AUDIO 2 Days To Fix USA Sell Out MB Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar

Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: ‘We’ve Got Three Days to Fix This’

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney joined Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Tuesday to offer his thoughts on the first presidential debate and a vitally important topic that was not addressed, the impending surrender of U.S. control of Internet registration.

Gaffney recalled a discussion with Congressman Mike Pompeo of Kansas, in which Pompeo told him:

Hillary Clinton made the case – I think pretty well, actually – for more of the same, and if you really want more of the same, whether it’s in immigration, whether it’s in trade policy, whether it’s in national security or generally, whether it’s on jobs or anything else, she’s the clear choice. I don’t think there’s any getting around it.

“What I thought Trump could have done better at was making clear how stark his differences are with her on several of those issues – notably, as you’ve been talking about, immigration. It’s better on trade, I guess,” Gaffney said. “This is the moment where the alternative of change, which is clearly what the American people are looking for, is on offer. And I think if he makes that case even better, in debates to come, he’s gonna do fine.”

Marlow suggested Trump’s slam of the Iran nuclear deal as “one of the worst in history” was the sort of moment Trump needs more of, given Clinton’s inability to respond effectively to the criticism.

“There were a number of places where he would have had her really on the ropes, had he pressed the attack or been given the opportunity by Lester Holt to press the attack,” Gaffney agreed.

“Look, the Iran deal, as you know, Alex – Breitbart News has done a wonderful job covering this, as has my colleague Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy,” he said, continuing:

This is national security fraud, of an epic character. And Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it, her support for it, her complicity in the Congress going along with it, in a fashion – I mean, these are very powerful indictments, I believe, for a woman who runs on her record of having been this great maven of national security. Ain’t so.

The conversation turned to the impending handover of Internet control to a foreign body, a topic that should be of major concern to American voters, although Marlow sarcastically observed there was no time for it during the debate because moderator Lester Holt thought it was more important to discuss Donald Trump’s thoughts on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“A lot of people in this audience have absolutely no clue why we would do this and can’t even interpret what Obama and the globalists are thinking,” Marlow said.

“Well, quite frankly, I’m among them. I can’t figure out what the argument is for doing this,” Gaffney replied. He went on to explain the situation:

What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet – whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security – including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure – you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a veryimportant thing.

And for absolutely no good reason, other than people – or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea – don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise – away from us, as well.

So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.

And there’s an interesting point here: Hillary Clinton could make all the difference on whether that happens or not.

Gaffney agreed with Marlow’s criticism of how this vital issue was bypassed at the debate, adding that he was hoping Trump would “jump in on it because he’s taken the right line.”

“He said don’t give this up. Don’t surrender something that is really an instrument of American power – really, when you think of it, sovereignty – especially for no good reason,” Gaffney noted. “He didn’t go there, and Hillary didn’t get asked.”

“If Hillary Clinton agrees with Donald Trump, on this issue at least, they ought to take a look. Whoever is president next, they ought to take a look at whether we ought to surrender our last vestiges of control over the Internet,” he advised. “Then the Democrats in the United States Senate won’t do what they’re doing now, which is blocking an effort to stop that, to stop this on something called the Continuing Resolution.”

Gaffney pleaded:

If every one of your impressive audience – and I do think of you as a hotshot, I don’t care what they say – this audience is important, and if they will come up on the net,today, with calls into Mitch McConnell urging him not to give up the Internet – don’t let this happen, make sure the Continuing Resolution doesn’t permit that.

He recommended bringing pressure to bear on the Democrats through their presidential candidate:

Let’s call out Hillary Clinton, to find out whether she supports Barack Obama in diminishing our country, undermining our friends and our own interests, and emboldening our enemies. I call that the Obama Doctrine – whether she’s actually gonna stand with Donald Trump and say, “Don’t give up the Internet.”

We need her help on this, and if she does it, I think most, if not all, of the Democrats in the Senate will agree, and will stop being obstructionists, will support a sound measure on this count, at least, on the Continuing Resolution.

And again, we’ve got three days to fix this, folks. This is no drill. This is a live-fire exercise. We need your help, now.

I think the more people understand what’s going on here, the more we’re gonna have the right outcome. The challenge, as with so much of the Obama agenda, as you know, Alex, is trying to slip it under the radar. Keep people from figuring it out until it’s done.

And this is the real hook. This will be irreversible. Once this so-called mechanism known as the numbering and naming function is permanently and irreversibly to some multinational non-profit – which will, trust me, be dominated in due course, if not right away, by the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Saudis, and so on – we’re not getting that back. There’s not anything a President Trump is gonna be able to do about it, if he does, in fact, become president.

It’s three days from now. It’s October 1st, the end of the fiscal year. It’s what Obama’s been striving for, is to jam this thing through, while nobody’s paying attention. We can’t let that happen.

“Come up on the net, folks. Call other talk radio show hosts, other folks that you’re dealing with, your editorial boards. Get engaged in this thing,” Gaffney implored, concluding:

It’s one of those places where your own equities – your freedom of expression, yourright to use the Internet for small-business innovation and enterprise in the future, and so on – is going to be on the line because we’re going to turn it over to people who don’t want us to do that sort of thing. We mustn’t let that happen.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.


Pat Caddell Calls Out ‘Stupidity of Republicans’ in Internet Takeover Debate: ‘It’s Another Sign of America Selling Out’

Pollster and political analyst Pat Caddell spoke withBreitbart News DailySiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday, discussing the state of the presidential race, as well as the looming United Nations’ “Internet takeover” being discussed in Congress, as Breitbart News reported.

Breitbart News highlighted:

Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has sided with the sovereignty of the American people against international elites yet again by coming out in public opposition to President Barack Obama’s internet giveaway to a United Nations globalist body.

Caddell said, “We polled on this weeks ago, and it is overwhelming. The people who knew about it were against it because they mean it is another sign of America selling out. I just do not understand the stupidity of Republicans, frankly.”

“They do not understand the issues that they have that we are showing in our polling, like on Iran – that they’re cheating, or already cheating. Why this is not like the Internet – a giveaway, going at Obama on those things,” he pondered, before adding:

These are major questions. Voters should be animated, and it is just frustrating beyond belief to me that it has not come  up yet, and they, apparently, the leadership of the Republican Party, caved in on that, again. But the Democrats want to do that. Why aren’t the Republicans making that an issue?

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. EST.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Neil Cavuto Busted MSM: Plays 2003 Interview with Trump Against Iraq War – Trump’s Assessment

Sept 26, 2016 by Jim Hoft

NBC hack and presidential debate moderator accused Donald Trump of supporting the Iraq War back in 2003.

Trump brought up his interview with Neil Cavuto in his defense.


After the debate Neil Cavuto played his 2003 interview with Donald Trump from January 28th of 2003. Here is Trump –

Donald Trump: Well I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing we’re going in, we’re not going in.  You know, what happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur?  I mean he would go in and attack.  He wouldn’t talk.  I mean we have to, you know, it’s sort of like either do it or don’t do it….   Well, he’s [Bush] either got to do something or not do something perhaps.  Because perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet.  Perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.  You know, he’s under a lot of pressure.  He’s, you know I think he is doing a very good job but of course if you look at the polls a lot of people are getting a little tired.  I think the, the Iraqi situation is a problem and I think the economy is a much bigger problem.

Trump was right and Lester Holt lied.

original here

Donald Trump FULL Interview On Fox & Friend Debate Review  (9/27/2016)

Sept 27, 2016

Donald Trump said on “Fox & Friends” this morning that last night’s presidential debate went well, despite the fact that he was asked much tougher questions than Hillary Clinton and he was dealing with a “terrible” microphone.

Trump pointed out that moderator Lester Holt pressed him on his tax returns, the President Obama birther scandal and his stance on the Iraq War.

He said that Clinton, on the other hand, was not asked about her email scandal, the Clinton Foundation or the Benghazi terror attack.

Trump said that even though it was obvious that Holt leaned “more than a little” to the left, he was satisfied with the messages he got out to the American people.

He said he focused on sharing his policies on illegal immigration, law and order and trade.

“Those are basically the three things we’re going to have to get out. And I got them out early and strong. And a lot of people think the poll numbers are going to go up because of that.”

As for his “terrible” microphone, Trump said it was going on and off for the audience in the debate hall at Hofstra University and the volume was much lower than Hillary Clinton’s.

“I wonder if it wasn’t set up that way on purpose,” Trump said. “I don’t want to believe in conspiracy theories, of course, but it was much lower than hers.”

“That was, to me, a bad problem, because [if] you have a bad mic, it’s not exactly good.”



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Hillary Wired For Therapy – Peering from behind the curtain – Got Debate Questions in Advance

Hillary Clinton: Peering from behind the curtain

Hillary’s campaign strategy seems to be stay incognito and let her dynasty name and her supporters sweep her to the White House without ever saying a word.

WASHINGTON, April 15, 2015 – Dad Hugh Rodham sold curtains to hotels and office buildings for a living. So it comes as no surprise that other than the media’s absurd Madison Avenue hype, average Americans know little about his daughter, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And Hillary is determined to remain behind the curtain, a mystery to incurious American voters.

Read Also:   FREEDOM’S GATE: Defeating Hillary’s liberal election machine

When a sympathetic Diane Sawyer of ABC News asked Hillary to give what she thought to be her greatest accomplishment as secretary of state, she was stumped.

“It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones,” the New York Times mused, saying Clinton should have had a ready answer since she was speaking “before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan.”

