“The First Amendment was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.” -Reagan

“The First Amendment … was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.” -Reagan

In a Thanksgiving Proclamation, November 12, 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt stated:  

“Let us then on the day appointed offer our devotions and our humble thanks to Almighty God and praythat the people of America will be guided by Him in helping their fellow men. 

On MARCH 15, 1941, Franklin Rooseveltwarned at the Dinner of White House Correspondents:” Modern tyrants find it necessary to eliminate all democracies …

A few weeks ago I spoke of … freedom of speech and expression,freedom of every person to worship God in his own way 

If we fail — if democracy is superseded by slavery — then those … freedoms, or even the mention of them, will become forbidden things. Centuries will pass before they can be revived …

… When dictatorships disintegrate — and pray God that will be sooner … then our country must continue to play its great part …

May it be said of us in the days to come that our children and our children’s children rise up and call us blessed.”

The Senate voted down letting children voluntarily pray in public schools onMARCH 15, 1984.

President Reagan said:

“I am deeply disappointed that, although a majority of the Senate voted for it, the school prayer amendment fell short.”

Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God

On September 25, 1982,Ronald Reagan said:

“Unfortunately, in the last two decadeswe’ve experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she’d never left Wonderland.

We’re told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so.

Clearly this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray, the freedom taken for granted since the time of our Founding Fathers …”

Reagan continued:

“To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage …

The relentless drive to eliminate God from our schools … should be stopped.”

Reagan said February 25, 1984:

“Sometimes I can’t help but feel the First Amendment is being turned on its head.”

President Reagan stated in a Q & A Session, October 13, 1983:

“The First Amendment has been twisted to the point that freedom of religion is in danger of becoming freedom from religion.

Reagan told the Alabama Legislature, MARCH 15, 1982:

“To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and every-day life, may I just say:

The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

To understand the meaning of the First Amendment, it is necessary to read the debates of those who proposed and passed it.

George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and a member of the Constitutional Convention, was largely responsible for insisting that the powers of Federal Government be limited by a Bill of Rights.

Referred to as “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason proposed:

“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”

On June 8, 1789, James Madisonintroduced the wording:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

On August 15, 1789, the House Select Committee revised it to:

“No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

Peter Sylvester of New York thought of that wording:

“It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.”

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said it would read better:

“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”

James Madison: “… apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”

Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut protested that:

“The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion (suggesting) the amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.”

James Madison agreed with Huntington and Sylvester, that he: “… believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two (Anglican & Congregational) combine and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

Roger Sherman did not want the amendment as the Federal Government was not to have any say in what was under States’ jurisdictions.

Madison, wanting to clarify that individual States would not be limited by the Amendment, proposed the insertion of the word “national” before religion.

On August 15, 1789, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed:

“Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”

The House agreed and accepted the first five words of this version.

On August 20, 1789, Fisher Ames of Massachusetts suggested:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

The House accepted this and sent it to the Senate.

On September 3, 1789, the Senate proposed several versions in succession:

“Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

“Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.”

“Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in
preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience.”

At the end of the day, September 3, 1789, the Senateaccepted:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.”

On September 9, 1789, the Senate agreed on the version:

“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

joint House and Senate committee gave the final wording:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Justice Joseph Story, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote in A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840:

“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

Justice Hugo Black wrote the Everson v. Board of Education opinion in 1947 which removed religion out from States’ jurisdiction, significantly affecting the original understanding.

Appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, Black had never been a judge before, but a Democrat Senator (and former KKK member), from Alabama.

Professor Daniel L. Dreisbachof the Department of Justice, Law & Society at American University in Washington, D.C., wrote in Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002):

“Significantly, Hugo Black’s biographer reported that the justice did not peruse the proceedings of the First Congress, which debated the provision now known as the First Amendment until ‘after Eversonwas decided.'”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.”

Reagan stated in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. 

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1984:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

Reagan worded it differently on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

Ronald Reagan stated at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, August 23, 1984:

“The frustrating thing is thatthose who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness.

Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?”

Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Will the Deep State Break Trump? – WH Leak Found, Much Worse Than We Thought

Will the Deep State Break Trump?

Mar 23, 2018 By Patrick J. Buchanan

Another deep state conspiracy to break another presidency is underway. (Photo: Screen grab)

“It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon,” wrote David Broder on Oct. 8, 1969.

“The likelihood is great that they will succeed again.”

A columnist for The Washington Post, Broder was no fan of Nixon.

His prediction, however, proved wrong. Nixon, with his “Silent Majority” address rallied the nation and rocked the establishment. He went on to win a 49-state victory in 1972, after which his stumbles opened the door to the establishment’s revenge.

Yet, Broder’s analysis was spot on. And, today, another deep state conspiracy, to break another presidency, is underway.

Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.

Instantly, the briefing paper for the president’s call was leaked to the Post. In bold letters it read, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.”

Whereupon, the Beltway went ballistic.

How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did Trump not denounce Putin for interfering with “our democracy”?

Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city.

If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock worldwide.

And, yes, they give out Pulitzers for criminal collusion like this.

The New York Times got a Pulitzer and the Post got a Hollywood movie starring Meryl Streep, for publishing stolen secret papers from the Pentagon of JFK and LBJ — to sabotage the Vietnam War policy of Richard Nixon.

Why? Because the hated Nixon was succeeding in extricating us with honor from a war that the presidents for whom the Times and Post hauled water could not win or end.

Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters.

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin.

“I think he’s afraid of the president of Russia,” Brennan said of Trump and Putin. “The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose.”

If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with America’s highest secrets.

What is going on in this city is an American version of the “color revolutions” we have employed to dump over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.

Goal: Break Trump’s presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump’s agenda of populist conservatism. Then, return America to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites.

Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.

In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation.

Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul are not existential threats.

But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation, America will not even be a country.

Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel’s office of Robert Mueller, which this city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency.

Mueller’s team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox’s team sought to do to Nixon: Drive him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019.

Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle — to the death.

Hence Trump’s hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere.

He believes that Trump is the target of a conspiracy, where Jim Comey’s FBI put in the fix to prevent Hillary’s prosecution, and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take down the new president the American people had elected.

The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d’etat. And it is not wrong to think so.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


Source of WH Leak Found, Much Worse Than We Thought


Mar 21, 2018 BY JOE SAUNDERS


A lawmaker on the House Foreign Affairs Committee just reported where President Donald Trump’s massive White House leak is.

If he’s right, Trump’s got more trouble than we thought… and conservatives are about to be proven right again.

The White House leaker might have gone too far for his own good.

Word that Trump ignored the written advice of his national security advisers to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin on his rigged election win during a phone call Tuesday had the nation’s capital in an uproar this week, and had some top Republicans saying there is only a short list of possible sources for the leak.

And National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is going to have a lot to answer for.

It was a scene reminiscent of the earliest days of the Trump White House, when leaks to the media were occurring on a daily – it seems like hourly – basis.

Trump had barely talked pubicly about the phone call during a joint news conference in the Oval Office with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman before The Washington Post was reporting the leak.

According to the Post, Trump ignored “specific warnings from his national security advisers Tuesday when he congratulated Russian President Vladi­mir Putin on his reelection — including a section in his briefing materials in all-capital letters stating ‘DO NOT CONGRATULATE,’ according to officials familiar with the call.”

Obviously, those “officials familiar with the call” probably weren’t supposed to go blabbing about their insights to the media, much less the anti-Trump Washington Post. And just as obviously, there has to be a very small number of people who could have known enough about the situation to talk.

What might not be so obvious, though, is that the leak itself might be a crime.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters at a Heritage Foundation event on Wednesday that the leak “had to” come from the White House national security team headed by McMaster, according to the Washington Examiner.

“Here’s the big deal. If you’ve got the national security council team leaking to the press, that’s a big deal,” he said at a “Conversations with Conservatives” panel, the Examiner reported.

RELATED: The View: Trump “Bully” but Biden “Chivalrous” for Talk about Beating Him up

“Quite frankly, some of the other stuff they’ve leaked is actually a crime,” he added.

Among other lawmakers, the substance of the call was more important. Arizona Sen. John McCain, for instance criticized the call as giving Putin’s re-election a democratic legitimacy that it didn’t deserve. But they’re missing the point. Trump has been tougher on Russia than the doormat presidency of Barack Obama ever was, as Rep. Trey Gowdy pointed out on Fox News on Sunday. That doesn’t mean he can’t talk to the hard case in the Kremlin.

Vladimir Putin is going to be the leader of Russia for the foreseeable future. A shared phone call between the president of Russia and the president of the United States doesn’t mean the countries are friends, any more than contacts between previous American presidents and the dictators of the Soviet Union would have meant both sides weren’t fighting the Cold War to the death.

(America won and the Soviet Union died, thanks to Ronald Reagan. No one accused Reagan of coddling the Soviets when he met with then-premier Mikhail Gorbachev numerous times in the 1980s.)

But if the supposedly private counsel a president receives is going to be published by The Washington Post or some other news outlet in virtually real time, the Trump White House – and the country as a whole – has a real problem on its hands.

And that problem seems to be deep inside National Security Advisor McMaster’s wheelhouse. It’s just the latest time McMaster has been in the spotlight, and it’s rarely a good sign. When prominent conservative Sebastian Gorka left the Trump White House in August, for instance, his clashes with McMaster were considered to have played a key role.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has had his differences with Trump going back to when the two men battled for the GOP nomination in the 2016 primary. He said he didn’t approve of the call to Putin, but said the leak was worse.

“So, I don’t like what he did, but I really hate that there’s someone in his inner circle that’s willing to leak this stuff,” Rubio said, according the Examiner. “If you don’t like working for the president, you should resign your job.”

Considering how small the number of potential suspects is, this time it might be too late to resign.

The leaker might be getting a letter of a different kind, one that says, in all caps, “YOU’RE FIRED.”

And then some advice on hiring a good criminal defense lawyer.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO The Swamp won – Fake Veto – Base Revolts – Ryan Rejects Trump – Trump Signs $1.3 Trillion Omnibus


“This is the day that The Swamp won”

Trump Base Revolts Over Signing of Budget Bill

Mar 23, 2018 by  


Donald Trump’s base of hardcore supporters is in uproar over his decision to sign a $1.3 trillion spending measure which puts more money towards walls being built in other countries than the wall that was Trump’s centerpiece campaign promise.

Despite suggesting he would veto the bill earlier in the day, Trump signed it hours later while complaining that in future he would call on Congress to, “give me a line item veto for all government spending bills.”

Trump said the $1.6 billion the bill made available for the wall along the Mexican border only equates to “short term funding, but it’s immediate.”

“We’re going to be starting work literally on Monday” on border wall projects, Trump said.

These words did little to silence the concerns of Trump’s base, which reacted with a mixture of deep disappointment and outright fury.

“March 23, 2018. This is the day that The Swamp won. Trump surrendered,” tweeted Mark Pantano.

“I will never sign another bill like this again.” Yeah, because you’ll be impeached,” chided Ann Coulter.

Coulter went on to point out that the bill does more for building walls in other countries than the one Trump promised during his campaign.

“MASSIVE DEFENSE SPENDING to induct transgenders & build BIG BEAUTIFUL walls … in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia,” tweeted the conservative author.

“If the bill is all about military funding why not just do a clean military funding bill?” asked Jack Posobiec.

“So I’m pissed off. You should be too. Enough is enough,” tweeted another popular pro-Trump account.

The negative reaction was so widespread that Trump signing the bill could turn out to be even more unpopular than his decision to strike Syria last year.

Matt Drudge summed up the mood with a black and white photo of Trump above the words “fake veto”.


Trump Signs $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Bill He Threatened to Veto Hours Earlier

Mar 23, 2018 By Melanie Arter


(CNSNews.com) – After threatening to veto it, President Donald Trump on Friday signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill, which he had criticized for not addressing DACA or fully funding the border wall.

While criticizing the bill for being the second largest ever spending bill second only to that signed by former President Barack Obama, Trump also praised it for providing a much-needed spending increase for the military, whose readiness was undermined by “deep defense cuts” during the Obama administration.

He said the last administration hallowed out the military’s readiness “and put America at really grave risk.”

“My highest duty is to keep America safe. Nothing more important. The omnibus bill reverses this dangerous defense. As crazy as it’s been, as difficult as it’s been, as much opposition to the military as we’ve had from the Democrats — and it has been tremendous,” the president said.

He said the military is for everyone – Republicans and Democrats alike – but Democrats have been opposed to fully funding the military.

“It’s for everybody, but we have tremendous opposition to creating, really, what will be … by far, the strongest military that we’ve ever had. We’ve had that from the Democrats,” Trump said.

“We’re looking to do funding for our final fight in certain areas. As you know, we’ve gotten just about a hundred percent of our land back from ISIS. We have troop increases necessary to accomplish what we have to do,” the president said.

“And we have, very importantly, a pay increase for our troops, and this will be, actually, the largest pay increase for our incredible people in over a decade. It increases total defense spending by more than $60 billion from last year and funds the addition of critically needed ships, planes, helicopters, tanks, and submarines. We have submarines being built, the likes of which there’s nothing anywhere in the world like the submarines we build,” he said.

“Our military equipment is the best equipment in the world, and one of the things you saw two days ago with Saudi Arabia and with other countries — Saudi Arabia, as an example, is buying hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of our equipment, and we’re getting very fast approvals on that,” Trump said.

The president explained that the reason why he changed his mind about vetoing the bill was “A matter of national security.”

“Therefore, as a matter of national security, I’ve signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things that I’m unhappy about in this bill. There are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced — if we want to build our military — we were forced to have. There are some things that we should have in the bill,” Trump said.

He pledged never to sign another bill like it in the future.

“But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old. Some people don’t even know what is in — $1.3 trillion — it’s the second largest ever. President Obama signed one that was actually larger, which I’m sure he wasn’t too happy with either,” Trump said.

“But, in this case, it became so big because we need to take care of our military, and because the Democrats, who don’t believe in that, added things that they wanted in order to get their votes. We have to get rid of the filibuster rule. We have to get rid of the filibuster rule, and go to 51 votes in the Senate, if we’re going to have really sustained, continued success,” he said.

The president voiced his opposition to the bill not providing protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), something he said Democrats would not do.

“DACA recipients have been treated extremely badly by the Democrats. We wanted to include DACA. We wanted to have them in this bill — 800,000 people, and actually, it could even be more, and we wanted to include DACA in this bill. The Democrats would not do it. They would not do it,” Trump said.

In addition to calling for doing away with the filibuster, Trump also asked Congress to provide him with a line-item veto for all spending bills in the future.

“To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I’m calling on Congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills, and the Senate must end. They must end the filibuster rule and get down to work. We have to get a lot of great legislation approved, and without the filibuster rule, it will happen just like magic,” he said.

“I want to address the situation on border security, which I call national defense. I call it stopping drugs from pouring across our border, and I call it illegal immigration. It’s all of those things, but national defense is a very important two words, because by having a strong border system, including a wall, we are in a position, militarily, that is very advantageous,” Trump added.


Paul Ryan REJECTS Trump: ZERO DOLLARS for Border Wall

On Wednesday, Congress released a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that provides no funding for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall – a major setback for Trump, who had demanded $25 billion to construct a concrete barrier to stop illegal crossings from Mexico.

From News Max

Though Republicans control both the House and the Senate, Congressional leaders caved to Democrats’ demands that the spending bill include zero funding for one of the president’s key legislative priorities.

“Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan don’t want a border wall; they detest the idea of it,” one Congressional insider told Newsmax. “They are trying to sell the president on the idea they’ll fund it in another bill when they know that won’t happen.”

The spending bill does provide more than $1.2 billion for border security enhancements, including high-tech surveillance systems, as well as some $641 million for over 30 miles of new fences and border-crossing obstacles.

But Democrats strongly objected to any funding for a permanent wall that will help control illegal immigration across almost 2,000 miles of the border with Mexico.

Conservatives already are slamming the 2,232 page bill that dramatically increases spending – one that is set to be voted on as soon as Thursday with almost no Congressional or public deliberation.

“I’m voting against it … and if the bill passes the way it is, I hope the White House does veto,” conservative Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan told The Hill. “But I think it’s not good for the American taxpayer, not consistent, anywhere close to consistent, to what we said we would do when they elected us in 2016.”

Freedom Caucus leader Rep. Mark Meadows shared the sentiment.

“It is troubling when we get a tunnel and we don’t get a wall,” Meadows said.

Meadow’s reference to a “tunnel” was the $541 million the bill earmarks for the massive Gateway rail tunnel that will link New York City and New Jersey.

The Gateway project has been a pet project of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Gateway will receive more than half of the $900 million Schumer sought for the project. The omnibus provides more than $3.2 billion for infrastructure and railway projects not specifically earmarked, money that could be used to cover the balance of Schumer’s request.

The omnibus, though denying any funding for the border wall, will give ignition to Gateway, a project that is expected to cost taxpayers at least $30 billion to complete.



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

VIDEO Mueller’s Russia-Collusion,’Collapsing on Itself in Slow-Motion’ – Leads Attorney Resigns

Mueller’s Russia-Collusion Case Is ‘Collapsing on Itself in Slow-Motion’

Mar 23, 2018 By Michael W. Chapman

Chris Farrell, director of
Investigations and Research
at Judicial Watch. (YouTube)

Commenting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russia-Trump campaign collusion, Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations Chris Farrell said much of the so-called evidence collected by Mueller is tainted and that if Mueller had “any integrity,” he would shut the investigation down.

Farrell added that the entire case “is collapsing on itself in slow-motion.”

Farrell made his remarks on the March 21 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight. In discussing the case,  Farrell noted that the FBI’s chief counterintelligence officer, Peter Strzok, had to be removed from Mueller’s team last July because of numerous anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney.

Strzok was involved in several high-profile investigations, including the Hillary Clinton email server case and, under Mueller, reportedly the Paul Manafort case and the Michael Flynn matter. His anti-Trump bias and that of other FBI officials is being investigated by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The IG’s report is expected in May.

In addition, the FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired at the recommendation of his colleagues in the Office of Professional Responsibility, and now it has been disclosed that McCabe initiated an investigation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for alleged Russia collusion reportedly after Sessions had already been cleared.

FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page. (YouTube)

Also, McCabe signed the application for the FISA warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page, based upon information from a dossier on Trump that was ultimately paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Strzok apparently was the agent who took the phony dossier to the FISA court to help get the warrants for surveillance.

In short, some of the sources and methods used to gather evidence in the alleged Russia collusion case apparently are tainted.

As Farrell told Dobbs, “The situation with Mueller is that every single thing that’s come up or derived from all of this ‘Russia, Russia’ nonsense is tainted. It is ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree,’ which is an old legal term going back 80 years but still valid today, wherein any evidence obtained unlawfully or through any sort of illegal act on behalf of law enforcement or prosecutors can’t be used and anything derived from that can’t be used as evidence.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI.  (YouTube)

Farrell then explained that Strzok had his hand in many aspects of Mueller’s investigation and this is legally problematic.

“You can’t take bad evidence and pretend you got it some other way, and anything that derives from that is equally inadmissible,” said Farrell.  “So, he’s got garbage,” he said, in reference to Mueller.

“They should really move to shut the thing down,” said Farrell. “If Mueller had any integrity, any conscience, based on his ethical obligation, he would shut it down, resign, terminate the whole thing – because it is collapsing on itself in slow-motion. The problem is it’s too slow.”



Shakeup could signal change in Trump’s approach to Mueller investigation

President Trump’s attorney John Dowd announced his resignation this week as the Russia investigation nears a conclusion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Hillary/Facebook Leaked Doc Just DESTROYED The Media Narrative About Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump

Mar 21, 2018  


Mar 21, 2018


Since The New York Times report on Saturday that a company with ties to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had mined the personal information of millions of Facebook users, the media and Capitol Hill have been filled with more accusations about undercover help Trump got before the 2016 vote.

From Conservative Post:

But internal Hillary Clinton campaign emails being published by WikiLeaks show the real scandal is just starting to come out – and the real villains are Democrats and the Hillary campaign, again.

Since the reports about the Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica first appeared, reports have already surfaced that Facebook allowed the Barack Obama re-election campaign wide access to user data back in 2012.

But emails released by WikiLeaks show just how closely Facebook was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

An email exchange between Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, makes it clear the two were political soulmates, dedicated to a Hillary Clinton victory.

“Wishing you a happy new year,” Podesta wrote on Jan. 2, 2016. “2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to help elect the first woman president of the United States.” 

That might have been a form letter Podesta sent to anyone with an email address on file with Hillary’s campaign. But this is the chief operations officer of Facebook. Imagine if Democrats could find an email from the Trump campaign thanking a heavy-hitter like Sandberg “for your help and support.”

Sandberg’s response was definitely not a form letter.

“I am thrilled at the progress Hillary is making,” Sandberg wrote. “… Onward to a new year and hopefully health and happiness for you and your family.”

Previous emails between the two also show this was not merely a polite exchange between acquaintances. WikiLeaks released a lengthy August 2015 email from Sandberg to Podesta proposing a meeting between Podesta and Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

“He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research),” Sandberg wrote.

(Meanwhile, according to The Hill, lawmakers from both parties want Zuckerberg to appear to answer questions about the 2016 campaign. It’s a good chance some of those questions won’t be what Democrats are expecting.)

And in a June email thanking Podesta for his condolences over the accidental death of Sandberg’s husband, Dave, Sandberg made her political preferences as clear as any corrupt FBI agent.

“And I still want HRC to win badly,” Steinberg wrote. “I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids.”

That’s in response to a note of condolence? Clearly, Steinberg wasn’t letting a little thing like the death of her spouse diminish her passion for politics.

Here’s the thing. So many attacks against Donald Trump and his administration have been turned back on the Democrats that they look like fools for trying.

When the website BuzzFeed published the “Trump dossier” in its entirety even before the inauguration, Democrats and the media hoped it would destroy Trump’s nascent presidency. Instead, the country learned what the Clinton campaign was capable of.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO Iranians Hacked ‘140 American universities, 30 American companies’ and ‘five American govt agencies’

Trump Admin Charges Iranians for Hacking Campaign Against U.S.

Mar 23, 2018


The Trump administration issued sanctions and indictments against nine individuals and one entity Friday for carrying out a wide-scale hacking campaign on behalf of the Iranian government.

In a statement released by the U.S Department of the Treasury, the nine Iranian nationals, all reportedly linked to an Iranian tech firm known as the Mabna Institute, are accused of attacking countless targets while contracting for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Iran is engaged in an ongoing campaign of malicious cyber activity against the United States and our allies. The IRGC outsourced cyber intrusions to The Mabna Institute, a hacker network that infiltrated hundreds of universities to steal sensitive data,” said Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker. “We will not tolerate the theft of U.S. intellectual property, or intrusions into our research institutions and universities.”

According to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Mabna Institute since 2013 has been responsible for hacks against “more than 140 American universities, 30 American companies, five American government agencies, and also more than 176 universities in 21 foreign countries.”

More than 100,000 email addresses belonging to professors across the globe were targeted, 8,000 of which were successfully compromised.

“For many of these intrusions, the defendants acted at the behest of the Iranian government and, specifically, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Rosenstein said.

In total, the hackers have stolen more than 31 terabytes of data and intellectual property said to be worth around $3.4 billion.

Rosenstein described the U.S. government action as “one of the largest state-sponsored hacking campaigns ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice.”

The announcement by the Trump administration is aimed at, among other things, severely limiting the hackers’ ability to travel outside of Iran. Members of the hacking network now face the possibility of arrest and extradition to the U.S. from more than 100 countries.

The move follows similar actions last week in which the White House blamed Russia for the NotPetya malware, attacks on critical U.S. infrastructure and interference in the 2016 election.

The Trump administration also blamed North Korea in December for the WannaCry ransomware attack.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VIDEO CNN’s Baldwin Cancels Kyle Kashuv After Seeing What He Tweeted About Her – airport monopoly

CNN’s Baldwin Cancels Kyle Kashuv After Seeing What He Tweeted About Her

Mar 21, 2018 By Randy DeSoto


CNN allegedly canceled an interview with pro-Second Amendment Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Kyle Kashuv after he retweeted a story describing network anchor Brooke Baldwin as a “fake news hypocrite.”

Kashav wrote on Tuesday, “Can’t wait to be on Brooke’s show tomorrow!” in a retweet of a story by The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra that was critical of Baldwin.

In the piece, Saavedra wrote that the anchor was being hypocritical when she asked a porn star what she thought President Donald Trump reputedly wanted from her.

Baldwin went a step further, linking to the adult film actress’ Twitter account, which promotes her pornography. 

Saavedra saw hypocrisy in the line of questioning, given the CNN anchor previously kicked sportscaster Clay Travis off the air last September after he joked that he believed “in the First Amendment and boobs” in a segment about an ESPN anchor calling Trump a “white supremacist.”

Baldwin tweeted afterward that she found herself in a state of disbelief following Travis’ comment, writing “that is never okay” to say on her show.

Kashuv tweeted on Wednesday that his interview with Baldwin was canceled following his retweet of The Daily Wire story.

“But don’t worry, CNN really wants to have the other side on, as long as they’re complicit,” the high school junior wrote.

The appearance was to be Kashuv’s first one-on-one interview on CNN, The Wrap reported. The network has prominently featured, on multiple occasions, Marjory Stoneman anti-gun rights students, including David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.

Hogg recently stated on Bill Maher’s program that he hung up on the White House when he was invited to a listening session with Trump after last month’s shooting.

In another tweet on Wednesday, Kashuv wrote, “@CNN canceled my interview with them for a RT of an article that states actual facts in there, but for some reason they don’t say a word when people call @DLoesch a child murderer, the @NRA murderers, and @marcorubio is like looking down the barrel of an AR-15 on their network.”

NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tweeted she hoped CNN had not canceled Kashuv’s interview over his retweet, which she argued was based on facts.

“I really hope this isn’t why this happened, CNN,” she wrote. “(His) quote Tweeting an article wherein another was justifiably critical of some of your content seems a silly reason to cancel.”

A person familiar with the matter told The Wrap that CNN felt, “We can’t (on air) have someone on who openly says that our anchor is a fake news hypocrite and calls out our network.”

Kashuv, who has sought to bridge the partisan divide in Washington and spoken positively about Trump, has been invited to appear multiple times on Fox News.


Growing questions about CNN’s airport monopoly as network veers left

CNN’s ubiquitous presence in airports — where it broadcasts from thousands of screens to a captive audience of millions — is facing new scrutiny after the cable network’s hard left turn.

The CNN Airport network dates back to when CNN was known for straightforward news programming — and has been a fixture at airports since before competitors MSNBC and Fox News even existed. But critics are now asking if busy travelers should be subjected to CNN’s increasingly ideological programming — at gates, bars, food courts and baggage claims — which can include on-screen chyrons or subtitles that gleefully mock President Trump. Many travelers have even taken to Twitter and started online petitions to urge airports to change the channel.

Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor told Fox News that CNN has become more partisan than MSNBC since Trump moved into the White House and travelers should have the option of not watching the network.

“How are airports justifying the idea of bombarding captive viewers with content many of them oppose? Sadly, almost any outlet is fairer now than CNN,” Gainor said.

But CNN isn’t actually forced on travelers because airports are looking to disseminate liberal doctrine. It’s forced on travelers because of money.

Millions of travelers are forced to watch CNN content at airports across America.

CNN pays airports to leave the network on, and many travel hubs even have agreements in which CNN pays for their TVs and infrastructure. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that airports also receive “up to six minutes each hour to promote the airport or local attractions” as part of the deal.

“CNN Airport covers the costs related to the TVs and related infrastructure, provides programming specifically geared for airports, and pays us for the opportunity to be in our facility,” a representative from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International said, while Miami International’s spokesperson simply pointed us to a document proving that CNN is willing to pay the most.

Long-term contracts typically give CNN the ability to curate content seen by travelers whether they like it or not. The eight-year contract that was signed in 2016 promises Miami International Airport “a maximum annual guarantee of $150,000” that may be adjusted annually to ensure the deal is on par with similar airports.

“Airports feel like a lesser version of hell with dirty seats, overpriced food and propaganda posing as news on CNN,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said last month.

The agreements blur the lines between news and advertising as the network blurs the lines between news and political activism.

Carlson said the agreement to air CNN on unsuspecting travelers made sense when CNN had a “centrist reputation,” but now the network “has strayed so far to the left, constantly promoting wacky Russia-related conspiracy theories.”

A CNN Airport media kit says a whopping 323 million people view CNN Airport on an annual basis at the 2,400-plus gates throughout the country that carry the channel.

Travelers are seen in the departures area at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois, May 13, 2014. A fire at a Federal Aviation Administration flight approach control center in Illinois that halted air traffic into and out of Chicago's two airports on Tuesday has been put out, but the halt remained in effect and flights were delayed across the country, officials said. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES - Tags: TRANSPORT TRAVEL) - GM1EA5E0DSH01

CNN Airport is seen by 323 million people a year, according to the network.

“We have received complaints about CNN and the content they air,” a Salt Lake City International Airport spokesperson told Fox News before noting there is a “contract in place.”

CNN Airport is not the exact same feed as the standard CNN, as additional sports and weather segments are added while some graphic video is removed. CNN Airport also goes out of its way to remove any coverage of plane crashes or air disasters that could spook passengers.

The airport version of CNN, which launched back in 1992, airs in roughly 60 of America’s most bustling travel hubs. Trip Savvy recently listed the 25 busiest airports in America and 20 of them are listed as airports participating in CNN Airport. When pitching to advertisers, CNN hypes avid travelers as a valued demographic who often rent cars, stay in lavish hotels and make a comfortable salary.

While most airports air CNN as a cash grab, others have selected CNN Airport because they don’t have any other options.

Jeff Zucker, president and chief executive officer of NBC Universal, arrives at the Sun Valley Inn in Sun Valley, Idaho July 9, 2010. The resort is the site for the annual Allen & Co's media and technology conference. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni (UNITED STATES - Tags: BUSINESS) - GM1E6791UAS01

CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker’s network has been accused of shifting to the left after starting out as a non-partisan organization.

“CNN was the only news provider that responded to the Airport’s request for proposal from news organizations. The Airport cannot air another network if one did not respond to the request for proposal,” a Salt Lake City International Airport spokesperson told Fox News.

San Francisco International Airport told Fox News it has informed CNN that the relationship will be terminated next month when the existing contract expires, pointing to improved mobile devices and free airport Wi-Fi that allow travelers to curate their own content as the primary reason.

The increasing calls for CNN to be removed from airports comes as the network has become the go-to channel for anti-Trump TV. In the last year, CNN has obsessed about Trump’s ice cream intakefixated on a white truck that blocked the network from filming Trump playing golf, botched a date that resulted in a false report claiming the Trump campaign had early access to hacked DNC emails and even shaken up its primetime lineup to make room for the son of Democrat icon Mario Cuomo, Chris.

The network’s chief medical correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, declared that Trump has heart disease despite the president’s doctor giving him a clean bill of health, and chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta has emerged as one of the faces of the anti-Trump media. Acosta was even kicked out of the Oval Office after badgering Trump with racially charged questions.

CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta prepares to go on the air after the daily press briefing, during which he had a contentious exchanges with White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, at the White House in Washington, U.S. August 2, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst - RC1693D7B420

CNN Chief White house Correspondent Jim Acosta has emerged as a key figure of the anti-Trump media.

Furthermore, CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter has repeatedly questioned the President’s mental health and fitness for office.

CNN’s prominence at airports is often mocked by critics, who are quick to joke that the network’s only viewers are waiting for a flight. CNN declined comment when asked if CNN Airport actually impacts CNN’s ratings.

Back in 2013 when CNN was still considered mostly non-partisan, a Philadelphia International Airport staffer admitted that it is impossible for employees to even lower the volume on the televisions blaring cable news.

“Gate agents do not have a remote control, so the channel cannot be changed and the volume is actually controlled by CNN from a remote location,” Philly.com reported.

The Atlanta City Council finance committee recently voted to keep CNN on its airport televisions through July 2018 and has operated on a month-to-month basis since the recent 10-year deal expired in 2016, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Passengers walk by the CNN store as headlines from a terror plot flash on a screen at the Oakland International Airport in Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006. Travelers in the U.S. are facing heightened security at airports today after authorities in London uncovered a terror plot aimed at airlines traveling from Britain to the U.S. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

CNN has also invaded airports with shops and newsstands over the years.  (AP)

CNN paid the city of Atlanta — where much of the network is based — roughly $160,000 per year over the past five years, the Journal Constitution reported, citing documents submitted to the Atlanta City Council. Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport did not respond to requests for comment about why it extended the deal.

Pop culture blogger Gary Holmes recently penned a column demanding to have CNN removed from airports.

“You can’t go 15 minutes without some CNN analyst observing what an idiot the President is,” Holmes wrote. “This trend may be great for CNN’s ratings — but is all that high-school-level drama what we really need when we’re sitting at the gate, waiting to board our delayed flight?”

Passengers walk through the newly opened Maynard H. Jackson Jr. International Terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia May 16, 2012. The new $1.4 billion terminal, a 1.2 million square foot facility that is LEED certified officially opened its doors welcoming their first flights. REUTERS/Tami Chappell (UNITED STATES - Tags: BUSINESS TRANSPORT) - GM1E85H0H9P01

CNN Airport pays to keep its network in airports.

Holmes also pointed out that most travelers have a smartphone and the ability to access news whenever. He pondered, “Do we really need a news program to be constantly blaring in the airport at all?”

According to Holmes, “the business of supplying airport video is just that — a business,” and CNN is likely to remains a dominant provider as long as “airports look at the bottom line instead of what’s best for the mental health of travelers.”

While many airline travelers don’t have a choice when it comes to watching CNN, at-home viewers have proven that they prefer other programming when given the choice, as it regularly finishes behind the other liberal cable news channel, MSNBC, in the ratings department.

Author and Academy-Award nominated screenwriter Roger L. Simon suggested that travelers should start politely asking airport employees if they could change the channel, for the sake of balance, but noted that such a movement would leave CNN terrified.

“I’m not sure how to end this CNN dominance of those public spaces, but we all should start thinking about it,” Simon wrote. “Without their stranglehold on those public venues, hardly anyone would be watching the network at all.”

CNN declined comment.

Fox News’ Alex Pfeiffer contributed to this report.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: