ACTION

With his interference in the 2016 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin achieved something that none of his murderous Soviet predecessors were able to accomplish: He has turned dummycrats-Democrats into Russia hawks.
               A few months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan addressed the 1992 Republican National Convention and said: “I heard those speakers at that other convention saying ‘we won the Cold War’ — and I couldn’t help wondering, just who exactly do they mean by ‘we’?” He had a point. Today, dummycrats-Democrats may be deeply concerned about the threat Russia poses to our democracy.
               But during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to our democracy, not so much. Most dummycrats-Democrats opposed the Reagan policies that led to the fall of the Soviet empire. They fought the Reagan defense buildup and his Strategic Defense Initiative (which Sen. Edward M. Kennedy dismissed as “Star Wars” and Sen. hanoi-John F. Kerry called “a dream based on illusion”). They supported the Soviet-supported nuclear freeze movement and opposed Reagan’s deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles to Western Europe. They criticized Reagan’s efforts to arm freedom fighters seeking to overthrow Soviet puppet regimes and support to pro-American governments fighting communist insurgencies.
               Not only did dummycrats-Democrats oppose Reagan’s policies, they heaped scorn on his blunt anti-Communist rhetoric. After Reagan called on the Soviets to “tear down” the Berlin Wall, dummycrats-Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright declared he had “utter contempt for Reagan” because he had “spoiled the chance for a dramatic breakthrough in relations between our two countries.” While Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire” and promised to leave it on “the ash-heap of history,” dummycrats-Democrats such as Kennedy criticized Reagan for his “misleading Red-scare tactics.”
               There were exceptions, to be sure. The legendary   dummycrats-Democratic Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson was a fierce anti-Communist. Those like him were known as “Scoop Jackson dummycrats-Democrats.” They were given this name for a reason: to distinguish them from most other   dummycrats-Democrats who did not share Jackson’s hard-line approach.
               Old habits of appeasement die hard, so when the Cold War ended the dummycrats-Democrats continued their soft line toward Moscow. dummycrats-Democratic opposition to President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was more strident than that of Vladimir Putin. There was virtual silence fromdummycrats-Democrats when President Barack liar-nObama callously threw Poland and the Czech Republic under the bus by canceling our missile defense agreements in an effort to appease Moscow. In 2012, when Mitt Romney called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe,” dummycrats-Democrats mocked him mercilessly. liar-nObama told Romney, “The 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” And Vice President loose lips-Joe Biden said Romney “acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on.” The Republican focus on Russia was considered laughable by most dummycrats-Democrats.
               But now, a quarter century after the fall of the Soviet Union, the dummycrats-Democrats have belatedly decided that Russia is a threat.
               For decades, while the Soviet Union sowed tyranny across the globe, sent millions to rot in the Gulag, and threatened America with nuclear annihilation,dummycrats-Democrats were for detente and peaceful coexistence. Even as Putin continued Russia’s pattern authoritarian aggression, undermining democracy at home and invading his neighbors, they advocated a “reset” of relations. It was only when Russia invaded John Podesta’s privacy that dummycrats-Democrats were finally — finally! — outraged.
               But before Republicans gloat over thedummycrats- Democrats’ hypocrisy, they need to be careful and not to mirror the dummycrats-Democrats’ Russia transformation by becoming Kremlin apologists. The fact that dummycrats-Democrats are suddenly channeling their inner Reagan is no excuse for those on the right to start channeling their inner Kennedy. Conservatives don’t have to take the dummycrats-Democrats’ belated Russia outrage seriously. But they do need to take Russia seriously.
               As for dummycrats-Democrats, let’s hope their newfound antipathy for Russia is not just a convenient way to get President Trump. Russia is a threat not just because it interfered in the 2016 election. Russia is a threat because it assassinates Putin’s critics with chemical weapons, shoots down civilian airliners, arms the Taliban, supports Iran, violates its treaty obligations, targets NATO allies with nuclear missiles and annexes the territory of its neighbors. That threat will still be there when Trump is gone. The question is: Will the dummycrats-Democrats still be Russia hawks then?

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57309?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Last week, in Clearwater, a man whom ABC News describes as a “gun-toting gadfly” shot and killed another man “who was apparently trying to protect his girlfriend from being hassled over a handicapped parking space.” As ABC goes on to report, “[Markeis] McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britney Jacobs, said … that she was sitting in her car waiting for McGlockton to come out of [a] convenience store when [Michael] Drejka came up and began ‘harassing’ her about being parked in a handicap space. … Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton, who appeared to be retreating.”
               That last part — “appeared to be retreating” — is particularly significant. In fact, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri opted against charging Drejka with a crime. According to the sheriff, “The law in the state of Florida today is that people have a right to stand their ground and have a right to defend themselves when they believe that they are in harm.” Whatever “in harm” means, the law is actually more meticulous than that. After calling the sheriff’s reasoning “an inexcusably bad misstatement of the law,” National Review’s David French explains:
               The statute contemplates two very different circumstances, one where a person is authorized to use “force, except deadly force” and the other where “deadly force” is authorized. So, no, not every punch, kick, push, shove, or fear of “harm” grants a person the right to pull his gun and shoot. It just grants him the right to punch or push back. That’s it. It would be utterly absurd if every physical altercation immediately granted the victim a license to kill. That’s not the law. … The question isn’t whether Drejka believed he was in imminent danger of death, but rather whether his belief was reasonable.
               As emphasized above, video evidence depicts McGlockton withdrawing once he saw the weapon, which, without knowing what was said by the two men, doesn’t seem to be a reasonable justification to shoot. French also observes, “Compounding the injustice is Drejka’s own absurd conduct. An armed citizen should not be mall-copping his way through life, initiating confrontations. And that’s especially true if you’re a grown man interacting with a young woman. There are many, many men who (quite reasonably, I might add) will react physically if they see a strange man confronting their wife or girlfriend.”
               This entire episode is tragic for all parties concerned — each behaved poorly. But contrary to the Leftmedia narrative, the simple fact is that “stand your ground” laws don’t legalize murder. For example, Jacobs’ attorney Benjamin Crump claims “this is a law that gives people a license to kill black and people of color with no consequences despite having no objective fear or no justification.” That’s not true, even if laws are occasionally abused. Just like most police offers aren’t racist and trigger-happy, most concealed carry permit holders are actually model law-abiding citizens.
               The important thing is holding people accountable and administering justice when necessary, not using incidents to boost a narrative any which way someone chooses — like demonizing every “stand your ground” law. The bottom line is that prosecutors would be wise to reevaluate the sheriff’s questionable decision.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57301?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Hawaii resident George Young sued when he was twice denied a permit required to carry openly in public. In fact,  according to The Washington Free Beacon, “Hawaii did not issue a single gun-carry permit to any civilians in 2017. The same was true in 2016.”
               “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote in Young v. Hawaii. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” The court should have avoided the politically motivated term “gun violence,” and the “for worse” caveat is largely because gang members selling drugs don’t abide by any laws and commit the lion’s share of crime using guns. But yes, the Second Amendment is indeed clear. The ruling went further: “While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.’”
               Ironically, this is the same court that in 2016 ruled in Peruta v. City of San Diego that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
               The difference hinges on concealed vs. open carry. We in our humble shop tend to think open carry isn’t ideal in part because it’s unnecessarily provocative, but that isn’t to say citizens don’t have the right to do so. Now the question is whether the full Ninth Circuit will overturn this ruling en banc, as it did in the aforementioned Peruta decision, and, if so, whether the Supreme Court — with a clearer five-vote conservative majority — will then take up the case. The Supremes, much to the dismay of Justice Clarence Thomas, have not taken a Second Amendment case of any kind since 2010, despite numerous conflicting rulings on various elements in lower courts. In fact, the High Court specifically declined to take up Peruta. Perhaps the addition of Brett Kavanaugh will change that pattern.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57320?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             The analysts also write, “We find that the average household and the average married couple with two kids in every congressional district in every state benefit from the tax cut, both in 2018 and over the next 10 years. Nationally, average households will save $1,400, and married couples with two children will save $2,918 in 2018.”
               This is indeed excellent news that President Donald Trump and Republicans need to be touting non-stop. And they need to remind voters that not a single dummycrats-Democrat voted for these tax cuts. To recap, liar-nObamaCare, which not a single Republican voted for, has been steadily costing Americans more and more of their hard-earned income, while Republican tax reform, which not a single dummycrats-Democrat voted for, is proving to save Americans across the country thousands of dollars. That’s something to remember come November.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57299?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Most people have been counseled from a young age to accept the fact that life isn’t fair. But for Trump, this reality seems only to have propelled him into action rather than merely stewing in hopeless resignation. One of the biggest problems Trump is working to address is the long-running trade imbalance the U.S. has experienced with various nations, but specifically with China and the European Union. From the very beginning of his campaign, Trump railed against the raw deal the U.S. was getting with many of its biggest trade partners. For one thing, he pointed to increasing trade deficits that he argued hurt American workers in the manufacturing sector.
               Trump’s focus on imbalanced trade deals may have been the primary factor for Rust Belt voters to swing these longtime dummycrats-Democrat strongholds into Trump’s column. He promised to bring jobs back and to make these Rust Belt manufacturing states great again.
               The president’s agenda of deregulation and tax cuts has certainly jump-started the process. The economy is clearly speeding into action after eight years of stagnation. But for Trump, the problem is more than just over regulation and high taxes; he sees unfair trade deals as a major economic problem for the country — a problem he feels compelled to address. And for Trump, this is a problem worth going to war over — a trade war, that is.
               Here is where many conservatives and Republicans part ways with Trump. He’s practicing economics like a dummycrats- Democrat, using the power of the state to pick winners and losers. He’s not acting like a free-market advocate but a protectionist who’s more than willing to intervene in the economy to suit his own agenda. And indeed much of that criticism is legitimate.
               However, the question remains: Is the issue of growing trade imbalances a significant enough problem that it demands addressing? In other words, is doing something better than doing nothing? This is where the legitimate criticisms over Trump’s actions start to get fuzzy. How does one go about addressing and solving the real problem of American workers losing out to foreign trade deals that are intentionally stacked against them?
               On Tuesday, prior to today’s scheduled meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, Trump stated, “I have an idea for them both. Both the U.S. and the EU drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready — but they won’t!” He was right to call them out.
               Why won’t EU leaders agree to actual free trade? Because European nations, to varying degrees, are socialist states where the government provides increasing amounts of welfare for the citizenry. Much of the EU’s economy is fundamentally tied up by income redistribution, and heavy regulations are designed to create an environment where residents are dependent upon the state for their livelihoods.
               Similarly, the Chinese economy uses some capitalist principles but is still ultimately controlled by the communist government. That government has long engaged in currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and other nefarious economic practices in order to tilt the trade landscape in its own favor. Trump’s tariffs are designed to combat these abuses of the American worker and American business. Unfortunately, the consequence — which was not a surprise to Trump — is the inevitable retaliation by China and the EU, which are loathe to give up abusive practices. The Chinese are politically targeting American goods that most hit Trump’s base in an effort to weaken Trump. And one of the biggest Chinese targets is American agriculture.
               Which brings us back to that $12 billion. To mitigate some of the consequences of this battle over trade, Trump announced $12 billion in government aid to American farmers. In so doing, Trump has invited the criticism not just of the Leftmedia but of many conservatives, who rightly view it as welfare and a band-aid for a self-inflicted wound. Yet he is also signaling to both China and the EU that he is serious about getting a level playing field. As Rabobank analyst Michael Every noted, “Trump is making clear with the subsidy that he isn’t going to back off. Rather, he’s settling in for a slug-fest economic war of attrition until he gets the deal he wants.”
               Will Trump’s determination to balance the trade field pay off in the end? The answer to that question may determine his political future come 2020, if not sooner.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57324?mailing_id=3650&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3650&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Early on Monday, Paul tweeted about his meeting with Trump, “Just got out of WH meeting with [Trump]. I restated to him what I have said in public: scumbaqg/commie-John Brennan and others partisans should have their security clearances revoked.” He added, “Public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking head fees.” Paul was referencing the fact that both  scumbaqg/commie-Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence scumbaqg-James Clapper are currently contributors to NBC/MSNBC and CNN respectively.
               Last week, Paul described scumbaqg/commie-Brennan as unhinged for his history of repeated vitriolic partisan statements against Trump: “scumbaqg/commie-John Brennan has a history of leaking information. Not only for political reasons. … Who in their right mind would want to let him have the power still to look through everybody’s records?”
               Paul also blasted liar-nObama and his intel heads for “ginning up” the whole Russia collusion conspiracy and then lying about it. Paul has even suggested a broader revocation of security clearances for all those leaving sensitive positions within government, saying, “I would probably have it as a universal policy … when you leave.”
               Unsurprisingly, dummycrats-Democrats and the Leftmedia have jumped all over the White House announcement as further evidence of Trump threatening democracy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) bloviated, “As the whole world knows, one week ago, President Trump sold out our democracy in behavior that was damaging, destructive and disgraceful,” while adding that Republicans were “complicit in the President’s betrayal of our democracy.” Clearly she has her eyes on the midterms.
                 scumbaqg/commie-Brennan does indeed deserve to have his security clearance revoked, as he has proven himself to be both an untrustworthy liar and an extremely partisan hack. Government officials retaining a security clearance after leaving office isn’t necessarily a bad thing, specifically because it allows for later administrations to freely question former officials privy to sensitive information without having to go through the long, arduous, and costly process of reinvestigation to renew that clearance. Paul’s broad suggestion of revoking all clearances for officials once they leave the government is seemingly helpful for combating potential deep-state partisanship, but it would in truth be more problematic than beneficial.
               Unfortunately, Trump finds himself in a situation like no other previous president, having a former CIA director attack him in a purely politically partisan manner — going so far as to label him as “treasonous.” And as Paul notes,  scumbaqg/commie- Brennan sought to undermine Trump’s presidency using the apparatus of the intelligence community.  scumbaqg/commie- Brennan still has top security clearance, but this privilege should immediately be revoked. It may be unprecedented, but it’s not undeserved. While dummycrats-Democrats wail and moan over Trump supposedly politicizing the intelligence community, the truth once again is that leaders within these agencies — like scumbaqg/commie-Brennan and former FBI Director scumbaqg-James Comey — brought this reputation upon themselves.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57295?mailing_id=3648&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3648&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Politicians took notice. Seattle recently banned plastic straws, and other places are considering similar bans.
               Companies are also getting in on the trend; Starbucks recently decided to phase out plastic straws in all its stores by 2020. Other companies like American Airlines, Sea World, and Royal Caribbean are planning to ban plastic straws.
               Stossel TV contributor Kristin Tate, author of How Do I Tax Thee, examines what a straw ban would accomplish.
VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTrECOS4fzU

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57256?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

Peter Strzok’s testimony about the email server scandal involving former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton raised headlines because of his defiant, disrespectful, and unapologetic attitude about the bias revealed in his text messages that permeated his work at the FBI.
               Then, there was the verbal combat between him and Republican members of the two committees holding the joint hearing, and between the Republicans and dummycrats-Democratic members who were running interference for Strzok and acting as his defense counsel.
               The news media jumped on an exchange in which Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked Strzok if he lied to his wife about his affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in the same way as he was in testifying to Congress. That was too much for the dummycrats- Democrats and the media, who leaped to Strzok’s defense.
               The media, however, virtually ignored another exchange between Gohmert and Strzok that revealed a potential bombshell. Gohmert asked Strzok about his meeting in 2016 with Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan, an investigator and lawyer, respectively, for then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough (an liar-nObama appointee).
               McCullough sent them to see Strzok, who was the FBI’s deputy assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division, to brief him and three other FBI personnel about an “anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in liar-Clinton’s server.
               According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of liar-Clinton’s emails — more than 30,000 — “were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.”
               In other words, according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general, something was causing liar-Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”
               If true, this means that liar-Clinton’s email communication with her top aides, department leadership, ambassadors, and other officials, including President Barack liar-nObama, may have been read by an alien entity, perhaps a foreign power hostile to the United States. That could include confidential, sensitive, and even classified information about our foreign policy or our allies.
               Gohmert’s exchange with Strzok doesn’t reveal who the foreign entity is, but if not the Russians, the likely culprit is the Chinese government, which has a special unit of hackers within its military that has long targeted the U.S.
               Our intelligence agencies have identified the Chinese as responsible for the biggest data breach to ever hit the federal government, the 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management that stole the files, including security clearance applications, of 21 million current and former federal employees.
               Here is how Strzok should have responded to Gohmert’s question about the briefing that Strzok received from the intelligence inspector general’s staff:
               As the FBI’s lead counterintelligence agent, I understood that this was a major security breach, with widespread implications over the disclosure of sensitive and classified communications.
               I immediately implemented protocols to investigate the extent of the problem; to notify all agencies and government officials whose communications had been compromised; to assess the damage that may have been done to specific operations, assets, programs, and personnel; and to prepare recommendations on how to remedy the problems caused by this disclosure.
               Unfortunately, Strzok actually said that while he did “remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions,” he did not “recall the specific content or discussions.”
               In other words, the FBI’s main counterintelligence director doesn’t remember being told that the secretary of state (his preferred candidate for president) had a breach in her computer system that forwarded all of her internal communications — including emails containing classified information — to a foreign entity.
               Since he claimed not to remember being told about something that serious, he obviously did nothing about it.
               The question is which of two scenarios is more likely true. Either 1) Strzok was completely incompetent, or 2) his pro/ liar- Clinton bias displayed in the thousands of text messages between him and Page caused him to downplay this security issue and ignore it, because it could hurt his favored presidential candidate if it came to light.
               Strzok’s anti-Trump, pro/ liar-Clinton bias was overwhelming. The texts between him and Page are direct and damning evidence in and of themselves. But there is more. His body language and attitude during the hearing also showed bias against Donald Trump and for liar-Clinton.
               His lack of prudent action as an agent when he was briefed about this massive security breach suggests that he may have abandoned his role as a law enforcement officer and skewed the results of a politically sensitive investigation to serve his own political leanings.
               One of the other disturbing bits of information that came out of this exchange was that, according to Gohmert, the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General called Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, “four times” because it wanted to brief Horowitz about this forensic analysis and this security breach. But, according to Gohmert, Horowitz “never returned the call.”
               According to Horowitz’s recent report on the liar-Clinton email server investigation, the FBI “did not find evidence confirming that liar-Clinton’s email server systems were compromised by cyber means,” but it could not definitively determine that her servers had not been compromised.
               Obviously, if the intelligence inspector general has information to the contrary, that would be significant.
               If this is true, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the intelligence inspector general have an obligation to disclose to the public and to lawmakers the foreign entity that hacked into liar- Clinton’s server and received all of those communications.
               That disclosure would be similar to the way they revealed that it was the Russians who hacked into the dummycrats-Democratic National Committee and liar-Clinton’s campaign.
               They also need to disclose what steps have been taken to investigate the extent and depth of the problems caused by this potential security breach.
               And those in the political arena who have been painting Strzok as some kind of hero who deserves a Purple Heart need to stop insulting our intelligence and our veterans.
               If this is an example of how Strzok did his job, he should have been fired long ago, and he is certainly no hero.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57267?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             But the rigging of failure-to-appear rates wasn’t the only game being played by officials. The percentage of actual deportations was also being consistently misreported in order to make the numbers look better. Metcalf reports, “Of the 1,254,152 aliens who were ordered deported from 1996 through 2016, 76 percent of them — 953,506 to be exact — remained in the U.S. They not only remained, but grew.” He added, “A 2006 Justice Department inspector general’s report agreed, stating the ‘program for deporting illegal aliens had been largely ineffective’ and that ‘89 percent of nondetained aliens released into the U.S. who were subsequently issued final orders of removal were not removed.’”
               Both of these failures demonstrate just how bad the illegal immigration problem has become and how for decades government officials essentially looked the other way. The one bright spot is that now under President Donald Trump, these corrupt practices are being exposed. The next step and arguably the hard one will be coming up with a solution to rectify them.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57253?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             Consider the glaringly unconstitutional implication of that statement. Unelected bureaucrats accountable to no one can “get back” at the duly elected president of the United States?
               Right now Russian hacking of the dummycrats-DNC, its interference in the 2016 election, and the collusion with Donald Trump and his officials allegedly abetting it has become the Indisputable Narrative™ among those still reeling from the fact that liar-Hillary Clinton lost the election. The same liar-Hillary Clinton who would have made sure any evidence of the corruption infesting the Justice Department, the FBI, and the various agencies that comprise the intelligence community ended up in the same place as the 30,000 subpoenaed emails she deleted.
               Emails we now know ended up with a “foreign entity,” a revelation an equally corrupt media have willfully chosen to ignore.
               A far as indisputable facts go, let’s stipulate two. One, all of the ostensible Russian hacking that might have been perpetrated occurred on a somnambulant liar-nObama administration’s watch. Two, the leaders of Barack liar-nObama’s intel community are documented liars.
                Those liars included former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who insisted the terrorist attack in Benghazi was engendered by an anti-Muslim video and that she knew nothing about the unmasking of Trump officials; former Director of National Intelligence scumbag-James Clapper, who lied to Congress about the extent of the NSA’s data collection; and former CIA Director scumbag/commie-John Brennan, who claimed he didn’t know who commissioned the anti-Trump dossier and insisted that “nothing could be further from the truth” when asked if the CIA illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers.
                scumbag/commie-Brennan was incensed by Trump’s performance in Helsinki, declaring it was “nothing short of treasonous.”
               That outburst was telling, and no one put it in better perspective than investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. “What would an intel official who speaks like this be willing to do using his official office and intel tools … to protect the nation from what he views as this sort of threat?” she tweeted.
               What indeed. It is quite likely the allegations of Russian collusion and the Muller investigation it engendered is a coordinated effort to keep America from learning exactly that.
               Last Friday, any pretense of even-handedness in that investigation completely evaporated. Mueller offered immunity to dummycrats-Democrat operative Tony Podesta, whose brother John was liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in exchange for testimony against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Both Manafort and Podesta were operating as unregistered lobbyists on behalf of the Ukrainian government, yet Podesta remains free and now immune, while Manafort is facing life in prison.
               How egregious is the double standard? The liar-nObama administration’s transfer of control of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom — even when it knew Rosatom’s American subsidiary, Tenam USA, had committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses — remains off limits to scrutiny.
               The FBI had an informant who warned them about Tenam’s felonious efforts — in 2010, when it would have killed the deal. Yet the agency postponed prosecution until four years later. In 2015 Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official in charge of Tenam USA, was allowed to plead guilty to one count of money-laundering conspiracy — instead of being prosecuted under section 1956 of the penal codem which would have subjected him to decades in prison.
               It gets worse. Canadian company Uranium One, which would ultimately gain control of the uranium, contributed more than $145 million to the liar-Clinton Foundation, and company chairman Ian Telfer donated $2.35 million on his own. liar-Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting Uranium One stock.
               So why doesn’t something that reeks of quid pro quo merit an investigation? Because it would require some of the principal players involved in the current investigation to investigate … themselves.
               During the uranium transfer, Robert Mueller headed the FBI. The investigation was supervised by disgraced former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and ended with the plea bargain when scumbag-James Comey was FBI director. It was centered in Tenam’s home base of Maryland, whose U.S. attorney was Rod Rosenstein. And Mikerin’s plea bargain was cosigned by the DOJ’s Fraud Section, then run by attorney Andrew Weissman, one of Mueller’s current investigators.
               With the possible exception of Weissman, whose dubious track record of high-profile convictions includes a unanimous reversal by the Supreme Court, every one of these government officials has been presented to the public as a “paragon of integrity.”
               The aforementioned Indisputable Narrative™ regarding Russian interference is based on an intel community report called the “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the Soviet Union and witness to its collapse, insists it’s a sham. “A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions,” he explains.
               He notes that only three of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies participated and cites a compelling piece of Senate testimony on May 8, 2017, when scumbag-James Clapper stated that “two dozen or so analysts — hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies” compiled the report.
               “If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions,” Matlock asserts.
               He further insists dissenting opinions existed and were squelched, but he is most incredulous regarding the assertions surrounding the persona identified as “Guccifer 2.0,” who Mueller insists is a front for the 12 Russian military officers he just indicted, claiming they were behind the hack of the dummycrats-Democrat National Committee’s server.
               Matlock notes that retired senior NSA technical experts reveal Guccifer’s data was locally downloaded and then manipulated, “leading to the conclusion that ‘Guccifer 2.0’ is a total fabrication.”
               We’ll never know. Incredibly, the FBI never directly examined the dummycrats-DNC servers. They simply took the word of CrowdStrike, a company hired by the dummycrats-DNC, that the Russians did the hacking.
               Yet columnist Michael Thau agrees with Matlock’s assessment, citing evidencecollected by an investigative journalist using the pseudonym Adam Carter. Carter lays out a compelling case that, as Thau writes, “CrowdStrike engaged in a disinformation campaign, inventing not just a fake Russian hack but also a fake hacker called ‘Guccifer 2.0.’”
               “Trump came into office with the liar-nObama/Bush/liar-Clinton/Bush IC apparatus firmly against him,” columnist Michael Walsh asserts.
               That apparatus has a lot of help. In “God Bless the Deep State,” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson  advocates  for its apparently extra-constitutional transcendence. “In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty,” he asserts. “It’s called patriotism.”
               The use of police-state tactics to get rid of Donald Trump constitutes a “higher duty”?
               The genuine emergency in America today is the ongoing “by any means necessary” effort to unseat a duly elected president, and the useful idiots who cheer it on, believing they’re forever immune from the abuses of power they champion.
               As for the investigators, they are anything but patriots. They are partisan zealots who would destroy the nation — “six ways from Sunday” — in order to “save” it.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57263?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

             So what’s she talking about? According to The Daily Caller, McFaul “was among the group of American officials that Russia sought to question in connection with a fraudulent scheme to launder hundreds of millions of dollars out of Russia to help fund liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” No wonder liar-Clinton wants to defend him, but the Trump administration has been noncommittal.
               As we noted in setting up the story, the irony and hypocrisy is thick. Former U.S. Army Ranger and CIA security contractor Kris Paronto, a survivor of the Benghazi attack, was livid. “Are you f'n kidding me @liar-HillaryClinton ?!!!” he tweeted in response. “You left Ambassador Stevens and us to die in Benghazi then spewed lie after lie to the family members of my dead teammates and to the world to cover it up and now you have the nerve to talk about defending diplomats?! You are disgusting!”
               Indeed, liar-Clinton, along with Barack liar-nObama and his other lackeys, insisted for weeks that the Benghazi attack was due to a YouTube video rather than a coordinated anti-U.S. jihadi attack. Why the lies? To cover up for liar-Clinton’s malfeasance in denying security upgrades. And that was after she and liar-nObama made a hash out of Libya along with the rest of the Middle East. The liar-Clinton modus operandi for 30 years has been to attack opponents for what they themselves do, so this may be rank hypocrisy but we’re not the least bit surprised.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57270?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

             This latest document release serves to confirm what Republicans and specifically Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) have long been arguing — that leadership within Barack liar-nObama’s Justice Department abused its authority in order to justify spying on a political opponent. None of this is new news since the House and Senate released their memos earlier this year, but now the actual FISA application’s details are public and better fill in the picture.
               What new details have come to light? First, there is no question that the DOJ and FBI relied on the unverified Steele dossier in obtaining the FISA warrant. Second, it now appears that not only did liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC pay Steele to compile the dossier but that “Source #1” — Steele — “has been compensated … by the FBI.” How much and for what specific service has been redacted. Third, it is confirmed that the FBI relied heavily on hearsay and Steele’s reputation and did not establish the reliability of his “sub-sources.” Fourth, the DOJ used multiple news stories that had in turn sourced their reporting from Steele himself in seeking further evidence to support its warrant application. Fifth, no probable cause is established in the FISA application. While a theory is proposed, no supporting evidence is offered in support of the theory. The application states that the FBI “believes that Russian Government’s [interference] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Trump.”
               Finally, as Margot Cleveland of The Federalist notes, “The DOJ effectively criminalized GOP foreign policy” by using “leaked information from internal GOP platform debates as ‘evidence’ of collusion.” Cleveland continued, “Also disconcerting is the DOJ’s reliance on Trump’s ‘conciliatory words’ toward Russia in conflict with GOP insiders to justify spying on the Trump campaign — in effect criminalizing foreign policy differences concerning Ukraine.”
               Andrew McCarthy adds, “Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified liar-Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation.”
               This is the real scandal that should be dominating news media headlines rather two weeks of MSM talkingheads endlessly running to the fainting couch over what Trump said, appeared to say, or didn’t say about Russia and its election meddling.

~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57274?mailing_id=3645&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3645&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body