In response to Madam Secretary’s deer-in-the-headlights moment, the website Bustle offered Hillary devotees arguments to bolster her “accomplishments, and win” the day.

“Hillary Clinton bothers me,” begins the first “common argument” against her candidacy. “She’s so ambitious and calculating.”

The response?

“Anyone who decides they want to run for president is likely someone with profound, possibly unrealistic levels of personal ambition.”

Blind, even insane, “personal ambition” was certainly a catalyst for ancient Rome’s Emperor Caligula, but petty, personal glory is hardly a noble motive for those seeking the highest office of public trust in the American republic.

“I was losing interest in politics, when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again,” wrote Abraham Lincoln in a short 1859 political biography. Preventing the spread of slavery in the American territories was Lincoln’s ready answer to why he sought the high office of president.

“The ideal of freedom under law, not just as a philosophical concept, but as a way of life, was Britain’s greatest gift to the world,” said Margaret Thatcher soon after she was elected Britain’s first female prime minister in 1979. “It was because we were determined to preserve and to vindicate our freedom that nearly forty years ago we found the strength to stand alone [against Hitler] and to give hope and inspiration to beleaguered Europe.”

Of her Conservative Party plans for Britain, Thatcher said her administration would “mark a decisive break from the drift of decline of recent years. But in a deeper sense there is nothing radically new in our proposals. They are changes to bring back what we all regret having lost.”

Read Also:  Hillary Clinton: Washington DC “fun camp” director

Thatcher cut income taxes dramatically and deregulated much of Britain’s economy, spurring the creation of new businesses and jobs. And, working with President Ronald Reagan, she helped relegate the Soviet Empire to the ash-heap of history.

Thatcher never took credit for Britain’s accomplishments under her leadership, but instead praised “a free people” unleashed to build better lives for themselves and their families.

“Feminist” is not a word you hear applied to Thatcher. Her victorious battles against Britain’s authoritarian state bureaucracy and Soviet totalitarianism transcended the trivial gynecological concerns of gender politics.

Ideas, not genitalia, factored large in Thatcher’s accomplishment-heavy life. And that may be why she became a potent, if unspoken, threat to modern feminism as she was to Soviet communism.

The politicization of genitalia is an odd obsession peculiar to American politics, honed to perfection by Hillary’s husband Bill.

As the New York Times observed during the presidential campaign of 1996, the “Soccer Mom became oracle.”

And just who were these soccer moms? Author Warren T. Farrell described them as “the Potentially Rejected Moms or the ‘First Wives’ Moms. When she begins to fear the end of her marriage or it does end, she begins to look to the government to become a substitute husband. The Democrats play the role of the government as substitute husband better than the Republicans,” he told the Times.

Read Also:  Hillary Clinton re-ignites the Clinton firestorms we know so well

Soccer moms expressed little concern regarding Bill’s infidelities or his criminal actions (perjury and the intimidation of witnesses) so long as big-daddy, big-government was “spreading the wealth around.”

Government dependency, you see, is an instrumental part of modern American feminism.

Expect Hillary to remain mute throughout the presidential campaign concerning the real issues affecting the nation and its future survival.

From her early days as first lady to her last moments as secretary of state, shredding and deleting incriminating documents and emails has been essential to the preservation of Hillary’s political biography.

Don’t worry, her supporters in the media tell America, Hillary Clinton will more than make up for the mysterious gaps in her story when, like Bill, she is elected husband to America’s frightened, dependent and “liberated” soccer moms.

Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

original here

Did Hillary get the debate questions a week ago?

BREAKING: Did Hillary get the debate questions a week ago?




Claims  are being made that the Baltimore Gazette is a fake website that has been “resurrected” from the dead to spread false information. So take this for what it is worth.

At least True Pundit “predicted” this a month ago.

read more

And those saying the website is fake.

read more 

However, it is certainly believable that Hillary would  be supplied the question ahead of time, especially with her immediate responses dealing directly on topic with  no hesitation.


Original Story

There has been speculation that Hillary received the debate questions ahead of time, as evidenced that she seemed to know what was coming and was programmed with exactly what to say. So far, little has come to light.

Now, the Baltimore Gazette, one of the cities oldest newspaper writes on this subject.

Earlier last week an NBC intern was seen hand delivering a package to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, according to sources. The package was not given to secretarial staff, as would normally happen, but the intern was instead ushered into the personal office of Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook. Members of the Clinton press corps from several media organizations were in attendance at the time, and a reporter from Fox News recognized the intern, but said he was initially confused because the NBC intern was dressed like a Fed Ex employee.

The reporter from Fox questioned campaign staff about the intern, but campaign staff at first claimed ignorance and then claimed that it was just a Fed Ex employee who had already left. No reporters present who had seen the intern dressed as a Fed Ex employee go into Mook’s office saw him leave by the same front entrance. The Fox reporter who recognized the intern also immediately looked o utside of the campaign headquarters and noted that there were no Fed Ex vehicles parked outside.

read more

If Hillary can be shown to have received the questions ahead of time and it becomes public, then Hillary and NBC will be finished for good.

Hillary For Therapy – Signals Lester Holt

Scratching one’s face is one of the oldest signals in the book

Video analysis of the debate shows Hillary Clinton “giving hand signals” to Lester Holt to indicate she wants to respond to something Donald Trump said with a zinger.  

According to a viral video titled, “Signaled and Triggered #RiggedDebate,” which was shared yesterday on YouTube, Hillary was signalling Holt to cut to her by subtly scratching her face.

Scratching one’s face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer they’d be investigated.

Hillary was also seen concealing some sort of a device in her pantsuit:


AP-GfK poll: Voters more confident in Trump’s health

Sept 27, 2016

The “stamina,” the “look”: A new poll suggests voters are buying in to Donald Trump’s insinuations about Hillary Clinton’s health. They’re ignoring the medical reports.

Voters — especially men — have more confidence that Trump is healthy enough for the presidency than Clinton, according to the Associated Press-GfK poll.

It’s a disconnect considering Clinton has released more medical information than Trump, and that outside doctors who’ve looked at the available data say both candidates seem fine. But it shows the political points Trump scored after the Democratic nominee’s much-publicized mild case of pneumonia.

Another gender divide: Nearly half of women but just 4 in 10 men think Clinton’s health is getting too much attention, found the poll, which was taken before the presidential candidates’ debate on Monday.

Everybody gets sick,” said Sherri Smart, 56, of New York. She said she hasn’t decided who to vote for but wishes the candidates would discuss issues instead of sniping about who’s most vigorous.

“What’s important is, what are you going to do for me?” Smart said.

The AP-GfK poll found 51 percent of voters are very or extremely confident that Trump is healthy enough to be president. In contrast, just over a third of voters — 36 percent — had the same confidence in Clinton’s health.

Men are more likely to question Clinton’s physical fitness for the job, with 45 percent saying they’re only slightly or not at all confident compared to 34 percent of women. Men and women are about equally likely to express confidence in Trump’s health. More Democrats are confident of Trump’s health than Republicans are of Clinton’s.

Health is a legitimate issue as the nation is poised to elect one of its oldest presidents. Trump, 70, for months held off disclosing much about his own fitness while stoking questions about a woman in the White House with his assertion, repeated on national TV Monday, that Clinton lacks the look and stamina for the job. (As for his apparent sniffles during Monday’s debate, he blamed a bad microphone.)

“Stamina is a code word for maybe not physically up to the job,” said New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who has called for an independent panel to certify the health of presidential candidates. “There’s something of a bias about men versus women that subtly Trump has played to, that men are more fit, tough enough to do the job.”

Clinton, 68, last year released more detail about her own health history only to buy trouble earlier this month by refusing to take a sick day until a public stumble forced her to reveal the pneumonia diagnosis. But Monday she rebutted Trump’s talk of stamina by wondering if he could match her grueling schedule as a secretary of state — traveling to 112 countries, negotiating peace deals, spending 11 hours testifying before a congressional committee.

What exactly do we know about their health? Neither has released their actual medical records, just a summary from their personal physicians with no way to know if anything important was left out.

Yet another disconnect: The AP-GfK poll found nearly 4 in 10 voters don’t consider such a release important, and another 2 in 10 say it’s only moderately important.

Trump’s gastroenterologist in December released a four-paragraph letter saying the GOP nominee would be “the healthiest individual ever elected.” Earlier this month, Trump took to “The Dr. Oz Show” to say he felt great, while releasing a bit more detail, such as his cholesterol levels and cancer screenings.

Bottom line: Trump takes a cholesterol-lowering statin medication and a baby aspirin, has some mild plaque in his arteries and is overweight — but was declared generally in good health.

Last summer, Clinton’s internist released a two-page letter detailing her family history, prior exams including lab test results, and some prior ailments that have healed — including a 2012 concussion and blood clot Clinton suffered after becoming dehydrated from a stomach virus and fainting. This month, a second letter outlined the mild pneumonia and revealed some updated check-up results.

Bottom line: Clinton takes a blood thinner as a precaution given a history of blood clots, as well as a thyroid medication and allergy relievers — but also was declared generally in good health.

Some doctors say just watching how the candidates handle a physically demanding campaign trail and the cognitive finesse needed to debate can give voters a good idea of health.

But while the public may not pay attention to cholesterol tests and EKGs, it was hard to miss that image of Clinton stumbling.

“The public is feeding off the impressions they’ve received, but that’s not borne out by the letters of health,” said Dr. Howard Selinger, chair of family medicine at Quinnipiac University.


The AP-GfK Poll of 1,694 adults, including 1,476 registered voters, was conducted online Sept. 15-19, using a sample drawn from GfK’s probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, and for registered voters is plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using telephone or mail survey methods and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn’t have access to the internet were provided access for free.



Poll results:






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Huma Picked Username – Hillary Aides Refused To Cooperate Without Immunity – MB Obama Exposed

Comey: I Never Said Hillary Clinton Was Truthful About Her Emails

Comey: Hillary Aides Refused To Cooperate Without Immunity

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziHillary Clinton’s position on the email scandal has repeatedly changed from its first emergence in the presidential campaign from denial of bad judgment to the denial of the use of the private server for any classified information to the denial of any material “marked” as classified to the denial of seeing or understanding classified markings.

However, one claim has remained unchanged. Clinton has maintained that she and her staff have “cooperated fully” with investigators. That claim was previously shown to be untrue when it was revealed that neither Clinton nor her staff would agree to speak with State Department investigators even though they said that such interviews were needed to determine the scope any damage to national security or security breaches. Now, however, the lack of cooperation has been put into sharper relief with the testimony of FBI Director James B. Comey this week. My column this week raised serious misgivings over the handling of the investigation with the disclosure of five immunity grants by the Justice Department, including one given to Cheryl Mills. Those misgivings were raised with Comey before the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee where Comey revealed the extent to which Clinton aides refused to cooperate, including an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination raised before answering questions about a key telephone conference conversation before the infamous “bitbleaching” over email records being sought by Congress. Comey testifies today before the House Oversight Committee. I am currently scheduled to discuss these issues tonight on the O’Reilly Factor.

Comey insisted that there was nothing “irregular” about the deal given Mills despite the countervailing concerns detailed in my column. His defense of the immunity deals was that the Clinton staff would not cooperate without being protected from criminal prosecution based on their answers or cooperation. The lack of cooperation was captured in the fact that Mills refused to turn over her laptop without such an immunity grant. This was government information needed in a criminal investigation and Mills refused until they gave her immunity. So here is a laptop with potential criminal information and classified information, but Mills withheld it as leverage for immunity under an “active production immunity” deal.

cheryl_d-_millsComey’s defense of the deal was highly dubious: “The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop. We need to see what it is. This investigation’s been going on for a year. And this was, in the negotiation, a tool that her lawyer asked for, that the Department of Justice granted so we could get the laptop.” So the Justice Department gave immunity to one of the highest ranking individuals and the figure most often cited as at risk for criminal charges . . . to get a laptop that the FBI could have secured through a order of production. The assumption of a long drawn out fight also assumed that the public disclosure of the Clinton staff withholding key information would not have forced the hand of Mills. Comey also did not address the bizarre role of Mills who, despite being a key and immunized witness, was allowed to sit in on Clinton’s questioning.

As for Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River Networks, who deleted information that he reportedly knew was being sought by Congress, Comey insisted that “The department granted immunity to the one fellow who erased the stuff so that we could figure out, did anybody tell you to do this, did anybody ask you do this, to see if we could make an obstruction case — we couldn’t.” So you gave immunity to a witness who was facing a real threat of criminal charge and would be likely eager for a plea bargain? Immunity was not needed to get that individual to cooperate but it is also a questionable defense when you also gave immunity to the very high-ranking officials who was involved in the key decisions over the deletion of the emails.

Magnifying these concerns further is a recent disclosure of FBI material from the investigation, including “302 forms” from FBI interviews. There is a telling passage included in one such report from the end of page 18. The paragraph is assumed to refer to the interview of Combetta or another Platte River employee. When the FBI turned to that key telephone conference with Kendall and Mills. The witness immediately stops cooperating and invokes his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. It was a telling invocation over a conversation with Clinton’s lawyers. Yet, the Justice Department gave both Combetta and the key Clinton aide in the conversation, Mills, immunity.

Putting aside the questionable judgment behind such immunity grants, one thing is clear: as with the total refusal to cooperate with the State Department investigation, there was a refusal to cooperate with the FBI investigation by key Clinton figures until they received grants of immunity — even without public records.

Comey: Clinton Aides Refused To Cooperate Without Immunity

Comey: Cheryl Mills’ laptop contained ‘some’ classified information

Sept 28, 2016

FBI Director James Comey testified Wednesday that former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and another top aide had “some” classified material on laptops they turned over to the bureau in its probe of Clinton’s private server use as secretary of state — yet the aides still received immunity.

Comey made the acknowledgment while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republicans had tough questions about a newly revealed set of immunity deals in the Clinton case.

The director claimed the findings did not constitute a crime but declined to directly answer a question on whether having classified material on a laptop or other private electronic device was against federal regulations.

“You’d have to know the circumstances,” Comey told committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

Details about Mills and agency lawyer Heather Samuelson being granted immunity were first reported last week.

GOP lawmakers fumed at Wednesday’s hearing that the bureau was too lax with those arrangements. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., lamented what he called the “DOJ immunity-producing machine,” though Comey disagreed with that assessment.

Committee member Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican and former judge, asked Comey on Wednesday how and why Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity when investigators suspected they, like Clinton, had mishandled classified electronic information.

“You granted immunity to people you needed to make a case, if a case was going to be made?” Gohmert asked.

Comey explained that part of the process includes a “queen for a day” procedure in which investigators talk to witnesses or potential witnesses to hear what they might say when testifying before deciding on whether to grant immunity.

The presidential campaign for Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has defended the so-called “limited immunity,” saying it’s “fairly routine” in such investigations.

Comey on Wednesday referred to the deal as “act of production” immunity and said it assures those who cooperate that anything uncovered in their files outside the scope of the investigation cannot be used against them.

Comey also said the immunity was granted by the Justice Department. He called the immunity deal “fairly common” and suggested that Mills’ lawyer asked for the protection.

The FBI’s two-year investigation into the private server found numerous Clinton server emails contained classified information and she was “extremely careless.”

However, the agency concluded the investigation without recommending criminal prosecution, and the Justice Department closed the case this summer.

“It seems clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server. The FBI, however, declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable bases,” Goodlatte said Wednesday. “We, as Congress and the American people, are troubled how such gross negligence is not punished.”

Mills’ testimony in the FBI investigation and potential testimony before Congress was not covered in the immunity deal.

Five people were granted some form of immunity in the case including Mills, Samuelson, and former agency IT specialist Bryan Pagliano.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comey: I Never Said Hillary Clinton Was Truthful About Her Emails

FBI Bombshell: No Followup After Huma Abedin Caught in Falsehood

The release of FBI documentsrelating to the Clinton email investigation reveal that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin picked one username that Clinton would use on the server, despite claiming she had no knowledge of the server.

In recent heavily redacted FBI documents relating to the email hacks and the role that one Clinton “confidential assistant” played in the management of Clinton’s mobile devices and email security, certain documents outline a conversation between Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Monica Handley, Clinton Foundation official Justin Cooper.

Hanley revealed in her second interview with the FBI on June 23rd the full details of a conference call between her, Huma Abedin, Justin Cooper, and a fourth party whose name has been redacted by the FBI. The call was apparently “over concerns related to a reported hack by Sidney Blumenthal’s email account.”

“Cooper provided Hanley an Apple Mac laptop from the Clinton Foundation, which Hanley took home to her apartment (redacted),” the documents reveal. “Hanley created an archive of Hillary R. Clinton’s as a result of concerns about the reported hack of Blumenthal’s account.”

Hanley then said that the new email account name,, was specifically chosen by Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Abedin claimed that she had no knowledge of the private server when the FBI interviewed her on April 5th — before Hanley’s interview. The FBI documents do not show that any agents conducted a second interview with Abedin after Hanley provided this information.

The FBI’s notes on Abedin’s interview acknowledge the change of email addresses — after Abedin denies knowledge of the private server — but she did not discuss why Clinton’s email changed or who selected the new address. The notes on Abedin’s interview do not discuss the hacking of Sidney Blumenthal’s email or the subsequent conference call involving Abedin.

ABEDIN did not know that CLINTON had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge and did not recall any discussion about it during the transition.

Shortly after CLINTON became the Secretary of State COOPER established the domain and CLINTON began using as her primary email. The only other person at DoS to receive an email account on the domain was ABEDIN. Later in CLINTON’s tenure she changed her email address to ABEDIN was not familiar with the email address or with [redacted]

According to the documents, one of Hanley’s tasks was finding replacements for Clinton’s Blackberries — thirteen of which were reportedly destroyed, some with hammers, during Clinton’s time in the State Department. FBI documents show that Hanley noted a “coffee incident” in relation to one of Clinton’s Blackberries.

Lucas Nolan is a conservative who regularly contributes articles on censorship and free speech to Breitbart. Follow him on Twitter@LucasNolan_ or email him at

Complaints that Hillary Clinton Lied Under Oath Are ‘Pending’ at the FBI

FBI director James Comey confirmed Wednesday that the FBI has received referrals to investigate Hillary Clinton for allegedly lying under oath to Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi.

Comey made the admission at a U.S. House hearing, where he was grilled over his decision to not recommend indictment for Clinton in the private email server case. Breitbart News has reported on Comey’s financial links to the Clinton Foundation.

Comey said that complaints are “pending” but would not confirm the existence of an investigation.

 New FBI Dump Exposes Obama! Chaffetz Explodes Over Immunity Deals! Comey Has Big Plans For Clintons!

hillary obama vomit


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Weaponized Govt Continues, U.S. Dept. Of Labor Targets Peter Thiel…


A message from the Rebel Alliance follows article.

