ExaminerThe White House described a false inbound missile alert received by Hawaii residents on Saturday morning as an "emergency management exercise," offering no further explanation for the erroneous warning."The President has been briefed on the state of Hawaii's emergency management exercise," White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters told reporters in West Palm Beach, Fla."This was a state exercise," she added.Hawaiians awoke to alerts on their mobile devices and televisions around 8 a.m. local time Saturday, warning of an "inbound" ballistic missile threat."Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill," the emergency alert stated.Many residents had already fled to nearby shelters before U.S. Pacific Command confirmed the alert was sent by mistake.Hawaii Gov. David Ige later told CNN somebody "pushed the wrong button" during an employee shift change, causing the false alert to be sent out.Trump was visiting his golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla. at the time of the incident Saturday.BETTER TUNE UP THE TRAINING: allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">[...]

Be fair to the Illegals from El Salvador and Haiti - Bring Diversity and Cultural Enrichment to Martha's Vineyard


Martha's Vineyard is seasonal and  underused. There are plenty of open spaces. It is overwhelmingly Democratic and very liberal so there would be an overtly loving welcome to the noble migrants looking for a better life. 

Please do the right thing and support the natural right of Haitians and Salvadorians to resettle in Martha's Vineyard. 

It would complete the legacy of the "Lion of the Senate", Ted Kennedy.

Careful thought should also be given to opening the Hamptons to the DACA children.

Haiti and the Clintons


allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">

In 2004, former gov. Dick Lamm gave a now-famous speech. “I have a plan to destroy America,”


News Political NewsRichard Lamm on MulticulturalismDid Richard Lamm make a speech saying multiculturalism is destroying America?Snopes allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">HAT TIP: Mark Levin ShowA Frightening AnalysisWe all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'”“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.Third, “We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'”Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.” “Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropo[...]

No Free or Subsidized Citizenship


Switzerland Rejects Citizenship Bids of Residents Who Have Been on WelfareChris Tomlinson10 Jan 2018FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty ImagesA new civil rights act has come into force in Switzerland that prevents residents who have been on welfare in the past three years from becoming citizens unless they pay back the money they received to the state.The new regulations will make it impossible for asylum seekers and migrants who have lived off state handouts in the last three years to become citizens even if they have lived in Switzerland as permanent residents for the required time to make a citizenship application, Kronen Zeitung reports.The previous law allowed migrants to apply for citizenship as long as they were not on state benefits at the time of their application.Along with the welfare stipulation, the new act requires migrants to demonstrate a greater level of integration than before including making them prove they have a certain number of Swiss friends and acquaintances.Language requirements vary by canton with most expecting an intermediate level of language proficiency judged on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) at the B1 or B2 level.While Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, asylum seekers have attempted to flood into the country through the southern Italian border. While many have used Switzerland as a transit country to reach Germany, others have remained in the Alpine state.Various cantons and cities in Switzerland have attempted to push back against the tide of migrants by making it less appealing for them to come to the country. Late last year, the city of Zurich voted to dramatically cut benefits to failed asylum seekers who were in so-called “F-status” in which they cannot be deported.Many of the migrants entering Switzerland have also come without any form of identification, making it even more difficult to process their asylum claim or deport those not approved for asylum status.Swiss national councillor Simonetta Sommaruga revealed late last year that the government is unaware of the true identity of nine out of 10 asylum seekers in the country.  Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at) [...]



allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="400" src="" width="630">

Joe DiGenova: Illegal FBI, DOJ and Intelligence services broke federal law in spying and wiretapping Trump Tower, lying to FISA court


"Comey is dead meat"... "John Clapper, John Brennan and the Obama Administration" misused the FISA court"... "The real Treason in FBI and DOJ" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">FBI agents' text messages spur congressional probe into possible news leaksRepublican-led House and Senate committees are investigating whether leaders of the Russia counterintelligence investigation had contacts with the news media that resulted in improper leaks, prompted in part by text messages amongst senior FBI officials mentioning specific reporters, news organizations and articles.In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”The text messages, which were reviewed by The Hill, show the two FBI agents discussed how they might make it appear they innocently discovered the article, such as through Google News alerts.“I can get it like I do every other article that hits any Google News alerts, seriously,” Strzok wrote, adding he didn’t want his team hearing about the article “from someone else.”Strzok played a key role in the early Russia election meddling probe before he was removed last summer by special counsel Robert Mueller for exchanging text messages critical of President Trump, then still a candidate, with Page.The Justice Department has told Congress that Strzok had engaged in an affair with Page, who served as a lawyer advising FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.The Hill reviewed nearly three dozen texts in which the two agents discussed articles, tried to track down information about a specific New York Times reporter or opined about leaked information in stories that they fretted were “super specific.”Republican investigators in both the House and Senate say the text messages suggest FBI personnel may have had media contacts but don’t necessarily prove it. So they want to learn more about what the two agents were talking about and whether any FBI officials involved in the Russia probe engaged in leaking, sources told The Hill.President Trump has bitterly complained about leaks in the Russia probe, suggesting the investigation had created a false narrative about his campaign and early administration. And FBI officials have taken the rare step of denouncing a few major stories in the Russia case as inaccurate.FBI contacts with the media wouldn’t necessarily be improper unless they resulted in the release of confidential law enforcement information or classified information, such as the leak last February of an intercept of then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.The Justice Department says it currently has 27 ongoing criminal leak investigations, triple the amount of the prior three years combined.FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment about the Strzok-Page texts, noting the Justice Department inspector general is currently investigating the messages and any political bias or other wrongdoing that may have occurred in the Russia case.Former FBI Director James Comey, on whose watch the Russia case began, ha[...]

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">

Civilizations normally fight for the preservation of their cultures, unite to expel invaders, revere their identities and the fundamental elements of their heritage. But no longer in the West?


Israelis have a better idea  allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="" width="560">How Europe Built Its Own Funeral Pyre, Then Leapt InMass immigration, guilt and a continent on the brink of ‘societal catastrophe.’By Robert W. Merry • January 4, 2018The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, Douglas Murray, Bloomsbury Continuum, 352 pagesThe single most significant issue of our time is not North Korea’s drive to develop long-range nuclear missiles. It is not the threat posed to Europe by the Russian land power or the threat posed to America’s Asian dominance by Chinese sea power. It is not Iran’s growing Mideast influence, nor the ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in U.S. elections and possible “collusion” by the Trump campaign.No, the defining issue of our day is mass immigration into the nations of Western heritage. This growing inflow threatens to remake those nations and overwhelm their cultural identity. This is the issue that played the largest role in getting Donald Trump elected. It drove Britain’s Brexit vote. It is roiling the European continent, mounting tensions inside the EU and driving a wedge between the elites of those nations and their general populations.Indeed, the central battlefront in the immigration wars is Europe, which accepted a trickle of immigrants in the immediate postwar era due to labor shortages. But over the years the trickle became a stream, then a growing river, and finally a torrent—to the extent that ethnic Britons are now a minority in their own capital city, refugee flows into Germany went from 48,589 in 2010 to 1.5 million in 2015, and Italy, a key entry point, received at one point an average of 6,500 new arrivals a day.Throughout all this, the European elites celebrated the change and imposed a kind of thought enforcement regime against those who raised questions. The in-migration was initially hailed as an economic boon; then as a necessary corrective to an aging population; then as a means of spicing up society through “diversity”; and finally as a fait accompli, an unstoppable wave wrought by the world’s gathering globalization. Besides, argued the elites, the new arrivals would all become assimilated into the European culture eventually, so what’s the problem? Meanwhile, public opinion surveys over decades showed that large majorities of Europeans harbored powerful misgivings about these changes.As British journalist and author Douglas Murray writes, “Promised throughout their lifetimes that the changes were temporary, that the changes were not real, or that the changes did not signify anything, Europeans discovered that in the lifespan of people now alive they would become minorities in their own countries.”Murray, associate editor of the Spectator in London, is the author of a compact volume exploring this phenomenon. It is called The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, and it was published six months ago by Bloomsbury. The tone is measured but unflinching. The picture he paints of the European future is bleak.A key point of the book, reinforced through anecdote and abundant documentation, is that Muslim immigrants have not assimilated into their European host countries to any meaningful extent. Indeed, there is a growing feeling among many of the new arrivals that these aren’t host countries at all but merely lands ripe for Islam’s inexorable expansion. An 18-year-old Syrian refugee to Germany, Aras Bacho, writing in Der Freitag [...]

