Making people accountable. The Susan Rice saga is just starting.

First of all, Susan Rice, like Cheryl Mills, is protected for the following reasons; 1.  She’s black. 2. She’s female. 3. She’s liberal. 4. She’s protecting a progressive icon.

Image result for cheryl mills hillary clinton

They got away with it because we let them. Not because they didn’t do it.

Image result for Susan Rice barack

Now she will do her best to protect him.

Second, that does not make what she did right, but it may be “legal”.  But remember the liberal mantra- “The end justifies the means.”

Third, all that said, somebody has to go to jail. They have to. If Trump doesn’t follow through many of his supporters will lose faith in him, thinking he is just like all the others in the past who agree to the old deal struck between parties which is-  “I will not tell on you, if you don’t tell on us”.  Personally, I’m sick of that, because all that does is increase the amount of abuse on citizens by the government.  Think Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal. The Fast and Furious mess from our ATF.

Trust me on this. The government is getting bolder and bolder in violating our privacy and rights. That is because nobody goes to jail. Oh, they may take a political hit or a sanction, but jail? Nope that is reserved for simpletons like us.

Andy McCarthy over at the NRO points out the law that prevents illegal use of NSA is actually designed with great leeway in order to protect the political actors.  They wrote the law to keep from going to jail for doing bad things.  I kid you not.

At her direction, the Obama White House violated the public trust. On Tuesday, in a National Review Online column, I contended that the reported involvement of former national-security adviser Susan Rice in the unmasking of Trump officials appears to be a major scandal — it suggests that the Obama White House, of which she was a high-ranking staffer, abused the power to collect intelligence on foreign targets, by using it to spy on the opposition party and its presidential candidate. It should come as no surprise that the defense Ms. Rice and Obama apologists are mounting is heavily reliant on a fact that is not in dispute: viz., that the intelligence collection at issue was legal. I anticipated that line of argument a week ago.

The issue is not technical legality, it is monumental abuse of power.

This could drive a regular citizen crazy.  And it is something Rand Paul, unless he is a fraud, should demand to be corrected with strong legal (meaning mandatory jail time) penalties.

When I was with our newly developed intel unit it wasn’t long until one of our bosses came to us and asked us to create a dossier on a local citizen. My partner, who was versed in the process and laws, asked what the guy did to merit it.  The answer? “He’s giving council a hard time.”  That was it? He was vocal in the exercise of his 1st amendment rights? My buddy looked at the boss and said, “I could, but I don’t want to go to jail and neither do you.”  It was against state and federal law to use the intelligence tools available to us to go after anyone who wasn’t involved in criminal activity. (Sound familiar?)  The boss thought for a second and said, “Never mind” and left, and did not return.  He didn’t know it was a crime.  When he found out- IT CHANGED HIS BEHAVIOR!

The law is written to protect the political operatives, but they cannot function alone.  So the way to solve this is simply make it a mandatory jail sentence for any bureaucrat to assist in the crime.  That way when some political idiot like the guy in “Office Space” walks by with a cup of coffee and says “Hey, could you unmask this for me?”  the cubical dwelling middle management bureaucrat will nod his head to an empty chair and say, “Fred, who used to sit over there, helped once.  He is coming up for parole in about three years.  He writes and says being a girlfriend for a 300lb guy named “Tiny” isn’t all that bad.  But I think he’s lying…soooo no!”

Related image

Uh, you wouldn’t mind coming in on Saturday, so we can commit a ten year felony together. Mmmkay?

Then you get a handle on this. No more Lois Lerner types.  Make sure every successive administration from each party reviews the last administration for abuses and jails offenders.  The deep state people are just like us; wanting to earn a living, promote their agenda and not go to jail.  Make number three the one they think about most and the first two will stay in line.

Trump’s DOJ has to take a few scalps here, or Trump will be just like every other politician.  That will make him lose support.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Susan Rice did it? She’s the “Mikey” of the Obama administration!

The rumor has it that Susan Rice was the Obama administration “do boy” for the unmasking of the citizens spied on by the Obama intelligence agencies- probably at the behest of the Obama political appointees.

It makes sense because in this political world there is no way a well liked, professional, BLACK, FEMALE, LIBERAL will get prosecuted for committing a crime in DC because she was trying to protect the liberal agenda- under orders from Obama.  It…won’t…happen.

From GWP. Of these three, two are safe, but one needs to keep the illusion of scandal free. That leaves Rice.

For those of us old enough the immediate reaction was “She’s MIKEY!”  From a famous commercial years ago.  Imagine Obama, Powers and Rice together discussing who is going to commit a crime or a policy violation.  Then watch this.

The bottom line is we don’t know the whole truth, but apparently Devin Nunes has a good idea, as does his partisan hack of a co-chair Schiff.  Schiff, by the way, is now changing his tune from “There is no proof that Obama spied on Trump and Nunes violated the process so he has to quit!” to “Nunes violated the process and he has to quit.”  Sometimes it is what they DON’T say that is more important.

PJ Media’s Klavan just rips the bandage off.

Holy smoking gun, Batman!

Once you wave away all the smoke created by our dishonest media, the story of this past week was pretty simple. The Trump-Russia-Conspiracy narrative is falling apart. The Obama-Spied-on-his-Political-Opposition narrative is coming together. The media has given credence to Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff’s hysterical charges about how the Republican chair of the committee, Devin Nunes, made his latest discoveries. But Schiff is a dishonest McCarthyite, spewing insinuations and accusations without any proof to back them up. Nunes, on the other hand, has obviously gotten hold of solid intel showing that Obama spied on Trump and his people, pretty much as the president tweeted back on March 4. The willing Democrat executioners of truth — i.e. the news staffs at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the New York Times — give equal weight to the statements of both men, making it seem like the House Intelligence Committee has simply descended into partisan bickering. But that’s a lie. Nunes has found something. Schiff is smearing him and the president. Those two actions do not deserve the same sort of coverage.

An intelligence whistle blower has apparently shown Nunes documents containing intelligence gathered on members of Trump’s transition team. Though this intelligence may have been gathered legally — i.e. as part of a wiretap on foreigners — at least two of the names of Americans, including the name of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, were illegally revealed and shared widely. Other names were made obvious even though they remained concealed. None of the investigations seems to have had anything to do with Russia.

You can tell that Nunes has got this stuff solid because after he saw the documents he first informed the media, then informed the president, then informed the media that he had informed the president. The White House has since invited members of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to view certain documents which may or may not be the ones Nunes saw. That’s a lot different than Schiff making McCarthyite noise about there being “more than circumstantial evidence” that Trump works for SMERSH. Schiff and other Democrats have tried to confuse the issue with cries that Nunes isn’t playing fair and demands that he recuse himself.

But in a stunning piece of video, a former Obama official who went on to advise the Hillary Clinton campaign essentially confirmed that she was urging the previous administration to abuse intelligence on the Trump people. Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense, told Mika Brzezinski earlier this month: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration. Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy. That the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about… the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.” But Farkas was already out of the administration and advising Hillary. Why the hell did she know anything about secret intelligence?

But Andy McCarthy at the NRO points out being bad in spying is not a crime in America (Hello Rand Paul, HERE’S something you can fix!).   Only disseminating the classified data to a source not allowed to have it.  So IF Rice directly gave intelligence to a writer she committed a felony. To prove that, the writer would have to give her up, and that won’t happen. She sends it to a minion, who gives it out, the minion is in trouble.

It’s rigged- as Trump likes to say- in favor of politicians and bureaucrats committing felonies, but regular folks- like the Navy sailor who took pictures to send to family- go to jail.

Over at Legal Insurrection they have a video between a Obama lover spewing his talking points and the law.  But the guy’s right.  If they unmasked the Trump people, it’s not a crime. The person faces only sanctions.

Oh, BTW- Obama’s people did the same thing to Iran when GWB was still in power. They told Iran to be patient deals were coming. So if Flynn talking is wrong, they what happens to Obama’s people from 2008?

Amid the controversy surrounding White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s alleged conversations with Russia, it may be instrumental to recall that representatives for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign were accused of meeting with Hamas and Iran.

Depending on what took place, the alleged contacts with Iran may have violated the Logan Act, which bars citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in dispute with the United States. It may be questionable whether Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, legally qualifies as a foreign government.

In 2008, Robert Malley stepped down as an informal foreign policy adviser to Obama’s campaign when it was revealed that he met with Hamas members.

Malley admitted to the meetings, but he claimed he met with the terrorists as part of his private job.

“I have never hidden the fact that I had meetings with Hamas,” Malley wrote in an open letter published in the New York Times. “I do this as part of my job as Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group.”

He said he distanced himself from Obama’s campaign because the Hamas meetings were “becoming a distraction to me and to Senator Obama’s campaign, and to avoid any misperception — misrepresentation being the more accurate word — about the candidate’s position regarding the Islamist movement.”Malley later joined the Obama administration. In 2015, he was appointed to lead the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.

He was also named Obama’s special adviser regarding the Islamic State.

Meanwhile, in August 2014, Michael Ledeen, a former consultant to the National Security Council and U.S. Defense Department, penned a column at PJ Media stating Obama opened a back-channel to Iran during the 2008 presidential campaign. Ledeen said the back channel went through retired Ambassador William G. Miller, who also led the 1979 negotiating mission during the Iran hostage crisis. Ladeen wrote that Miller confirmed his back-channel involvement to him.

Welcome to American government. And now you know why Nunes looked worried.  He likes the programs, believes they do good.  He’s the kid, who got the new bat and ball from his dad with a warning – “don’t play around the house, you might break a window!” and is now standing there afraid to tell his dad about the broken window.

Image result for nunes press conference white house

Uh, American citizens…Rand Paul was right.

Update: Bloomberg jumps on the bandwagon.  If Rice thought Trump was going to go along to get along, like Jeb would have- she was wrong. But that is what happens to you when you victimize someone.

The National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

 Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the “PBS NewsHour” about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: “I know nothing about this,” adding, “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today.”

Hope she is punished. Put her in jail and she’ll roll. She’s not Cheryl Mills.Then we find out who REALLY ordered it.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Once a Jihadi, always a Jihadi. Wake up.

Two stories. Two reactions.  Two opportunities to learn.

Story one;

A South Carolina teenager was charged Friday with trying to hop a plane to join ISIS overseas — less than a year after he was paroled in another case with terrorism overtones.

Zakaryia Abdin, 18, was charged in federal court with support of a terrorist organization after being picked up at the Charleston airport. There were scant details about the case in public court documents and no indication of any plot to carry out attacks in the U.S.

A police chief and a defense lawyer confirmed to NBC News that Abdin is the same teen who was accused as a minor in 2015 of plotting to kill soldiers in the U.S. and wage jihad overseas. However, he was not charged with a terrorism offense then and pleaded guilty to a state gun charge.

Story two;

MUNCIE, Ind. (WISH) — One man is facing charges after he struck an officer for attempting to restrain him following a commotion in Muncie.

It happened just before 2 p.m. Saturday inside a Goodwill store when officers were responding to a call for a fight.

Upon arrival, officials found 24-year-old Khalid Bilal confronting store employees.

According to reports, Bilal then went on to break an officer’s hand after an attempt to place Bilal into custody.

Bilal was later tased after charging another officer that arrived on scene. After the tasing, the officer was eventually able to corral Bilal into handcuffs. The suspect then began to kick the officer repeatedly with both legs, causing authorities to shackle his legs.

Reports stated that Bilal was yelling “Allah Akbar” throughout the ordeal.

One customer told 24-Hour News 8 she was scared for her life. She was inside the store shopping with her three children when she heard a man screaming at the front.

“A guy had become very irate and was screaming at one of the employees and then grabbed him by the collar and start pushing him and screaming are you scared,” said Chasity Fraley, customer.

“He was just so full of rage and violence I never seen anything like that before,” Fraley added.

Not sure what was going on, Fraley said she began moving her kids.

“We moved to a different aisle… so I could take my kids away from the situation because they got very scared at that point and then I heard him say ‘I’m going to kill everyone in here,”’ she said.

That’s when Fraley says a female employee stepped in trying to calm the man down.

“With her, she kinda used a softer tone with him at first, ‘let’s talk about this, what’s the matter can we take it outside,’” Fraley recalled.

But out of nowhere, she said the man attacked that employee.

Lesson learned? You can’t change them. You can either eliminate or contain them to their part of the world.  Their culture and the religion that sprung from it is four thousand years old.  There is nothing we can do to help.

Conservative Review puts a finer point on it.

A jihadist attacks individuals in the public square of a Western town.

The media refuses to provide a description of the attacker, reporting only the weapon he used.

A physical description of a man of African, South Asian, or Middle Eastern descent leaks out in the ensuing hours.

Law enforcement authorities deliver a press conference confirming the attacker’s Islamic name and stating that at this time, his motive is unclear.

Rumors on social media percolate about the man screaming “Allahu Akbar.”

Mainstream reporters ask local Muslim community leaders and neighbors about the attacker. They express universal shock, describing him as a decent man who might have been rough around the edges but never showed signs of being a terrorist. The man came from a middle-class family, liked playing video games with friends, and by all accounts lived a normal existence. Toward the end of the stories, those close to the attacker note that he had grown increasingly devout in recent years.

Bloggers begin to research and quickly find that the attacker was a member of a mosque led by an imam who had been recorded preaching hatred and violence toward the West. The attacker posted violent verses from the Quran and railed against the “Crusaders’” wars in the Levant on social media pages captured by screenshot before they were taken down. It emerges that he had spent months in the Middle East during recent years.

Several days later, law enforcement authorities report that the attacker in fact appears to have been a terrorist. But he had no direct ties to IS or Al-Qaeda, so there is no reason for alarm.

Politicians plead with the public that this man perverted one of the world’s great religions – Islam, “the religion of peace” – and that his acts were “non-Islamic.” They urge us all to come together in a shared belief in tolerance and diversity. Love trumps hate. Lone wolves are a fact of life, and their efforts only underscore the need for community engagement to “counter violent extremism.”

How many times are we in the West going to see the above script play out before something changes?

Past behavior an indicator of future performance?  Too long.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A question that needs to be asked. What if the democrats quit obeying the law?

You have to understand I keep harping on the “ideologues” theme because it fits.  Their rules are their rules unless they don’t work, in which case they aren’t their rules anymore. It is all about being unethical and amoral as long as “the end justifies the means.”

A perfect example is how government rules in favor of the ideologues- like in gay marriage or sanctuary cities or something similar and we all hear the screams “It’s the law, you must obey!”  But when the government rules against them, they feel obligated and justified to simply refuse to comply like some dangerously violent child.

Tucker Carlson keeps bringing up this hypocrisy to his liberal guests and most simply ignore him or complain he is being unfair.

“We live in a society based on the expectation that good people will follow rules and those who don’t will be punished,” he said, noting that the rule of law is not some fantasy idea that Superman upholds.

 “Undermine it, and at some point civilization starts to fall apart,” Carlson said, pointing to examples of how the rule of law allows Americans to have secure bank accounts and to take medicine without fear of being poisoned.

He believes Democrats like DuBois may soon reap what they are sowing by playing this “dangerous game.”

“How long before the other side responds in kind on behalf of their preferred causes?” Carlson asked.

What if Republican officials stopped upholding federal gun laws because they disagreed with the policies or if a Republican governor refused to send police to protect an abortion clinic under attack, Carlson said in giving examples.

“What would happen if Republicans started acting like Democrats and behaving like laws don’t matter?” he concluded. “The country wouldn’t last long.”

Daniel Greenfield wrote an article about this “civil war” between the Left, which found itself out of power in an extreme manner, and the rest of us.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

He’s right. It’s the Frog and the Scorpion fable.  They are who they are and they will sting us if we try to help them.

Of course Queen scorpion, Hillary, has emerged to lead this charge saying “Resist. Insist. Persist. Enlist.”

Resist what? The rule of law you don’t agree with? Insist on what? The truth? I’m thinking she doesn’t want to go down that gun running to Islamic rebels road, if you get what I mean! Persist? Over which issue? Making people follow the rule of law?  And of course, enlist who- other freshmen from Wellesley or some more anarchists to beat peaceful protestors?

If you remember, she was the one that INSISTED Trump follow her rule of law when she was elected, but now…

“The end justifies the means.”

As democrats in areas strongly democratic resist the law, we are headed for a crash and burn moment. Which was and continues to be the goal of the communists in Russia and within our own nation.

A blog called Christian Mercenary (something we may see again if the Islamic war keeps up!) has a good point.

All of this begs the question: What laws will you openly disobey?

We are being shown, by political leaders across the nation, heads of their state, that it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to obey laws with which one disagrees. It is a showdown that will either result in the arrest and trial for treason of these leaders, or it will signal to everyone that this is perfectly reasonable behavior to pick and choose which federal laws will be obeyed and which can be shrugged off.

Now, I know it doesn’t work the same way for us lowly citizens, but isn’t that the mark of a failed nation? Where political leaders can flout and violate any law without fear of reprisal? Does this not make us a “banana republic” and therefore subject to open rebellion? It is when the people are oppressed by unjust laws, wrongly imprisoned for crimes only selectively prosecuted that open rebellion is justified. That is a founding principle of this nation, supported and encouraged by those same founders.

Let us start in the towns and cities and disregard the National Firearms Act, trample and run amok in the National Forests and National Parks across the West. If they will not arrest these few, how can they arrest the many? Is it not, then, a reasonable defense to declare inequality before the law? But, who will go to jail first? That is the real question is it not? Are we not capable of raising funds for a legal defense fund for just such willing participants? Do we not have the legal resources equal to that of a city or a state that declare their willingness to take these issues to trial?

Where do we decide to put up a resistance? It is going to cost some of us our lives. Is that not yet clear? I don’t know what bail is for ripping up National Park Service tickets for trespassing, or rule violations, but is it that onerous? Do they put you in Park Jail? Are you held along with criminal cows, who have eaten of the sacred federal grass?

If there be lawlessness, what reason do any of us have for obedience?

Which is why Trump as to punish someone here.  The DOJ has to file charges and get convictions of just not the little minion, but his political boss.

Then Rand Paul and the others need to reign in the NSA types by making surveillance and unmasking violations criminal.  If not, well, why follow their laws, right?


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

HotAir says the police aren’t arresting as many bad guys because…

Many in the media assume it is because of Ferguson that the police stopped policing, but the true reason started in the fall of 2008. And the roots of that started in 1991 with the Rodney King incident. What was a single incident involving local PD and a stoned violent felon- who refused to submit to arrest after a long high speed police chase turned into a national crisis.  The resulting  use of force by the police became a federal crime and a kangaroo court pushed by people who wanted to be President.

Many law enforcement officers watched the process and realized their lives had changed forever.  Good or bad, legal or illegal, right or wrong, the police were now going to be scrutinized over their actions, and would be judged through the prism of political advantage. We had become the ball to be kicked.

People don’t remember the officers were charged in State court, they had a trial and they were found not guilty.  Only when the riots occurred did George Bush green lighted the federal case.  The President decided ahead of time that somebody had to be sacrificed.

When Stacey Koon was put on trial for not handling his men correctly during the King arrest, I remember standing on a porch with another officer talking about the incident. I was confident they would be found innocent of excessive force in court again. He was a little older than me, more experienced.  He looked over at me with a sad face and said, “They are going to jail. The decision has already been made, they have no choice.”  By “they” he meant the federal government under George Bush.

Rodney King resisting arrest turned into the first beating of a suspect on film. But if he submits peacefully, nothing ever happens.

Several things need to be mentioned.

One- None of those officers woke up that day with the intention of beating a black man. It isn’t mentioned much, but if I remember correctly there were two other black men taken out of the car without incident. In fact, one was grateful because he thought King was going to get him killed during the chase.

Two- This was the first time amateur video was going to convict police officers of a crime, but not the last.

Three- Nothing the officers did hadn’t been done before to other suspects of other crimes who resisted arrest.  The street world is a violent world. The tools used by the police back then were rudimentary. If a person refused to comply the police were limited in options.  You had voice, hands on, taser, sticks, guns. That was it.  If the bad guy refuses to follow orders you were trained to go up the use of force scale until he did comply and you can secure him. That’s the facts. A big, doped up, strong man can easily make four or five cops look like fumbling buffoons when they try to take him into custody. Nobody wants to get hurt, everybody trying to find a way to get the guy into custody without killing him.  So they whack him with a stick that just doesn’t work. Then they whack him a bunch of times to knock the fight out of him. We don’t get paid to lose an eye or get hit with a lucky punch that crushes our windpipe during an arrest.  So we try to be sure the guy have given up. I’ve hit people with sticks without any result, it’s frustrating. On video, it looks horrible.  In reality, it is ineffective.   And it is dangerous to the officer.

Fast forward through a generation of violent and recorded police confrontations to the day Barack Obama is elected.  His rhetoric was clear, the police- the SYSTEM- was the enemy, not the thugs, dealers, gangbangers and monsters that inhabited our country which were controlled by the police.  You have to remember, we are just guys and gals like you, just as clumsy and unprofessional or ineffective as you might be, trying to keep the lid on a society rife with violence.  But we did manage to keep the lid on. And now it was all fixing to go belly up.  The only question was how bad.

In post election 2008, my partner, a MENSA bright fellow, and I were standing in a park talking.  We had just been given the opportunity to retire.  I said I was glad I was getting out, because things were going to go badly.  He didn’t understand, believing the Republicans could keep Obama under control. I told him they would not do a thing because Obama was a tranformative person, the first black President, and that would insulate him from anything he does. Barack Obama was the end result of Rodney King, and he knew it and was going to exploit it.

And I knew it too.

Hotair argues it had to do with Ferguson maybe.

There has been a significant decline in arrests in Los Angeles even as crime is rising in the city. Today the LA Times looks at what is behind the drop in arrests:

The arrest data include both felonies and misdemeanors — crimes ranging from homicide to disorderly conduct. From 2010 to 2015, felony arrests made by Los Angeles police officers were down 29% and misdemeanor arrests were down 32%.

The 2016 numbers aren’t available yet but an Assistant Chief with the LAPD tells the Times the number of arrests has continued to decline. Similar declines were seen in other big cities including San Diego. The result is that the overall number of arrests in California is at its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

The LA Times doesn’t say the so-called Ferguson Effect, i.e. police pulling back to avoid becoming the next viral video, is responsible, but some of its reporting certainly fits with that explanation:

In a nationwide survey conducted in 2016 by the Pew Research Center, 72% of the law enforcement officers questioned said their colleagues were less likely to stop and question suspicious people “as a result of high-profile incidents involving blacks and the police.”

Police officers and sheriff’s deputies interviewed by The Times echoed that view.

“Everyone is against whatever law enforcement is doing, so that makes an officer kind of hesitant to initiate contact,” said one LAPD officer, who has worked in South L.A. for more than a decade and requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. “A lot of guys will shy away from it because we’ve got the dash cams, we’ve got the body cams.… We don’t want it to come back on us.”

A motorcycle deputy named George Hofstetter tells the Times, “Not to make fun of it, but a lot of guys are like, ‘Look, I’m just going to act like a fireman.’ I’m going to handle my calls for service and the things that I have to do.” He added, “But going out there and making traffic stops and contacting persons who may be up to something nefarious? ‘I’m not going to do that anymore.’”

The picture of what is happening isn’t quite as simple as it sounds, though. For one thing, the decline in arrests began before the shooting of Mike Brown in 2014 made police shootings a national issue. That would seem to suggest that something else was motivating the decline or, at a minimum, that other factors were involved.

Don’t believe me?  Here’s the acting police acting stupidly incident.  Obama immediately assumed the cop was a racist, not that the professor was giving the police a hard time.  My now ex-partner pointed out at the time the only reason the cop didn’t get jacked up was because he was the same officer who tried to save a dying black basketball player– on video.

It didn’t matter, because that incident was the prelude. It occurred in 2009, just before the 2010 elections.  Zimmerman occurred in 2012, prior to the 2012 elections, Ferguson prior to the 2014 election, Baltimore in 2015- prior to the 2016 election,  and on and on.

Ball, kick, politics.

No cop wants to be the next election changing incident. That’s why they aren’t going to get involved in anything they figure will make them the ball.

The real problem is the Obama administration created incidents where there were none, so when the police officer tried to figure out where the line was- one side good policing, the other he is a racist bully- Obama acolytes just changed the standards.  Ferguson was a perfect example.  What did the officer do wrong? Nothing, simply nothing other than maybe run away, which he can’t do, but the Left in America would love to see happen.

That’s what happened.  Hotair, like most non-players in the police world, don’t get it because they aren’t in it.   Hopefully, Trump will put an end to the harassment.  If not, the country will burn.

Image result for ferguson riots lootingRelated imageImage result for baltimore riots fireImage result for baltimore riots fire














Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Did the FBI try to get Geller killed. The scandal around Garland Tx.

This is weird.  I can’t see a good cop, even a UC, letting two terrorists attack dozens of innocent citizens, no matter his cover.  Worse, it appears he followed them to the contest put on by Pamela Geller and took photos just prior to the terrorists getting out of their car and engaging a Texas officer.

Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

At what point does the agent cross the line from being a good UC to executing his ultimate duty of protecting citizens? Who is the agent? Did he call someone, call his supervisor? I’m sure he did. So what did the supervisor do, or not do?

Somebody needs to ask these questions.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Charles Hurt points out a curious fact. After all of this, Obama hasn’t made a peep.

If a person is accused of a really bad crime they usually scream their innocence. Charles Hurt noted something nobody seems to be talking about, Obama’s been very quiet, almost too quiet.

What is with this curious — now deafening — silence from former President Barack Obama on these charges that his administration spied on a political opponent at the very height of a presidential campaign?

Since President Trump first leveled the incendiary charges in early March, there have been thousands of press articles and endless hours of speculation on cable television about the high-level accusations.

Every word, character, and symbol of punctuation from Mr. Trump has been parsed and sussed and diagrammed.

Yet, from media darling Barack Obama (about whom the accusations were made!)? Not a peep.

This is no small thing we are talking about here. We are talking about a sitting president’s administration using the terrifying powers of espionage of the United States government to conduct an intelligence operation against a political opponent before, during and after that target was elected president of the United States.

So much for “peaceful transfer of power.”

This would be 10 times more serious than Watergate. We are talking a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen in modern times.

If he didn’t do it, Obama would be laughing at Trump with his patented dismissive leer.  But he isn’t.  Hurt, and now I, find it curious.

Yet no one is asking him.

Image result for Obama glaring

Not Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible. Maybe Mission unconstitutional.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Mongoose and Cobras cannot work together. Schiff’s non apology apology.

In today’s world, where the outsider Trump is just driving the establishment crazy, there will be no peace. Getting the politics out of this Russian investigation is as futile as us putting a mongoose and a cobra in a box together and expecting them to build something.

Image result for adam schiff reads NSA documents in the White issues statement

Schiff, “Nothing to see here.” Nunes “Except the ideology blinded idiot next to me.”

Fox News is now reporting that the unmasking of private American citizens started in 2015 as a way to hurt and embarrass Trump and his people BEFORE he declared his campaign. Which means the Obama administration made the effort to go after Trump early and often, using spy agencies. Which also means- Trump was right! (Of course he’s right. Only in the Orwellian world of the Left would they think the sitting PRESIDENT doesn’t have access to all the files!)

Anyway, Nunes knew. Here is the details from the report.

The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday.

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible — and that person is not in the FBI.

For a private citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

“The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.

The unmasking of Americans whose communications apparently were caught up in surveillance under the Obama administration is a key part of an investigation being led by Nunes, who has come under fire from Democrats for focusing on that aspect.

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities — the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports. The White House did not tell Nunes about the existence of the intelligence reports, but did help him gain access to the documents at his request, the source said.

Over at Hot Air, they highlight the slight- and silly- shift by Joe Scarborough, who is getting heat from his intel buddies that he and his liberal friends are refusing to address the whole scandal.  Now to be sure, Joe and his ilk have accepted as fact the lie the “Russians hacked the election” which is the liberal meme created by anti-Trumpers, and now solidified in our consciousnesses.

This “fact” may be a lie.  It is based on lies, that much we know. The players so far are-

Crowdstrike, a company that is pro-Ukranian/Anti- Russian, which sees Russia as the culprit in almost every case. But is often wrong.  This is the company the DNC insisted on using after preventing the FBI forensic experts from looking at their servers. Of all the cyber-security companies that could look into the “hacking” of the DNC, it picked Crowdstrike- the question is why?

Crowdstrike has a CTO on the Atlantic Council according to reports.  Evelyn Farkas is also a member.  (Somebody check their list against people inside our government quick!)

The Atlantic Council is also pro-NATO/Anti-Russian.

Trump has no real interest in restarting the Cold War with Russia, or get into a shooting war, with the Russians, in Syria,  over Assad. Flynn agreed.

John McCain, who is now slightly batty, but wants a Cold War with Russia, is the one who pushed the dossier onto the FBI after it had been discredited, as an “act of a good citizen” which is of course bullshit, but forced (or allowed) the Obama DOJ to make the FBI open and investigation following the dossier as a template according to reports.

So how do we know for sure any of this is true or a huge scam? All elements appear to be in favor of Russia being thrown out of the Ukraine, and Trump isn’t interested in doing that.  If Obama was listening to Trump in 2015, how hard would it be to start the scandal of Russian hacking and drive it at Trump?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if the tin foil hat fits….

Another iron in the fire here. PJ Media’s lead story.  The pro-Ukrainians think it is our moral  obligation to stop the Russians.  The spokesman is General Rasmussen of NATO, who is a member or associated with…The Atlantic Council.

How do you know the arrow found the pig and made it squeal? You listen to the defenders of Obama’s spying are NOT saying. Here Schiff, who is a HUGE advocate of Obama, HRC and the Dems, and has MF’ed everyone and everything forever about the lie that Obama spied on Trump, is now arguing over procedure instead content.

From Schiff’s twitter;

The reason the NSA staffers are trying to keep their identity secret is because they know they will be attacked by the Left in America if they try to prove Obama was in fact spying on Trump.  They will be harassed, demeaned and even destroyed by the Left, which doesn’t care about truth or justice, in order to keep promoting their agenda. Remember, ideologues have murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout history, a couple of NSA staffers are nothing to them.

NBC’s article about this event is a classic example.  Nowhere in the entire article is a question raised about the now fact the Obama administration may have been spying on Donald Trump and his team for over two years!  If this were on the other foot, NBC would be leading with this story every five minutes!   Instead, they let Schiff complain about the process and say Nunes can’t prove Trump himself was being spied on.  This is them walking back their positions until finally they will have no wiggle room.

Eventually, it will come out that upper level Obama people ordered or guided surveillance on Trump’s people and passed around his data carelessly and illegally.  Andy McCarthy as the NRO horrifyingly points out that mismanagement of intelligence and using it to go after your political enemies is not illegal! (I know WTF?!) But the giving out of that intelligence is.  So if an upper level person- say Ben Rhodes- tells the NSA to spy on Trump- he can only be sanctioned. If he gives that data to some schmoo under him to give to the Post, the schmoo is going to jail.

That’s screwed up.

The question is will Trump allow the Establishment to cover up the misdeeds as all other administrations have done, or will he force all of this into the light.

That remains to be seen.


VDH at the NRO makes a great case.  Take the time to read.

The real scandal is probably not going to be Trump’s contacts with Russians. More likely, it will be the rogue work of a politically driven group of intelligence officers, embedded within the bureaucracy, who, either in freelancing mode, or in Henry II–Thomas Becket fashion (“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”) with Obama-administration officials, began monitoring Team Trump — either directly or more likely through the excuse of inadvertently chancing upon conversations while monitoring supposedly suspicious foreign communications.






Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Update on can she be that stupid. Apparently so. But then again….

There is a LONG list of women who have done bad, and most likely, illegal things for the liberal agenda and none of them are in jail.  Some examples are; Mills, Huma, Hall, Lerner.  None are in jail. None.  So Evelyn Farkas may truly believe her ideology is some kind of shield. As I said in the last post, this girl is a true believer. Just look at the energy in her crazy eyes!

HUGE! Obama Defense Official & Hillary Adviser Evelyn Farkas Was Illegally Fed Secret Trump Info (VIDEO)

Not for nothing Comey but here’s a warrant target… Jeezz..








However, if someone has a direct line to Director Comey they should call him and say “THIS IS THE CYBER WARRANT YOU NEED TO EXECUTE!” She is like the guy who boasts to everyone he helped set up the bank robbery for his buddies and texted them with suggestions during the actual crime!!!

Holy crap James, grab her data up, her emails (including her fake name emails so popular with the Obama appointees) and texts and you will find at least the beginning of the nexus of like minded offenders. Also you may see illegal communications between her and her buddies still in government? They don’t seem to care, so sloppy may be their SOP.

Outside the amount of data collected that needs to be filtered, this case is literally making itself.  Even the dumbest agent can work it!

Evelyn Farkas is the former Obama administration deputy secretary of defense — and now an MSNBC analyst. Appearing on air among her friends at MSNBC yesterday, she all but outed herself as a key source for the seminal New York Times story on the Obama administration’s efforts to subvert the incoming Trump administration.

The March 1 Times story ran under the headline “Obama administration rushed to preserve intelligence of Russian election hacking” under the byline of Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman and Michael Schmidt. The Times reporters noted that they protected the identity of their sources because, you know, their cooperation with the Times was criminal or because their actions were otherwise legally problematic. The Times reporters put it this way in their March 1 story:

More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret.

In her comments on MSNBC the morning the Times story appeared in print, Farkas used a term of art that requires translation. The term of art is “the Hill,” i.e., Capitol Hill. By “the Hill” Farkas means congressional Democrats and their staffers. As MSNBC flashed an image of the Times story on the screen, Mika Brzezinski stated that Farkas “actually knew about this attempt to get and preserve information…and were doing some work yourself.” That’s nice “work” if you can get it.

Thus spake Farkas:

Well, I was urging my former colleagues, and, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration. Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods — meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill…That’s why you have the leaking.

Farkas is an expert in the Eastern European/Russian relationships and a believer that the Russians are the bad guys.  She is also very supportive of Ukraine. A Neo-con perhaps.

The Atlantic Council today named Evelyn Farkas, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, as a Nonresident Senior Fellow with appointments in the Future Europe Initiative, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, and Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.

During her tenure from 2012 to 2015 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, Dr. Farkas was responsible for policy toward Russia, the Black Sea, Balkans, and Caucasus regions and conventional arms control. From 2010 to 2012 she served as Senior Adviser to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe/Commander, US European Command, and as Special Adviser for the Secretary of Defense for the NATO Summit. Prior to that she served almost a decade in the legislative branch working on  stability and special operations, counterterrorism, counterproliferation,  export controls, defense policy toward Latin America and US-Asia policy. From 1997-2000 she served as a professor of international relations at the US Marine Corps Command and Staff College.

At the Atlantic Council, Dr. Farkas will focus on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe; general European affairsand global security issues.

“We are delighted to welcome Dr. Farkas, one of the most well-known and well-respected authorities on Eastern Europe, Russia, and Ukraine, to the Atlantic Council,” said John Herbst, Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. “She brings a wealth of knowledge and first-hand experience engaging with our partners in the region, and we look forward to drawing on her expertise as we continue to deepen our team of experts on Eastern Europe and Eurasia.”

I am becoming convinced she is part of a cabal that wishes the US/NATO would secure Ukraine from the Russians.  If you throw in that aspect, and the fact Crowdstrike is from that same area of the world and is part of the Atlantic Council, suddenly all the conspiracy theorist perk up.  Is all of this a false flag operation?

what’s weird enough, but it gets far stranger. For example:

In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.

THIS IS THE SCANDAL that needs to be investigated. What if all of this was a set up to undermine Trump so they can start a freaking war with Russia??!

Holy treason Batman!

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can anyone be that dumb? Obama administration member just admitted she did it.

It’s about being inside a bubble and believing at an ideological level that you are right.  However, when you watch the clip, you can see two things- 1. Nunes has his first witness/suspect. 2. Mika’s reaction to her “confession” was classic. It was a “x-nay on the dissemination-eh! WTF is wrong with you!”

On  side note, this woman’s wide-eyed manner is that of just another crazy ideologue.  “Of course we did it! What choice did we have?!  Woo Hooo! Anybody seen my anti-depressant pills?”


This is akin to G. Gordon Liddy going to the Washington Post and saying “Damn right we broke into the Watergate! What choice did we have, those damned democrats were trying to unseat my man!”

Seriously, if Nunes is looking for his first witness/suspect I think we can help.  But what the TCTH people stated they uncovered is a little more disquieting. If you remember, the DNC refused to let the FBI look at their hacked servers, instead DEMANDING the FBI accept the reports of a company called “Crowdstrike”.  I have always found that disturbing.  Truth is the FBI should not depend on any third party reports if they are investigation a crime.  Even the basic issue of evidence collection and handling is questioned.

“Mr. FBI agent, you state here that the Russians hacked the DNC. Based on that you opened an investigation on the Trump campaign, is that not correct?”

“Yes sir.”

“Tell me, how do you know that happened?”

“A company called Crowdstrike said they found the evidence.” “Alright, how do you know they are telling you the truth?”


Evelyn Farkas has stated freely on TV that she and a group of associates from the Obama Administration went to congressional staffers who did not have access to these COMINT products and urged them to seek to gain access to them.

At some point in the recent past Farkas was de-briefed (cut off) from access to the various kinds of compartmented information she had been given as a requirement of her prior job.  When that occurred she signed some papers in which she accepted the responsibility to protect the secrecy of that information. (link)

♦ Evelyn Farkas is also a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council –SEE HERE– the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the US State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. The Atlantic Council has been among the loudest voices calling for a new Cold War with Russia

And guess who else is a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council? Dimitri Alperovitch – the founder and CTO of CrowdStrike! Alperovitch is head honcho of the Atlantic Council’s “Cyber Statecraft Initiative”.

♦ CrowdStrike, aka Dimitri Alperovitch was the organization that initially claimed they had evidence the Russians were connected to the Trump organization.  A claim they have subsequently walked back – SEE HERE

Yep. Ah shit.

So if you are a conspiracy nut, you get this. The DNC is “hacked” by someone. (Please do not look behind the other curtain where the four Muslim IT workers with access have been fired or put on the sidelines due to an ongoing investigation into their accessing DNC databases and stealing information).

The DNC refuses to let the FBI look at the source of the hack- the servers- instead hands off a report to them from a company called Crowdstrike. That company has links to not only the Ukrainians (who are looking to keep the cold war going and the Russians off of them. A goal shared by John McCain), but to the woman in the video above who just admitted to disseminating intel data to people far and wide on the Hill, to make sure Trump can’t make it go away.   And guess who helped disseminate this data?  Senator John McCain.

BTW- Farkas joined the MSNBC crew in order to tell people about the Russian/Trump connection according to her company’s statement.  They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. Trump must be driving them nuts.

Update: Nice article from Circa. Bottom line, power corrupts.

As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama’s top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of rules their boss relaxed starting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats, Circa has learned.

Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch

Some intercepted communications from November to January involved Trump transition figures or foreign figures’ perceptions of the incoming president and his administration. Intercepts involving congressional figures also have been unmasked occasionally for some time.

The NSA is expected to turn over logs as early as this week to congressional committees detailing who consumed reports with unmasked Americans’ identities from their intercepts since the summer of 2016….

Over the last decade, the assumption of civil liberty and privacy protections for Americans incidentally intercepted by the NSA overseas has been eroded in the name of national security.

Today, the power to unmask an American’s name inside an NSA intercept — once considered a rare event in the intelligence and civil liberty communities — now resides with about 20 different officials inside the NSA alone. The FBI also has the ability to unmask Americans’ names to other intelligence professionals and policymakers.

And the justification for requesting such unmasking can be as simple as claiming “the identity of the United States person is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance,” according to a once-classified document that the Obama administration submitted in October 2011 for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It laid out specifically how and when the NSA could unmask an American’s identity.

Rand Paul should be running with this.  The Congress has to reign in the abuses, how well intended.  Make the system tougher, so that the people looking for real intelligence will make the effort, those who are politically motivated or just bad apples, will not.

And it appears Crowdstrike is not as accurate as you’d want them to be. In fact, the tend to blame Russians for everything, which goes to their ultimate goal.  Here the Brits think they made a mistake (or didn’t depending on their agenda).  One wonders at what point do we think they are part of some effort to undermine Russia and keep the cold war going.







Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment