Who gassed the Syrians?

Right now Trump is doing a victory lap over a limited airstrike in retaliation for what he believes is the Syrian government bombing people with nerve gas.  That’s about it.

But what do we know?  We know the Brits sent the Syrians precursors. After what Assad did, you’d think they would stop, but no.

British companies sold chemicals to Syria that could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent that killed 1,400 people, The Mail on Sunday can reveal today.

Between July 2004 and May 2010 the Government issued five export licences to two companies, allowing them to sell Syria sodium fluoride, which is used to make sarin.

The Government last night admitted for the first time that the chemical was delivered to Syria – a clear breach of international protocol on the trade of dangerous substances that has been condemned as ‘grossly irresponsible’.

The sales were made at a time when President Bashar Assad was strongly suspected to be stockpiling the chemical weapons that have caused an international crisis.

The UK firms delivered sodium fluoride to a  Syrian cosmetics company for what they claim were legitimate purposes. But intelligence experts believe President Assad’s regime uses such companies to divert chemicals into its weapons programme.

Last export license was 2010.

How the British chemicals aid Assad

How it is done.

So the embarrassing question to the Brits would be how much of the chemical weapons used against children were created out of supplies sold to Syria by them?

Not to mention the old theory that Saddam sent his stuff to Syria to avoid being caught with it after the invasion in 2003.

Some old conspiracy theories (and frankly after what we have learned in the past few years maybe no so conspiracy-ish) have the Brits and maybe our CIA planting gas attacks in order to convince Obama to attack.  Then again, we have ISIS seizing chemical weapons from Mosul and used them.

ISIS militants used chemical weapons during the battle for the city of Mosul last week, injuring a number of civilians, according to a senior Iraqi security official.

The official’s assessment comes after the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), issued a statement last week saying that their workers had treated patients from Mosul who were suffering from symptoms consistent with exposure to a toxic chemical agent.

Over a number of days last week, the ICRC said it treated 15 such patients.

“The first cases who arrived were a mother and her five children, aged from 1 month to 11 years,” Iolanda Jaquemet, an ICRC spokeswoman, told NBC News.

“It was certainly [the result of] a toxic chemical agent, because their symptoms were absolutely clear. People had blisters, they vomited. They had irritation in the eyes and coughed,” she added.

The World Health Organization said in a statement that it was “extremely alarmed by the use of chemical weapons in Mosul, where innocent civilians are already facing unimaginable suffering.”

The statement added that “the use of chemical weapons is a war crime.”

Both the WHO and ICRC said that the patients’ symptoms were consistent with exposure to a blistering agent.

A senior Iraqi security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told NBC News Monday that the official believed that the chemical agent used in the attack was mustard gas.

So who is gassing whom?

In that mix comes the open distrust of our intelligence agencies. How do we know they are telling the truth, or if they KNOW the truth.  They may be biased by agenda or stunted by incompetence.  That is scary.

Trump should tread lightly, regardless of the love being shown him by the Syrians on social media. We know he craves the attention, that he is getting,  and will respond, but he’s President, and his thoughts, words and deeds affect the world.

Arabs on social media are praising President Donald Trump for ordering the first direct U.S. military action against Syrian government forces, and they’ve even invented an honorific title for him: “Abu Ivanka al-Amriki.”

“You what!? Good morning.. How big you are Abu Ivanka,” wrote Moussa al-Omar, a Syrian journalist living in London.

The full title — Abu Ivanka al-Amriki — means, “Father of Ivanka the American,” the BBC reported.

The Guardian‘s Kareem Shaheen, a Turkey and Middle East reporter, shared this hilarious photo of Trump with the title in Arabic, complete with full blonde beard.

With all the crap Obama threw, nobody in the torn regions reacted with this love and levity.

 

He needs to figure that out, or it is going to a long four years.  Pinched between Trump haters and Trump’s own impulsiveness, he will struggle. Which is too bad. I like the way he is shaking things up.

Trump sent the missiles. Now he must use his brain, not his emotions, for the next move.

 

 

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

The new effort to seize personal data at the borders and entries is a bad, bad idea. It does no good.

Here’s where Rand Paul and his friends either stand up or shut up. Anything less and he’s just another poser, trying to gain fame with words not deeds.

Image result for rand paul

It’s his time. Do the right thing.

It has now become horrifyingly apparent our intelligence agencies have been politicized- period.  As Mark Levin read an article from Lee Smith, dealing with the Obama administration spying on Congress and the Jewish lobby trying to stop his Iran nuclear deal, I think everyone suddenly realized their own “ah shit” moment.

It’s over. We know, they know, we know they are now a weapon- against us. I believe it is, by and large, against the will of the people in the intel community. Although others argue against that saying there is now an ideological bent influencing the people inside the intel agencies. If that is true, then it is even worse than we thought.  What if a tech sitting at a desk listened to Flynn and HE decided it was his duty to tell Rice, because he agrees with Obama’s agenda?  That is getting real close to East German Stasi thinking.

A great movie to watch in order to grasp what it is like to live in a world like that is “The Lives of Others.”

Image result for the lives of others

Listening to everything, waiting for you to criticize your government.

So how do we address this and still keep our capability to find terrorists?  Which, by the way, is the actual goal.  If Trump were a true patriot, he would be tasking his people to go and find the documents proving that Obama spied on Congress in the Iran deal. If so, let Paul have the data and let Congress fix this before it gets worse.  He needs to hurry up because sadly, it is about to get worse.

The Department of Homeland Security will continue searching the mobile phones and electronic devices of travelers at U.S. airports, the agency’s leader said as lawmakers of both parties questioned whether the anti-terrorism tool is unlawfully intrusive.

DHS Secretary John Kelly, speaking Wednesday to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said such searches are valuable in the fight to keep terrorists out of the U.S. and that they affect a fraction of the 1 million people who enter the country every day.

The electronics searches are “not routine; it’s done in a very small number of cases,” the retired Marine general told lawmakers. “If there’s reason to do it, we will do it. Whether it’s France, Britain Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Somalia, it won’t be routinely done at a port of entry.”

Kelly appeared before the panel to announce that the number of undocumented immigrants apprehended at the border last month reached a 17-year low since President Donald Trump took office.

Critics of the searches say they discourage visitors from coming to the U.S. and amount to an invasion of privacy that could ensnare innocent Americans who traveled abroad. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, pointed to multiple media accounts of law-abiding citizens whose electronics were searched without a warrant.

The practice is increasing: U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it processed more than 390 million arrivals in fiscal 2016 and performed 23,877 electronic media searches, or 0.0061 percent of the total. A year earlier 4,764 electronic media searches were conducted on 0.0012 percent of the 383 million arrivals.

Current standards allow border agents to search phones and other electronics of anyone whose statements appear to betray inconsistencies, and Kelly said agents have used searches to nab pedophiles as well as suspected terrorists. Failure to comply could result in devices being seized by federal authorities and the person not being admitted to the U.S.

In a recent conversation with my MENSA bright buddy, who is a veteran intel law enforcement officer and an advocate of good policing, I took the position that anyone coming to America had no right to privacy.

My friend pointed out this rule applied to AMERICAN citizens returning to America.  Worse, he pointed out the issue of what criteria is being used to discern who is to be stopped and who is not.  Right now, if you are single white middle-aged male traveling alone you fit the profile of a pedophile… or just a businessman traveling alone.  Suddenly, you are pulled aside and you are told you can either give up your passwords and devices, or get your property seized and searched- without a warrant.  Because somebody- but not you- did crime. Think about that!  All because you fit a profile, taught to people with limited skills and talents, by a trainer, who may also have limited skills and talents, but has the blessing of the bureaucracy. That’s  a lot of power concentrated in a small area! (Even Kelly uses the “it’s for the good of the children” argument in his testimony, always a “tell” that someone is on thin ice with a policy. Think gun control.)

I lived this life for a generation.  Trust me, we are just regular guys and gals with the same intelligence and abilities as you. And you know you, right?  That is why we are overseen by judges and courts, and controlled by due process. It’s just in case we get it wrong, which we do on more than one occasion. By removing the probable cause requirement and replacing with an overreaching administrative rule- which is becoming how our government seems to be acting lately- you have allowed limited skills people, with limited guidance and training, make decisions beyond their Constitutionally  recognized limits.  In America, the law says the police are prevented from signing their own warrants, and for good reason.   Yet, at the border they do exactly that.

Do I want bad guys and terrorist caught? Absolutely.  What many don’t want is being seized, without probable cause, due to the acts of others.   My buddy calls it “lazy policing.”  The authorities seize data, look for anything  ever said or done that is a violation of any number of offenses and sends that data over to the appropriate agency.  You say so what? I’m not a criminal.  My answer is how do you know?

Now turn to the argument made by Kelly that it will stop terrorists. The question I ask, as  a veteran cop, is this- how? You may catch the dumbest terrorist ever, who tweets to his buddies some idiot comment about a pending attack as his plane taxis in to the gate. But you will not catch the smart terrorist, who simply creates a fake history or has none.  They are not stupid people. Do you think the TSA guy at the border can recognize a fake history? What is the policy if the guy comes into Customs and says “I have no phone, no FaceBook and no computer.” Does he get in? So all a terrorist has to do is memorize his handler’s phone number and buy a burner when he gets here and he’s good to go.

But even if you catch someone with a phone history showing he visited a Muslim website how does that exclude him for entry, and who makes that decision? Some middle management guy from the TSA, who took a class in terrorist identification? I was that “guy.” So was my buddy and hundreds like us.

And if the Muslim complains, what do you think will happen? Does he get sent back to his home nation, and who pays? Does he get detained? Does he end up wandering the airport like Tom Hanks because nobody has figured out the next step?  Or does he get free press and he gets in anyway through some judge’s order.  History has shown it is door number four. Why? Because bad policy leads to bad law.

And what if you complain?  History shows you may end up being tucked into a room and harassed or even arrested.

Worse, to avoid “profiling” like right after 9/11, is the TSA going to demand data from every third or fifth random traveler? Tall people today, short people tomorrow? What is the criteria?  Imagine the explanation for the warrantless search. “Look pal, what can I say, we don’t want to piss off the Muslims so we picked you to prove we aren’t profiling, so give up your phone.”  Wait, what??!

So what has Kelly accomplished?  Nothing, other than grabbing up your data, without warrant, and shoving that data into the growing database  that can be, and has been, politicized as a weapon. (Imagine if your wife sent you a “I miss you” pic. Now the NSA has it. Or your mistress? How much is that worth in blackmail if you hold a position unfavorable to any current administration?)

From Lee Smith article we have learned that not only has that been done, but it has been done to Congress. (Which makes you think about why Corker suddenly shifted his position.) So what do you think they are willing to do to you?

In a December 29, 2015 article, The Wall Street Journal described how the Obama administration had conducted surveillance on Israeli officials to understand how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, like Ambassador Ron Dermer, intended to fight the Iran Deal. The Journal reported that the targeting “also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.”

Despite this reporting, it seemed inconceivable at the time that—given myriad legal, ethical, political, and historical concerns, as well as strict National Security Agency protocols that protect the identity of American names caught in intercepts—the Obama White House would have actually spied on American citizens. In a December 31, 2016, Tablet article on the controversy, “Why the White House Wanted Congress to Think It Was Being Spied on By the NSA,” I argued that the Obama administration had merely used the appearance of spying on American lawmakers to corner opponents of the Iran Deal. Spying on U.S. citizens would be a clear abuse of the foreign-intelligence surveillance system. It would be a felony offense to leak the names of U.S. citizens to the press.

Increasingly, I believe that my conclusion in that piece was wrong. I believe the spying was real and that it was done not in an effort to keep the country safe from threats—but in order to help the White House fight their domestic political opponents.

“At some point, the administration weaponized the NSA’s legitimate monitoring of communications of foreign officials to stay one step ahead of domestic political opponents,” says a pro-Israel political operative who was deeply involved in the day-to-day fight over the Iran Deal. “The NSA’s collections of foreigners became a means of gathering real-time intelligence on Americans engaged in perfectly legitimate political activism—activism, due to the nature of the issue, that naturally involved conversations with foreigners. We began to notice the White House was responding immediately, sometimes within 24 hours, to specific conversations we were having. At first, we thought it was a coincidence being amplified by our own paranoia. After a while, it simply became our working assumption that we were being spied on.”

This is what systematic abuse of foreign-intelligence collection for domestic political purposes looks like: Intelligence collected on Americans, lawmakers, and figures in the pro-Israel community was fed back to the Obama White House as part of its political operations. The administration got the drop on its opponents by using classified information, which it then used to draw up its own game plan to block and freeze those on the other side. And—with the help of certain journalists whose stories (and thus careers) depend on high-level access—terrorize them.

Once you understand how this may have worked, it becomes easier to comprehend why and how we keep being fed daily treats of Trump’s nefarious Russia ties. The issue this time isn’t Israel, but Russia, yet the basic contours may very well be the same.

In arguing with my friend about access, and starting to lose badly, I pointed out this was a reaction to the San Bernardino attack and the rubber stamping of finance visas.  He agreed there are exceptions and this is one. If you want to come here on a visa that is beyond simply a business or a tourist visa, say like a student visa or a finance visa, you must be willing to give up everything and wait.  And your “sponsor” must do the same.

So in the San Bernardino shooting, both the husband and the wife could apply, give up their info, and then allow for time to be vetted.  Now that gets back to policy – Obama’s was to let them in regardless of a shady history, hopefully Trump is different. And capability -can our government exercise enough resources and talents to uncover a terrorist who is actually trying to hide? That is a question that may never be answered, though history doesn’t give us much hope. But it removes the issue from a random search through an administrative rule to a more identifiable set of circumstances that can be limited and reviewed.

But let’s get back to  grabbing up personal data. At first I was in favor.  Coming here is not a right, but a privilege.  Don’t like it, don’t come.  However, my buddy pointed out nothing occurs in a vacuum and a ruling like this will cause other nations to respond in kind. Also, it creates a problem for people coming here for a legitimate reason. What if you are a businessman from Korea or Indonesia or Brazil, who wants to buy an American product? So you come to visit the plant where it is produced to see if it is a viable operation.  You arrive at Customs and  you have to give them passwords to your account that exposes your entire business dealings?  How long before you don’t come here and find another manufacturer.

Then we have the issue of another country retaliating and suddenly Americans traveling abroad are being forced to give up their passwords and data, put into that database (and maybe shared back to the NSA).  How long before nobody travels?

So what is the answer?  The first thing we must accept is we aren’t going to catch all of them.  Bad guys get away all the time in exchange for our citizens having freedom from an intrusive government. The option is letting the government have total access to your life. As my friend illustrated.  “What is being asked here is basically this.  The government says let me have the keys to your house and your safe and all your passwords to your accounts. Trust us that we will never use any of them to violate your rights, but on occasion we may walk in and check things out to make sure everybody is on the level.  Would you agree to that?” 

The answer, of course, is no.

And here is where those like Rand Paul just have to throw the yellow flag and say enough.  Make violations of our privacy, without cause, a real crime with real penalties. Make the guy thinking about doing it think twice, because the last guy who did it found himself in a fed pen eating baloney sandwiches with his new best friend Gerome, who finds him cute.

Trust me, no bureaucrat wants his career path to take that sudden hard left turn. They will reign themselves in.

…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!” …

That will cure a lot of this.

 

 

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

How long has Obama’s people been spying? The weaponization of the NSA.

According to one report, maybe for a long time. Which means Susan Rice will not testify or testify truthfully IF the right questions are asked.

But what if Donald Trump wasn’t the first or only target of an Obama White House campaign of spying and illegal leaks directed at domestic political opponents?

In a December 29, 2015 article, The Wall Street Journal described how the Obama administration had conducted surveillance on Israeli officials to understand how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, like Ambassador Ron Dermer, intended to fight the Iran Deal. The Journal reported that the targeting “also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.”

Despite this reporting, it seemed inconceivable at the time that—given myriad legal, ethical, political, and historical concerns, as well as strict National Security Agency protocols that protect the identity of American names caught in intercepts—the Obama White House would have actually spied on American citizens. In a December 31, 2016, Tablet article on the controversy, “Why the White House Wanted Congress to Think It Was Being Spied on By the NSA,” I argued that the Obama administration had merely used the appearance of spying on American lawmakers to corner opponents of the Iran Deal. Spying on U.S. citizens would be a clear abuse of the foreign-intelligence surveillance system. It would be a felony offense to leak the names of U.S. citizens to the press.

Increasingly, I believe that my conclusion in that piece was wrong. I believe the spying was real and that it was done not in an effort to keep the country safe from threats—but in order to help the White House fight their domestic political opponents.

“At some point, the administration weaponized the NSA’s legitimate monitoring of communications of foreign officials to stay one step ahead of domestic political opponents,” says a pro-Israel political operative who was deeply involved in the day-to-day fight over the Iran Deal. “The NSA’s collections of foreigners became a means of gathering real-time intelligence on Americans engaged in perfectly legitimate political activism—activism, due to the nature of the issue, that naturally involved conversations with foreigners. We began to notice the White House was responding immediately, sometimes within 24 hours, to specific conversations we were having. At first, we thought it was a coincidence being amplified by our own paranoia. After a while, it simply became our working assumption that we were being spied on.”

This is what systematic abuse of foreign-intelligence collection for domestic political purposes looks like: Intelligence collected on Americans, lawmakers, and figures in the pro-Israel community was fed back to the Obama White House as part of its political operations. The administration got the drop on its opponents by using classified information, which it then used to draw up its own game plan to block and freeze those on the other side. And—with the help of certain journalists whose stories (and thus careers) depend on high-level access—terrorize them.

Once you understand how this may have worked, it becomes easier to comprehend why and how we keep being fed daily treats of Trump’s nefarious Russia ties. The issue this time isn’t Israel, but Russia, yet the basic contours may very well be the same.

I was wondering where the leaks were coming from. If this is true, somebody in the bowels of the NSA is probably sweating because he’s the guy that did the transcripts on orders from someone like Rice, Rhodes, Brennan or Clapper.  That request and the resulting effort is documented.

This is entirely a paper chase case.  IF the Congress doesn’t ask the right questions you can beat they are invested in covering up for Obama administration misdeeds in order to protect the NSA data collection.

Image result for john brennan susan rice

“Somebody’s lying!”

If so, shame on them.  You can do both, protect the country and make it illegal (which mandatory penalties) to abuse that power.

Obama isn’t anything new, just someone who knew no limits when considering the ends justify the means. To him, this was all necessary.  To his followers, it will always be so.

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

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

Madness…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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