RUTHFULLY YOURS

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Michael Cutler, a former Senior INS Special Agent. He discussed The Hillary-FBI Fix, revealing the catastrophic damage to American national security interests.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch The Brigitte Gabriel Moment with Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of ACT for America, in which Brigitte discussesWhat is Really Driving the Terrorists, unveiling what is really inspiring jihadists — and why Obama and the media don’t want you to know it.

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/07/10/the-hillary-fbi-fix-on-the-glazov-gang/

GOOGLE TRANSLATION

Everyone knows, except the deaf and blind, cynicism Barack Obama. This is not only the worst President of the United States: it is also the most coldly demagogue, most contemptuous vis-à-vis the institutions and the American people.

He choked multiple malpractice Hillary Clinton has, in itself, surprising. He himself violated the Constitution so often in eight years that he deserved a hundred times incapacity procedure, and he lied with such frequency that if the US mainstream media still doing their job, he would have left the house white long, covered with feathers and tar. Nevertheless, he crossed in recent days a few more steps, and showed that he really wanted to transform the United States into a banana republic.

The villainous behavior of Hillary Clinton is himself not to show this woman has literally skeletons in his closet, not just those dead in Benghazi. She is as sold to the highest bidder in recent years that his bank account, and the Clinton Foundation are now worthy of those of a villainous dictator of the Third World. It is so considered above the law it leaking state secrets through an email server that served to regulate small shadow between freedmen color business. She has herself to show that she was ready to lead the banana republic that Obama intends to leave a legacy.

The mainstream press has not reported all episodes of what may be a result if the Godfather Francis Ford Coppola Himself to make films, it is important to relate them here.

First episode: in April, Obama said Hillary was probably committed “negligence”, but it does not merit prosecution. The guideline to be followed by the FBI and the Department of Justice is drawn. Hillary Clinton delivers a truth-against sentence and appears serene: she knows, obviously it is safe.
Second episode: a few days ago, the Minister of Justice very docile Obama Loretta Lynch out and meets Bill Clinton on the runway at the Phoenix airport, and has a long conversation with her. They talk of children, golf and gardening, they say. What else could they talk about? In other times, a secret conversation between the Minister of Justice and a person was the subject of an FBI investigation (Bill Clinton was also involved in the FBI investigation) would have implied demand immediate resignation Minister of Justice and journalists have sneered if they were told that the conversation had focused on children, golf and gardening, but those were other times.
Third episode: Hillary Clinton questioned extensively by the FBI, to his delight, she said.She reported later that if elected President, Loretta Lynch will remain Minister of Justice.
Fourth episode: the FBI director paints a damning indictment against Hillary Clinton and describes very precisely all the reasons that should be worth to this indictment, but concluded that there are no material charges. Hillary, he said, had committed “serious negligence”, but that does not merit prosecution. The resemblance to the words spoken by Obama in April is not accidental.
Episode Five: Obama, in the moments following the declaration of the FBI director share countryside aboard Air Force one in Hillary company, and holds a meeting with her ​​in which he declares that it has all the qualities to succeed him.
Loretta Lynch closes the case.

President Barack Obama said Saturday that he shares the concerns of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey over the State Department’s handling of sensitive information.

Mr. Comey said last Tuesday that the FBI found evidence during an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email use of a department “generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the U.S. government.”
Asked for the first time about the FBI’s findings during a news conference at the conclusion of an international summit in Poland, Mr. Obama said: “I am concerned.”

Mr. Obama declined to comment on Mr. Comey’s statements, such as that Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues had been what the FBI director said was “extremely careless” in handling classified information.

Tired of reading about Government Waste? go to http://www.openthebooks.com/
And please read this column:
To Reclaim America, Abolish the Federal Agencies By Michael Walsh May 17, 2016

https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2016/05/17/to-reclaim-america-abolish-the-federal-agencies/?singlepage=true

The decline of America, perhaps surprisingly, can be traced directly to the Nixon administration. Surprising, because the Left hated Tricky Dick with a passion that can only be compared with the passion that animates the never-Trump crowd: sheer, animal loathing. Surprising, because Nixon was the most domestically liberal, if not actually leftist, president we’ve had until Obama. Surprising, because to this day old Nixon-haters still foam at the mouth at the very thought of the man who took down the “pink lady,” Helen Gahagan Douglas, and saved Israel in 1973; a year later, of course, they finally sacked him over Watergate.

But it was during the first Nixon administration that the hideous monstrosity of the Environmental Protection Agency came into being by executive order, along with its ugly twin, the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Seemingly innocuous and well-intentioned at the time, both agencies have metastasized, their original missions completed and now forever on the prowl for something else to meddle with. They’re both unconstitutional, of course, but what’s even worse is that they’ve turned into rogue agencies, issuing edicts, orders and regulations largely devoid of congressional scrutiny — pure instruments of executive power, with none to gainsay them.

To get an idea of just how obnoxious and intrusive these do-gooder agencies have become, get a load of this from Lou Ann Rieley, who owns a farm in Delaware:

This week a young rancher in Wyoming, Andy Johnson, won a battle for private property rights against one of the bureaucratic entities that strikes fear in the hearts of farmers and ranchers nationwide, the Environmental Protection Agency.

Johnson fought back against a mandate from the EPA to dismantle a pond that he had built on his own land with the required state permits. Fines totaling $16 million were imposed before they were finally overturned in the wake of his court victory.

As I read about his ordeal I thought back through the years that I have managed our small family farm and the many times we have been harassed by government busy-bodies who thought it was in their purview to question us, investigate us, intrude on us, and regulate us.

Let’s stop right there. (You can read all about the Johnson case, which ought to outrage every real American, here.) Sixteen million dollars in fines? For what?

In 2009 and 2010, lawyers working at the United States Justice Department warned top Obama political appointees and other Justice Department officials about the dangerous threats of New Black Panthers to kill police officers and other whites. I was one of those lawyers who delivered those warnings.

Our warnings came in the context of the Voting Rights Act case I and other lawyers brought against the New Black Panthers on behalf of the United States in 2009, a case the Obama administration ultimately abandoned. Both top DOJ officials, including now Labor Secretary Tom Perez, as well as rank and file employees in the Civil Rights Division, were warned but did not take the New Black Panther threat seriously or otherwise considered the organization to be a laughable joke.

Allies in the media echoed the narrative that the defendants in the voter intimidation case were harmless clowns.

Among the information presented to top officials was a video produced by the New Black Panthers entitled “Training Day.” The video proposes killing police officers by ambush. I wrote about the video:

Another New Black Panther posing in the above photo and kneeling with a shotgun is “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad. As I wrote in my book Injustice: One of them was Panther “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad, who is seen in a Panther video called “Training Day” in which he encourages blacks in DeKalb County, Georgia, to don ski masks, lie in wait behind shrubs, and kill police officers with AK-47s. Following that exhortation he mocks the hypothetical victims’ grieving widows.

Thursday night’s attack in Dallas marks the deadliest day for American law enforcement since September 11, 2001. An ambush that started just before 9 p.m. local time, toward the end of a peaceful Black Lives Matter demonstration, left four members of the Dallas Police Department and one member of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit authority police department dead, and seven other officers and two civilians injured. The gunman, 25-year-old Micah X. Johnson, who told a hostage negotiator that he “wanted to kill white people, especially police officers,” was so successful only because of the bravery of Dallas’s finest, who spent the evening monitoring Black Lives Matter protesters, then rushed to shield demonstrators when shots rang out. On a week marked by intense hostility against our law enforcement, Dallas police reminded us of the courage and selflessness displayed by the vast majority of America’s men and women in uniform.

Police have yet to release the identities of the three suspects in custody, who are believed to have conspired in planning the attack. But about the motivations behind this episode there can be little doubt. Dallas police chief David Brown has said that the perpetrators clearly “planned to injure and kill as many law-enforcement officers as they could.” Johnson, who appears to have been the lone gunman, was a Facebook fan of the African American Defense League, which regularly called for violence against cops. Recent posts encourage readers to “ATTACK EVERYTHING IN BLUE EXCEPT THE MAIL MAN” and “sprinkle Pigs Blood.”

Responsibility for this vicious, cowardly act lies solely with the killer. But this tragedy is another reminder that the temperature should be lowered in the debate over policing and race.

Of course, Black Lives Matter almost exists to do the opposite, and a poisonous minority of it has even encouraged violence against police. In New York City in late 2014, protesters chanted: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.” Not long after, Ismaaiyl Brinsley assassinated two NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, in their patrol vehicle.

The reactions to the recent officer-involved shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minn., which prompted the demonstrations in Dallas and elsewhere, have been typically inflammatory. It is far from clear whether the officers acted justifiably, and the available evidence raises serious questions. We understand the passions evoked by these tragic encounters, partially captured in graphic videos. Nonetheless, Black Lives Matter activists immediately labeled the deaths “murder,” and appropriated them to a well-known narrative of an “epidemic” of police violence against black Americans. Meanwhile, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton blamed Castile’s shooting partly on “racism,” and President Obama decried “racial disparity in the justice system.” Events in Ferguson and Baltimore, where the facts did not support the instant Black Lives Matter narrative, have shown the imprudence of these sorts of knee-jerk pronouncements.

In a quarter century in law enforcement, I never encountered anyone more confident, or with more reason to be confident, than Jim Comey. The former Bush Justice Department deputy attorney general turned Obama Justice Department director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has earned bipartisan plaudits for a reason: He is as able as it gets. The nation got to see that this week: first, in his tour de force press conference both damning and clearing Hillary Clinton; then, just 48 hours later, in his deft jousting with a Republican-led House committee rankled by his decision to give a pass to the Democrats’ putative presidential nominee.

So well did Director Comey perform that you barely noticed his rationale withering away.

In arguing that Mrs. Clinton should not face felony charges of grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, the director illustrated that Mrs. Clinton is overwhelmingly guilty of grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. It made me wonder how many dozens — scores? hundreds? — of defendants Comey, in his 15 stellar years as a federal prosecutor, had convicted on a bare fraction of the proof he outlined against the former secretary of state.

Comey piled fact upon fact showing intentional misconduct — the setting up of a non-government, non-secure e-mail server system for the conduct of official business, in violation of guidelines Clinton was obliged not only to follow but to enforce; the transmission of classified information (including some of the government’s most closely guarded intelligence secrets) — information Clinton had to know was classified at the time it was sent, some of which was even marked classified (notwithstanding her serial denials of that tell-tale fact); the herculean effort to destroy any trace of thousands of government files, notwithstanding over a year’s worth of vows that no government-related information had been included in the 32,000 e-mails she attempted to delete rather than surrender to the State Department.

On and on Comey went: shredding one Hillary lie after another; all but guaranteeing that her “extreme carelessness” had resulted in the penetration of her communications by foreign intelligence services; pointedly rebuking Clinton’s recklessness in discussing top-secret intelligence via a homebrew system so amateurishly unsecure she’d have been better off using your teenager’s Gmail account.

In the end, nevertheless, he let her off the hook. Bursting with pride over the bureau’s forensic prowess and investigative energy, he left the listener certain his agents had built the slam-dunk case to end all slam-dunk cases, only to conclude with a thud that the case was too weak to charge. Not only too weak but so wanting, he proclaimed, that no reasonable prosecutor could think otherwise.

Turns out there are a lot of unreasonable prosecutors. Can it be that too many of them are retired and cranky, that from up here in the peanut gallery, the job looks a lot easier than it is?

Maybe . . . but I don’t think so.

A protest was launched today by Black Lives Matter near the White House, where demonstrators said they were “fed up” with reports over the killings of blacks by police. Members of the black caucus of the House of Representatives are to meet with FBI Director James Comey to discuss the deaths of two black men — Philandro Castile and Alton Sterling — at the hands of police in Minnesota and Louisiana, respectively.

However, the deaths of whites at the hands of police receive much less attention, even in cases where the circumstances of the deaths are controversial. Examples include the death of Gilbert Collar (18), a white student at the University of South Alabama. Collar was naked and under the influence of drugs when he was shot to death by Trevis Austin, a black police officer.

Austin was cleared of the deed in 2012 by a Mobile County grand jury. Little attention was focused on the case outside of Alabama. Collar’s family filed a federal lawsuit against the police that is ongoing.

A study published last week by The Washington Post offers significant details about police shootings:

White officers shooting unarmed black men amounted to less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.

In about 75 percent of those incidents, police were under defending themselves or civilians.

Most of those killed were wielding weapons, suicidal or mentally disturbed, or ran when ordered to stop.

Nearly a third of police shootings involved car chases that began with a minor traffic stop.

Writing in the New York Post today, Michael Walsh wrote “The Myth of the Killer Cop Epidemic,” and disputed what he called the widespread narrative of “homicidal goon” cops run amok in black neighborhoods. This narrative, Walsh wrote, “ignores the fact that black violent-crime rates are far higher than those of whites. According to the Department of Justice, blacks committed 52.5 percent of the murders in America from 1980 to 2008, when they represented 12.6 percent of the population.”

Regarding a December 2015 study by the Washington Post on police shootings, he noted that of the 965 person killed by police that year, only 90 were unarmed, and the majority of those were white. He also noted the shocking reality of murder in President Barack Obama’s hometown. Walsh wrote: “The worst neighborhoods in Chicago — say, West Garfield Park, where gangs run rampant — have a higher murder rate (116.7 per 100,000) than world murder capitals like Honduras (90.4). But no, best not to mention. That only distracts from the real problem — the cops trying to stop it.”

“Instead, what people hear most of the time from groups like Black Lives Matter or Al Sharpton is inflammatory rhetoric that distorts reality and indiscriminately demonizes the police. Showing some awareness Thursday of this lopsided public perception, Mr. Obama said it is possible to express support for the police “while also saying there are problems across our criminal justice system.” Mr. Obama’s attempt at balance might have more resonance if once he said Black Lives Matter’s view of American justice is wrong.”

It was only two years ago, in the summer of 2014, that the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Eric Garner in New York’s Staten Island made it clear that tensions were rising dangerously between the police and the urban neighborhoods they patrol. It hasn’t stopped.

That December, two policemen were assassinated on a Brooklyn street. The following April brought the Baltimore riot and the Freddie Gray case.

Now Dallas.

Mayor Mike Rawlings said a lone shooter killed five Dallas police officers and wounded seven others in an ambush attack carried out during a march, which was protesting the shootings this week of black men in Louisiana and Missouri by police offers.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown described the words of one suspect, Micah Xavier Johnson, before he was blown up by a police robot bomb: “The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
***

America today has the feel of a country flirting dangerously with the 1960s. Back then, disruptions to civic and social order overwhelmed America’s political leadership, which found itself constantly behind the curve of events, on defense. We aren’t there yet, but a familiar deficit of political leadership exists today as social tensions rise.

In the 1960s and ’70s, various individuals and groups said that police brutality against black people justified a violent response. They included Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army. The Black Panthers famously coined the phrase, “off the pigs.”

Violence followed. Some of it consisted of ambush attacks or shootouts between police and group members. One of the most dramatic events, in January 1972, was the late-night gunning down of two New York City cops by three assailants on Manhattan’s lower east side.

Nothing then, however, reached the scale of the sniper attack in Dallas this week. Dallas represents an historically unprecedented escalation of anti-police violence.

President Obama entered office with the belief that significant and persistent racial inequities existed in American life, a matter he has raised frequently in public appearances. He did so again Thursday while in Warsaw, after the shootings in Louisiana and Missouri.

He said the two deaths “are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” He then cited several statistical studies “to try to put in context why emotions are so raw around these issues.” But he added, “To be concerned about these issues is not to be against law enforcement.”

We don’t gainsay Mr. Obama’s sincerity, and racial disparities exist, but one may ask: Why on Friday, after the Dallas murders, did the city’s police chief, who is black, wonder out loud about support for people on law-enforcement’s front line? “We don’t feel much support most days,” Chief Brown said. “Let’s not make today most days.”

If Chief Brown and many like him in American law enforcement don’t think they get much support, it is because they don’t—until after the cops are dead. Then, as always, come the official condolences. CONTINUE AT SITE