Lionel: Doing his thing when it is as cold as a Well Diggers Ass


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">It is a long stream, and  an interesting view of Lionel and you probably have nothing better to do. Check it out!CareerBorn in Tampa, Florida, he attended Jesuit High School where he was voted Class Wit. After graduating magna cum laude from the University of South Florida in 1980, where he was a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, Lionel worked as a District Aide for Florida United States Senator Richard "Dick" Stone and in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection. Lionel graduated from the Stetson University College of Law, and as trial lawyer worked as both prosecutor for the Hillsborough County Florida State Attorney's Office (13th Judicial Circuit), and a criminal defense trial lawyer thereafter. He is admitted to practice law in Florida, New Jersey and New York as well before the U.S. Supreme Court.[citation needed]He began his radio career hosting a show at WFLA 970 AM in his hometown of Tampa from 1988 to 1993.[citation needed] The Lionel Show debuted in Tampa, Florida, on weekends on 970 WFLA in October 1988. For years, Lionel had been a frequent caller to local shows, eventually becoming a "chronic", which is industry vernacular for frequent callers. He was noted for using various aliases and personas to get on the air. His most enduring moniker, "Lionel", alludes to Francis Lionel "Lion" Delbuchi, the character played by Al Pacino in the movie Scarecrow.[citation needed]When WPLP (WFLA's rival station across Tampa Bay) offered Lionel a talk show, he declined, due to WPLP's rather meager offer—and his trepidations about how a radio show would affect his law career. In October 1988, WFLA management gave him an irresistible offer to move behind the microphone as a Sunday afternoon radio host. In January 1989, his show moved to middays (9 a.m. to 12 p.m.), Monday through Friday. Seven months later, he took the afternoon drive slot, where his lively mix of current events and dry humor proved to be a ratings success. In 1993, he was hired away by WABC 770 AM, a major talk radio station in New York City when a former ABC network president, Jim Arcara, heard Lionel's show while vacationing in Florida and lured him to the Big Apple. Lionel manned the morning drive slot on New York's heritage WABC 770 AM in early 1994. He set ratings records for WABC as its morning-drive host during the mid-1990s[citation needed]. For a time, Lionel did both morning drive and afternoon drive for a period immediately following talk radio legend Bob Grant's departure from WABC.[citation needed]In the late 1990s, toward the end of his tenure at WABC, Lionel also hosted the CourtTV law show Snap Judgment. He also provided daily updates on WCBS 880 AM during the Clinton impeachment process. In 2000, he began his national radio show, The Lionel Show, originally syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks through 2001. His show was then syndicated by independent Rex Broadcasting until 2003, when it was picked up locally and nationally syndicated by the WOR Radio Network in New York City. It was broadcast six days a week (9 p.m. to midnight ET weekdays, and 5 to 8 p.m. ET Saturdays). In 2000 and 2001, in addition to his radio work, Lionel was a morning host on an Internet-based talk radio site,[...]

Federal probe examines whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use by Clinton Foundation


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Networks Refuse to Cover FBI Opening New Clinton Foundation InvestigationBy Curtis Houck | January 5, 2018 12:37 PM ESTNewsBustersTo the shock of no one (at least in the NewsBusters newsroom), the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored on Friday morning the stunning revelation that the Clinton Foundation is under FBI investigation for possible crimes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.FNC’s Fox & Friends was the only cable or network morning show (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, CNN’s New Day, FNC’s Fox & Friends, MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and NBC’s Today) to confirm and cover the story, spending eight minutes and 50 seconds (minus teasers) on the Clinton Foundation.The Hill’s John Solomon broke the story just after 8:30 p.m. Eastern, explaining right off the top that “[t]he Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State.”Solomon revealed that FBI agents in Little Rock, Arkansas “have taken the lead in the investigation,” including the process of interviewing possible witnesses. He cited a source has having told him that the focus is whether Clinton sought to curry favor with possible donors in exchange for access to Clinton or favorable treatment by the government.Here’s more from Solomon: The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.In an update Friday morning, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill blasted the move as“disgraceful” and suggested that it was ordered without merit by the Trump administration to distract from the Russia investigation and Michael Wolff’s stunning new book.After the morning shows, both CNN and The Washington Post confirmed Solomon's scoop. CNN Newsroom with John Berman and Poppy Harlow went live in the 10:00 a.m. hour to Justice correspondent Laura Jarrett following the publication of a story by Jarrett and colleague Evan Perez.In part, Jarrett told Berman and Harlow: A significant legal development here as CNN has now learned that federal authorities down in Arkansas are actively investigating the Clinton Family Foundation for corruption. A U.S. official tells me that the FBI and federal prosecutors there are digging into specifically whether foundation donors were improperly promised policy favors or some type of special access to Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity's coffers and coming whether tax laws were followed here.The major broadcast networks had plenty of time for Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury book of Trump White House gossip, but no time for this bomshell. If any significant time is devoted to it, watch for the liberal media and friends like Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff  [...]

Germany is a dangerous country to the concept of free speech - They call it "Hate Speech"


Inconveniently, Germany is the EU allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Angela Merkel gets a lesson in free speechANALYSIS/OPINION:Free speech, the driving principle of the American experiment in how free men govern themselves, is a principle that does not always travel well. Free speech requires constant defense and the careful attention of loving hands. Mere lip service won’t do it.Americans are armed with the First Amendment, the most important amendment of all, and it does not guarantee polite or even responsible speech, but free speech. The humblest citizen is entitled to say whatever he pleases. He can expect to pay the consequences of irresponsible speech, but the government can’t stop him from saying it.Certain politicians even here from time to time seem frustrated enough to want to create exceptions. Who likes to hear himself berated by pipsqueaks? So far the Supreme Court has held the line, even upholding the right to say outrageous and wicked things unless they lead someone to commit actual crimes.Alas, not so elsewhere, even among America’s allies pretending to honor free speech. Britain has an Official Secrets Act, which severely restricts what newspapers can print about affairs of state, and stepping out of line invites severe consequences. Germany has a particularly hard time understanding free speech.Germans pretend to the right to speak freely, but it’s a pretense. They are free only to speak freely of what the government says is OK to say. The fatherland has a tough new line, effective this New Year’s Day, written to curtail “hate speech” on social media. That’s the bad news. The good news is that only five days into the new year the state has struck active resistance.“Please spare us the thought police!” declares a headline in Bild, the top-selling newspaper in the republic, and the newspaper called the law a “sin” against freedom of opinion enshrined in the German constitution. The law is widely regarded as a bow to Muslim immigrants, many of whom regard any criticism of Islam and its founder Mohammad as unholy and verboten.“The law against online hate speech failed on its very first day,” writes Julian Reichelt, the editor in chief of Bild. He observes that the law could be applied against anything and anyone because there is no clear definition of what is “manifestly unlawful.” This lack of definition is the opening that someone will drive a truck through (though one not laden with explosives).The hate-speech law requires social-media sites to delete or block criminal content within 24 hours, with fines up to $60 million for sites that don’t quickly take down messages defined as “hate speech” or “fake news.” Supporters of the law (“snowflakes” thrive in Germany as robustly as in the United States) say the law will bring online speech in line with German law that curbs “hate speech” in print. Critics call it for what it is, censorship.Police are investigating certain tweets made by two members of Alternative for Germany (AfD), a political party on the fringe, following a tweet by the party’s deputy leader calling Muslim men “barbaric” and given to “gang-raping.” This would be mild stuff in the United States, but it reflects the national rage two years ago after a New Year’s Eve jollification in Cologne turned violent, with hundreds of women reporting assaults, 24 of whom said they were raped.Beatrix von Storch, the deputy[...]

Which Were Worse? The Things Obama Did or Should Have Done"


ANSWER: All the above. allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Leon Panetta: Obama Should Have Helped Iran Protests in 2009Joel B. Pollak2 Jan 2018BreitbartFormer Secretary of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday evening that his old boss, then-President Barack Obama, should have done more to support the Iran protests of 2009.In 2009, Obama infamously refused to back the “Green Revolution,” telling reporters that “we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.” Many former Obama advisers continue to believe that the U.S. should not support protests against the Iranian regime, telling Donald Trump this week to “be quiet” rather than backing the demonstrators.Tapper asked Panetta, as the CIA director at the time, to comment on Obama’s stance, in retrospect:Tapper: Let me ask you about the last time there were mass protests in Iran, in 2009, when you were in the Obama administration. Do you think the Obama administration dropped the ball by not more aggressively standing with the protesters, whether on its own or in congress with our European allies and others?Panetta: Well, I remember that — that movement. It was a much larger protest than what we’re having today. It was based on the Green Party and what happened in the election then. I do think that was an appropriate time for the United States to have sent a clearer message that we stand by those who try to represent the rights of people. That’s what the United States is all about. And it would have been important to have sent that message at the time.Obama’s Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert Gates, has also said that the Obama administration should have sided with the protesters in 2009.Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.[...]

The Rot at FBI and DOJ: Does Anyone Doubt That Obama is King Rat?


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Devin Nunes expands Russia probe to use of dossier to snare Donald TrumpBy Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Monday, January 1, 2018 The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has expanded its 2016 election investigation from a starting point of Russian interference to an end-game that focuses on federal law enforcement and how it conducted a drive to snare President Trump and his people.Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican, is accusing the Justice Department and the FBI of misleading him in “a pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated.” He charges that Justice claimed it possesses no documents related to the infamous Trump dossier, then, under pressure, produced “numerous” such papers.Republicans in the first half of 2018 are likely to wind down the starting-point inquiry into Russian hacking of Democrats and whether Trump aides helped.Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the committee’s top Democrat, already is protesting the likely move. He is pushing an extended list of witnesses he wants summoned by Republicans, who suspect Mr. Schiff would like to see the probe stay active into November’s midterm elections and beyond.Democrats, including Mr. Schiff, have conceded in recent weeks that their hope of finding an extensive Russia-Trump conspiracy to jointly attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has fallen short at this point.What could outlive the initial Russia probe are missions undertaken by Mr. Nunes. He has put in place what amounts to a separate investigation of the FBI and the Justice Department hierarchy.There are three main components:Fusion GPS. The Democrat-friendly opposition research firm and Mr. Nunes have squared off in U.S. District Court over access to Fusion’s financial transactions. Fusion funded the infamous Trump-Russia dossier with money from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.The FBI and the dossier. Republicans want to know how the document’s unconfirmed felony accusations fueled the bureau’s counterintelligence investigation since July 2016.Investigative bias. The committee is demanding appearances from Justice officials who seemed out to get Mr. Trump and/or had ties to the dossier’s distribution.On Fusion, Mr. Nunes has used his subpoena power to seek records of Fusion’s financial transactions between law firms, journalists and media companies.Fusion, founded by former Wall Street Journal reporters, notably Glenn Simpson, argues its records are protected by First Amendment rights.The Washington Examiner reported that a key subpoenaed witness is David Kramer, an associate of Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, Arizona Republican. Mr. Kramer is one of the few people known to have possessed a hard copy of the dossier.{My comment: McCain The Rat }At the behest of Mr. McCain, Mr. Kramer represented the senator at a Nov. 28, 2016, meeting with Christopher Steele in Surrey, England. A British ex-spy, Mr. Steele compiled the 35 pages of memos making up the dossier based on his paid Kremlin sources, some close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.Mr. Kramer then obtained a copy of the dossier from Fusion GPS.[...]

Can we just stop saying the FBI is respected, but...? It isn't.


2013 Obfuscation and Lies allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">2011 Obfuscation and Lies allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Stealing Agent Mathew Lowry allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">1988 Obfuscation, Cheating and Lies allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">1960s Character Assassination , Spying allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Buchanan: Did the FBI conspire to stop Trump? Pat BuchananThe original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did Donald Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Trump?A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen. Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here: That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids -- seconded Comey’s decision.And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state Senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strz[...]

Nothing Will Get Cleaned Up Without Getting Rid of Jeff Sessions


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Larry Klayman: Sessions Not Looking Out for TrumpAttorney General Jeff Sessions is looking out for his own interests, not those of President Donald Trump, when it comes to special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Russian tampering with the 2016 presidential election, Larry Klayman told Newsmax TV on Friday."Jeff Sessions has his own back," Klayman, founder of the government watchdog Freedom Watch and a former federal prosecutor, said to Newsmax's John Bachman on "America Talks Live.""Jeff Sessions, No.1, should fire Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, to get somebody who will really supervise what [special counsel Robert] Mueller is doing, because Mueller, in effect, works for the Justice Department."This guy, Rosenstein, he's a Democrat, he's a holdover U.S. attorney from Maryland under [President Barack] Obama. He's rubber-stamping everything Mueller is doing and someone needs to rein Mueller in."Klayman said he believes Mueller has pushed the boundaries of his investigation too far."He's supposed to be investigating so-called Russian collusion, not alleged financial crimes by the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, not dealing with [former Trump campaign manager] Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates [who] had nothing to do with the Trump campaign," Klayman said. "[Mueller is] trying to squeeze them to say things that aren't true."That said, Klayman believes Mueller, who once ran the FBI, is "a man of integrity.""But I do believe that we need to rein him in and the person to do that is the No. 2 at the Justice Department, Rod Rosenstein. But he's not doing it so Sessions should have somebody else put in that place so it is done," Klayman told Bachman.But "Mueller is off in Never Never Land, like Tinker Bell at this point . . . [He] is going to drag it out to the congressional elections in 2018 hoping the Democrats take control of Congress and therefore that the president is impeached. I mean you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure all this out."© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.[...]

6 Months of Media and Democrat Lying About the GOP Tax Bill Goes to the Test


allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="400" src="" width="630">Newt Gingrich: ‘The stage is being set’ for GOP landslide in 2018By Jessica Chasmar Washington TimesNewt Gingrich said Thursday that Democrats are headed for a major political upset in 2018, mostly due to the mainstream media’s dishonesty and the party’s inability to learn from its own mistakes.“The great political surprise of 2018 will be the size of the Republican victory,” the former Republican House Speaker wrote in a column for Fox News. “After members of the elite media have spent two years savaging President Trump, lying about Republican legislation, and reassuring themselves that Republican defeat was inevitable, the size of the GOP victory in 2018 will be an enormous shock.”Mr. Gingrich said the most glaring example of “fake news” is the media’s handling of the GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which he said will be “the 2018 proving ground of media liberal bias and dishonesty.”“First, the media lied about the tax bill in an effort to convince most Americans their taxes would go up,” he wrote. “Then, the media took surveys of people who opposed the GOP bill based on the false information supplied by the media. Then, the media talked again and again about how unpopular the Republican plan was and how it was going to weaken Republican candidates in 2018. Then, the bill passed, and unsurprisingly, it turned out to be dramatically better for Americans than the elite media had described.”Mr. Gingrich cited a recent CBS News report that interviewed three different families about their initial impressions of the GOP tax bill, which Mr. Trump signed into law last week. All three families believed they either wouldn’t be affected or would have to pay more under the tax plan, only to be told that they would actually be paying significantly less. In fact, CBS News reported that “most Americans” will get a tax cut next year under the plan. Mr. Gingrich said the report is just one example of how the media’s attempts to paint the tax bill as a tax hike on the middle class have negatively shaped public opinion.“The gap between the news media falsehoods and the dramatically better reality of the GOP tax cuts will have three huge effects on the 2018 campaign,” Mr. Gingrich wrote.First, he said the American people will be swayed by the Republican Party’s ability to follow through on its promises. Second, an increasing number of people will come to distrust the media after they compare their personal experiences with its “fake reporting and endless bias.” And lastly, the Democrats who voted against the bill “will live to regret it” and face major political upsets in the states that Mr. Trump won in 2016, Mr. Gingrich wrote.“The stage is being set for a definitive election,” he said.“Do you want higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, more power in Washington, and a smaller economy with lower take-home pay and fewer jobs? If yes, vote Democrat, because that is what they stand for and will continue to vote for next year,” he continued. “If you want a bigger economy, more jobs, more take-home pay, less power with Washington bureaucrats, and lower taxes with more mon[...]