News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Attention elected Republicans: You've had enough time to look for your lost balls. Time to get off the golf course-commenter to, "Wiretaps may prove Trump right--and that's absolutely terrifying"

Above from commenter to following article:

9/19/17, "Wiretaps may prove Trump right--and that's absolutely terrifying," New York Post, Michael Goodwin

"Over the years, a curious habit has taken hold at the United Nations. A body designed to strengthen the best of humanity has too often become a font of doublespeak and appeasement that protects the worst of humanity.

That tragic comity was shattered when President Trump played the skunk at the garden party and dared to tell the truth. Many truths, in fact.

Among them, that Islamic terrorism is a scourge that must be stopped. That Iran is controlled by a “murderous regime” bent on getting nukes.

That North Korea’s “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission” and the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy” that country if war begins. And that socialism and communism have failed everywhere, including Cuba and Venezuela.

The delegates and heads of state got The Full Trump, including what it means to put America First. It was the president’s finest, most complete expression of his worldview and, thankfully, contained no apologies for American power or history.

Yet even as Trump spoke, a threat to his presidency gained new steam. Reports that special counsel Robert Mueller had wiretapped former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort and plans to indict him sent Washington into a new tizzy of speculation.

According to CNN, which first carried the wiretapping report, Manafort was surveilled under a FISA warrant, meaning the FBI suspected he was operating as a foreign agent. The network said it is possible G-men listened to the president talking to Manafort because the wiretap continued into this year and Trump and Manafort often talked in 2017.

If so, that would mark an infamous history — an American president being overheard by secret agents of his own government. It would also be additional support for Trump’s charge that former President Barack Obama “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”

It was in March when Trump made that explosive claim, and the Democratic media rushed to denounce him even before Obama did. Subsequent denials from then-FBI boss James Comey and other Obama aides all were rock-solid in declaring that no such thing had happened. There was no wiggle room in their denials, some of which were made under oath before Congress.

But something certainly happened. And what if it was the worst imaginable something? What if the Republican candidate for president was put under surveillance by a Democratic administration that was trying to elect another Democrat?

There was reason to suspect that was true before the Manafort reports added fuel to the fire.

Recall that, starting last fall, continuing throughout the transition and into the early months of the administration, much of the media was obsessed with the narrative that “Russia hacked the election and Trump colluded.”

It was a feeding frenzy of reports naming various Trump associates who had any contacts with Russians. It was guilt by association, all based on leaks of classified secrets that originated either in law enforcement or intelligence agencies, or the Obama White House.

As I wrote back in April, at least six people from the campaign, including Trump himself, were identified in various reports as having been picked up in intercepted communications.

Always, the reports insisted that the Americans were not the targets of the surveillance, that they were “incidentally” picked up while talking to targets.

Those six included Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, then-Senator and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner.

Another was Carter Page, briefly a Trump adviser, and Manafort.
But since then, media reports say that Page was, in fact, being surveilled under a FISA warrant. And now we learn that Manafort was, too.

So those initial reports about the Trumpsters being “incidentally” picked up were wrong. Fake news, you might say, because Manafort and Page were FBI targets whose communications were being intercepted — and the media’s sources had to have known that.

That the public has been lied to repeatedly is beyond doubt. Recall also that Susan Rice, Obama’s last national security adviser, initially claimed in interviews to know nothing about the “unmasking” of Americans whose names were picked up in intercepted calls.

But before Congress, she told a different tale — about needing to know who in Trump’s circle met with a visiting official from the United Arab Emirates, and so she “unmasked” their names. 

Thus, skepticism is required over her insistence that she knows nothing about how those names were then leaked to the media, which could be a felony.

And we still don’t know why Samantha Power, Obama’s UN ambassador, frequently requested the names of Americans picked up in foreign surveillance. Such information would have no bearing on her job, yet her requests were said to be routinely granted.

Related current reasons to doubt our government’s honesty involve the Hillary Clinton email case. For example, the State Department refused to release ­emails to Judicial Watch showing how she arranged government favors for big donors to the Clinton Foundation until a court ordered it to last week.

And the FBI still refuses to allow two top aides to appear before Congress, even though the aides told a Justice Department investigator that Comey had written a draft letter exonerating Clinton months before he interviewed her or 15 other witnesses.

These and other incidents appear to be part of the effort to undermine Trump from within the government, and they give rise to a growing belief that America is infected with a “deep state,” a malevolent permanent bureaucracy that feels entitled to power and will stop at almost nothing to keep it.

I have been reluctant to reach that conclusion, believing that deep state” is a more fitting concept for a Third World country that has corrupted institutions and no rule of law or history of individual freedom.

But I’m beginning to wonder. The more we learn about the last eight years and eight months, the more reason there is to believe that something is rotten in Washington.

I don’t just mean the ordinary corruption of the swamp variety. I mean something fundamental, something that suggests major elements in our government believe they, and not the people, are sovereign.

Which brings us back to the ultimate test: Did Obama or somebody working for him put Trump under surveillance during or after the election for the purpose of a political coup?

It’s a frightening question, all the more so because I suspect the answer will be yes — if we can ever get to the truth."


Comment: If the US had two political parties there would be no need to be terrified or frightened. But it has only one, the Democrat/government, and the entire political class is in it. This renders the US a dictatorship and US citizens slaves.  


Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A year later, Americans have a right to know what "national security" threats caused those in power including James Comey, a secret FISA court judge, and other Obama personnel to approve taxpayer funded surveillance during a presidential campaign of political opponents of those in power-Wall St. Journal, James Freeman, opinion

It's unclear when in 2016 the second FISA court warrant against Manafort started. Paul Manafort was with the Trump campaign for about 5 months, hired in March 2016 to manage Trump state convention operations and delegate "counts" and resigned from the campaign on August 19, 2016.

9/19/17, "Did Obama Know about Comey’s Surveillance?" Wall St. Journal, James Freeman, opinion

"The media is less interested in Obama Administration wiretapping than in how Trump described it."

"This week CNN is reporting more details on the Obama Administration’s 2016 surveillance of people connected to the presidential campaign of the party out of power. It seems that once President Obama’s appointee to run the FBI, James Comey, had secured authorization for wiretapping, the bureau continued its surveillance into 2017. CNN reports:

"US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court [FISA] orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe. The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump. Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive." 

This means the wiretapping was authorized more than ten months ago and perhaps more than a year ago. It was presumably a tough decision for a judge to issue a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling the administration to spy on someone connected with the presidential campaign of its political adversaries.

One would presumably only approve such an order if the request presented by the executive branch was highly compelling and likely to produce evidence that the subject of the wiretap was in fact working with Russia to disrupt U.S. elections. Roughly a year later, as the public still waits for such evidence, this column wonders how this judge is feeling now, especially now that CNN has reported that at least two of its three sources believe the resulting evidence is inconclusive. 

One would also presume—or at least hope—that seeking to wiretap associates of the leader of the political opposition is not an everyday occurrence in any administration. At the very least, it seems highly unlikely that such a decision would be made by a mid-level official. CNN notes, “Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

It seems reasonable for the public to know exactly which officials made this decision and who else they consulted or informed of their surveillance plans. Was the President briefed on the details of this investigation? 

And as for the information showing suspicion, where did the FBI come up with that? A September 7 column from the Journal’s Kim Strassel raises disturbing questions, based on recent events and a Washington Post story from last winter. Ms. Strassel writes:
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “dossier.” That dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele....The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”
Oddly, even though CNN is the source of this week’s news, the media outlet seems less interested in President Obama’s knowledge of the surveillance activities that occurred on his watch and against his political adversaries than in how President Trump has described them. CNN’s scoop doesn’t even mention Mr. Obama except in the context of Mr. Trump’s accusations of wiretapping against the former president that appeared on Twitter in March. CNN has followed up with another story saying that Mr. Trump’s accusations have still not been proven. 

That’s true, although Mr. Trump’s argument may be getting stronger. And whatever Donald Trump’s tweets say, Americans deserve to know how our government came to spy on people associated with the presidential campaign of the party out of power."

Added: The FBI interfered in the 2016 election: Following 3 sources describe how the FBI sought to influence the 2016 election by meeting in Rome, Italy with a British political opposition operative and compiler of the "Golden Showers" anti-Trump dossier with the intention of putting him on the payroll of US taxpayers weeks before the 2016 election if he could find negative information on Trump. Asked in 2017 to explain their 2016 behavior, the FBI has said it can't comment due to "national security."

 Due to "national security," the FBI won't confirm or deny whether it offered and/or paid $50,000 taxpayer dollars to tamper with the 2016 presidential election:

June 26, 2017, "FBI Won’t Confirm or Deny Existence of Records of Payment to British Trump Dossier Researcher," Washington Free Beacon, Jack Heretik

"The FBI argued that it cannot acknowledge the existence of or give access to potential records concerning financial transactions with Steele because the FOIA request "implicates records the FBI may or may not compile pursuant to its national security and foreign intelligence functions." The bureau provided other reasons for its decision not to disclose information, including concerns over privacy and interfering in ongoing federal investigations."


Added: Three 2017 articles about FBI interfering in 2016 election: Washington Post, NY Times, Washington Times:

2/28/17, "FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier," Washington Post, Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman

4/22/17, "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election." NY Times, Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau

April 25, 2017, "Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing," Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough 


Source 1

2/28/17, "FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier," Washington Post, Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman

"In October (2016)...Steele and the FBI reached a spoken understanding: He would continue his work looking at the Kremlin’s ties to Trump and receive compensation [in the form of US taxpayer dollars] for his efforts."...


Source 2

4/22/17, "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election." NY Times, Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau

Former British spy Christopher Steele, compiler of the 'Golden Showers' anti-Trump dossier "met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October (2016), bringing a stack of new intelligence reports....The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 [US taxpayer dollars] for his efforts....Ultimately he was not paid."... 


Source 3

April 25, 2017, "Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing," Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough 

"Presumedly, ['Golden Showers' anti-Trump dossier compiler] Mr. Steele would continue to investigate the president as a surrogate for the FBI. The deal, however, did not go through."...


Added: Two articles about FBI refusing to confirm or deny existence of records of its election tampering meeting with 'Golden Showers' anti-Trump dossier compiler on grounds of "national security":

June 26, 2017, "FBI Won’t Confirm or Deny Existence of Records of Payment to British Trump Dossier Researcher," Washington Free Beacon, Jack Heretik

"The FBI will not confirm or deny the existence of records showing whether the bureau paid the researcher behind the unverified, controversial ['Golden Showers' anti-Trump] dossier alleging ties between President Donald Trump and Russia.

Christopher Steele, a former British spy, gathered information for the dossier while working for a Washington research firm that supporters of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign hired. Trump has denied that the dossier is true while Steele has said parts of it are unverified.

The Washington Post reported earlier this year that Steele had reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before Election Day in November to continue investigating then-candidate Trump.

Cause of Action Institute, or CoA, a nonprofit watchdog group, wanted to know whether Steele was ever paid by the FBI to probe Trump.

In March of this year, CoA filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI seeking access to records to determine whether the FBI paid, or intended to pay, Steele. CoA filed a lawsuit in federal court the following month (April 2017) against the FBI for not responding to the request. 

The FBI replied to CoA last week in a letter, writing that the agency cannot speak to the potential existence of such records. 

"The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request," the letter, signed by an official in the bureau's Records Management Division, said.

The FBI argued that it cannot acknowledge the existence of or give access to potential records concerning financial transactions with Steele because the FOIA request "implicates records the FBI may or may not compile pursuant to its national security and foreign intelligence functions." The bureau provided other reasons for its decision not to disclose information, including concerns over privacy and interfering in ongoing federal investigations.

Cause of Action Institute president and CEO John Vecchione released a statement castigating the FBI's response.

"The FBI is circling the wagons by claiming potential harm to national security if it discloses its relationship with Christopher Steele," Vecchione said. "Regardless of whether a payment was ever made, the FBI's affiliation with a political opposition researcher in the midst of a presidential election deserves scrutiny."

"The FBI should be forthcoming about whether and how the agency was relying upon a former foreign spy who, in the pay of private parties, compiled a report of salacious accusations intended to harm the reputation of then-candidate Donald Trump," Vecchione added."

Second article:: "Who authorized a private citizen to engage in an unsupervised investigation of a candidate for president?"

June 27, 2017, "FBI Refuses to Say if It Paid ['Golden Showers'] Trump Dossier Author Money for More Fiction,", Streiff

"This is the second of three related posts I’m going to write today on the FBI, Fusion GPS, and their actions during the 2016 election (part one), part three."... 

"One of the mysteries surrounding the Trump [Golden Showers] dossier is how it was received by the FBI. Despite the fact that there was nothing in the report that could be actually verified— for instance, Czech authorities say that Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, did not visit Prague as alleged — the FBI became totally enamored with the document. So enamored, in fact, that they offered to pay the author, Christopher Steele, $50,000 if he could dig up still more stuff on Trump."...

We don’t know what happened next. And we may never know.... 

Keep in mind the issue here is NOT what Steele produced or any evaluation of Steele’s work but whether or not appropriated funds were spent to pay for a report by him. This kind of information is not protected by FOIA and it is routinely published on agency websites. Indeed, it must be reported to Congress.

There is no way divulging the expenditure of funds can impact an ongoing federal investigation particularly when the disbursement would be nearly a year old.

It is pretty obvious from the vociferous nature of the refusal to answer that the FBI DID pay Steele for more investigatory work. Congress should find out who authorized a private citizen to engage in an unsupervised investigation of a candidate for president and why they thought it was a good idea."



Jeff Sessions should resign his position as Attorney General of the United States, but before doing so, he should belatedly commence legal action against Comey, Hillary, and Susan Rice. Sessions has resisted producing documents subpoenaed by House Intel Committee relating to Golden Showers Anti-Trump dossier-Gregg Jarrett, Fox News

9/19/17, "Gregg Jarrett: Sessions should resign, but not before taking action against Clinton, Comey and Rice," Fox News, Gregg Jarrett 

"Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States. His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this. 

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.  Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe. Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal. 

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so.  “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else, said Trump at a news conference.  The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him.  Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General.  This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve. 

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent. He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee. He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation.  The evidence is compelling. 

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration. Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons. Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally.  And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime.  Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs. 

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey? The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General. He should resign. But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her.  He testified, After.” 

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony. A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton.  Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath.  If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged. What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect before the evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses?   No prosecutor I know of.  Unless, of course, the fix was in. Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance. 

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice.  It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation. It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing. 

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there. As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media. Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,”, as Comey claims. They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director. 

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records.  This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege.  They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents.  If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI.  If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director. The irony is lost on no one. Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action. 

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey.  In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case.  The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey.  Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received."...

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident.  She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act. 

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.”  This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you.  The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials.  Clinton clearly intended to do these things. 

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior. Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.” However, the two terms are synonymous under the law.  

Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior.  So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice. All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena. She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them. She did not. Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence.  

Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction. Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature. 

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband. If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS.  

Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank. It has also been reported that [Hillary] Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation. 

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal. After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Coincidence? Or criminal “pay-to-play?” 

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton. Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.
Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration. Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime.  And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred. Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose. 

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others. Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned. As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations. 

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same. 

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president.

Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation. But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice. 
Then he should quietly bow out."


Rex Tillerson, please stop lying about the CO2 fraud industry. "We" don't all agree this 3 decade long crime against America is "a challenging issue." On CBS News Tillerson suggests Trump still believes CO2 is a global poison as "we all" do---BBC...(Meaning US taxpayers must pay more reparations to the world in perpetuity. Tillerson and Trump certainly know-as everyone does-that even if alleged global CO2 danger exists it's controlled by Communist China)

9/17/17, "Paris climate deal: Trump open to staying in, Tillerson says," BBC

"Donald Trump is open to staying in the Paris accord on climate change, his secretary of state has said, just hours after the White House insisted there would be "no change" to US policy. Rex Tillerson said the US would stay in the agreement "if we can construct a set of terms that we believe is fair".

His comments come despite the White House earlier denying reports it was softening its stance on the accord....

Speaking to US network CBS, Mr Tillerson suggested the US might not leave at all.

Asked if there was a chance the US could stay in the accord, Mr Tillerson said: "I think, under the right conditions, the president has said he's open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others, on what we all agree is still a challenging issue."

This backs up reports on Saturday suggesting Mr Trump had softened his attitude towards the agreement....

But later the same day, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: "There has been no change in the United States' position on the Paris agreement.

"As the president has made abundantly clear, the United States is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favourable to our country.""...

Comment: "Unless?" This means Trump endorses the 3 decades long massive criminal racket of CO2 danger forced on this country by the US political class for the purpose of starving and punishing us in perpetuity. Only a monster would consider this for one second. No amount of money we give can ever be enough. Real problems, the poor and needy, are starved so climate profiteers can be enriched. We've paid billions every year for almost 30 years. In 2016 over $115 million tax dollars PER DAY were spent on "climate" from just 8 US agencies. The total would likely top $200 million a day when all agencies are tallied. Has one Republican even demanded this number be reduced to $10 million a day? Our genocide was begun by "new world order" Bush #1 in 1989-1990 with USGCRP. In 1992 the US Senate unanimously approved UNFCCC which blamed Americans for unequal use of the atmosphere and said as a result they must give money to everyone else in the world in perpetuity. That is, the US political class declared Americans permanent global slaves. This slow genocide has been kept alive every day for 30 years by the US political class. Trump suggesting he'd consider a "climate" agreement of any kind means he sees us in chains, that he actually believes in the CO2 industry--an imaginary industry which only exists because US taxpayers were forced to create it beginning in 1990 with "climate" spending based in the White House. Even a UN official, Ottmar Edenhofer, clearly states the "climate" issue has nothing to do with climate, is just redistributing the world's wealth, that the US has used more than its fair share of the atmosphere and must pay a penalty. Only a monster would suggest that Americans would agree with any part of this massive crime against Americans and all humanity. Edenhofer can make such a statement because he knows the US political class agrees with him.

Global slaves (US taxpayers) were forced to create the "global climate science" industry: Diverting US taxpayer dollars from the poor and needy, the US political class created "climate action," exploding in 1990 and continuing to the present.  (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional appropriations):

"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding." pdf p. 4

Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom,", Butos and McQuade

"Government policies and funding as well as the emergence of a scientific “Big Player” [UN IPCC] that has aggressively championed the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)1, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have together fomented a boom in climate science that began in the early 1990s and has grown markedly over the past decade."...

Image of Bush #1, "New World Order quotes" via You Tube........

Added: The "climate" issue means 3 things for the US. This list is due to decades of effort by the united US political class:

"constraining industry, sending money abroad, and strengthening the UN-

that are inflammatory on their own right,” Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington."...

Jan. 13, 2012, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv, Arthur Neslan 


Comment: A political class can commit genocide of its country with a generation, the schools, the media, and no opposition. It must be exhilarating to sell out an advanced civilization like the US.



Sunday, September 17, 2017

After lying to US Senate in 2013 and not breaking a sweat, James Clapper was given even more authority as head of Russia-Gate in 2016: "Fire James Clapper," 6/11/2013, Slate: "What else will he lie about?" Clapper blatantly lied to a US Senate hearing, had advance notice of crucial question about NSA spying on Americans, still chose to lie, declined chance to revise his answer

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate: Clapper had even been given advance notice of the crucial question: (Sen. Wyden): "So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer."..."Clapper didn't take the offer." 

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate, "The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. What else will he lie about?" Slate, Fred Kaplan

"If President Obama really does welcome a debate about the scope of the U.S. surveillance program, a good first step would be to fire Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Back at an open congressional hearing on March 12, (2013) Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper replied, “No sir … not wittingly.” As we all now know, he was lying.

We also now know that Clapper knew he was lying. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that aired this past Sunday (2013), Clapper was asked why he answered Wyden the way he did. He replied:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘when are you going to … stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is … not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘No.’

Let’s parse this passage. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden had been briefed on the top-secret-plus programs that we now all know about. That is, he knew that he was putting Clapper in a box; He knew that the true answer to his question was “Yes,” but he also knew that Clapper would have a hard time saying so without making headlines.

But the question was straightforward. It could be answered “yes” or “no, and Clapper had to know this when he sat there in the witness chair. (Notice that, in his response to Mitchell, Clapper said he came up with the wife-beating analogy only “in retrospect.”)  

There are many ways that he could have finessed the question, as administration witnesses have done in such settings for decades, but Clapper chose simply to lie. “Truthful” and “untruthful” are not relative terms; a statement either is or isn’t; there’s no such thing as speaking in a “most truthful” or “least untruthful” manner.

Nor was this a spontaneous lie or a lie he regretted making. Wyden revealed in a statement today that he'd given Clapper advance notice that he would ask the question and that, after the hearing, he offered Clapper a chance to revise his answer. Clapper didn’t take the offer.

Clapper’s deceptions don’t stop there. Rambling on in his rationalization to Mitchell, he focused on Wyden’s use of the word “collect,” as in “Did the NSA collect any type of data ... on millions of Americans?” Clapper told Mitchell that he envisioned a vast library of books containing vast amounts of data on every American. “To me,” he said, “collection of U.S. persons’ data would mean taking the book off the shelf and opening it up and reading it.”

If this were true, it would suggest that Clapper wasn’t quite lying when he told Wyden that the NSA doesn’t wittingly “collect” data on Americans. But of course, this is nonsense. Neither in everyday speech nor in tech-intelligence jargon does “collect” mean anything other than what it obviously means: to gather, to sweep up, to bring together. No one says, “I’m going to collect The Great Gatsby from my bookshelf and read it.” Nor does anyone say, “I’m going to collect this phone conversation from my archive and listen to it.”

It is irrelevant whether Clapper really believes his definition of “collect” or made it up on the spot. Either way, this is a man who cannot be trusted to hold an honest discussion about these issues. If he lied about what he thinks “collect” means, he will lie about lots of things. If he really thinks the English language is this flexible, it is unwise to assume that any statement he makes means what it appears to mean.

This is crucial. We as a nation are being asked to let the National Security Agency continue doing the intrusive things it’s been doing on the premise that congressional oversight will rein in abuses. But it’s hard to have meaningful oversight when an official in charge of the program lies so blatantly in one of the rare open hearings on the subject. (Wyden, who had been briefed on the program, knew that Clapper was lying, but he couldn’t say so without violating the terms of his own security clearance.)

And so, again, if President Obama really welcomes an open debate on this subject, James Clapper has disqualified himself from participation in it. He has to go."


Saturday, September 16, 2017

Convicted felon George Soros was received in Brussels 'with the pomp and ceremony usually only reserved for heads of state.' Hungary showed love and respect for its own people by building a wall and cut illegal immigration by 99%. 391,000 in 2015 to just 1184 in 2017-Breitbart

6/14/2006, "Soros’ Insider-Trading Conviction Upheld," NY Times Dealbook.

"France’s Court of Cassation ended its review of a March 2005 judgment that found that Mr. Soros knew that Societe Generale was a takeover target in 1988 when he purchased shares in the bank."... 

9/16/17, "Hungary Builds a Wall, Cuts Illegal Immigration by over 99%," Breitbart, Jack Montgomery 

"Hungary has slashed illegal immigration by over 99 per cent after rolling out a series of powerful border fences in response to the European migrant crisis, possibly providing a lesson as to the potential impact of constructing President Trump’s much-discussed southern wall in the U.S.  

Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor György Bakondi announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.

“The system of technical barriers is the key to the success of border security, and without it, it would be impossible to stop the mass arrival of immigrants”, the security chief explained.

Hungary had to respond rapidly to the migrant influx which burst upon Europe after Germany’s Angela Merkel announced there was “no limit” on the number of asylum seekers her own country would accept, so its frontiers are defended by twin fences peppered with watchtowers and patrolled by thousands of newly recruited border guards rather than a solid wall — which would have taken longer to construct.

Nevertheless, as it has been steadily reinforced illegal migration has slowed to a trickle drawing the ire of open borders activists like billionaire financier George Soros and globalist officials at the European Union and the United Nations.

For example, UN Refugee Agency chief Filippo Grandi visited the border and complained: “When I was standing at the border fence today, I felt the entire system is designed to keep people, many of whom are fleeing war and persecution, out of the country”.

Grandi also called on Hungary to get rid of the border-spanning transit zones it has established, which allow all asylum seekers entering the country to be detained while the validity of their claims are assessed.

The Hungarians introduced these zones after it was discovered that many of the Paris 2015 terrorists had passed through their territory--a step-change from other EU member-states, which leave migrants more or less at large, with sometimes deadly consequences, in obedience to EU law....

“People who attack the fence are taking a stand in favour of allowing large numbers of people to enter the country without any form of control.”"



7/26/17, "‘The Soros Plan’: Hungary Rejects Brussels Court Demand For Forced Mass Migration," Breitbart, Virginia Hale 

"Forcing mass migration on unwilling European peoples was conformity with open borders advocate and billionaire funder George Soros’ plan for the continent.

Dr Zoltán Kovács , lead spokesman for the office of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, told Breitbart London: “we consider trying to enforce a decision that clearly was trying to go around the normal way of decision-making not simply unlawful but also dangerous to the order and security of Europe”.

He added that, in the Hungarian government’s view, “it is unacceptable and untenable that the EU continues to follow a path that has already failed”.

Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó also slammed the EU court’s advice, saying it “fully matches the process known as the Soros plan.

He said:
"Following George Soros’s reception in Brussels with the pomp and ceremony usually only reserved for heads of state, every European institution has interestingly placed even greater pressure on Hungary and the countries of Central Europe to allow in illegal immigrants. We do not want to accept illegal immigrants, we will wait for the Court’s’ decision. We continue to interpret the decision on the mandatory resettlement quota as a decision that contravenes European law; a decision of this nature cannot be used to remove any member state’s right to decide for itself to whom it will allow entry to its territory and to whom it will not. The European treaties clearly state that this right cannot be taken away. The decision also goes against common sense, because it only serves to further encourage illegal immigration in view of the fact that it is seen as an invitation by those who would like to set out for Europe in search of a better life, and also by people smugglers, who can use the fact to convince people that it is worthwhile setting off for Europe. The primary task, duty and responsibility of Hungary’s Government is to protect the security of the country and of the people of Hungary, and accordingly it will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot come here."  
The ECJ ruling is expected later this year. While the court is not obliged to follow the advice, most Luxembourg judges follow the recommendations of their Advocate General. 

Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic voted against the measure in 2015 and have since been backed by Poland in their opposition to having Brussels force migrants from Africa and the Middle East on unwilling nations."...



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.