The Weaponization of the U.S. government against non-compliant citizens continues today with the U.S. Department of Labor now targeting Peter Thiel:


(Via CNN Money) The U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit Monday against Palantir, a data software startup said to be valued at more than $20 billion, for allegedly being biased against hiring Asian candidates.

The secretive startup was cofounded by Peter Thiel, an investor and Facebook board member who has emerged as perhaps the most prominent Donald Trump supporterin the tech industry. Thiel is also known for backing lawsuits against Gawker Media, which forced the company to sell itself.

According to the Labor Department lawsuit, Asian job candidates “were routinely eliminated in the resume screen and telephone interview phases despite being as qualified as white applicants.”

[…] In a statement, Palantir called it a “flawed statistical analysis” and pledged to “vigorously defend” itself.  (read more)

~ A Message From The Rebel Alliance ~

Do you think it is coincidental that Peter Thiel is suddenly sued by the DoL a few months after publicly putting his influence on the line politically?   If so, that’s a very naive position.

The President Obama Treasury Department already admitted to the targeting of political opposition, Tea Party Groups, through the IRS.  President Obama claimed “not a smidgen of corruption“, the IRS commissioner was fired, IRS division head Louis Lerner plead the fifth, and replacement IRS head John Koskinen apologized for what he initially called a “rogue operation based entirely in Cincinnati“.

However, it was later proved this wasn’t just a rogue operation.

Catherine Engelbrecht (True The Vote) was one of the IRS targets, and recent admissions by Washington DC politicians showed that Congressman Elijah Cummings did, in fact,conspire to use the IRS to target her.    Remind yourself:

Elijah Cummings is still in office.  The issue seemingly ignored.

Those who support the DC UniParty do not necessarily view the weaponization of government as a negative issue.  The weaponization itself helps those in positions of power to keep control of the electorate through the apparatus of government.   But the issues therein begin to amplify exponentially when you consider the ramifications of this path.

It was only yesterday when a popular radio host was taken off the air for discussing the possibility of Hillary Clinton’s declining health condition.  In essence, speaking uncomfortable truth, and/or challenging government is now punishable by censorship or worse.

Lest we too soon forget Nakoula Basseley Nakoula; the YouTube film maker who was necessarily blamed by Hillary Clinton for anxiety leading up to the Benghazi protestsviolent attack.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was actually arrested and imprisoned – and even Politico admits he was nothing but a pawn needed to retain a lie presented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.   But the actual truth doesn’t give him that year of his life back, does it?

To our brothers and sisters who might generally disagree with our politics, we ask you to think carefully about this rapidly dangerous political construct so many have ignored too long.

This vote on November 8th isn’t just about selecting a president, you are making a critical decision about your own freedom.

Everything may seem like competitive snark and Brangelina quibble until there’s a knock on your business, your livelihood, or worse yet – the door to your home….


When you see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion; when you see that in order to invoke your sixth amendment right to due process, you need to obtain permission from representatives who rebuke the constitution; when you see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics; when you see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and your representatives don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you; when you see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – you may well know that your freedom too is soon to perish.

Borrowing from Mike Vanderboegh – This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

With profound appreciation for your time and attention, and the warmest of personal regards.




The Weaponized Government Continues – U.S. Dept. Of Labor Target Peter Thiel…


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Allen West takes on the all Liberal Panel discuss the State of Black America – BLM Not A Race

Allen West takes on the all Liberal #TTF Panel to discuss the State of Black America [Video]

Sept 24, 2016

What is the state of black America?

San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, Executive Director of the National Center of Policy Analysis and Former Florida Congressman Allen West with author Touré for a Texas Tribune Festival discussion on race relations.

Earlier in the day Allen West wrote:

There are some very serious issues in the black community, and it’s not about law enforcement officers.

I plan on steering this discussion towards the issues of the decimation of the black family, the need for better education opportunities in the inner cities, and restoration of small business entrepreneurship.

And we do need to talk about the issue of maintaining security in the black community. Too often folks want to drive this conversation to the Band-aid, totally missing the sucking chest wound.

My objective will be to talk about the black community I knew growing up in Atlanta’s historic Old Fourth Ward, and what has changed since then — a trend happening in nearly every black community across America.

I know we’ll probably talk about the Colin Kaepernick -inspired disregard of our National Anthem and America — so we need to articulate and define what is “social justice.”

It seems to me, based on what we see in Charlotte, it’s synonymous with mob violence and rule to replace the rule of law. It’s funny… why is it that we don’t see any nuttiness happening in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the police officer has been charged with manslaughter? You see, the system does work. However, it appears in Charlotte – in –a key battleground state in the election — the forces from outside the state are elevating this to critical mass — there are reports of protesters being bused in. [FULL STORY HERE

Watch the panel discussion all the way to the end below.

original here

Black Lives Matter is NOT a Race

Sept 27, 2016

YouTuber Derrick Pilot (Some Black Guy) joins Paul Joseph Watson to reveal the truth about Black Lives Matter.

BLM Black white deaths


clarke blm police

trump obama race clarke

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

A Few Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear from the 2016 Presidential Candidates


USA America Era-of-Civil-Disobedience

Sept 26, 2016 By John W. Whitehead

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”—George Orwell

The final countdown has begun to the 2016 presidential election, and you can expect to be treated to an earful of carefully crafted sound bites and political spin.

Despite the dire state of our nation, however, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to undermine our freedoms will be addressed in any credible, helpful way by any of the so-called viable presidential candidates. Certainly not if doing so might jeopardize their standing with the unions, corporations or the moneyed elite bankrolling their campaigns.

In the interest of liberty and truth, here are a few uncomfortable truths about life in the American police state that we will not be hearing from either of the two leading presidential candidates.

  1. The government is not our friend. Nor does it work for “we the people.”
  1. Our so-called government representatives do not actually represent us, the citizenry. We are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests whose main interest is in perpetuating power and control.
  1. Republicans and Democrats like to act as if there’s a huge difference between them and their policies. However, they are not sworn enemies so much as they are partners in crime, united in a common goal, which is to maintain the status quo.
  1. Presidential elections are not exercises in self-government. They are merely business forums for selecting the next CEO of the United States of America, Inc.
  1. No matter which candidate wins this election, the police state will continue to grow. In other words, it will win and “we the people” will lose.
  1. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
  1. Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?” The answer, then and now, remains the same: None. There is virtually no difference between psychopaths and politicians.
  1. Americans only think they’re choosing the next president. In truth, however, they’re engaging in the illusion of participation culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting. It’s just another manufactured illusion conjured up in order to keep the populace compliant and convinced that their vote counts and that they still have some influence over the political process.
  1. More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, the U.S. government has become a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.
  1. The government knows exactly which buttons to push in order to manipulate the populace and gain the public’s cooperation and compliance.
  1. Fear, which now permeates the populace, leads to fascism.
  1. If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.
  1. America’s shadow government—which is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now and operates beyond the reach of the Constitution with no real accountability to the citizenry—is the real reason why “we the people” have no control over our government.
  1. The government does whatever it wants.
  1. You no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—that is, the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de factomember of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.
  1. Any police officer who shoots to kill rather than incapacitate is no longer a guardian of the people. By appointing himself judge, jury and executioner over a fellow citizen, such a police officer short-circuits a legal system that was long ago established to protect against such abuses by government agents.
  1. Whether instigated by the government or the citizenry, violence will only lead to more violence. Anyone who believes that they can wage—and win—an armed revolt against the American police state is playing right into the government’s hands.
  1. “We the people” are no longer shielded by the rule of law. While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.
  1. Government eyes are watching you. They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet. Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.
  1. By gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect our constitutional rights while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
  1. Private property means nothing if the government can take your home, car or money under the flimsiest of pretexts, whether it be asset forfeiture schemes, eminent domain or overdue property taxes. Likewise,private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family.
  1. If there is an absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off.
  1. Parents no longer have the final say over what their kids are taught, how they are disciplined, or what kinds of medical care they need. From the moment they are born to the time they legally come of age, young people are now wards of the state.
  1. All you need to do in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.
  1. Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police.
  1. Despite the revelations of the past several years, nothing has changed to push back against the American police state. Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
  1. Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, and forced inclusion in biometric databases are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
  1. Finally, we all bleed red. And we all suffer when violence becomes the government’s calling card. Remember, in a police state, you’re either the one with your hand on the trigger or you’re staring down the barrel of a loaded gun. The oppression and injustice—be it in the form of shootings, surveillance, fines, asset forfeiture, prison terms, roadside searches, and so on—will come to all of us eventually unless we do something to stop it now.

These are not problems that can be glibly dismissed with a few well-chosen words, as most politicians are inclined to do. Nor will the 2016 elections do much to alter our present course towards a police state.

Indeed, the popularity contest for the new occupant of the White House will not significantly alter the day-to-day life of the average American greatly at all. Those life-changing decisions are made elsewhere, by nameless, unelected government officials who have turned bureaucracy into a full-time and profitable business.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these problems will continue to plague our nation unless and until Americans wake up to the fact that we’re the only ones who can change things for the better and then do something about it. Indeed, the Constitution opens with those three vital words, “We the people.”

What the founders wanted us to understand is that we are the government.

There is no government without us—our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our physical presence in this land. There can also be no police state—no tyranny—no routine violations of our rights without our complicity and collusion—without our turning a blind eye, shrugging our shoulders, allowing ourselves to be distracted and our civic awareness diluted.

No matter which candidate wins this election, the citizenry and those who represent us need to be held accountable to this powerful truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments