Displaying posts published in

April 2017

CIA’s Brennan Conspired with Foreign Spies More proof of Democrats’ seditious impulses. Matthew Vadum

Although Russians may have aspired to influence the November election, the real election meddlers were Democrats in the Obama administration who conspired with foreign intelligence agencies against Donald Trump’s campaign, new media reports suggest.

The key player, we are learning, is the already infamous John O. Brennan but FBI Director James Comey also played a role. From January 2009 to March 2013, Brennan was Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from March 2013 until Obama’s last day as president.

George Neumayr explains at the American Spectator how pro-Islam, pro-Communist Brennan appears to have masterminded the operation.

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

Drawing from a news article in the Guardian (UK), Neumayr adds:

Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Estonians were indeed tense after Trump’s seeming ambivalence about NATO on the campaign trail and the prospect that as president he might leave that former Soviet province at the mercy of Russian President Vladimir Putin. British spy agencies, too, were rife with Trump-haters.

The Guardian reports that Robert Hannigan, then-head of the British foreign surveillance service, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), “passed material” to Brennan in summer 2016.

The claim about GCHQ involvement surfaced a month ago.

On March 16, Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano accused GCHQ of working with the Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump, citing unnamed sources. The United States and United Kingdom are in fact parties to a multilateral intelligence cooperation pact. This five-way intelligence alliance among the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada is called Five Eyes (FVEY). It obligates the countries to work together in the area of signals intelligence (SIGINT). SIGINT is the gathering of intelligence related to communications between individuals (COMINT) and or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (ELINT).

When Brennan took over the CIA, he brought along fellow-travelers.

He dragged along “a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump,” Neumayr writes. He also “bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as ‘non-partisan.’”

An official in the intelligence community told Neumayr that “Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with ‘Hillary for president cups’ and other campaign paraphernalia.”

Obama’s Chickens Coming Home to Roost Ticking time bombs from Syria to North Korea. Daniel Greenfield

Democrats inherit the foreign policy crises of a thousand Republican presidential fathers, but the foreign policy crises inherited by incoming Republicans in the White House are always orphans.

Or at least that’s how the media likes to spin it.

If you believe your random mainstream media outlet of choice, North Korea and Syria were crises freshly spawned by this administration with no prior history. But these ticking time bombs are the direct result of the two terrible terms of his predecessor.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner’s years in the White House were the most dysfunctional, schizophrenic and senseless eight years of our national foreign policy. His domestic policy was a disaster, but it was a radioactive toxic waste dump with clear and consistent goals. ObamaCare, the abuses of the Justice Department, the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency were the naturally terrible outcome of left-wing policies being implemented with inevitably terrible results.

But Obama’s foreign policy was a wildly inconsistent mess. The Nobel Peace Prize winner couldn’t quite decide if he was a humanitarian interventionist or a pacifist non-interventionist. He couldn’t make up his mind if he wanted to take the side of the Sunnis or the Shiites in their Islamic unholy war. He didn’t know if he wanted to appease Russia or sanction it, to pivot to Asia or run the other way, to play another round of golf or replace his defense secretary for the fifth time.

Obama could be consistent on domestic policy because there were few hard choices to make. Government had to be constantly expanded and every arm of it enlisted in pursuing left-wing goals. Republican opposition was largely hapless. The “Irish Democracy” of the public response to ObamaCare was more effective at sabotaging it, but by the time anyone understood that it was far too late.

The world stage was a much more dynamic place with players who didn’t fit into Obama’s ideology. The Islamist democracy proponents got Obama to kick off the Arab Spring. When Gaddafi shot the Islamists in the streets, the interventionists got him to sign on to regime change in Libya. But then Syria boiled down to Sunni and Shiite Islamists shooting each other and interventionism hit a roadblock.

Obama stopped at his own Red Line and couldn’t figure out what to do next. His foreign policy had somehow boiled down to helping Shiites kill Sunnis in Iraq and helping Sunnis kill Shiites in Syria.

He was bombing and arming the same Islamists at the same time to improve relations with them.

David Flint: Vive Madame Le Pen

Of all the candidates jostling to become the next president of France, The National Front leader is the only one who does not belong to the established political class which has wrought so much damage. She is not perfect, that’s true, but she does offer the hope of much-needed change.

The exceptional candidate in the French presidential election is clearly Marine Le Pen. The many French residents who have had to leave France to find work in countries, some as far away as Australia, may well come to the conclusion that she will be more likely to offer solutions for France’s malaise than the usual run of politician. This could influence not only the way many will vote but also the opinions they give to those who remain at home. Many of them must have surely lost confidence in the French political class who have delivered massive youth unemployment, record and increasing debt and government spending almost twice as much of the GDP, 60%, as even Australia’s governments.

Worse, through the European Union, they have completely mishandled immigration, importing into France an unassimilable, even dangerous, minority. This, of course, is not to describe all, or even most Muslims as unassimilable or dangerous. It is to lament the fact that in France and elsewhere it is next to impossible for moderate Muslims to attempt to achieve a reformation without risking their safety, even their lives and certainly their fortunes, as well as their families. Only Marine Le Pen makes an issue of this and offers a serious, if harsh, solution. This has forced lesser politicians to make noises unconvincingly suggesting that they, too, will take some vague and unknown action to deal with the problem.

Of all the candidates, she is the one most likely to restore France as a sovereign state with sound and secure borders, as free of the tutelage of the Brussels Eurocrats as the United Kingdom will be with Brexit. Australians will recall that the central feature of national sovereignty was famously and succinctly described by their great statesman, John Howard, as the power to decide who comes into the country and the circumstances in which they come. Without that, a country is not sovereign. It is no more than a mere province, a protectorate or a satrapy.

There is one important aspect of Marine Le Pen’s leadership of the National Front which must be mentioned. From the time she succeeded her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, she has softened the awful anti-Semitic image he gave to the party. This is not opportunistic, it is from the heart — and unlike many such expressions from politicians, it is practical. Those of us from Anglophone countries will usually not appreciate how ingrained this virus has been in France and how brutal its practice was, even without Nazi pressure, during the Second World War. Marine Le Pen has finally reversed the way this had tainted her party by presenting the National Front not just as reformed but as the most effective protector, rather than the persecutor, of the Jews. In an interview in 2014 she said that in comparison with other political parties, the National Front “is without a doubt the best shield to protect you against the one true enemy, Islamic fundamentalism.”

The Australian‘s economics correspondent Adam Creighton recently revealed, courageously for a journalist, that if he were French he would vote for Le Pen. I agree. Although we both studied law at the Sorbonne Law School in Paris (Université Panthéon-Assas at, obviously, different times) I have never met Marine Le Pen, but she is impressive. Not to vote for her, Adam Creighton writes, would be to endorse the French political and economic elites that have sapped the life out of industry, put the Fifth Republic on track for bankruptcy, forced taxpayers to bail out parasitic banks, and left the country exposed to Islamist terrorism. I agree entirely with this reasoning.

France is ready, indeed over-ready, for a Le Pen administration. If this does not come, the French are unlikely to accept for long the absence of at least a serious attempt at the top to solve the problems imposed on them by the elites. France does not have a peaceful and calm history in matters political. In the time that Australia evolved, in relative tranquillity, from a penal colony into a collection of self-governing communities which peacefully united into a nation, France has lived through a violent revolution and a reign of terror, followed by a bewildering range of constitutional models. These have included not one but five republics, not one but two constitutional monarchies, not one but two empires and, fortunately, only one fascist regime, but with the serious threat of at least two others.

Philosophy prof implicated in violent campus assault By Martin Barillas

A professor of philosophy is suspected of carrying a violent attack on Saturday that resulted in injury to a supporter of President Trump. Violence roiled the campus of the University of California-Berkeley when leftist protesters grappled with supporters of President Trump. At least 20 persons were arrested and others are being sought by police for involvement in violent assaults.

The protest began on Saturday morning at Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park and spread onto city streets, involving over 200 people. Leftists had chosen April 15 to launch protests nationwide to demand that Trump should release his current federal tax returns.Amateur video of the melee captured an attack on a Trump supporter on April 15 who was bludgeoned and injured in the head by a masked assailant. The assailant allegedly struck the Trump supporter in the head with a bike lock, resulting in injuries that required a visit to an emergency room for stitches. According to the 4chan website, the assailant has been identified as Eric Clanton, a former San Francisco State University Professor, who currently teaches philosophy at Diablo Valley College.Establishment media provided far more coverage of an assault on a leftist young woman that day who, because of her tangled hair, has been dubbed “Moldy Locks.” Video showed that Louise Rosealma was struck by an assailant during rioting on Saturday in Berkeley.Leftist “Antifa” radicals have been evident at other events, participating in violent assaults and property damage. On Inauguration Day in Washington DC, Antifa protesters incinerated a private vehicle and caused other property damages.In the case of Prof. Clanton, his Twitter page has been deleted. However, photographs and social media posts relating to the professor have been collected at the 4chan /pol/ board to lend credence to accusations against him. For example, a profile in his name at the okCupid dating website describes himself thus: “I spend a lot of time thinking about REVOLUTION.” According to descriptions at the website for San Francisco State University, Clanton has given lectures to high schoolstudents on ethics.
While police have arrested other protesters on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and other felony offenses, no arrest has been reported in Clanton’s case. Police seized numerous banned articles, including wooden dowels, sticks, and poles. Also seized were an axe handle, knives, a stun gun, mace, pepper spray, bear spray, and a metal container filled with concrete. Participants wore helmets and covered their faces, wielding fists and skateboards to attack or defend themselves.

A gang of demonstrators dressed in black were seen kicking a man wearing U.S.-flag-patterned pants who had fallen to the ground.

What’s Trump Cooking Up With the Palestinians? By P. David Hornik

From Israel, the Trump administration’s moves in the Middle East look encouraging so far.

There’s been the tough response to Bashar Assad’s sarin-gas atrocity; the highlighting of Iran as regional mischief-maker; the strengthening of tacit Israeli strategic allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt; and of course, a reset with Israel itself after eight years of the Obama administration’s hectoring and accusations.

Now, however, President Trump is preparing for another Middle East move that is raising questions and doubts in Israel. On May 3, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas will be hosted by Trump at the White House.

Questioned about the meeting, White House press secretary Sean Spicer defined the Trump administration’s ultimate goal:

[A] conflict-ending settlement between the Palestinians and Israel.

Israel, for its part, began seeking an end to the conflict in 1993 with the launching of the Oslo peace process. A quarter-century of terror, rockets, and relentless Palestinian delegitimization of Israel later, a survey published late last month found fewer Israelis than ever — 36%, down from 60% in 2005 – felt Israel could risk withdrawing from the West Bank.

Shortly thereafter, a review of Palestinian attitudes found even less reason for optimism about a “conflict-ending settlement.” Dan Polisar of Jerusalem’s Shalem College examined no less than 400 surveys of Palestinian opinion, and found that a majority of Palestinians reject the much-vaunted “two-state solution.”

The majority instead favors a “one-state solution”: Israel’s obliteration.

A summary in The Tower of Polisar’s lengthy report notes that an average of 54% of Palestinians rejected a two-state solution based on the most generous Israeli terms possible, and that in the two most recent polls the figure rose to 61%. Further:

[T]hose strongly opposed to such a deal outnumbered those strongly supporting it every time — usually by an average of greater than 3 to 1.

Daniel Pipes, in a response to Polisar’s report, says:

[Polisar] convincingly establishes that Palestinians collectively hold three related views of Israel: it has no historical or moral claim to exist, it is inherently rapacious and expansionist, and it is doomed to extinction.

An Important Legal Ruling Against the IRS May Have Huge Implications By Jeff Reynolds

In a major victory in the ongoing Lois Lerner scandal at the IRS, non-profit election integrity organization True the Vote defeated an IRS motion to quash discovery in True the Vote v. IRS. The ruling means that everyone involved in the scandal could be compelled to submit every document related to the case and be deposed by True the Vote’s legal team.

From their press release:

Judge Reggie Walton of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just issued a critical order in True the Vote v. IRS case. The order compels the IRS to submit to discovery and depositions, giving True the Vote a long-awaited opportunity to expose the full scope of the discriminatory practices used by the Internal Revenue Service to target and abuse organizations and individuals who expressed political views in opposition to the Obama Administration.

In an exclusive interview, the lawyer representing True the Vote, Jim Bopp, Jr., cheered the ruling:

What we have now is an opportunity to find out who did what. The IRS has doggedly fought anyone finding out what happened and how it happened that they launched this comprehensive campaign to attack and undermine and adversely treat Tea Party and other conservative groups. We finally get an opportunity to find out. CONTINUE AT SITE

Al-Qaeda Mocks Arabs for Submitting to Haley’s ‘Kick in High Heels’ By Bridget Johnson

Al-Qaeda mocked Arab rulers for being at the mercy of “the kicks of the high heels” of Ambassador Nikki Haley after her warning that things are going to change at the United Nations.

“I wear heels. It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time,” Haley said in a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference last month in Washington.

“So how are we kicking? We’re kicking by, No. 1, putting everybody on notice, saying that if you have our back, we’re going to have the backs of our friends. But our friends need to have our backs, too,” she continued. “If you challenge us, be prepared for what for what you are challenging us for because we will respond.”

In the most recent issue of al-Qaeda’s al-Nafir Bulletin, published in several language and distributed online by the Global Islamic Media Front, the terror group said “the representative of the bearer of the Cross America” — Haley — “sent a message to the apostate Arab rulers filled with sarcasm and mockery.”

The bulletin added that America was “the Hubal of the era to its worshippers the Arab rulers,” referring to a moon god worshipped at Mecca before Islam.

“You will not go beyond your worth, and you will receive a kick in high heels as punishment for any statement… that criticizes the Zionists,” they summarized Haley’s message to Arab rulers after quoting her directly.

“American and its Crusader allies will never allow anyone to stand before their support of the Zionists and the apostates of the Arabs and foreigners from the Muslim rulers, and they will not accept to end their robbery of the fortunes and resources of the Ummah [Muslim community], and that any Islamic project that seeks to establish the Shariah, and spread justice, and distribute fairly the fortunes of the Ummah, will face bombs and guided rockets, with the supporter of the apostate rulers who are ready to receive the kicks of the high heels from the Zionist Haley in case they go beyond the allowed limit, and gave wrong criticisms of the nation of the sons of Zion,” the bulletin stated.

Al-Qaeda added that the only “salvation” for Muslims “out of this delusion in the sea of weakness” was “targeting the real enemy.”

“O youth of Islam, attack global infidelity headed by America, and show Allah what is required of you,” the terror group told followers. “Shake their thrones, and bring down their interests, and target their great criminals.”

Al-Qaeda has previously used issues of the al-Nafir Bulletin to call for action against the United States. In February, the terror group accused the U.S. of withholding necessary medication from “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the deadly 1993 World Trade Center bombing who died behind bars that month. CONTINUE AT SITE

Over 90% pass citizenship test… With answers given in advance Ed Straker

Not just anyone can become a citizen of the United States. You first have to come into the country legally. Or illegally, and get amnesty. Then you have to apply for citizenship. And there is a brutal civics test! It is so difficult, that the government decided to give out the answers in advance.

The civics portion of the citizenship test consists of up to ten questions chosen from 100 questions, the answers to which are listed on the federal government’s website. Applicants must get at least six right. That means people who want to become citizens have to pre-learn the answers to at least 95 short questions! But there are some real tough questions, like,

“What is the name of the President?”,

“If the President can no longer serve, who becomes President?”

“What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?”

“Name one state that borders Mexico”,

“Where is the Statue of Liberty?”, and

“When is Independence Day?”

There, that’s six questions! If you know all the answers, you know enough to become an American!

It is no surprise, then, that over 90% of applicants pass the test. But it should be equally of little surprise that most applicants, having the questions and answers in advance, simply memorize the answers, learning little or nothing about American history.

Even worse, if you can claim that you have a “mental disability” you don’t even have to take the test.

Why not instead have applicants actually study American history and answer a few essay questions? From what I see in the media, immigrants (legal and otherwise), are often bright valedictorians who are at or near the top of their class.

Lindsey Graham The Tort Bar’s Senate Undertaker Someday, and that day will come soon, it will ask Mr. Graham for a favor.

It’s good to be a Senator, especially if you are a Republican who is the most important opponent of tort reform on Capitol Hill. Witness the largesse that the plaintiffs bar is bestowing on South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham in its moment of maximum political peril.

On Thursday Mr. Graham was feted in Houston at a fundraiser hosted by Mark Lanier, who can afford it. The Lanier Law Firm has vacuumed up some $13 billion in tort verdicts over the years from Vioxx to asbestos. The invitation asks Mr. Lanier’s tort comrades to share their wealth to the tune of $500 to $5,400 for “Team Graham.”

“Our goal is to show Senator Graham an appreciation from both sides of the bar for what he can help do, especially with tort reform running rampant from the house,” Mr. Lanier added in an email. “It will take Senator Graham to help educate folks and lead the charge from the Republican side.”

Mr. Graham has every right to take campaign cash from all comers, and in this case he is a true believer. He’s long fought tort reform, and his legal friends have rewarded him with some $3.7 million over his 24-year Senate career.

Now his services are truly needed, like Bonasera the undertaker in “The Godfather.” Mr. Lanier wants Mr. Graham to use all of his powers, all of his skills, to bury at least two bills that have passed the House that address major tort-bar abuses.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would crack down on trial-attorney fees that are many times larger than the payout to the class of litigants they represent. The Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act would require the nation’s 60-some asbestos trusts to provide courts the records of trust payouts. This would reduce the plaintiffs bar practice of “double dipping”—secretly raiding the trusts while also pursuing claims via lawsuits. In court they claim the company they’re suing caused asbestos disease, but to the trusts they blame the defunct company financing the trust.

Senator Graham is on the Judiciary Committee where Republicans hold a mere 11-9 majority. His defection on any tort bill would result in a tie that could kill it. Chairman Chuck Grassley will be loathe to move bills that he knows will fail, so Mr. Graham can whisper to Mr. Grassley that he is undecided and perhaps never have to take a vote.

Mr. Graham’s office didn’t respond to our request for comment about the Lanier event, but Mr. Grassley should take his reform bills to the Senate floor despite a tie vote in committee. Even if the bills are defeated, Senators would have to go on record. In any case the trial bar will get its money’s worth from Thursday.

The Attack in France Islamic State claims responsibility three days before an election.

Three days ahead of the first round of France’s presidential election, terrorism has intervened. A gunman with an automatic rifle jumped from a car on the Champs-Élysée Thursday evening and poured bullets into a police car, killing one officer. Islamic State has claimed responsibility.

This event puts extraordinary pressure on a French electorate already trying to sort through difficult decisions about its vote on Sunday.

Conventional political wisdom would hold that the assault will benefit far-right candidate Marine Le Pen because last-minute events of this magnitude can influence voter sentiment, and Ms. Le Pen is running hard on the idea that France is under assault from Arab immigrants. In recent debates she has proposed that France suspend all legal immigration into the country.

The shooting may well tip sentiment in Ms. Le Pen’s direction, but at least two of her three opponents—conservative François Fillon and center-left Emmanuel Macron —have run on strong antiterror platforms. They have also run hard on the widespread sense of economic torpor among the French people. As we saw in the U.K.’s Brexit vote and the U.S. election last year, the sense of dimming economic opportunity is a potent political force. Polls indicate that is French voters’ number one concern.

Whatever the immediate effect of Thursday’s shooting in the heart of Paris, there is no avoiding the blunt reality at the heart of France’s momentous election, which is the general sense among the population that the nation’s elites—in politics and the French media—have become disconnected from the realities of the nation’s problems. It will be a pity if one shooting tips Sunday’s results, but it would not be a surprise.