April 29, 2019 By Larry Tomczak
“Discernment is not simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” Charles Spurgeon Discernment is a skill that God calls us to develop. It doesn’t just happen. It requires discipline and practice. It’s a mark of maturity and right now the very future of our nation demands we develop and deploy it. “Everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a baby. But solid food belongs to those who are mature, for those who through practice have powers of discernment that are trained to distinguish good from evil” (Heb. 5:13-14). Last week I embarked on a long overdue project to declutter my study and put things in order for greater productivity and efficiency. I invested over 21 hours in the task and watched gleefully as the garbage men hauled away the results. Upon completion I revisited my room repeatedly to enjoy the sense of accomplishment it brought. Carefully surveying articles, documents, folders, books, manuals and publications required discernment to “take out the precious from the worthless” (Jer.15:19). In a similar way, I am convinced that God wants us to educate ourselves, family, friends and churches to examine and expose “worthless,” destructive schemes being promoted by political parties, politicians and presidential candidates today. When a presidential aspirant declares his candidacy, sealing it with a kiss for his gay “spouse” before a national audience, isn’t it time for sober evaluation? Warnings to Heed America presently is on the threshold of cataclysm. Leftist-leaning extremists want to see the downfall of America as we’ve known it to replace it with a “progressive” new order. At the same time a “woke” moment is occurring amongst scores of freedom loving, patriotic, fair-minded citizens realizing we must coalesce as a bulwark against the surge of secularism or our children and grandchildren will awaken one day in a country unrecognizable to us. One of our great presidents, Ronald Reagan, challenged us: “It is up to us in our time to choose, and choose wisely, between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.” He also stated: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Jesus tells us: “You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth. But why do you not know how to discern the time?” (Lk.12:56). Reclaiming our Godly Heritage America was founded when devout Christians came here entering into a sacred covenant. Their purpose was for “the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” When the Revolutionary War ended, George Washington was inaugurated and immediately led the Founding Fathers, Representatives, Senators, and Justices to a chapel on the actual spot we know today as “Ground Zero” to pray for two hours thanking Almighty God and dedicating America afresh to Him. Our nation and Constitution came out of the First Great Awakening which solidified America on its Judeo-Christian foundation as “One Nation Under God”. It is time that we reclaim our Christian heritage and resist the radical Democrat revolution attempting to undermine and remove any vestiges of it. A most recent example is removing Kate Smith’s classic rendition of “God Bless America” from Yankees and Philadelphia Flyers games due to some songs she sang in the 1930’s that now make this icon a “racist”. Democrat 6-Point Battle Plan 1. Continue flooding Texas, Arizona, Nevada and Florida with illegal immigrants; push voting rights for 16 year-olds and felons (Gay mayor and pro-abortionist “Pete” Buttigieg, whose dad was a Marxist professor, seeks the presidency saying rapists, murderers and terrorists should get to vote while in prison); and, eliminate the electoral college so Democrats can permanently lock in the White House, Congress and Senate as elections are determined by Democrat strongholds New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois and the above mentioned states. It’s called “one party rule” and once-conservative California (home to twice-elected governor Ronald Reagan!) is their model for their “fundamental transformation” of America. Consider that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) barely won his election last year against a leftist, basically unknown politician from El Paso, Beto O’Rourke! If Texas turns Democrat blue, kiss conservative rule in America goodbye with the counterbalance of both parties gone. 2. Through their dominance and control of the media, campuses, Internet and Hollywood, silence and punish with well-financed and coordinated boycotts conservatives and their initiatives promoting freedom of speech and religious liberties and shame as “bigots,” “racists,” and “fill-in-the-blank phobes” everyone expressing disagreement with their leftist agenda of “tolerance,” “inclusivity” and “equality”. Here are only a handful of recent victims: Chick-fil-A; producers of pro-life Unplanned movie; Vice President Pence; Little Sisters of the Poor; Prager University; along with campus organizations, florists, bakers, and multitudes of others labeled conservative “bigots”. 3. Cleverly package and promote “progressive” socialism, especially to youth, as the cure-all for society’s ills through redistribution of wealth, progressive taxes on the middle and upper class; government control over corporate profits; “free” universal healthcare; plus, generous entitlements to all including free college tuition and childcare; release from student debt (Elizabeth Warren’s deceptive $1.25 trillion plan); and government subsidized housing for immigrants, minorities and the poor. Listening to the candidates in town hall meetings trying to outdo one another with their utopian giveaways borders on the absurd as gullible crowds “hoot and holler” their approval. 4. Implement the comprehensive LGBTQ agenda including indoctrination of children in schools, transgender initiatives, gender reassignment surgery and removal once and for all by law of all “sexual discrimination” towards gays, lesbians and transgenders in the workplace, schools, churches, nonprofits, ministries, adoption agencies and any gatherings of individuals with NO EXEMPTION FOR CONSCIENCE or appealing to our “religious free exercise” clause. Note: HR-5 is already in the House of Representatives on Pelosi’s priority list and labeled by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, “The greatest threat to religious freedom in America’s history.” This is steamrolling our way. 5. Continue pushing the “open borders” immigration policy with full acceptance of all children and relatives, no border walls, entrance requirements, E-Verify or penalties for those refusing deportation; disregard the rule of law and give full support for “sanctuary cities”; allow George Soros-funded anarchy to “crash” our immigration system to foster a permanent underclass dependent upon and voting for the Democratic Party. If you think the massive migrant caravans are spontaneous you need to discern this as a deceptive scheme. 6. Aggressively keep pushing the “progressive” positions of the “new” Democratic Party: taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand until birth with underwriting of Planned Parenthood; legal “right” to infanticide when babies survive abortions; euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide; solidarity and support for radical feminist agenda and marches; legalization of recreational marijuana (presidential candidate Cory Booker introduced a bill to legalize weed nationwide); comprehensive gun control (candidate Kamala Harris says she’d use executive orders to get the guns); support for apocalyptic global warming/climate change initiatives; and, ongoing opposition to any border security wall or alignment with any Trump agenda items lest validity of his presidency be perceived while impeachment proposals are seriously considered. Here’s the deal: It is not an easy time to be a Christian but it is an exciting time to be “salt” as Jesus directed, preserving society from decay as biblically-informed, discerning, courageous Christians exposing how powers and principalities are working. They can and will be thwarted by a united church awakened, praying and fasting plus acting with God-given authority confident “when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him!” (Is. 59:19b). I’m asking, “Will you arise and be a part of the standard?” https://barbwire.com/democrat-6-point-battle-plan-to-take-down-america/
0 Comments
Since April of 2016, Obama's campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.
October 19, 2018 by Ronald Yates
Friends and followers. This is well worth the read, which is why I am posting on my blog today. Rabbi Dov Fischer makes good sense. Who is Rabbi Dov Fischer? Rabbi Dov Fischer is an attorney and adjunct professor of law, a Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, congregational rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California, and holds prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He has been Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. His writings have appeared in the Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, and Israel National News. READ ON! Everyone Is Smart, Except Trump By Rabbi Dov Fischer It really is quite simple. Everyone is smart except Donald J. Trump. That’s why they all are billionaires, and all got elected President. Only Trump does not know what he is doing. Only Trump does not know how to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Anderson Cooper knows how to stand up to Putin. The whole crowd at MSNBC does. All the journalists do. They could not stand up to Matt Lauer at NBC. They could not stand up to Charlie Rose at CBS. They could not stand up to Mark Halperin at NBC Nor up to Leon Wieseltier at the New Republic, nor Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone, nor Michael Oreskes at NPR, at the New York Times, or at the Associated Press. But — oh, wow! — Can they ever stand up to Putin! Only Trump is incapable of negotiating with the Russian tyrant. Remember the four years when Anderson Cooper was President of the United States? And before that — when the entire Washington Post editorial staff jointly were elected to be President? Remember? Neither do I. The Seedier Media have never negotiated life and death, not corporate life and death, and not human life and death. They think they know how to negotiate, but they do not know how. They go to a college, are told by peers that they are smart, get some good grades, proceed to a graduate degree in journalism, and get hired as analysts. Now they are experts, ready to take on Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs at age 30. That is not the road to expertise in tough dealing. The alternate path is that, along the way, maybe you get forced into some street fights. Sometimes the other guy wins, and sometimes you beat the intestines out of him. Then you deal with grown-ups as you mature, and you learn that people can be nasty, often after they smile and speak softly. You get cheated a few times, played. And you learn. Maybe you become an attorney litigating multi-million-dollar case matters. Say what you will about attorneys, but those years — not the years in law school, not the years drafting legal memoranda, but the years of meeting face-to-face and confronting opposing counsel — those years can teach a great deal. They can explain how to transition from sweet, gentle, diplomatic negotiating to tough negotiating. At some point, with enough tough-nosed experience, you figure out Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” yourself. Trump’s voters get him because not only is he we, but we are he. We were not snowed flaked-for-life by effete professors who themselves had never negotiated tough life-or-death serious deals. Instead, we live in the real world, and we know how that works. Not based on social science theories, not based on “conceptual negotiating models.” But based on the people we have met over life and always will hate. That worst boss we ever had. The coworker who tried to sabotage us. We know the sons of bums whom we survived, the dastardly types who are out there, and we learned from those experiences how to deal with them. We won’t have John Kerry soothe us by having James Taylor sing “You’ve Got a Friend” carols. The Bushes got us into all kinds of messes. The first one killed the economic miracle that Reagan had fashioned. The second one screwed up the Middle East, where Iraq and Iran beautifully were engaged in killing each other for years, and he got us mired into the middle of the muddle. Clinton was too busy with Monica Lewinsky to protect us from Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights. Hillary gave us Benghazi and more. And Obama and Kerry gave us the Iran Deal, ISIS run amok, America in retreat. All to the daily praise of a media who now attack Trump every minute of every day. So let us understand a few things: NEGOTIATING WITH NATO NATO is our friend. They also rip off America. They have been ripping us off forever. We saved their butts — before there even was a NATO — in World War I. They messed up, and 116,456 Americans had to die to save their butts. Then they messed up again for the next two decades because West Europeans are effete and so obsessed with their class manners and their rules of savoir-faire and their socialist welfare states and their early retirements that they did not have the character to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. Peace in our time. So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent. So, hey, we love those guys. We love NATO. Nato Leaders. Who is paying their fair share? And yet they still rip us off. We pay 4% of our gigantic gross domestic product to protect them, and they will not pay a lousy 2% of their GDP towards their own defense. Is there a culture more penny-pinching-cheap-and-stingy than the delicate constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These cheap baseborn prigs will not pay their fare. They are too cheap. They expect America to send boys to die for them in one world war, then another — hundreds of thousands — and then to pay for their NATO defense even a century later. And then they have the temerity to cheat us further in trade Long before Trump, they set up tariffs against us for so many things If the average American knew how badly Europe has been ripping us off for decades with their duties, no one in this country would buy anything European again. We would say, as a matter of self-respect and personal pride, “I no longer will buy anything but American, no matter what it costs.” Every American President has complained about the cheating and imbalance — the NATO penny-pinching-cheapness, the tariff and trade imbalances. In more recent years, the various Bushes complained about it. Even Obama complained about it. But they all did it so gently, so diplomatically. They would deliver the sermon, just as the pastor predictably tells the church-goers on Sunday morning that he is against sin, and the Europeans would sit quietly and nod their heads — nodding from sleeping, not from agreeing — and then they would go back out and sin some more. Another four years of America being suckered and snookered. All they had to do was give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize his ninth month in office and let Kerry ride his bike around Paris. So Trump did what any effective negotiator would do: he took note of past approaches to NATO and their failures, and correctly determined that the only way to get these penny-pinching-cheap baseborn prigs to pay their freight would be to bulldoze right into their faces, stare them right in their glazed eyes with cameras rolling, and tell them point-blank the equivalent of: The Nations of Nato“You are the cheapest penny-pinching, miserly, stingy, tight wadded skinflints ever. And it is going to stop on my watch. Whatever it takes from my end, you selfish, curmudgeonly cheap prigs, you are going to pay your fair share. I am not being diplomatic. I am being All-Business: either you start to pay or, wow, are you in for some surprises! And you know what you read in the Fake News: I am crazy! I am out of control! So, lemme see. I know: We will go to a trade war! How do you like that? Maybe we even will pull all our troops out of Europe. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe. Why not? Sounds good. Well, let’s see.” So Trump stuffed it into their quiche-and-schnitzel ingesting faces. And he convinced them — thanks to America’s Seedier Media who are the real secret to the “Legend That is Trump” — that he just might be crazy enough to go to a trade war and to pull American boys home. They knew that Clinton and Bush x 2 and Kerry and Hillary and Nobel Laureate Obama never would do it. But they also know that Trump just might. And if they think they are going to find comfort and moderating in his new advisers, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, alongside him. Nuh-uh. So CNN and the Washington Post and all the Seedier Media attacked Trump for days: He is destroying the alliance! He attacks our friends! Baloney. Obama was the one whom the Left Echo Chamber… Chamber… Chamber — never called out for attacking our friends — Israel, Britain, so many others — while cozying up to Hugo Chavez, bowing to dictators, and dancing the tango for Raul Castro. Trump is just the opposite: He knows who the friends are, and he wants to maintain and strengthen those friendships. It is no different from a parent telling a 35-year-old son: “I have been supporting you for thirty-five years I put you through college by signing four years and $100,000 PLUS in Loans. You graduated college fifteen years ago. For fifteen years I have been asking you nicely to look for a job and to start contributing. Instead, you sit home all day playing video games, texting your friends on a smartphone I pay for, and picking little fuzz balls out of your navel. So, look, I love you. You are my flesh and blood. But if you are not employed and earning a paycheck — and contributing to the cost of this household — in six months, we are throwing you out of the house.” That boy is NATO. Trump is Dad. And all of us have been signing for the PLUS Loans.” NEGOTIATING WITH PUTIN. Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy. Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants. If there arises an opponent, that guy dies. Maybe the opponent gets poked with a poisoned umbrella. Maybe he gets shot on the street. Maybe the opponent is forced to watch Susan Rice interviews telling the world that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video seen by nine derelicts in Berkeley and that Bowe Berghdal served with honor and distinction. But, one way or another, the opponent dies. Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means: If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the news media just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him. But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he apparently did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop —or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine. Tump knows from his advisers what we can do. If he sweet-talks Putin in public — just Putin on the Ritz — then everything that Trump has told Putin privately can be reinforced with action, and he even can wedge concessions because, against that background, Putin knows that no one will believe that he made any concessions. Everyone is set to believe that Putin is getting whatever he wants, that Trump understands nothing. In that setting, Putin can make concessions and still save face. Donald Trump and Vladimir PutinThat is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia. THE BOTTOM LINE At the end of the day, Donald Trump is over seventy years old. He has made many mistakes in his life. He still makes some He is human. But Trump likewise has spent three score and a dozen years learning. He has seen some of his businesses go bankrupt, and he has learned from those experiences to be a billionaire and not let it happen again. No doubt that he has been fooled, outsmarted in years past. And he has learned from life. Trump is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later. In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He convinced Canada and Mexico that he would walk out of NAFTA if they didn’t negotiate a new and fair trade agreement (they did), and he has the Europeans convinced he would walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the Lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet. We will take Trump negotiating with Putin any day. https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/2018/10/everyone-is-smart-except-donald-trump-rabbi-dov-fischer/ February 9, 2019 By Raymond Ibrahim
At the height of Western dominance over Islam in the early twentieth century, the European historian Hilaire Belloc (b. 1870) made a remarkably prescient observation that may have seemed exaggerated at the time: Millions of modern people of the white civilization -- that is, the civilization of Europe and America -- have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past” (from Belloc’s The Great Heresies, emphasis added). Anyone who doubts that Islam has been “the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had,” should familiarize themselves with that civilization’s long militant history vis-à-vis the West. According to Islamic history, in 628, Muhammed, the Arabic founder of Islam, called on the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius -- the symbolic head of Christendom -- to recant Christianity and embrace Islam. The emperor refused, jihad was declared, and the Arabs invaded Christian Syria, defeating the imperial army at the pivotal Battle of Yarmuk in 636 (see my MA thesis on this battle, which one prominent historian described as the world’s “most consequential”). This victory enabled the Muslims to swarm in all directions, so that, less than a century later, they had conquered the greater, older, and richer part of Christendom, including Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. Their drive into Europe from the east was repeatedly frustrated by the Walls of Constantinople; after the spectacularly failed siege of 717-718, many centuries would pass before any Muslim power thought to capture the imperial city. The Arabs did manage to invade Europe proper and conquered Spain but were stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732 and eventually driven back south of the Pyrenees. For more than two centuries thereafter, Europe continued to be pummeled by land and sea -- untold thousands of Christians were enslaved and every Mediterranean island sacked -- in the ongoing Muslim quest for booty and slaves, as what historians have dubbed “the Dark Ages” descended on the continent. The vicissitudes of war ebbed and flowed -- the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”) made a major comeback against Islam in the tenth century -- though the border largely remained the same. This changed when the Turks, under the leadership of the Seljuk tribe, became the new standard bearers of jihad. They nearly annihilated eastern Anatolia, along with Armenia and Georgia, in the eleventh century and, after the Battle of Manzikert, 1071, overran Asia Minor. By now, however, Western Europe’s military might had so matured that when the Pope called on the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of the Christian East, the First Crusade was born. Western Christians, led by the Franks, marched into the beast’s lair, defeated their adversaries in several encounters and managed to establish a firm presence in the Levant, including in Jerusalem, which they recaptured in 1099 -- only to lose it less than one hundred years later, in 1187, after the fateful Battle of Hattin. By 1297, the Crusader presence was eliminated from the Middle East. But if it failed in the East, the Crusade succeeded in the West. A handful of years after the Muslim invasion and conquest of Spain around 711, fugitive Christians holed in the northern mountains of Asturia began the Reconquista; by 1085 it had proven effective enough to prompt two new Muslim invasions from Africa to counter it. Again, the ebb and flow of war dominated the landscape, but by 1212, at Las Navas de Tolosa, Spain’s indigenous Christians gave Islam its death-stroke, so that by 1252 it was confined to Granada at the southernmost tip of Iberia. Around that same time, a violent but relatively short-lived Mongolian storm overwhelmed much of the east; both Christians (notably Russians) and Muslims were pummeled. A new Turkish dynasty arose from the Seljuk ashes; the Ottomans -- whose identity revolved around the concept of jihad more their predecessors -- renewed Islam’s perennial war on Christendom. They managed to enter Eastern Europe, defeated a combined army of Crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, took much of the Balkans, and crowned their achievement by fulfilling Muhammad’s desire of conquering Constantinople -- and enslaving and raping thousands of its inhabitants in ways that ISIS tries to mimic -- in 1453. But mourning was soon tempered by joy: to the west, Spain finally conquered Granada in 1492, thereby snuffing out Islam as a political power; to the east, the most overlooked chapter of Muslim-Christian conflict was also coming to an end. The Russians, who had lived under distinctly Islamic rule for nearly two centuries, finally cast off the “Tatar Yoke” in 1480. Even so, the Ottomans continued to be the scourge of Christendom; they continued making inroads into Europe -- reaching but failing to capture Vienna in 1529 -- and sponsored the seaborne jihad originating from North Africa. While the Muslims largely failed to capture new European lands, Barbary pirates and Crimean slavers captured and sold approximately five million Europeans. In 1683, over 200,000 Ottoman jihadis attempted to take Vienna again. Even though their failure marked the Ottoman Empire’s slow decline, Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa continued to wreak havoc all along the coasts of Europe -- reaching even Iceland. The United States of America’s first war -- which it fought before it could even elect its first president -- was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that… it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...” Finally the Colonial Era came with Europe’s triumph over the Barbary States in the early 1800s. By 1900, most of the Muslim world was under European control; by 1924, the more than 600-year-old Ottoman caliphate was abolished -- not by Europeans but Muslim Turks, as the latter sought to emulate the successful ways of the former. Islam was viewed as a spent force and virtually forgotten, until recent times when it reemerged again. Such has been the true and most “general” history between the Islamic and Western worlds. The above map should give an idea of how far-reaching and multitentacled the perennial jihad was. The darkest shading represents Western/Christian nations that were permanently conquered by Islam; the lighter or gray shading represents those Western/Christian nations that were temporarily conquered by Islam (sometimes for many centuries, as in Spain, Russia, and the Balkans); stripes represent areas that were raided, often repeatedly, though not necessarily annexed by Islam; the crossed swords mark the sites of the eight most landmark battles between Islam and the West. From a macrocosmic perspective, the consequences of the historic jihad are even more profound than first appears. After writing, “For almost a thousand years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain [711] to the second Turkish siege of Vienna [1683], Europe was under constant threat from Islam,” Bernard Lewis elaborates: All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers… North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe. The “loss” of North Africa and the Middle East “was sorely felt” by premodern Europeans because they thought more along religious and civilizational lines than nationalist ones. And before Islam burst onto the scene, most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East were part of the same religio-civilizational bloc. As such, Islam did not merely invade and eventually get repulsed from Europe; rather, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters [or 75 percent] of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden. Thus what is now called “the West” is actually the westernmost remnant of what was a much more extensive civilizational block that Islam permanently severed, thereby altering the course of “Western” history. And once Muslims overran Africa and the Middle East, most of its Christian subjects, to evade fiscal and social oppression and join the winning team, converted to Islam, thereby perpetuating the cycle, as they became the new standard bearers of jihad against their former coreligionists north and west of the Mediterranean. Such are the rarely noted ironies of history. Returning to Hilaire Belloc, one can also see how an accurate understanding oftrue history -- as opposed to an indoctrination in mainstream pseudo-histories -- leads to an accurate prognosis of the future. For Belloc was not only correct about the past but the future as well: It [Islam] is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past… The whole spiritual strength of Islam is still present in the masses of Syria and Anatolia, of the East Asian mountains, of Arabia, Egypt and North Africa. The final fruit of this tenacity, the second period of Islamic power, may be delayed -- but I doubt whether it can be permanently postponed (emphasis added). Note: The historical portion of this article follows the outline of my recent book,Sword and Scimitar, which, in 352 pages copiously documents -- including from little known or previously untranslated primary sources -- the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/islam_the_wests_most_formidable_and_persistent_enemy.html Jan 15, 2019 By Thomas Lifson
Has President Trump suckered Democrats and the Deep State into a trap that will enable a radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy? In only five more days of the already "longest government shutdown in history" (25 days and counting, as of today), a heretofore obscure threshold will be reached, enabling permanent layoffs of bureaucrats furloughed 30 days or more. Don't believe me that federal bureaucrats can be laid off? Well, in bureaucratese, a layoff is called a RIF – a Reduction in Force – and of course, it comes with a slew of civil service protections. But, if the guidelines are followed, bureaucrats can be laid off – as in no more job. It is all explained by Michael Roberts here (updated after the beginning of the partial shutdown): A reduction in force is a thoughtful and systematic elimination of positions. For all practical purposes, a government RIF is the same thing as a layoff. ... Organizations must stick to predetermined criteria when sorting out what happens to each employee. They must communicate with employees how and why decisions are made. ... In deciding who stays and who goes, federal agencies must take four factors into account: 1. Tenure 2. Veteran status 3. Total federal civilian and military service 4. Performance Agencies cannot use RIF procedures to fire bad employees. A lot of procedures must be followed, and merit ("performance") is the last consideration, but based on the criteria above, employees already furloughed can be laid off ("RIFed") once they have been furloughed for 30 days or 22 work days: When agencies furlough employees for more than 30 calendar days or 22 discontinuous work days, they must use RIF procedures. An employee can be terminated or moved into an available position[.] This seems to be what was referenced in this remarkable essay written by an "unidentified senior Trump official" published in the Daily Caller, which vouches for the authenticity of the author and explains that it is protecting him from adverse career consequences should the name become known. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing. The purported senior official makes the case that devotion to "process" eats up most of the time of federal bureaucrats and is also used by enemies of President Trump's initiatives to stymie the legitimate orders issued by his senior officials: On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don't feel like doing what they are told, they don't. Why would they? We can't fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position – some do this in the same position for more than a decade. They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands – administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. "Process is your friend" is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores. Then the senior official notes what I have just called the "trap": Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president's agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president's agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown. Those officials who waste time and stymie the president's initiatives now are not present because they are not categorized as "essential." Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. ... President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Keep in mind that saboteurs cannot be individually identified and RIFed, but they can be included in the layoffs if they meet the criteria above in terms of seniority and service, and they must be given 60 days' notice. But once they are gone, they are no longer free to obstruct using the "process" as their friend, because they are gone. You can expect lawsuits on every conceivable point, and I suspect that the definition of "furlough" will be one matter of dispute. If this was the plan all along, it would explain why President Trump goaded Chuck and Nancy in his televised meeting with them last year, boasting that he would claim credit for the shutdown. How could they resist a prolonged shutdown when he made it so easy to blame him? President Trump has proven that he is a "disruptor" who changes the framework of thinking on major issues by refusing to accept the "givens" – the assumptions of how things always have been done and therefore always must be done. So who is the "senior official"? I don't know, but I think Stephen Miller is the sort of bold thinker who might volunteer to telegraph the strategy just five days before the deadline. Give Chuck and Nancy something to think about and probably reject as unthinkable. Then they can't complain that they weren't warned once the trap is sprung. Such a mass RIF would be the Trump version of Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers when they went on an illegal strike in 1981. That was completely unexpected by his enemies, vehemently criticized, and successful. Among other benefits, it taught the leaders of the USSR that Ronald Reagan was a man whose threats cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. If you think that Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel, and any other foreign leaders would not draw the same conclusion from a massive RIF, then you are kidding yourself. My theory may be completely wrong, but I pray that it is not. Hat tip: Clarice Feldman Monica Showalter adds: Slate of all places has a useful chart on which agencies have the most RIFs on the line. Surprise, surprise: It's where the bureaucrats most in need of layoffs happen to roost. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/trumps_shutdown_trap.html Transcripts of Lisa Page’s Closed-Door Testimonies Provide New Revelations in Spygate Scandal1/13/2019 Jan 11, 2018 by Jeff Carlson Transcripts of two closed-door testimonies by Lisa Page, the former assistant general counsel at the FBI, have provided new insights into the actions of the FBI, DOJ, and others—including CIA Director John Brennan—regarding their investigation into Donald Trump. Included in the transcripts provided to us is information suggesting Brennan was aware of the so-called Steele dossier in early August 2016, and that he included information regarding the dossier in a briefing given to then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Other key points in Page’s testimony before Congress:
The interviews with Page were conducted by Congressional lawmakers on July 13 and 16, 2018, in an unclassified setting, with the appropriate agency counsel present to ensure that classified information did not enter into the unclassified setting. Page testified that she joined the team of special counsel Robert Mueller around May 18, 2017—and that FBI Agent Peter Strzok was considered for inclusion shortly thereafter. Page’s role was to “bridge the gap and transition between what we as a team knew and the evidence that we had gathered to date on the collusion investigation and sort of imparting that knowledge to the new special counsel team,” she said. Page, who acknowledged her personal relationship with Strzok at several points during the interview, noted that initially, Strzok was not “brought over as the senior executive to run the investigation. Another individual was, and that was not successful. It was not a good match with Mr. Mueller. He did not really have the sufficient counterintelligence background to be effective.” That individual would later be identified as John Brown. Page agreed to work for a 45-day trial period, but at the end of that time, she left to spend more time with her children, by her own account. Page left of her own volition and before Inspector General Michael Horowitz notified Mueller (and then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe) of the texts between Page and Strzok. Page noted that she only traveled abroad once while she worked for McCabe, in December 2016, on official business in London. Strzok traveled with her, as did three other unnamed individuals. One individual that Page specified as not being part of the trip was Bill Priestap, the FBI’s head of counterintelligence. Page was prohibited by FBI counsel for detailing the purpose of her visit. Prior to her work for Deputy FBI Director McCabe, Page worked within the DOJ—where Bruce Ohr was her direct supervisor for five to six years. Page also met Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr’s wife, at a summer barbeque that Ohr held for the office in 2011. One particularly interesting bit of information is that Page read the memos written by then-FBI Director James Comey almost in real time. As she stated in testimony, “I reviewed most of them within a day or on the same day that they were created.” According to Page, others who were privy to Comey’s memos included four additional FBI officials, “Jim Rybicki, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ghattas, maybe Mr. Bowdich.” Strzok did not have access to Comey’s memos. McCabe also kept memos which Page reviewed, including “one or two” that pertained to meetings with President Donald Trump. During questioning, it became apparent that the McCabe memos were “relevant to the matters that the special counsel is investigating.” Page Denies Bias, But Says FBI Focussed More on Trump Than ClintonPage steadfastly maintained there was no bias present in either the Clinton-email investigation or the Trump-Russia investigation on the part of anyone within the FBI or the DOJ and went to some lengths to illustrate that, in general, FBI personnel don’t like most of the people they tend to investigate. At the same time, Page repeatedly and openly admitted to placing a greater emphasis and weight on the Trump-Russia investigation than the Clinton-email investigation: “If you were weighing resources with respect to which poses a graver threat to national security, which is more, frankly, important, there is no doubt—at least in mine or anybody else’s mind that I know—that the Russia investigation posed an incredible threat to national security, and whether we got into the Weiner laptop simply did not.” Page returned to this topic several times: “The notion that there might be more emails that have not previously been seen that existed on Hillary Clinton’s email server just simply don’t even enter into the realm of the same room of seriousness. The Clinton investigation involved activities that had taken place 3 years prior. It’s an entirely historical investigation.” “In the assessment of the Counterintelligence Division, they still don’t even come close to the threat posed if Russia had co-opted a member of a political campaign.” Although Page admitted to a personal dislike for Trump, she also admitted to a less-than-favorable view of Hillary Clinton, noting that while she did not like then-candidate Trump, she “wasn’t particularly fond or favorable toward Secretary Clinton. Page summed her position up thusly: “I mean, given a Trump-Clinton race, yes, I was supporting Clinton, but I was not a particularly big fan of hers.” The role of FBI agent Jonathan Moffa, currently a deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, may have been greater than previously understood. Page noted that most of the FBI personnel involved in the Clinton and Trump-Russia investigations were separate from each other—they worked on one investigation or the other. Strzok and Moffa, both from the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, worked on both investigations, as Page noted: “Really it’s the people that met with Jim Comey. Those are the only people that were really the same with respect to both teams. So it’s the same general counsel, the same deputy general counsel, me, Mr. McCabe, Dave Bowdich. The EAD for National Security Branch changed, but that was just because of regular personnel turnover. “Bill Priestap was the same. Pete was the same. Jon Moffa was the same. But other than that, all of the rest of the personnel were, to the best of my knowledge—there could have been one or two—but all of the rest of the personnel on the Clinton team and the Russia team were different.” DOJ InfluencePage also repeatedly noted a tension between the FBI and DOJ, noting that the DOJ was far more cautious in their approach to matters and was ultimately responsible for the decision not to prosecute in the Clinton Case. Another aspect that developed in the dynamic between the DOJ and the FBI was pressure from the department to place additional people into the FBI’s investigation. Page noted that “as soon as the planning started to begin to interview some of the more high-profile witness, not just Mrs. Clinton but also Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and her sort of core team, the Department wanted to change the sort of structure and the number of people who were involved.” In particular, David Laufman, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and head of counterintelligence for the DOJ’s National Security Division at the time, pushed extensively to be present for the higher profile interviews. As Page noted, this quickly spiralled into a problem for the FBI: “Once we started talking about including David, then the U.S. Attorney’s Office also wanted to participate in the interviews, although they had participated in virtually none by that point. And so then the U.S. Attorney’s Office was pushing to have the AUSAs [Assistant U.S. Attorney], who were participating in the Clinton investigation, also participate.” “And so now, all of a sudden, we were going from our standard two and two to this burgeoning number of people.” Apparently, Laufman felt so strongly that he went to his boss, George Toscas, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division, who then approached Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe directly. The DOJ’s ongoing influence was felt in other ways as well. Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, both fact witnesses, were allowed to attend Clinton’s interview as her attorneys. As Page admitted, “I would agree with you that it is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend the interview.” The decision to allow attendance of fact witnesses during Clinton’s interview came from the DOJ, although Page said she was not certain who had made the decision. She noted that the FBI protested the move but were overridden, so the decision must have come from a senior level within the DOJ. Disagreements Between the FBI and DOJAs Page noted during her testimony, “there were lots and lots and lots of disagreements between the FBI and the Department.” One issue of ongoing contention was Clinton’s actual email server: “There was a great deal of discussion between the FBI and the Department with respect to whether to proceed, obtain the server which housed the bulk of Secretary Clinton’s emails, pursuant to consent or pursuant to a subpoena or other compulsory process.” Additionally, access to the laptops of Clinton’s aides and personal lawyers was an area of particular contention: “There were, I think, months of disagreement with respect to obtaining the Mills and Samuelson laptops. So Heather Mills and—Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were both lawyers who engaged in the sorting. Once it had been identified that Secretary Clinton had these emails—I’m guessing it’s pursuant to the FOIA request, but I don’t really know—she—well, our understanding is that she asked her two lawyers to take the bulk of the 60,000 emails and to sort out those which were work-related from those which were personal and to produce the work-related ones to the State Department. “They did so. That 30,000 is sort of the bulk of the emails that we relied on in order to do the investigative technique, although we found other emails a jillion other places. We, the FBI, felt very strongly that we had to acquire and attempt to review the content of the Mills and Samuelson laptops because, to the extent the other 30,000 existed anywhere, that is the best place that they may have existed.” “And notwithstanding the fact that they had been deleted, you know, we wanted at least to take a shot at using, you know, forensic recovery tools in order to try to ensure that, in fact, the sorting that occurred between—or by Mills and Samuelson was done correctly.” According to Page, the ongoing dispute with the DOJ ran from “February/March-ish of 2016” to June of 2016. Page also noted one other critical factor in the investigation: “the FBI cannot execute a search warrant without approval from the Justice Department.” Notably, Page, an experienced lawyer, thought the legal case could be made that the Mills and Samuelson laptops should be made available for forensic examination. As she noted, the frustration within the FBI came, in part, from the DOJ’s “unwillingness to explain their reasoning.” Page noted that this issue regarding the laptops rose to “the head of the OEO, the Office of Enforcement Operations, which is the unit at the Justice Department who would have to approve a warrant on a lawyer—because, of course, these were all lawyer laptops. It rose to that individual, it rose to George Toscas, over the course of this 3 months or so.” Toscas will also come up in the section below relating to his boss, John Carlin. Equally important, the issue, at least once, rose even higher: “I think that even the Director [Comey] may have had a conversation with Sally Yates, the DAG [Deputy Attorney General], about it.” Page was also critical of the State Department’s handling of the affair, noting, “rather than the State Department itself conducting that analysis of whether or not there was—or whether these emails were work-related or not, deferred to Secretary Clinton to do that.” Emails to a Third PartyDuring one exchange, one of the Representatives questioning her noted, “we have information from the inspector general of the intelligence community … that there were anomalies that would suggest that there was copies of every email going to a third party … Is this news to you today? Page admitted it was and noted it was “completely baffling to me.” She was then asked the obvious question: “why would the investigative team not have had multiple interviews with Mr. Rucker, who brought it to the FBI’s attention originally?” Page responded by saying the following: “My understanding is that the IC IG [Intelligence Community Inspector General] did refer the existence of the server to the FBI, but that was because of the existence of classified information on that server, not because of any anomalous activity, not because of potential intrusion activity. Because it’s not my understanding that the IC IG conducted any sort of forensic analysis like that.” The questioning continued: “So what you’re telling me, it would surprise you to know today that, if there were anomalies, that the inspector general’s forensic team found those before it was referred to the FBI?” Page responded: “To the extent that a foreign government or even a criminal outlet had had access to Secretary Clinton’s private email server, that would have been something we cared very much about. And it’s my understanding that there was no evidence that would have supported that kind of conclusion.” Page’s Commentary on the DOJPage, while never actually accusing the DOJ of direct wrongdoing, also appeared to be no fan of the department. Some commentary from her testimony: “We all felt that we [the FBI] were more credible than the Justice Department to close this investigation out.” “We, the whole team, really, felt that the Justice Department, being led by Democrats, would be to essentially absolve the Democratic candidate.” “She is so loathed, she is a very polarizing figure, Secretary Clinton, and so we all knew it was 100 percent consistent and universal that she was—there was not a prosecutable case. And we, the FBI, thought that that message was more credible coming from the FBI, who is independent and is not a political sort of body, in the same way that the Justice Department is being headed by political appointees who have closer relationships with the White House.” Page also discussed the DOJ’s reaction to Comey’s decision to hold his solitary press conference: “I don’t honestly have the sense that the Attorney General was ultimately disappointed, because it really did let the Justice Department off the hook. Everybody talks about this as if this was the FBI investigation, and the truth of the matter is there was not a single step, other than the July 5th statement, there was not a single investigative step that we did not do in consultation with or at the direction of the Justice Department.” In relation to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Page had a notable observation: “I am not sure she ever formally recused herself. She sort of, I think, did a half step, which I think she’s been criticized for, which was that she didn’t fully sort of step away from the investigation following the tarmac incident. She said that she would defer to the sort of judgment of the career prosecutor. So I don’t—I wouldn’t—we can call that a recusal if that’s how you want to frame it, but I don’t know that that legally would be considered one.” Gross Negligence and IntentOf particular note throughout the interview was the discussion of intent. Page noted that what they were looking for was “an intent to mishandle classified information.” She continued, “I cannot point to anything with respect to what the team uncovered that spoke to her having an intent to mishandle classified information.” Page spent a fair amount of time describing the legal aspects of the term “gross negligence” and why that specific language was removed from Comey’s July 5, 2016, exoneration memo of Clinton: “We neither had sufficient evidence to charge gross negligence, nor had it ever been done, because the Department viewed it as constitutionally vague.” The reference to the Justice Department would be repeated multiple times with Page noting, “we had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think—that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable.” This was the rationale as to why “every single person on the team, whether FBI or DOJ, knew far earlier than July that we were not going to be able to make out sufficient evidence to charge a crime.” As to whether a charge could be brought under the “gross negligence” statute, Page noted “that’s a determination made by the Department [DOJ].” Notably, this determination was made before Clinton or anyone else had been interviewed by the FBI. One Representative pointed out that the subject might be able to provide the missing element of intent during a yet-to-be had interview, but Page made clear the full impact of the DOJ’s position: “Let’s assume things are going swimmingly and, in fact, all 17 of those witnesses admit, ‘We did it, it was on purpose, we totally wanted to mishandle classified information,’ gross negligence would still have been off the table because of the Department’s assessment that it was vague. We would have other crimes to now charge, but gross negligence would not have been among them.” Page admitted that it was not entirely clear what the DOJ decision was based on, noting, “I presume they looked at case law in which it had been applied. I really don’t know…I don’t have personal knowledge about what the Department did in order to come to that conclusion.” When pressed, Page attempted to clarify the FBI’s position as investigators, saying that “at the end of the day, this is the Department’s determination. It is up to the Department to determine whether we have sufficient evidence to charge a case.” Later she was a bit more direct: “The Justice Department brings charges, and it was the Justice Department’s assessment that they did not have—whether they had—I don’t know whether they had evidence or not of gross negligence but that gross negligence was not available as a statute to bring because it’s—of its constitutional vagueness and its untestedness in court.” John Carlin’s RoleJohn Carlin was an assistant attorney general and head of the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD). He had previously served as chief of staff to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller. Carlin announced his resignation the day after he filed the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications. This filing would be subject to intense criticism from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) following disclosures made by NSA Director Mike Rogers. Significant changes to the handling of raw FISA data would result. Carlin was replaced with Mary McCord–who would later accompany Acting AG Sally Yates to see White House Counsel Don McGahn regarding Trump’s National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn. Page was asked at several points regarding influence from political appointees. At one point in the discussion, she singled out Carlin—and what she had to say proved interesting: “I do know that at least John Carlin, for example, who is a political appointee was kept abreast of the sort of investigative activity that was going on. And the only reason I know this is because when there was conflicts between us and DOJ, John might call over to—John Carlin might call over to Andy McCabe, and sort of make his team’s pitch, and then Andy would, you know, sort of the back and forth would go on. So it is clear that John had, was getting some sort of briefing, but he was not, it was, it never occurred by the FBI, which is, in my view, atypical.” In response to a question asking who was McCabe’s direct counterpart at the DOJ on the investigation, Page responded, “it would have been John. It was either John Carlin or George Toscas who would have, who would have reached out to Mr. McCabe.” The Congressional staffer who was doing this particular line of questioning appeared to attempt to mitigate the information just revealed by Page: “Numerous witnesses have confirmed to us that George Toscas, a career prosecutor, was in charge of the day-to-day operation of DOJ on this investigation. And that Carlin and other political folks above him had briefings certainly, so they had knowledge but didn’t have input in the investigation.” “Do you have any personal knowledge of John Carlin, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, or other political appointees at the DOJ issuing orders on how to conduct the Midyear investigation?” Page was asked. Page answered that she had “no personal knowledge of that.” Despite the attempts to shift the conversation, these admissions are notable. Carlin was a very senior official within the DOJ. He was also Toscas’s boss. It was Toscas who was contacted by New York prosecutors (possibly Preet Bharara) involved in the Anthony Weiner investigation regarding the Clinton emails found on Weiner’s computer. In response, Toscas contacted McCabe, his counterpart at the FBI, ultimately forcing McCabe to inform Comey of the existence of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop. Brennan’s RolePage staunchly maintained that any briefings given to the White House were always about the “Russian active measures effort” and were not in relation to “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI’s name for their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump-Russia allegations. Brennan has admitted during congressional testimony that his intelligence helped establish the FBI counterintelligence investigation: “I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.” This admission is important, particularly since Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had previously disclosed that no official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation. Brennan’s role was highlighted again during testimony, as one Representative questioning Page questioned her in relation to an Aug. 25, 2016, text message: “What are you doing after the CH brief?” CH almost certainly referred to “Crossfire Hurricane.” Page was asked specifically about an event that occurred on the same day: “It’s the same day that Director Brennan is briefing Harry Reid, is why I ask. And so what you’re saying is you were unaware that Director Brennan was briefing Harry Reid that same day?” Page said she was unaware of Brennan’s briefing to Reid. She was then asked the following: “You give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan is giving a brief. It’s not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one, from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that point. And it becomes apparent, based on your text messages and based on Director Comey’s emails, that you all are aware that that conversation took place. Were you aware that Director Brennan had a briefing with Harry Reid and that you expected a letter from Harry Reid?” Page noted that she remembered the letter sent by Reid, but seemed confused as to Brennan’s involvement and possible knowledge of the Steele dossier. Worth noting is that while some within the FBI likely had parts of the dossier in July, the Counterintelligence investigative team did not receive it until mid-September during a trip to Rome where they met personally with Steele. The Representative, who was clearly aware of the disparity in timing, focused on precisely how Brennan might have been aware of the dossier in August: Rep.: So what you’re saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle part of September in your investigation? Page: That is correct, sir. Rep.: Okay. So on August 30th, you and Peter are going back and forth, and you go, “Here we go.” If you’ll look at 9:44:50 on August the 30th, you go, “Here we go.” And it’s referencing “Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in the U.S. Vote and Seeks FBI.” Now, what happens is, and what I guess gives me a little bit of concern is, if you drop down, that if you drop down to the same day, August 30th, 9:45, it says: “The D”—which I assume means Director—”said at the a.m. brief that Reid had called him and told him that he would be sending the letter.” Page: Okay. Rep.: So you get a brief that says, well, we got the letter, but it’s almost like it’s a coordinated effort between Harry Reid and the FBI Director, because obviously, he’s briefing you. After a bit of back and forth, Page responded, “I don’t know what Harry Reid was told or why or what the purpose of Brennan [was.]” The Representative pressed on: “Why would Director Brennan be aware of things that the FBI was not aware of at this particular point when it actually would potentially involve, according to Peter Strzok’s word on January 10th of 2017, an unverified salacious set of memos?” And then the big reveal: Rep.: We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we’re going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware [of the dossier]? Page: Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan—so we got that information from our source, right? The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did, because the first time we -- Rep.: We do know there are multiple sources. Page: I do know that. I do know that the information ultimately found its way lots of different places, certainly in October of 2016. But if the CIA as early as August, in fact, had those same reports, I am not aware of—I’m not aware of that and nor do I believe they provided them to us, and that would be unusual. Rep.: Were you aware that Christopher Steele had conversations or multiple conversations with Fusion GPS and others outside of just working special intel for you? Page: As of August of 2016, I don’t know who Christopher Steele is. I don’t know that he’s an FBI source. I don’t know what he does. I have never heard of him in all of my life. So let me just sort of be clear. When the FBI first receives the reports that are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler in September of 2016 at that time, we do not know who—we don’t know why these reports have been generated. We don’t know for what purpose. A bit later in the discussion, the representative asked another question: “So you don’t know whether it’s a coordinated effort to get you those documents or not at that point in September?” Page responds, “Coordinated by whom, sir? Rep.: Anybody, other than a confidential human source saying, “Listen, I’ve got reason to be concerned and bring it to you.” It could be coordinated by the CIA. It could have been coordinated by Fusion GPS. You don’t know. Page: At the time that we received the documentation, no. What we have is the preexisting relationship with the source and the reliability of his prior reporting. FISA Briefings & White House KnowledgeAt several points, Page noted a frustration on the part of the FBI in relation to the speed with which the DOJ was moving in the FISA spy warrant application process. When questioned about the need to move swiftly, Page noted, “there was an operational reason that we were pushing to get the FISA up, which I am not at liberty to discuss.” Upon further questioning Page tried to provide slightly more clarity, “we had an operational reason that we wanted to get this thing up quickly with respect to the subject himself.” According to Page’s testimony, she first learned of plans to obtain a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page approximately a month before the FISA was granted on Oct. 21, 2016. Page disclosed that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stu Evans was the person within the DOJ who was in charge of the entire FISA process, but notably, the FBI chose not to tell Evans that they had opened a counterintelligence investigation: “We were so concerned about the fact that we were opening this investigation and we were so concerned about leaks that we were literally individually making decisions about who to tell and who not to tell, because we were trying to keep it so closely held.” According to Page, the only DOJ official they told was George Toscas, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division. Without forewarning to the FBI, Toscas informed Evans in August 2016—possibly earlier—of the FBI’s newly opened investigation. The text in question was from Aug. 10, 2016, and was paraphrased by one of the congressional representatives: “I remember what it was, Toscas already told Stu Evans everything. Sally called to set up a meeting.” “Sally” is affirmed in the conversation as Deputy AG Sally Yates. Page was emphatic that this discussion did not have anything to do with the actual FISA but instead reflected the FBI’s concern that increasing numbers of people were learning of their investigation. Notably, Toscas reported to John Carlin, the head of the NSD, whose actions before the FISA Court in relation to his presentation of the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications, strongly suggest he was also aware of the FBI’s investigation. Carlin appears to have been aware of the FBI’s later FISA preparations as well. The congressional representative then asked the following question: “What you’re saying is when the Director briefed the White House 2 days prior to that, on August the 8th, or prepared for it, actually briefed him on the 10th, that it had nothing to do with any campaign. Even though George Toscas and Stu Evans knew about it.” Normally, when a member of the FBI uses the word “Director” they would be referring to the FBI Director. In this case, while not made absolutely clear in the transcript, it appears “Director” refers to CIA Director John Brennan, who had been discussed in the preceding comments relating to Brennan’s briefing of Reid. From Brennan’s congressional testimony, we know that he had briefed the White House at some point in early August 2016, prior to Aug. 11: “In consultation with the White House, I personally briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in election to congressional leadership, specifically Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to Representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devon Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11, August and 6, September.” Page responded to the question: “Sir, I would be shocked. I would truly be stunned to discover that the Director had briefed the President on the substance of our investigation or even the existence of our investigation. I would be—I can’t say it didn’t happen, I wasn’t there, but I would be stunned to discover that.” Steele’s FBI HandlerPage had earlier referenced Steele’s handler: “When the FBI first receives the reports that are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler in September of 2016 at that time, we do not know who—we don’t know why these reports have been generated.” Steele’s handler is almost certainly Michael Gaeta, head of the FBI’s Eurasian Crime Squad. Gaeta, an FBI agent and also assistant legal attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, has known the former MI6 spy since at least 2010, when Steele provided assistance in the FBI’s investigation into the FIFA corruption scandal over concern that Russia might have been engaging in bribery to host the 2018 World Cup. On July 5, 2016, Gaeta traveled to London and met with Steele at the offices of Steele’s firm, Orbis. For this visit, the FBI sought permission from the office of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland, who had been the recipient of many of Steele’s reports, gave permission for the more formal meeting. Nuland provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018, appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation: “In the middle of July, when he [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.” In September 2016, Steele would travel back to Rome to meet with the FBI Eurasian squad once again. It was at this meeting that Steele gave a copy of his dossier—what there was of it at that time—to the FBI counterintelligence team investigators. One individual who had previous involvement with the Eurasian Crime Squad was former FBI Deputy Director McCabe: “McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996,” the FBI states on its website. “He first reported to the New York division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force.” McCabe remained with the Eurasian squad until 2006, when he was moved to FBI headquarters in Washington. The question that has yet to be answered was who, exactly, did Gaeta give the dossier to and when. Was it transmitted to FBI leadership? If so, why did the counterintelligence team have to travel to Rome in September to get their first copy from Steele. And finally, potentially the biggest question: Did Brennan receive a copy of the dossier via Gaeta—or whomever he transmitted a copy to—in the summer of 2016 following Gaeta’s return? The FBI’s Verification File & the Dragon FISAPage testified that as soon as they received the Steele dossier in September, they “set about trying to prove or disprove every single factual statement in the dossier.” Page noted that “to the best of my knowledge, we were never able to disprove any statement in it.” This seems somewhat odd given that Comey told congressional investigators the Steele dossier still wasn’t verified as of May 2017. Additionally, her assertion does not appear to address the generally debunked claim that Cohen was in Prague. In response to Page’s comments, clarification was requested: Rep.: Ms. Page, are you talking about the Woods file? Page: I’m not talking about the Woods file. I’m talking about a separate effort that was undertaken in order to try to verify for investigative purposes, not for purposes of the FISA, but a separate effort undertaken to try to validate the allegations contained within the Steele reporting. It quickly became apparent that this document has not been seen by congressional investigators. One Representative, who noted he has seen the Woods file, was clearly unaware of this file’s existence. This discussion quickly led into another area—an Oct. 18, 2016, email from Strzok containing the subject line “Re: Dragon FISA.” Page quickly noted that she could not discuss the matter in an unclassified setting—but would be able to discuss the matter with congressional investigators in a classified setting. The Dragon FISA was referenced in an article by John Solomon in The Hill: “In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant. “Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election. “At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day. Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”” At this point, the potential subject of the Dragon FISA remains unknown. Page’s Russia BiasPerhaps unsurprisingly, Page expressed strong feelings regarding Russia, noting, “I do always hate the Russians,” and she singled out the nation as a national security threat far exceeding that of China or North Korea: “Russia poses the greatest threat certainly to Western ideals of any of our foreign adversaries. And we have vast foreign adversaries. But even the threats that are posed by China or by Iran or North Korea or others doesn’t speak to sort of the core of Western democracy, right?” “It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.” Page appeared to be singularly focused on Russia making only one reference to China throughout the entire interview. Comey’s Draft MemoThe end result of the wording in Comey’s statement was widely publicized but some of the reporting details were incorrect. The term “gross negligence” was not exchanged for “extremely careless.” It was simply removed from Comey’s initial draft. Page explained, “extremely careless had already appeared in that draft, and we moved that paragraph up earlier in the draft.” However, a few questionable elements surrounding Comey’s draft were highlighted during questioning. On May 2, 2016, Comey drafted his exoneration letter. On May 3, after learning that Trump would be the GOP nominee, Strzok sent a text noting, ““Now the pressure really starts to finish the MYE.” MYE being a reference to the Mid-Year Exam—the FBI’s case name for the Clinton email investigation. The “gross negligence” language within Comey’s memo was deleted by May 6. Page claimed this was purely bad timing and bad optics and had nothing to do with Trump’s securing of the GOP nomination. By way of reassurance, she noted that the decision to omit the “gross negligence” language was the decision of another lawyer—ranked at the level of GS-15. One Representative noted the discrepancy immediately: Rep.: Did any of the other folks that you’re referencing in connection with making the change have more prosecutorial experience than Jim Comey? Page: No. Rep.: As someone that knows Jim Comey, is he a person that chooses his words carefully? Page: He is, yeah. But I -- Rep.: Would he throw around a term like “gross negligence” not really meaning gross negligence? Page did not have a ready answer to this line of questioning, other than to reiterate that the DOJ had made clear the charge was not supportable. Never clarified, was why did Comey choose to include the phrase in the first place. Given the tight sequence of events, the DOJ had surely made the determination not to pursue gross negligence charges prior to Comey’s decision to use the phrase anyway. The Insurance PolicyAnother issue that was brought up several times was the famous Strzok text regarding the “Insurance Policy”: “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s office—that there is no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Page confirmed that Andy referred to Deputy FBI Director McCabe. Page was reminded that the text was sent just 15 days after the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016. Page attempted to provide an explanation, but it came across as less than convincing: “What this text reflects is our sort of continuing check-in almost with respect to how quickly to operate, what types of tools to use, trying to be as quiet as possible about it because we knew so little about what—whether this was true or not true or what was going to come, because this is, as you said, so nascent in the investigation, and then ultimately trying to balance that against my view, in this case, which was we don’t need to go at a total breakneck speed because so long as he doesn’t become President, there isn’t the same threat to national security, right.” Perhaps realizing she’d been less than perfectly clear, Page attempted to clarify her position, noting, “this reflects: Let’s be reasonable, let’s not, you know, throw the kitchen sink at this because he’s probably not going to be elected, and so then we don’t have quite as horrific a national security threat than if we do if he gets elected.” In fairness to Page, at a later point in the interview, she did manage to provide a somewhat more coherent explanation: “He’s making an analogy here so my suggestion is, let’s not, you know, throw the baby out with the bath water, let’s sort of be a little bit more cautious with respect to our investigative steps because if he’s not President, this plays a less of a threat to our national security.” “And he is saying, no, we have to, you know, do what we have to do in order to get to the bottom of this because it is like an insurance policy. There is no actual insurance policy. He is making an analogy.” Kortan’s Role in Page’s Leaks to the MediaPage said in her testimony that she “was authorized by Deputy Director McCabe and by Mike Kortan to engage with the reporter [Devlin Barrett] on this topic.” This refers to a leak by Page to Barrett, who worked at the Wall Street Journal, regarding the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Interestingly, Page highlighted the role of Kortan as assistant director of Public Affairs Office at the FBI. Kortan is mentioned nowhere in the IG’s report specific to McCabe, although he is mentioned in the IG’s June report. Kortan, who has since retired, was in place during a lengthy sequence of unauthorized disclosures highlighted by the IG’s report—and as Page testifies, had full knowledge of her leaks on behalf of McCabe: “I agree with you that it is curious that there is no reference in the IG report at all to Mr. Kortan, particularly in light of what I reported, which is that both interactions with the reporter were done with Mr. Kortan, in coordination with Mr. Kortan and with Mr. Kortan at my side. So I cannot explain why there is no—there is no reference to Mr. Kortan in any testimony, if he did give any, in the IG report.” Kortan’s involvement in Page’s authorized leaks to Barrett had not been previously known. A Possible Obstruction CaseStill another issue mentioned with some frequency were two potentially related texts: “And we need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy is acting.” “We need to lock in,” redacted, “in a formal, chargeable, way.” Again, Page confirms that Andy is indeed a reference to McCabe. Notably, that text was sent the day after Comey had been fired by Trump. Unfortunately, a certain level of clarity remains lacking as FBI counsel was limited to noting that “the decision to open the case was not about who was occupying the Director’s chair.” She continued in a somewhat confusingly with, “if I was able to explain in more depth why the Director firing precipitated this text, I would.” One Representative kept pursuing the question from multiple angles, asking, “Was that a fear that someone other than McCabe would eventually be put into that slot?” Page again consulted with counsel and noted she could not answer that question. The Representative made the logical observation, “Well, that leads at least some of us to conclude that it may have been an obstruction of justice case.” Page responded, “that’s a reasonable inference, sir, but I cannot, sort of, confirm that that’s what we are referring to.” The dialogue continued: Rep.: So the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event as opposed to the occupant of the Director’s office? Page: Yes, that’s correct. Rep.: Well, other than obstruction, what could it have been? Page: I can’t answer that, sir. I’m sorry. Rep.: Is there anything other than obstruction that it could have been? Page: I can’t answer. Page maintained that the second text was a separate matter from the first—but time may have been a factor as it occurred in the days preceding Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Page also claimed not to know exactly what it pertained to: “My suspicion is, we have either been interviewing some witness or have been getting kind of closer to some target, either we’ve already had interviews or we haven’t.” “What this is suggesting is, like, we need to start thinking about locking in whomever in a way that might be able to support charges…my suspicion is that we have somebody who we think is lying… to the extent we want to be able to charge them for lying, we need to lock them in in a formal way, in a way in which we will be able to support those charges.” The issue of obstruction came up several times, including a notable exchange that took place during the second day of testimony: Rep.: Were there discussions about opening an obstruction of justice case or any other case against Donald Trump prior to the firing of Jim Comey on May 9th of 2017, as reflected in the Comey memos? FBI legal counsel: Congressman, to the extent that goes into the equities of the ongoing investigation that the special counsel is now conducting, I will instruct the witness not to answer. Normally this line of questioning ends with inferences having to be made, but in this case what appears to be an honest error on the part of Page hinted firmly at the true answer: Rep.: I don’t want any of the details. I just want to know whether there was a discussion about the possibility of opening that prior to the firing of the Director. Page: Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the timeframe you have described. Rep.: Okay. Then -- Page: I think. One second, sir. [Discussion off the record.] Page: Sir, I need to — I need to take back my prior statement. Rep.: Which one? Page: Whatever the last thing I just said was. Sorry. That there were no discussions of obstruction, yeah. That is — I need to take that statement back. Rep.: So there were? Page: Well, I think that I can’t answer this question without getting into matters which are substantively before the special counsel at this time. Rep.: Well, I think you’ve just answered it by not answering it. Was Andy McCabe privy to those same conversations? Page: I can’t answer this substantively, sir. I’m sorry. Rep.: Well, were these related to some charges, whether obstruction or other charges, potentially against Donald Trump? Page: I can’t—I can’t answer that question, sir, without getting into the substance of matters that are now before the special counsel. Rep.: Again, I think you’re answering it by not answering it. At a later point in testimony, this issue was potentially further clarified: Rep.: Comey has admitted that he told the President, I think, that he wasn’t under investigation during that timeframe. Page: That is not inconsistent, sir…Somebody could not be under investigation, but there still could be discussions about potential criminal activity, and that is totally consistent with FBI policies and would not be unusual with respect to any investigation. This provides a perfect explanation as to why Comey refused to tell the press that President Trump was not under investigation—and the nature of the text messages. The FBI had not placed Trump under any formal investigation—but they were keeping their ability to do so open, and interim FBI Director McCabe may have been planning to initialize a formal investigation before a permanent director could be appointed. A question worth asking: What happens if an interim FBI Director opens a formal investigation into a sitting president during a highly politically charged time? Is it then difficult, perhaps impossible, to appoint someone other than McCabe as a new FBI Director, especially given Comey’s recent firing? Jeff Carlson is a CFA® Charterholder. He worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork https://www.theepochtimes.com/transcripts-of-lisa-pages-closed-door-testimonies-provide-new-revelations_2763452.html Jan 11, 2018 By Bryce Buchanan
More information is supporting the theory that the current big Justice Department "investigations" are actually functioning as big cover-up operations. Robert Mueller's team is effectively hiding key evidence related to serious crimes committed by government officials. Mueller has nearly complete control over what the public or any investigator can see. He has control over what witnesses can talk about. This means that the Huber and Horowitz investigations exist to make you think something is being investigated when it is not. That is why Representatives Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan sent a letter to Huber, the U.S. attorney, this week that essentially exposes the fraud. The letter begins, "We write to request an update on the progress of your review of irregularities involved with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) actions during 2016 and 2017[.]" The letter then points to facts that indicate that there has been no real investigation. None of the many key witnesses has been interviewed. Huber refused to testify at a recent congressional hearing about the Clinton Foundation. The letter then asks for information in four areas where Huber cannot reply without further demonstrating that this is a fake investigation. There is also mounting evidence that hiding facts is common in deep state political crusades. A recent column by Marty Watters and Lee Cary exposes Mueller's long history of improperly hiding evidence. The column begins, "During his twelve-year reign as FBI Director, Robert Mueller not only protected his criminal friends by silencing those who could expose their bad acts, he projected his friends' crimes onto others." One example cited is the case of William Campbell, who infiltrated Russia's State Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, for the FBI. Over a period of eight years, he documented the bribery and money-laundering involved in Russia's effort to get access to U.S. uranium assets. Massive donations were made to the Clinton Foundation, and absurdly high speaking fees were given to Bill Clinton by those who planned to profit from the deal. The reason you have not heard Campbell's story is that FBI director Mueller forbade him to go public. Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatened Campbell with jail if he told the truth. The truth was hidden, and the deal went through. You will remember the case of Valerie Plame, where a special counsel was empowered to find out who "outed" supposed covert agent Plame. It was known early in this politically motivated investigation that the chosen target, Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby, was not the person who had leaked Plames name. There were two earlier leakers whom Mueller's FBI knew about. But the special counsel did not want to let a good investigation go to waste, so he prolonged it for maximum political effect. Sound familiar? We know that the person who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage. The Watters-Cary column added a new twist to the story by introducing an earlier leaker, who was hidden by Mueller. An FBI employee, Sibel Edmonds, did not like the extensive illegal surveillance she was witnessing. She wanted to expose the criminal actions of the FBI. Director Mueller intervened on two occasions to silence her. Some of the information from the surveillance related to Plame. Watters and Cary write: One of the "secrets" that Mueller did not want Edmonds to expose was that the FBI has a 2001 recording of Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman outing Plame's identity as a CIA employee to a Turkish diplomat. This was long before Richard Armitage claimed he "accidently" [sic] outed Plame to Robert Novak. Silencing Edmonds enabled Mueller to position his protégé, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to eventually appoint their mutual, close friend, U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, as the Special Counsel tasked to discover who leaked Plame's identity as a CIA employee. Everyone with a need to know already knew the original leaker was Grossman. But the public didn't need to know, and so the spin-up to the lengthy Plamegate puppet show began. Scott Johnson of Powerline has three posts about "Mueller's Cone of Silence" that relate to Mueller attempting to hide evidence in his Russian troll case. In February of last year, Mueller indicted Russian social media actors (some of whom do not even exist) for some trivial actions not aimed at any particular candidate. The apparent purpose of the indictment was to feed the Trump-Russia collusion fable by creating news stories containing the word "Russia." Mueller surely had no expectation that the Russians would answer the charges, but Concord Management did just that. Concord's attorney has asked to see the evidence against its people. Mueller has essentially told the judge that the evidence is "sensitive," and he doesn't want to show it. Openly telling the defendant he can't see the evidence is one step more brazen than simply hiding the evidence. The Concord attorney responded this way in his motion to Judge Dabney Friedrich: In this first-of-its-kind prosecution of a make-believe crime, the Office of Special Counsel maintains that it can unilaterally – and for secret reasons disclosed only to the Court – categorize millions of pages of non-classified documents as "sensitive," and prohibit defense counsel from sharing this information with Defendant[.] It is interesting that Judge Friedrich is married to Matthew Friedrich, who is tied directly to Mueller in some well documented cases of hiding evidence from defendants. Sidney Powell's great book, Licensed to Lie, describes the extreme corruption of Mueller's prosecutors in the cases of Ted Stevens, Merrill Lynch, and Enron. Evidence was hidden in these cases on a grand scale. Later, after the damage was done, higher courts overturned verdicts and strongly rebuked the dishonest prosecutors. In 2014, Sidney Powell wrote a column about what Eric Holder had done to four of the corrupt and discredited prosecutors described in Powell's book. Holder did the same thing that our current "dirty cops" expected from President Hillary Clinton. Holder "honored, promoted and protected" them. Matthew Friedrich was one of the four, and Andrew Weissmann was another. Matthew Friedrich "personally told the jury facts that were directly refuted by [evidence he withheld][.] ... Mr. Friedrich rushed the indictment of Senator Stevens and micromanaged that corrupted prosecution, which cost the citizens of Alaska their senior Senator, changed the balance of power in the Senate, and facilitated the enactment of Obamacare. " Judge Friedrich is a Trump appointee. Her rulings so far indicate that she may be just as effective for Trump as Jeff Sessions was. Look at the big picture. Those in power regularly hide evidence of their crimes and get away with it. From Lois Lerner to Hillary Clinton to Strzok and Page, the dreaded "glitch" eats the most important evidence. From "Fast and Furious" to Benghazi to Comey's fake investigation of Hillary to Rosenstein's stonewalling to Mueller's "insurance policy" cover-up, hiding the facts is the primary goal. Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It is also true that the actual evidence decides nothing. The people who control the evidence decide everything. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/hiding_evidence_the_continuing_coverup.html Jan 4, 2018 by Paul Craig Roberts
Although the United States is allegedly a democracy with a rule of law, it has taken 17 years for public pressure to bring about the first grand jury investigation of 9/11. Based on the work of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth led by Richard Gage, first responder and pilots organizations, books by David Ray Griffin and others, and eyewitness testimony, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry has presented enough hard facts to the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York to force his compliance with the provisions of federal law that require the convening of a federal grand jury to investigate for the first time the attacks of September 11, 2001. https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org This puts the US Justice (sic) Department in an extraordinary position. Every informed person is aware that elements of the US government were involved either in the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks or in a coverup of the attacks. There will be tremendous pressures on the US Attorney’s office to have the grand jury dismiss the evidence as an unpatriotic conspiracy theory or otherwise maneuver to discredit the evidence presented by the Lawyers’ Committee, or modify the official account without totally discrediting it. We can have hopes that the United States can establish the true story of its own Reichstag Fire, but I am not holding my breath that the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York can stand up to the powerful elements in the Deep State that perpetuated or covered up the 9/11 false flag attacks or that he is inclined to try. What the 9/11 truthers and the Lawyers’ Committee have achieved is the destruction of the designation of 9/11 skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.” No US Attorney would convene a grand jury on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Clearly, the evidence is compelling that has put the US Attorney in an unenviable position. The likely result will be comparable to the US Congress’ belated investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. No expert or informed person believed the obviously false story that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. All evidence pointed to a plot by the Joint Chiefs, CIA, and Secret Service whose right-wing leaders had concluded that President Kennedy was too “soft on communism” to do what was necessary for the US to prevail in the contest with the Soviet Union. Expert and public disbelief of the official story was so great that in 1976, 13 years after Kennedy’s assassination, Congress investigated. The real culprits were, of course, not identified, but two important results were forthcoming. One was the conclusion by the Select Committee on Assassinations that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy and not of a lone gunman. The other was the release of the top secret Project Northwoods, which revealed the Joint Chiefs’ plan presented to President Kennedy for the US government to kill US citizens and shoot down US airliners and place the blame on Castro in order to gain public acceptance for an invasion of Cuba. The conclusion that a conspiracy, although unidentified, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination was the sop thrown to those who disputed the official lone gunman account. The revelation of Project Northwoods created awareness of a previously unknown US government plot that drew attention away from Kennedy’s assassination. If the Lawyers’ Committee and the 9/11 truthers trust the US Attorney to go entirely by the facts, little will come of the grand jury. If the United States had a rule of law, something as serious as 9/11 could not have gone for 17 years without investigation. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/04/9-11-finally-the-truth-comes-out/ Dec 28, 2018 By Michael W. Chapman
Editor’s note: Gen. George S. Patton Jr. (1885 – 1945) gave the speech below to the soldiers of the U.S. Third Army on June 5, 1944, one day before the Normandy invasion, D-Day. The speech -- portions of which were delivered by the actor George C. Scott in the 1970 movie “Patton” – is presented below in its entirety. WARNING: Some of the language is profane; a few colorful expressions were excised and marked with asterix. Be seated. Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self-respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American. You are not all going to die [in the battle]. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they are He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen. Gen. Patton speaks with members of the U.S. Third Army near the Rhine River in 1945.All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call ‘chicken s*** drilling.’ That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a f*** for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-a-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of s***! There are 400 neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily -- all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did. An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about f******!" We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do. My men don't surrender. I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bullshit either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man! (The audio clip below is from the 1970 movie "Patton," starring George C. Scott, who portrayed the general and presented an edited version of the June 5, 1944 speech in the film.) https://youtu.be/bH9l1Cko0Ps All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, ‘Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.’ But what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, damnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the ‘G.I. S****.’ Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the damend cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, ‘Fixing the wire, Sir.’ I asked, ‘Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?’ He answered, ‘Yes Sir, but the damned wire has to be fixed.’ I asked, ‘Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?’ And he answered, ‘No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!’ Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over 40 consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable." U.S. troops during the Battle of the Bulge, Dec. 16, 1944 -- Jan. 25, 1945. Don't forget, you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the G***amned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, ‘It's the damned Third Army again and that son-of-a-f***ing-bitch Patton.’ We want to get the hell over there. The quicker we clean up this damned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the damned Marines get all of the credit. Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake! When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea! The hell with taking it! My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. (1885-1945), a four-star U.S. general in full millitary dress. Patton succeeded Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone after World War II. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living G***amned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Huns by the bushel-f***ing-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do! I don't want to get any messages saying, ‘I am holding my position.’ We are not holding a damned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's b****. We are going to twist him and kick the living s*** out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s*** through a tin horn! From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good damn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that. There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that 20 years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you won’t have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, ‘Well, your Granddaddy shoveled s*** in Louisiana.’ No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, ‘Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a son-of-a-bitch named Georgie Patton! A destroyed German tank with a message written on it from U.S. troops of Patton's Third Army. https://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/michael-w-chapman/patton-very-idea-losing-hateful-american |
AuthorChristian Patriot Archives
January 2019
Categories |