Category Archives: Media

Obama Trump Spying Scandal | Why Obama Must Testify | Mar 22, 2017

| Spectator.org

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

As the House and Senate investigations start up, with the House Intelligence Committee hearing from FBI Director James Comey today, there is someone missing from the witness list.

That would be: Former President Barack Obama.

There is one person — and one person alone — who can begin to sort all of this out: Former President Obama. He should be called to testify post haste. Here are a sample of the questions for any interested member of Congress or the Senate.

1. Your administration surveilled the e-mails of Fox reporter James Rosen, tried to force New York Times reporter James Risen to testify on his sources  for a book on the CIA. Mr. Risen went so far as to say you were the “Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation.” Understanding these facts, why should Americans not believe that your administration used surveillance capabilities on President Trump’s associates or even the President himself? And can you categorically deny that reporting by John Solomon and Sara Carter of circa.com of an investigation by your government into a Trump server  is false?

2. Do you read the New York Times and the Washington Post? Did your White House Communications staff read the Times and the Post and did they supply you with the news of stories as presented by those papers

3. Did you read the New York Times on January 12th of this year? January 19th of this year? January 20th? February 9th? March 1st? Did you read the Washington Post on March 2nd?

4. Were you aware at any time that the news media was reporting multiple stories that your administration had leaked surveillance of anyone connected to the Trump campaign, Trump businesses or other Trump-related activity? If not, why not?

5. The New York Times headlined and reported on March 1st:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

6. Mr. President, at any time did officials of your government seek to “leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” … intelligence that reported on anyone connected to then candidate or president-elect Donald Trump, his campaign, his businesses or any other Trump-related enterprise?

7. Mr. President, are you willing to voluntarily turn over all papers or electronic communications and phone records of your White House and the larger government then-under your supervision that this committee deems relevant to its investigation?

8. Sir, did your administration surveil in any fashion — electronic, wireless, in-person or otherwise — the activities of Attorney General Jefferson Sessions when he was a sitting United States Senator?

9. Were you or anyone in your White House ever aware that, as per the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the “FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Treasury Department” were conducting a “wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team and Russian operatives.”

10. Mr. President, if the answer to that last question is no — can you explain why the New York Times would report on March 1st that — and I quote:

“In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…”

Sir? Respectfully? If this report from the Times is true, does this mean you were uninformed of what went on in your own White House?”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America

|  Breitbart

“In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.

The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.

Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column:

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

FOUR dead – including a policeman and a woman – 20 injured as ‘two terrorists’ mow down people on Westminster Bridge before one is shot dead attacking police inside Parliament gates

| DailyMail UK

Three people and a terrorist are dead after an attacker brought carnage to central London today, mowing down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and hacking at police with knives in the grounds of the Houses of Parliament.

Around 20 people were hit when a 4×4 drove along the pavement on the crowded bridge, knocking down and seriously injuring pedestrians before crashing into a fence below Big Ben.

The killer, described by witnesses as ‘middle-aged and Asian’, then managed to break into the grounds of Parliament, where he fatally stabbed a police officer with two knives.

The policeman died at the scene. The attacker – who was shot at least twice by armed officers guarding the building – died after he was taken to hospital.

Prime Minister Theresa May tonight vowed Britain would ‘never give in to terror’ and ‘defeat hate and evil’ after she blasted the ‘sick and depraved’ attack in Westminster.

She added the ‘forces of evil would never drive Britain apart’ and praised police and security staff who ‘ran towards danger even as they encouraged others to move away’.

It is currently believed he was the only ‘lone wolf’ attacker. Around 20 pedestrians and three other police officers were injured.

Prime Minister Theresa May was bundled into her car by a plain-clothes police officer and driven quickly from the scene as the attack unfolded. She chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency Cobra Committee tonight.

Scotland Yard said the attack, which comes a year to the day after the atrocities in Brussels, is being treated ‘as a terrorist incident’.

….Continue reading @ Daily Mail UK

 

Critical Defense Data Theft at House Democratic Intelligence Committees By Three Pakistani Muslim Brothers

| Youtube

More here @ Youtube

 

My Hometown Fanatics: Stacey Dooley Investigates Muslim Extremists in UK

– Youtube

Stacey Dooley is an amazing filmmaker. In this documentary she goes back to her hometown of Luton, a suburb of London after just four years away.

 

 

FBI’s James Comey Talks About Sony Hack and ‘Privacy’ in the USA | Mar 09, 2017

FBI Director James Comey’s Speech at Boston Cyber Security Summit 2017 Russia Hacktivism

| Youtube | Boston Conference on Cyber Security

– James Comey, “even our memories are not absolutely private….”

More @ Youtube

 

 

FBI Director Comey Proclaims Americans Deserve NO Privacy; The Government Owns Even Your Thoughts, Memories

| TruePundit |

“FBI Director James Comey took the liberty of rewriting the United States Constitution and completely dismantling the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during a speech Wednesday at Boston College on cyber security.

Comey’s incredulous claims that even the US government owns the thoughts and memories of its citizens were absolutely disgraceful and proves he is unfit for any office in a free society. Comey fabricated a tale that the founding fathers “struck a bargain” and in return for freedom, law enforcement is allowed to invade privacy at will. Really? The founding fathers of Russia?

Special note to Comey and his wall of academic degrees: The Fifth Amendment affords every American the right to say nothing to you or the Justice Department. Ever. By law, you can’t compel squat. Ask Lois Lerner. Ask Bryan Pagliano.

Comey’s third-worldesque comments are beyond chilling and should shine a brighter light on his Anti-American, Orwellian philosophies that steer what used to be considered the country’s premier law enforcement agency. But no more. His words not only undermine this country’s constitutional fabric but also prove that he is not fit to serve at the helm any government agency. His rhetoric is dictatorial, dangerous and have no place in a free society.

The sycophants and collegiate stooges at Boston College gave Comey a rousing ovation after his comments. College kids all jacked up on caffeine and student debt. They’re dumb enough to believe a globalist like Comey who would kick your door down for downloading a mp3 file.

Are you?”

….Continue reading @ TruePundit

 

All Roads Lead Back to Brennan

| Spectator.org |

“It is “our job,” not Trump’s, to “control exactly what people think,” gasped MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski last month. This week’s gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump’s, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.

For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?

Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where did the liberal BBC’s story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a “senior member of the US intelligence community”:

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama’s CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation, according to the BBC story:

Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Why did this article appear? Because John Brennan wanted it to. He just didn’t expect Trump to call him on it. Now the Obama embeds who used the press to smear Trump now demand it disclaim the storyline they stoked. How dare anyone suggest we were investigating the Trump campaign!

Forget about all the endless parsing of claims and lawyerly denials from the Jim Clappers. The bottom line is that John Brennan and his band of anti-Trump saboteurs sought to investigate the Trump campaign. That is the story. The Chuck Todds want people to miss the forest for the trees. That’s why Todd didn’t press Clapper on his as-far-as-I-know style denial. A serious questioner would have asked Jim Clapper to respond directly to the BBC paragraphs quoted above. A serious questioner would have also asked: Why are you here and not John Brennan? Why are you here and not Loretta Lynch?

Notice as well that FBI director Jim Comey’s quasi-denial on Sunday didn’t come from an appearance or even a press release but from a leaked news story, which was designed not to eliminate confusion but to increase it. We’re told that he wants the Justice Department to issue a denial. But to deny what? That the U.S. government ever sought to investigate the Trump campaign? To deny the Heat Street and BBC stories (which Trump was in effect repeating) that Comey didn’t ask the Justice Department to deny after they actually appeared?”

…..Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

FBI’s Comey At Boston College: ‘You’re Stuck With Me For Another 6 1/2 Years’

| Boston.CBSlocal.com |

BOSTON (AP) — FBI Director James Comey says he plans to serve his entire 10-year term, even as controversy swirls over his attempt to rebut President Donald Trump’s claim that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the election.

Comey said Wednesday during a cybersecurity conference at Boston College: “You’re stuck with me for another 6½ years.” He was appointed 3½ years ago by then-President Barack Obama.

After Trump recently claimed that Obama tapped his phones during last year’s election, Comey privately asked the Justice Department to dispute the allegation.

During his speech to law enforcement officials and private-sector business leaders, Comey said the FBI is renewing a focus on the challenges posed by encryption. He said there should be a balance between privacy and the FBI’s ability to lawfully access information.”

…Continue reading @ Boston.CBSlocal.com

 

Trump Accuses Obama of Wire Tapping Phones at Trump Tower | Mar 04, 2017

REPORT: FBI Said to Have ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ To Wiretap TRUMP Tower!

– theGatewayPundit

“Earlier this morning, Trump took to Twitter to express his outrage over wiretapping at Trump Tower during Obama’s Presidency. Back in November, the media did confirm that wiretapping did allegedly take place, via Heat Street:

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request […].

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.

The implication is that Trump or one of his employees was secretly functioning as a Russian-sanctioned spy (which is obviously absurd). However illegitimate the request was, the granting of said FISA request allows the government major access:

Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.  Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.

Contrary to a lack of any evidence by the Obama Administration or FBI, the possibility of the second FISA request being granted would indeed monitor activity within Trump Tower. Again, this FISA request was issued with no definitive proof/evidence that Trump had any nefarious ties to Russia – instead, it bears the hallmarks of a political witch hunt.

If proven, there is a good chance the issuing judge and corresponding FBI personnel will soon face serious jail time. Liberal media is ignoring this, and instead seems to have coordinated a large online campaign with headlines that almost consistently read “Provides No Evidence”. So let’s get this straight: The GOP is accused of colluding with Russians MSM publishes as a front-page story fact, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping and… “PROVIDES NO EVIDENCE!”

…..Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

 

 

Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election in ‘Nixon/Watergate’ style scandal

– Daily Mail UK

“The Obama administration has strongly denied President Donald Trump’s claims that Barack Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election.

Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis released a statement Saturday afternoon refuting Trump’s wire-tapping claims.

‘A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,’ Lewis wrote.

‘As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.’

Lewis’ statement comes shortly after Trump fired off a flurry of tweets early Saturday morning claiming that the former president had been spying on him in October, a month before his election victory.

‘Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!’

McCarthyism, which the president used in his first tweet, is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.

Trump started tweeting shortly after 3.30am ET and posed the question: ‘Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election?’

In another tweet Trump said it was a ‘new low’ for the former president, compared it to ‘Nixon/Watergate’ and called Obama a ‘bad (or sick) guy’.

‘It seems unthinkable. If that were the case by some chance, that means that a federal judge would have found that there was either probable cause that he had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power,’ the official said.

According to the official, a wiretap cannot be directed at a US facility, without finding probable cause that the phone lines or internet addresses were being used by agents of a foreign power.

‘You can’t just go around and tap buildings,’ the official told the Post.

Another former senior US official, who worked under the Obama administration, told CNN there was no such investigation of Trump, nor were his phones tapped.

‘This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,’ the former official said.

The official echoed that of others saying Obama could not have ordered this and adding that it would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never did that.”

…..Continue reading @ Daily Mail UK

 – Let’s all remember the time the Obama Admistration spying apparatus tapped the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and France’s president Hollande, wherein the Obama denied it, then later stated Obama was not aware of what his NSA was doing. On the heels of President Trump’s newest accusations, recall we are dealing with Obama, an individual with a record of secret spying and lying about it. Just like Nixon. This is going to get very interesting. /CJ

Angela Merkel’s call to Obama: are you bugging my mobile phone?

– the Guardian | 2013

 

“The furore over the scale of American mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden shifted to an incendiary new level on Wednesday evening when Angela Merkel of Germany called Barack Obama to demand explanations over reports that the US National Security Agency was monitoring her mobile phone.

Merkel was said by informed sources in Germany to be “livid” over the reports and convinced, on the basis of a German intelligence investigation, that the reports were utterly substantiated.

The German news weekly, Der Spiegel, reported an investigation by German intelligence, prompted by research from the magazine, that produced plausible information that Merkel’s mobile was targeted by the US eavesdropping agency. The German chancellor found the evidence substantial enough to call the White House and demand clarification.

The outrage in Berlin came days after President François Hollande of France also called the White House to confront Obama with reports that the NSA was targeting the private phone calls and text messages of millions of French people.

While European leaders have generally been keen to play down the impact of the whistleblowing disclosures in recent months, events in the EU’s two biggest countries this week threatened an upward spiral of lack of trust in transatlantic relations.

Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, made plain that Merkel upbraided Obama unusually sharply and also voiced exasperation at the slowness of the Americans to respond to detailed questions on the NSA scandal since the Snowden revelations first appeared in the Guardian in June.

Merkel told Obama that “she unmistakably disapproves of and views as completely unacceptable such practices, if the indications are authenticated,” Seifert said. “This would be a serious breach of confidence. Such practices have to be halted immediately.”

The sharpness of the German complaint direct to an American president strongly suggested that Berlin had no doubt about the grounds for protest. Seibert voiced irritation that the Germans had waited for months for proper answers from Washington to Berlin on the NSA operations.

Merkel told Obama she expected the Americans “to supply information over the possible scale of such eavesdropping practices against Germany and reply to questions that the federal government asked months ago”, Seibert said.

The White House responded that Merkel’s mobile is not being tapped. “The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor,” said a statement from Jay Carney, the White House spokesman.

But Berlin promptly signalled that the rebuttal referred to the present and the future and did not deny that Merkel’s communications had been monitored in the past.

Asked by the Guardian if the US had monitored the German chancellor’s phone in the past, a top White House official declined to deny that it had.

….Continue reading @ theGuardian

 

HUGE Obama Scandal: Illegal Surveillance/Election Tampering

– dcWhispers

“The Obama administration engaged in surveillance of Trump Tower communications during the 2016 Election. With that fact now front and center, voters would do well to recall all of the “leaks” that were said to be coming from inside the then-Trump campaign.

Were operatives working under the direction of a  then-sitting President of the United States, the source of those leaks? Some are already suggesting YES, making what Barack Obama potentially did in 2016 MUCH WORSE than anything Richard Nixon did leading up to the Watergate scandal. This is big. This is the Obama Shadow Government now being exposed in real time:

UPDATE: Sources now indicating top Democrats and Republicans were aware of the surveillance (and potential subsequent leaks) being conducted on/against the Trump campaign. These include, but are not limited to, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham.”

….Continue reading @ dcWhispers

 

How Cable CNN Viewers stay mis-informed watching false and fake news | Mar 02, 2017

No, Don Lemon, Loretta Lynch didn’t recuse herself from the Clinton email scandal

– Washington Examiner

“Oh, Don Lemon. July 2016 wasn’t that long ago.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch never recused herself from last year’s federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Lynch also did not meet with Hillary Clinton on a tarmac last year as federal agents reviewed the former secretary of state’s emails.

Watching CNN Wednesday evening, however, you’d think exactly the opposite.

“Loretta Lynch recused herself from any decision regarding Hillary Clinton because of that meeting of Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch, who was attorney general at the time, on the tarmac,” Lemon said during a panel discussion.”

….Continue reading @ WashingtonExaminer

Imagine if you will that you only got your ‘news’ from CNN. Don Lemon mispoke or lied, twice in one sentence. First Attorney General Loretta Lynch never recused herself from the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server and second, it wasn’t Hillary who met with Lynch, it was Bill Clinton. Yet the  other pundits didn’t challenge it, they simply nodded their heads in assent. 

One of the pundits claims that Sessions met with ‘the top Russian spy’ without any proof whatsoever. So far no one has claimed that the Russian ambassador was a spy. Yet no one challenged that lie. 

“I have had no indication” that Kislyak is a spy, said Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

     This is why the Mainstream Media is so loathed and distrusted. They focus on the inconsequential and superfluous, while misstating or ignoring the essential. They delay comprehension and confuse the public. /CJ 

 

 

Did Democrats Aid and Abet Terrorists Seeking American Secrets? | Feb 28, 2017

– Spectator.org

“Since Donald Trump took office there has been ubiquitous media coverage of what can most properly be termed crap.

There was the fake story about the bust of Martin Luther King that was supposedly removed from the Oval Office. There was the New York Times’ slanted report claiming contacts of some frequency between the Donald Trump campaign and The Russians! And more recently, there was the pitiful Associated Press piece screaming about the new administration’s plans to use the National Guard to deport illegal aliens. Those are just some highlights of what the president has taken to gleefully term “fake news” as he skewers the Democrat-leaning media.

It’s not so surprising those outlets spend time on contrivances. Without The Russians! and those vaporous Trump abuses calling forth the echoes of Hitler and his brownshirts, airtime and column space might have to be devoted to other stories which would be less useful to the various narratives being concocted in New York and Washington editorial conference rooms.

One such inconvenient story is that of the Awan brothers.

Oh, you don’t know who the Awan brothers are? That’s also not surprising.

Let’s go back three weeks, to a firing.

Three brothers who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission.

Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

The way things work on Capitol Hill is that each member of Congress runs almost like a little mom and pop business, and auxiliary office functions like IT are usually contracted out — but within the public sector. In the case of the Brothers Awan, they were quite popular with House Democrats — perhaps thanks to Wasserman Schultz’s recommendation.

And what an august client list the Awans, who hail from Pakistan, amassed. Some 50 or so, in fact, including…

All three of the Pakistani brothers had been employed by Democrats. The offices that employed them included HPSCI minority members Speier, Carson and Joaquín Castro. Congressman Castro, who also sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, utilized the services of Jamal Moiz Awan. Speier and Carson’s offices utilized Imran Awan.

Abid A. Awan was employed by Lois Frankel and Ted Lieu: members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also on the committee is Castro. As is Robin Kelly whose office employed Jamal Awan.  Lieu also sits on the subcommittees on National Security and Information Technology of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Tammy Duckworth’s office had also employed Abid. Before Duckworth successfully played on the sympathy of voters to become Senator Tammy Duckworth, she had been on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.

Gwen Graham, who had also been on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee, had employed Jamal Awan. Jamal was also employed by Cedric Richmond’s office. Richmond sits on the Committee on Homeland Security and on its Terrorism and Cybersecurity subcommittee. He is a ranking member of the latter subcommittee. Also employing Jamal was Mark Takano of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Imran had worked for the office of John Sarbanes who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees, among other things, the nuclear industry. Other members of the Committee employing the brothers included Yvette Clarke, who also sits on the Bipartisan Encryption Working Group, Diana DeGette, Dave Loebsack and Tony Cardenas.

Andre Carson and Jackie Speier were signatories to a letter last year that eight Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wrote to the chairman (Tom Price) and ranking Democrat (Wasserman Schultz, who we would surmise solicited the letter) demanding that funding be provided so their staffers might be given access to Top Secret Compartmented Information Security (TS/SCI) Clearance.

Now, we don’t need to ask any of the obvious questions here — like for example whether Wasserman Schultz gave the Awans an IT contract on the side for the Democratic National Committee, or whether any of the Democrats employing them were read into Middle East military actions, like for example the ill-fated raid in Yemen in which Navy SEAL Ryan Owens was killed.

It seems self-evident how much potential destruction these people may have caused if they happened to be stealing our national secrets and selling them to various buyers in the Muslim world.

One might well look at the set of circumstances laid out above and see in it a scandal that would make Watergate look like a petty break-in. One might then scratch his or her head and wonder — why on earth would the New York Times or the Washington Post, which incidentally just hired John Podesta (speaking of horrendous cybersecurity!) as a columnist, have virtually no interest in the Awans at all?

Do Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos, one might ask, really believe they can’t sell papers with such a story to tell?

And then one might conclude Trump is well within his rights to treat these people as enemy propagandists, because to have buried such a profoundly disturbing story sure looks like a mockery of the public’s trust.”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

As the article points out, why is the Mainstream Media ignoring this scandal coming out of the Democrats in Congress? The constant focus on the superfluous and false, at the expense of the critical is simply inexcusable. And dangerous. Diane Feinstein, Jackie Speier, Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu need to start explaining how this occurred. Or they need to begin recusing themselves from any national security issues before Congress. /CJ 

 

Ohio Investigation Finds 82 non-U.S. citizens illegally cast ballots in Ohio elections

– theGatewayPundit

“On Monday, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced that an investigation within the state had revealed that hundreds of non-citizens registered to vote and that dozens of them cast illegal ballots.

From NBC4i:

According to a release from Husted, 385 people who are not citizens of the United States are registered to vote in Ohio. Out of those, 82 voted in at least one election in the last year.

….Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

 

UCLA Blocking Students from Enrolling in Communications Class on Free Speech | Feb 22, 2017

UCLA students blocked from enrolling in conservative professor’s ‘Free Speech on Campus’ class

– College Fix

“A conservative communications professor at UCLA claims his department chair is effectively blocking students from enrolling in his popular “Free Speech on Campus” class in a decision that’s likely politically motivated.

The department chair, meanwhile, says the situation is based on maintaining “reasonable class sizes across the major” and denies that her decision to reject students’ requests for enrollment is politically motivated.

Caught in the middle are frustrated students who simply want to enroll in lecturer Keith Fink’s “Communication Studies 167: Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus.”

Taryn Jacobson is one such student.

A senior at UCLA, she told The College Fix she has never been able to take a class with Fink because his courses always fill up so quickly. This quarter, Jacobson said she was absolutely determined to get into Fink’s “Free Speech on Campus” class.

“This is one of my last quarters at UCLA and this class is crucial to my preparation for law school,” Jacobson stated in an email to The Fix. “It will also strongly guide my decision (either by affirming or disaffirming) my aspirations to attend.”

The class filled up quickly, as usual, and Jacobson was once again unable to get in. However, Jacobson said she attended the first class anyway and received a permission-to-enroll form from Fink, also known as a “PTE.” Unfortunately, Jacobson’s PTE was then denied.

This quarter marks the first time Professor Fink has experienced his department denying his PTEs, and he seems to be getting singled out. Other professors in the Department of Communication Studies report no issues with getting their PTEs approved, according to the Daily Bruin. Fink and his teaching assistants and students lay much of the blame on the new Chair of the Department of Communication Studies, Kerri Johnson.

“Ever since this leadership change, the school has targeted Professor Fink and his classes in many ways, including by: (1) restricting his ability to enroll students at his discretion (a restriction not imposed on any other CommStudies professors), (2) reducing the size of his classes and moving them to smaller classrooms despite overwhelming student demand, (3) dishonoring ‘Permission to Enroll’ forms issued by him and failing to help students whose PTEs had been dishonored,” Andrew Litt, Professor Fink’s TA, stated in an email to The College Fix.

Additionally, Austin Kaidi, a UCLA alumnus who took Fink’s classes and also served as his TA, told The Fix: “For the past five years, Professor Fink has been able to educate large numbers of students without any problems. However one quarter after the Communication Studies appoints a chairwoman with incredibly left-leaning ideals, Professor Fink, the only outspoken conservative in the department, is singled out, his PTE’s are revoked, and his future classes are limited.”

Kaidi added that the room in which Fink teaches “Communications Studies 167” holds 292 seats, yet only 200 of the 241 students who attempted to join the class this year were able to enroll.

When questioned about the denial of Fink’s PTEs, Johnson told The College Fix: “As department chair, I am responsible for overseeing workload equity for my faculty, lecturers, and TAs and ensuring a productive learning environment for our students. One important aspect of this responsibility is to maintain reasonable class sizes across the major which entails an assessment of student to faculty and student to TA ratios. Accordingly, I do not approve modifications to enrollment caps unless implications for workload equity have been evaluated. In this case, they were not; petitions to add the class were issued without approval.”

She added: “With regard to the question of political discrimination, I was unaware of Mr. Keith’s political leanings until recently when Mr. Fink referenced them in an email. This exchange occurred long after the events in question.”

Fink did not respond to requests from The College Fix seeking comment.

He told the Daily Bruin: “I am well familiar with UCLA’s rules. This is a violation of academic freedom, a violation of (UCLA’s) own rules and students’ rights. Students are not being treated with equity here.”

Fink also told the Bruin he has spoken with his union representative and the ombudsman about the matter. “This is an important issue,” Fink said. “Most people don’t stand up to the administration when they are wronged, either out of ignorance of their rights or fear that their situation will be exacerbated if they challenge the school.”

“I am a voice of a teacher who’s not going to go away,” he added. “When I see an injustice toward students, I am going to fight.”

Jacobson, the senior trying to take Fink’s class, told The College Fix she is frustrated.

“Higher education is supposed to be about providing students with opportunities to learn and expand their horizons, rather than limiting them,” she said. “I have never experienced a situation like this: the professor wants to admit more students at no cost to the school, the room FITS more students, yet the actual department housing the course is thwarting his efforts and effectively denying me an educational opportunity — one that happens to be of great importance to me.”

….Continue reading @ The College Fix

What is the Free Speech vs. Hate Speech Debate About? | Feb 19, 2017

Free Speech Vs. ‘Hate Speech’

– PJ Media

“I recently attended a symposium, held at the University of Toronto and sponsored by a group of politically savvy libertarian and conservative students, on the topic of free speech and expression in the current repressive cultural and political milieu. The audience of almost every other conservative symposium I have attended has been composed chiefly of elderly white men, with a modest sprinkling of women and a sparse handful of younger people. On this occasion I was gladdened to note that the age gap had been bridged, dividing equally between older and younger, while the distaff representation was comparatively prominent.

The fact that the symposium was organized by two student groups worried about their political and economic future, Students for Liberty and Generation Screwed, explained the mixed composition of the conference attendees and signaled a more hopeful future for the nascent conservative movement growing on campus as well as in the non-academic world. This young, right-leaning cohort — politically active, intellectually engaged, well-educated and civil — are in marked contrast to their leftist counterparts consisting of a mélange of snowflakes and hooligans, who were soon to make their presence known at the event.

The issues discussed at the symposium largely involved the nature and definition of speech violence, or what is called “hate speech,” criminalized in several countries and jurisdictions. Both sides of the dispute, left and right, agree that limits to freedom of speech are necessary, but disagree as to where these limits should be placed. The left, whether radical or moderate, regards as felonies forms of speech that offend a privileged identity group, whether racial, ethnic, religious (i.e., Muslims), or gender-based (i.e., women, gays, trans-people), or criticizes the ideological positions such favored groups adopt. Additionally, a prime tactic of the left is what we may call pre-emptive suppression. Speaking engagements are often shut down before or during an address, making debate and discussion impossible. Censorship and repression thus become acceptable methods of dealing with such perceived “transgressions” as open colloquies, lectures and conferences.

The conservative right believes that speech should be mainly unfettered, except when it damages reputations through lies or urges acts of physical violence. Of course, speech itself can be an act, as philosopher J.L. Austin has shown in How to Do Things with Words: in his most famous example, when the minister states “I now pronounce you husband and wife,” an act has been performed since it changes the status of the participants.

We should note, however, that words critical of an individual or a group are not performative (or “illocutionary,” in Austin’s phrase). If I criticize Islam as a violent faith, I do not thereby make it violent or directly instigate violence against it. My words do not change the reality of Islam, whatever it may be. In the U.S., even words advocating violence (except in official or legally constituted circumstances, or in situations where there is a clear and present danger) are not considered performative. The 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio Supreme Court case ruled that “speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” (Italics mine). In the words of the Legal Encyclopedia discussing the case, “the First Amendment protects speech unless it encourages immediate violence or other unlawful action.” (Italics mine). In this instance, both the temporal element and unequivocal incitement are crucial. Mere advocacy is another question entirely and is not prohibited, although here the conservative argument tends to draw the line, even if the U.S. Supreme Court did not.

In Canada, we are not so fortunate. We have no First Amendment. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes free speech as a principle of civic life, but with so many exceptions that the term “free speech” has become an empty watchword, an instance of virtue-signalling. The logic on which its application is based is ludicrously circular. For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Whatcott case, in wich Bill Whatcott was convicted of hate speech for protesting what he saw as a homosexual agenda in primary school, reads: “The benefits of the suppression of hate speech and its harmful effects outweigh the detrimental effect of restricting expression which, by its nature, does little to promote the values underlying freedom of expression.” As my wife Janice Fiamengo puts it in Episode 52 of her video series The Fiamengo File, “free speech matters only when it is speech that promotes ‘the values underlying it.’” In other words, free speech is only free speech when it is free speech.

Consequently, “if expression is made conditional on its promoting a particular set of values, then it is clearly not in any sense free or valued in itself.” Tightening the already-restrictive noose on free speech even further, the Canadian Parliament is now preparing to debate Motion 103, which authorizes the government to take steps to eliminate “Islamophobia,” and will surely tackle the element of critical speech as well.”

….Continue reading the thoughtful article @ PJ Media

Graphic of the Day:

– from PJ Media comments:

More on Freedom of Speech:

ACADEMIC FREEDOM ON THE ROPES IN U.S. COLLEGES

– CaliforniaJimmy.com