Tag Archives: Al Sharpton

Aug 22 2020

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption


Justin Trudeau Visits Fantastica Again

Ken Grafton image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 22, 2020

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption

Atroubled boy dives into a mysterious fantasy world, and so begins yet another fantastical tale of Liberal corruption.

WE-Gate was reportedly born of a telephone call between Prime Minister Trudeau and then Finance Minister Bill Morneau on April 5th, during which the two discussed possible ways to throw some non-existent tax dollars at students who would not have summer jobs during the COVID-19 shutdown.

On April 7th, Morneau’s office put out feelers to WE Charity (possibly because WE had sponsored travel for Morneau and his family on previous occasions, and also employs his daughters) and other organizations, trolling for ideas on ways to spend some money. Two days later, WE lobbed in an unsolicited proposal for a youth entrepreneurship program valued at $14M to Morneau, Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Small Business Minister Mary Ng, and the PMO.

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) officials mentioned WE to Finance officials on April 16th, and again to Morneau on April 18th. The following day, ESDC ADM Rachel Wernick contacted Craig Keilburger at WE (for reasons unreported).

On April 20th Morneau’s office contacted WE to discuss the program, and requested a revised proposal with increased scope.

On April 22nd Trudeau announced a $9B student aid package (contributing to the $343B deficit and +$1T debt forecast) which included a volunteer student program – the Canadian Student Service Grant (CSSG) Program. WE submitted a revised proposal to Wernick on the same day. Marc Kielburger said that WE was contacted on April 23rd by the PMO about getting involved; but later back-peddled, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the PMO.

Here the plot thickens further.

On April 26th Morneau speaks with Craig Keilburger (about something, perhaps another free trip for the Morneau family), but later testifies that they didn’t discuss CSSG. This is curious because WE had just submitted a revised proposal four days earlier in response to a request from Morneau’s office.

On May 4th WE submitted a third proposal to ESDC.

On May 5th Chagger recommended WE to a special COVID-19 committee, headed by Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland. Trudeau’s Director of Policy and Cabinet Affairs Rick Theis called WE, and WE commenced work the same day. Interesting call.

According to Trudeau’s testimony before the Finance Committee, he first heard about WE within the context of CSSG on May 8th, and “pushed back” on the decision, asking for due diligence.

On May 22nd Cabinet approved awarding WE a sole-source contract based upon a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) from Chagger arguing “binary choice” (which is highly unusual), and the public service begins negotiating an agreement the following day.

It was reported that although the contract was signed on June 23rd, it came into effect on May 5th (before the PM heard about it). If this sounds fishy, the “backdating” of contracts is generally permissible under Canadian Law…but not however for the purpose of misleading third parties (such as the public) or to circumvent Rules or Legislation (such as the requirement for Cabinet approval).

On August 13th WE registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (following questions regarding why they weren’t registered), disclosing forty-three contacts with six different minister’s offices and government departments in the six months prior to the CSSG deal; including twenty-three with Wernick (who ultimately recommended to cabinet that WE be sole-sourced).

The post mortem on WE-Gate begs numerous questions regarding this feculent Liberal maze of political “back-roomery”, including:

  • Did Morneau’s office request a proposal from WE on April 7th?
  • Were proposals from other entities received?
  • What was the subject of Morneau’s April 26th call with Craig K?
  • Why did WE start work on May 5th, without a contract, before cabinet approval, before the PM even knew about it, seemingly on the basis of a call from Theis?
  • What did Theis say to WE on May 5th? It looks like a $912M oral contract.
  • When was the $30M advance payment made to WE?
  • Why did WE continue working if Trudeau had indeed “pushed back” on May 8th?
  • Why was WE the only option?
  • Why was no due diligence done, if Trudeau ordered it?
  • Who had the horsepower to helm a binary choice MC through to Cabinet?

A Liberal spin doctor nightmare. Trudeau is asking Canadians to believe that his own policy director (Theis) called WE on May 5th (without his knowledge), and awarded a contract worth almost $1 billion over the phone – and WE felt comfortable proceeding on that basis.

Surely, even GTA voters will see that the fix was in.

On August 17th Bill Morneau was replaced by Freeland, the minister responsible for the COVID-19 Committee that approved WE on that fateful day in May, in what many view as a political blunder by a PM trying to distance himself from the fetid taint of WE-Gate. Those Canadians suffering still from USMCA are hoping that former-journalist Freeland knows more about finance than international trade. All Canadians should question the appointment of a minister with absolutely no legal, financial or business credentials (Freeland studied History and Literature) to the Finance portfolio, especially in a time of unprecedented economic devastation.

On August 18th the PM announced that he had received permission from Governor General Payette to prorogue parliament until September 23rd. Ostensibly to “address a long-term COVID-19 recovery plan”, critics see it as a desperate move to avoid continuing investigation of WE-Gate by shutting down the finance committee.

During a press conference on August 19th Shadow Finance Minister and Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre criticized Trudeau for providing heavily redacted documents relating to WE Charity, dramatically tossing largely black-out pages to the floor in front of cameras. ““Why don’t we ask what was in those pages in a parliamentary committee? Well, I’ll tell you why. Justin Trudeau shut down those parliamentary committees. When did he do it? The same day these documents became public! What a coincidence. The Prime Minister goes to the governor general’s office and says “GG, I’m about to release some very damming information. But I’ve covered it in black ink, and if you’ll just shut down parliament for me today, then none of the opposition politicians can force me to remove that ink and reveal the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a cover-up.”“

Good luck to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, the temporarily suspended finance committee, and possibly the RCMP, sorting this mess out.

But…“This is another story, and shall be told another time.”

Stay tuned.

Aug 22 2020

Bill Gates Lies about His Connection to Epstein


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted Aug 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

Aug 22 2020

Will Epstein Case with Maxwell Go Beyond just Sex?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted Aug 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

The real question is what is going on in this case? Are prosecutors going to limit this to just sex? Or will they look at this for real that Epstein was using the underage girls for the purpose of blackmailing high profile people? The connection of Maxwell’s father to “the club” would open a lot of doors including the attempt to blackmail even Yeltsin. Somehow I suspect that would never happen because it would lead to the Clinton’s deal with the bankers.

Aug 22 2020

Part Eight of “X”, Brennan Spox Delivers Statement Following 8 Hr Discussion With Durham Investigative Unit…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 21, 2020 by 

Former CIA Director John Brennan delivers the following message through his former chief of staff and spokesperson Nick Shapiro.  The statement following an interview today by investigators looking into the background of the fake Trump-Russia conspiracy which John Brennan was promoting heavily in 2016 and 2017.

[Statement Source Natasha Bertrand – Narrative Engineer]

Notice how Brennan is using Mueller and the SSCI as a shield.

Again, for emphasis, the special counsel and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Warner & Burr) were working together to frame and remove President Trump.  Their collaboration is why the special counsel took the FBI investigative file of SSA Brian Dugan and released the content to those entities at risk from the Wolfe leak investigation.  The public FISA release on July 21, 2018, was also from Dugan’s investigative file; it was his equity.

The special counsel and SSCI were working together.  This is why the special counsel tipped-off SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner about the capture of his text message content by FBI agent Dugan.   So when we see Brennan using the special counsel and the SSCI as his defense… well, that is yet another point of evidence about which primary institutions were running the Trump removal operation.

Back to the Durham/Aldenberg investigation… In December 2019 it appeared that Durham investigators were looking for a very specific email written by John Brennan to James Comey.  Comey was identified writing another email saying: ..”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

Do you remember the “crown material“?

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.

Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don’t.

GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?

BRENNAN: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.

.

Video of the exchange [prompted 01:54:28 just hit play]

.

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote at the time:

[…] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? (read more)

Fox News Maria Bartiromo has followed the Brennan events very closely. On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:

.

It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this larger effort to include false information say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

CTH previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA always looked like a smart direction to take for an origination investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s possible Durham’s team could cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently Durham investigators were looking into this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Weissmann-Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

However, again a note of caution, Bill Barr has warned that he will not allow manipulative politics to be part of his DOJ investigations/releases unless there is an underlying criminal violation.   If there are just political lies; like the intel underpinning to support the false narrative framing against President Trump; I would not expect the DOJ to reveal them.

(Read ICA via pdf)

Aug 22 2020

Part Seven of “X”, UPDATED: Sketchy Business – Clinesmith Agreement Structured to Avoid Scrutiny Upon Special Counsel…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 21, 2020 by 

1. Remember, the Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017, and from then until April 2019 any matter which had anything to do with Spygate or Trump/Russia, was managed exclusively by the Special Counsel team. [Rosenstein testified to this June 2, 2020]

2. The Carter Page FISA warrant of June 29, 2017, was renewed during the tenure of the Special Counsel. They alone ran the FISA process for the third renewal.

3. Kevin Clinesmith’s boss at the FBI during the period for FISA assembly was a supervisory special agent and Trisha Beth Anderson was the lawyer responsible to sign-off on the final assembly. [LINK]

4. The Clinesmith criminal indictment (actually an “information”) informs that, while the Special Counsel was running the DOJ, and Andy McCabe was running the FBI, Clinesmith made this request to another government agency “OGA”:

We need some clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “[digraph] source.”

[LINK]

5. Why is this “digraph” redacted from the Clinesmith information?

6. Clinesmith continued:

“This [the status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

7. Why is the sentence following that critical question redacted from the Clinesmith indictment with “….”?

8. Clinesmith continued:

“To that end, can we get two items from you? 1) Source Check/ Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? 2 ) If he is, what is a [digraph] source ( or what ever type of source he is) ?”

[LINK]

9. Why again is the critical “digraph” source code redacted out of the Clinesmith indictment?

10. The entire issue is that a supervisory special agent is asking Clinesmith to ask the CIA whether Carter Page is any kind of CIA informant. Why redact out that specific material from the Clinesmith indictment, unless the intent is to conceal that material?

11. Why is the specific 2-digit number “digraph” supposedly secret, and why is the “type of source” omitted form the criminal information?  The FISA affiant, SSA, is asking, “what is this kind of ‘source’ is Carter Page? He’s claiming to be a source, so check with the CIA to verify ‘if he is any kind of source.’”

12. Again, despite the redaction of what appears to be critical exchange, the Clinesmith indictment still includes asking for official CIA confirmation about Carter Page, “whatever kind of source he is.”

13. We know from the Clinesmith indictment that (at a minimum) he reported back that Carter Page “was a subsource” for the CIA.

14. So when the DOJ (now run by the Special Counsel) signed the Carter Page FISA renewal [June 29, 2017], we know without question that the FBI Supervisory Special Agent who reported directly to the FBI’s Deputy Director (McCabe) knew that Carter Page was at least a CIA subsource.

15. And we know without question that Clinesmith had been informed by the CIA that the CIA has already informed the DOJ and the FBI about Carter Page’s status, a year earlier, on August 17, 2016.

16. The CIA gave Clinesmith an email with all of that information. [LINK]

17. Without any push-back from the DOJ or FBI, in 2020, in connection with Clinesmith’s guilty plea, he stated that he (Clinesmith) never bothered to read the Carter Page file that the CIA gave to him. [LINK]

18. His boss had asked him specifically to check with the CIA as to the status of Carter Page. The CIA confirmed that Carter Page was some kind of source, and provided the file explaining it all.

19. Clinesmith first reports to his boss that the CIA has confirmed that Carter Page is some kind of a source – a “sub-source,” but we don’t know exactly because the “digraph” code describing what kind of source he was had been concealed out of the indictment.

20. What possible reason is there for the DOJ to redact out that code?

21. When Clinesmith reports to his boss that Carter Page is definitely some kind of CIA source, without question the SSA now knows:

“This [the CIA source status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

22. Yet a few days later, Clinesmith sends an email to his boss evidencing that Carter Page “was never a source.” Yet the DOJ’s indictment redacts the “digraph” code about this.

And…

23. Isn’t it a logical conclusion that the combination of the following highlight a DOJ whitewash: (i) the redactions of the digraph code from the indictment, “(ii) the DOJ allowing Clinesmith, unchallenged, to assert that he “did not recall ever reviewing the documents referenced in the [CIA’s] email” disclosing Carter Page’s informant status with the CIA.

24. And how could a veteran FBI attorney (Clinesmith), in the space of a few days, twist “A” into “B”?

25. Here is “A” the process the FBI started with:

Getting “clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “ [digraph] source… we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal… To that end….[contact the CIA and find out]: (1) Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? and (2) If he is, what is a [digraph] source (or what ever type of source he is)?”

26. What was “B”?

After first telling his boss that Carter Page was a sub-source, Clinesmith changed the official story by then stating that Carter Page “was not a source”, as if there is some distinction between being a CIA-approved “source” versus a CIA-approved “sub-source.”

27. Clinesmith’s boss knew this change of story was a smoking gun of a fix.  How do we know that? Two issues:

28. First, the Clinesmith indictment concedes it, although it is buried.  SSA asked Clinesmith whether the FBI “had it in writing” from the CIA that Carter Page “was not a source.”  That’s not a question in this scenario, that’s an instruction.

29.  Clinesmith knew any written claim that Carter Page was not a source would be untrue, because the CIA had informed them specifically that Carter Page was working with the CIA as a [digraph], and that his role was described in the CIA briefing memo to the Crossfire Hurricane team dated August 17, 2016. [LINK]

30. The Crossfire Hurricane team consisted of many senior members of the DOJ and FBI who eventually overlapped into the Special Counsel [They had to know what was going on with this June 29, 2017 renewal]

31. Clinesmith also knew Carter Page was a source for the CIA. He deliberately falsified the CIA email to try and create a CYA position for the use of the FISA application. For this event he has now plead guilty to a felony.

32. What happened during the four days: June 15, 2017 to June 19, 2017, that caused FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to commit a felony by doctoring an email from the CIA?

33. What happened during the four days June 15 to June 19, 2017, that caused the FBI to pivot from asking about Carter Page’s status with the CIA “in any capacity, and whatever type of source he is” – to later stating something from the CIA they knew was untrue?

34. Trisha Beth Anderson signed-off on the Carter Page FISA application, a title-1 surveillance warrant, under penalty of perjury…. even though we know the application contained materially false information and omissions.

35. Trisha Beth Anderson claims she signed the FISA affidavit(s) because it/they were presented to her in a rather unusual manner. [LINK]

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application.

36. Why did she do this? She disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

37. Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

38. When she signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI

39. Trish Anderson signed-off the prior Carter Page FISA’s because they were presented to her pre-approved and pre-signed by the FBI  and and DOJ leadership.

“The General Counsel [Jim Baker] … personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA, for example,” Anderson said. “The Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”

[…] Anderson stressed that McCabe, Yates, and Baker all played key roles in reviewing the Page FISA. “My approval at that point was really purely administrative in nature. In other words, the substantive issues — the FISA had already substantively been approved by people much higher than me in the chain of command,” Anderson said.

Anderson said it “typically would not have been the case” that people such as McCabe and Yates would sign off on a FISA application before she did.

“That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature,” Anderson said. “In other words, there were smart lawyers, high-level people on both sides of the street who had reviewed and signed off on the application, the details of the application. And so I was simply signaling, yes, this package is ready to go forward.”

Anderson said the seal of approval from such high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials meant that her signature on the FISA application was mostly perfunctory. (more)

40. General Counsel Jim Baker and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was Anderson’s FBI boss when she signed-off on a false affidavit and assembly. Rod Rosenstein was Deputy Attorney General.

41. Additionally, on June 29, 2017, the special counsel was in control of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD. This third renewal was under their authority.

42. Who told/influenced Kevin Clinesmith to change events and paper the file with a false claim that Carter Page was somehow not a CIA asset?

[Transcript Link]

42. AG Bill Barr has known since December 9, 2019, about Kevin Clinesmith’s felony forgery when OIG Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral for the discovery. Why delay the indictment until August 20, 2020.

This thing reeks of another institutional preservation approach. What I suspect is that Barr does not want to touch any material that contacts the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel… however, what took place under the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel is actually more corrupt than any activity that preceded it.

What I also strongly suspect is that Bill Barr is using his oft stated “I will not allow the DOJ to be political” as a crutch in his preservation approach. If nothing from the world or sphere of politics is allowed to enter the world or sphere of the DOJ then what is supposed to happen with all those years of congressional evidence gathering?

If my suspicions are correct; and keep in mind I have made first hand contact with the Durham investigators to confirm their intense alignment with Barr’s directive; then nothing from any embargoed political silo will ever be prosecuted regardless of how it percolates out.

If you read all the material you will see there is clearly no arrangement for Kevin Clinesmith to have provided any other evidence to the DOJ. This is a one-and-done move just like James Wolfe. The parallels are very similar.

Clinesmith Supporting Statement:

Download here
NUMBER 1

Clinesmith indictment/information:

Dowload here
NUMBER 2

Clinesmith Plea agreement:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-0950-dac0-adf5-1bf481a00000

Aug 21 2020

Kalamity Kamala a Calamity for America


Kamala won’t be Biden’s VP. Biden will be Kamala’s president only if she gets up in a good enough mood to give him permission

Joan Swirsky image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Kalamity Kamala a Calamity for America

Calamity Jane was a frontier heroine in the mid-19th century who during an uprising in 1872, saved a Captain Egan from certain death, whereupon he told her: “I name you Calamity Jane, the heroine of the plains.”

This is in stark contrast to Kalamity Kamala of 21st century America, who would accelerate the downfall of our Democratic Republic in the unlikely event of a Biden-Kalamity win on November 3rd.

Why? Because Biden and Kalamity are promising to resurrect the failed policies of the Obama years, and inflict even more damage on America the Beautiful.

According to author and television host Mark Levin, although the media are rushing to portray California’s junior senator as a moderate, nothing could be further from the truth.
She is the “most extremist radical politician ever to run for high office” in the U.S.A., Levin states, even “farther left than 97% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate,” even “left of avowed Marxist Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.”

Levin and his guest attorney Mark Pulliam provided several examples. Kalamity Kamala, they said:

  • Rejects a physical wall on the Southern border.
  • Compared ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service) to the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Believes in government-run health care for illegal aliens.
  • Believes in the elimination of private health care.
  • Believes in the Green New Deal which would bankrupt our country.
  • Wants to repeal the president’s tax cuts for the middle class.
  • Wants to massively increase taxes on all Americans.

When it comes to support for Jewish issues in America as well as support for Israel, the estimable Daniel Greenfield in his powerful article, The Democrat Party is Getting Rid of Jews, has a warning:

“Obama and Harris both signed off on Iran’s nuclear program and the flow of money to terrorists.” In addition, “While Harris has been depicted as a moderate, her chief of staff, Karine Jean-Pierre, was the national spokeswoman and senior adviser for MoveOn, the radical group [with] a long history of trafficking in anti-Semitism and attacking the Jewish State.”

And, Greenfield reminds us, Kalamity Kamala is a full-throated supporter of the virulently anti-Semitic members of the so-called “Squad”––Cong. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Cong. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Cong. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and all the others who avidly support both the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement to destroy Israel economically and to deny foreign aid to America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East.

In a chilling but all-too-credible warning, Greenfield says that “Jewish Democrats who imagine that Israel is the problem are about to learn they’re the problem.”

CENSORSHIP TO THE RESCUE

Clearly, the Democrat Party poohbahs recognize the liability Kalamity Kamala poses to a November victory and so, according to reporter Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon, an active campaign involving Democrat Party operatives like Obama handler Valerie Jarrett, Regressive activists, and all of the predictable media whores are declaring that any criticism of her be off limits.

The long list of words the media is forbidden to use include, among others: “ambitious,” “angry,” “unlikeable,” and “unqualified.” Don’t report on the “heritage” of non-white candidates is another directive, and don’t publish unflattering images.

And to anyone who does these sinful things, the self-appointed guardians of the Biden-Kalamity Censorship Committee are advised to use the magic formula: Cry “racist”––and then throw in “sexist”!

All of us can see the pitiful cognitive decline of Mr. Biden. But wasn’t Kamala chosen to cover for him, to be his pit bull, to prove to people she was capable of taking her seat in the Oval Office––unfortunately when and not if Biden’s rapid decline continues?

Now this committee is telling us that the entire Biden-Kalamity ticket is so vulnerable, indeed fragile, that it cannot withstand legitimate criticism, probing policy and personal questions, and what most of the country continues to cherish as a bedrock American value: Free Speech!

These are today’s Democrats––camouflage the ailing and failing and prettify the ambitious, angry, unlikeable and unqualified––or else!

Yet, laughably, Democrats continue to entertain the conceit that they are tolerant.

A THANK YOU IS IN ORDER

Actually, the Biden-Kalamity Censorship Committee has precedent. In 2007, a leftwing journalist named Ezra Klein formed a group called JournOlist which consisted of 400 equally leftist journalists, ostensibly to discuss politics but in fact to insult, degrade, vilify, marginalize and generally try to destroy anyone who disagreed with their largely radical points of view.

The “O” stood for the man then ascending in the political world who two years later would find himself at the pinnacle of power in the White House. One of JournOlist’s first tasks was to savage anyone who questioned Mr. Obama’s viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Their magic formula was to call anyone who said or wrote anything negative about Obama a “racist.”

JournOlist members continued to hurl “racist” accusations at Obama’s critics for eight long years. What Americans learned from those overwhelmingly false charges was that weak and insecure people cave when people called them names but strong and confident people see the accusations for what they are––transparent attempts to intimidate them into silence.

Multimillions of Americans, including me, have to thank the JournOlist “strategy” because it succeeded in bringing to America the quintessentially strong and confident leader––President Donald J. Trump––who in less than four years has truly transformed our country into a flourishing Democratic Republic.

Why is that relevant today? Because President Trump recognizes that in every law, policy, philosophy, deal and strategy that Obama employed, VP Biden was right by his side, supporting every action and touting it enthusiastically on his globetrotting travels. And worse, with far-far left Kalamity Kamala now by his side, Biden’s plan to resurrect Obama’s policies would be even more extreme.

Keep that in mind when you read this brief review of what Barack Obama inflicted on our country and what President Trump fixed:

  • Obama-Biden eviscerated our military and President Trump reconstituted it to become the strongest military in the world.
  • Obama-Biden had a failed economy and chronically unemployed citizens and President Trump boosted employment to the highest levels in American history––including Black employment, Hispanic employment, women’s employment, and youth employment.
  • Obama-Biden displayed visceral antagonism to our most reliable Mideast ally and President Trump told the entire world that America stands with Israel. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the American embassy there; recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and now forged the first deal between Israel and an Arab state in 26 years––that of the now-promising partnership between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, with more Arab states coming on board in the near future.
  • Obama-Biden’s genocidal-to-Israel deal with Iran allowed the terrorist state to develop nuclear weapons and President Trump cancelled it, although he couldn’t recoup the $150-billion in cold hard cash that Obama & Co. shipped in pallets to Iran, all while the Mullahs were promising––as they are to this very day––to wipe Israel off the map.
  • Obama-Biden continued America’s decades-long dependence on foreign oil and President Trump made America completely energy independent.

BUT, BUT, BUT…

But Kalamity Kamala is only a Vice Presidential candidate, you may say. It’s the President who formulates the policies, determines the direction of our nation, and makes the decisions. Why such a brouhaha about her?

It is not only because candidate Biden’s handlers have succeeded in moving the once-vital politician to the far left, but because the far-far left is where Kalamity Kamala lives.

In a lacerating profile of Kalamity Kamala, journalist Ixtu Diaz says that after reading thousands of pages about her, she is a woman “who boasts of instilling fear in her opponents, who despises individual freedom, and who rages at half the planet for being men or for not thinking like her.”

“But let’s not fool ourselves,” Diaz continues, “Kamala won’t be Biden’s VP. Biden will be Kamala’s president only if she gets up in a good enough mood to give him permission. She has two big things going for her: that she is a woman and that she is black––a truly extraordinary feat that has never been accomplished by anyone before.

“She certainly deserves an award, although perhaps the vice presidency of a government without a president is excessive.”

Now that would be a true calamity!

Aug 21 2020

Good Grief, Goodyear is Run By Idiots…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Get woke – Go broke, strikes again.  When you consider the scale of the company and the resources available to them on branding and marketing…. one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that Goodyear is run by idiots.

(SOURCE – LINK)

On the positive side, the boycott response -which I fully support, not because of the originating stupid, but rather because I do not want tires from amplified corporate stupid on my vehicles- just shows the scale of economic backlash from average Americans.

There are more of us than them; they just control the mechanisms that allow us to communicate with each other – nothing more.  Remember that !

Aug 21 2020

Steve Bannon and Three Organizers of “We Build The Wall” Indicted by DOJ: Wire Fraud and Money Laundering…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Long time CTH readers are aware of the side-eye position toward Steve Bannon we have always carried.  However, that said, this indictment today [pdf here] as contrast against the expressed declaration by AG Bill Barr that “politics will never be allowed to influence prosecutions” seems rather disingenuous. [More on This Later]

At the 30,000 ft level, this action by the Southern District of New York looks timed to create a cloud of demoralization over Trump supporters.

Do not let that effort/intent succeed.

DOJ Press Release: Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA for their roles in defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as “We Build the Wall” that raised more than $25 million.

The defendants were arrested this morning.

KOLFAGE will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon in the Northern District of Florida. BANNON will be presented today in the Southern District of New York. BADOLATO will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Wilson in the Middle District of Florida. SHEA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix in the District of Colorado. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction. While repeatedly assuring donors that Brian Kolfage, the founder and public face of We Build the Wall, would not be paid a cent, the defendants secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle. We thank the USPIS for their partnership in investigating this case, and we remain dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud wherever we find it.”

Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “The defendants allegedly engaged in fraud when they misrepresented the true use of donated funds. As alleged, not only did they lie to donors, they schemed to hide their misappropriation of funds by creating sham invoices and accounts to launder donations and cover up their crimes, showing no regard for the law or the truth. This case should serve as a warning to other fraudsters that no one is above the law, not even a disabled war veteran or a millionaire political strategist.”

[…] KOLFAGE, 38, of Miramar Beach, Florida, BANNON, 66, of Washington, D.C., BADOLATO, 56, of Sarasota, Florida, and SHEA, 49, of Castle Rock, Colorado, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  (read more)

Here’s The Indictment:

Aug 20 2020

Part Four of “X”, Clinesmith Gets The Wolfe Plea Deal…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 19, 2020 by 

As noted in the DOJ press release: “Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application.”

Despite the falsification of court documents within a FISA document; and despite the likelihood of an intentional conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court in order to obtain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign – via Carter Page; the DOJ entered into a plea agreement on a single count of lying to federal officers.

The agreement holds a maximum penalty of zero to six months in federal prison and a $250k fine.  This is the same plea agreement the DOJ (DC U.S. Attorney) previously gave to the Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe, who leaked the SAME, earlier, top-secret classified FISA application to the media on March 17, 2017.

Judge James Boasberg noted early in the phone hearing that he is “currently the presiding judge for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” but that “this case, however, is a criminal case, it is not a FISC case, and it is a case that was randomly assigned.”  As anticipated Boasberg said the FISA court could be seen as a “victim” in the case, but also said he would preside over the case fairly without recusing himself.  He stated if either the defense or prosecution wanted him to recuse, then he would.  Neither party requested.

Judge Boasberg noted the maximum penalty for a single false statements charge was five years in prison but the sentencing guideline calls for zero to six months.  Sentencing is scheduled for December 10, 2020, after the election, at 11am.

Clinesmith’s criminal infraction happened during the third renewal of the fraudulent FISA application submitted June 29, 2017, during his tenure working for Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller investigation.  This is not coincidental….

DOJ Press Release:

[…] According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”

Clinesmith was assigned to provide legal support to FBI personnel working on Crossfire Hurricane, and he assisted FBI personnel with applications prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division to conduct surveillance under the FISA. During the investigation, there were a total of four court-approved FISA applications targeting Individual #1. Each of the FISA applications alleged there was probable cause that Individual #1 was a knowing agent of a foreign power, specifically Russia.

On August 17, 2016, prior to the approval of the first FISA application #1, another U.S. government agency (“OGA”) provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum indicating that Individual #1 had been approved as an “operational contact” for the OGA from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Individual #1 had provided to the OGA concerning Individual #1’s prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.

Prior to the submission of the fourth FISA application, and after Individual #1 stated publicly that he/she had assisted the U.S. government in the past, an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (“SSA”) asked Clinesmith to inquire with the OGA as to whether Individual #1 had ever been a “source” for the OGA.

On June 15, 2017, Clinesmith sent an email to a liaison at the OGA (“OGA Liaison”) seeking clarification as to whether Individual #1 was an OGA source, and the OGA Liaison responded via email to Clinesmith. On June 19, 2017, Clinesmith altered the email he received from the OGA Liaison by adding the words “not a source,” and then forwarded the email to the FBI SSA.

Relying on the altered email, on June 29, 2017, the SSA signed and submitted the fourth FISA application to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The application did not include Individual #1’s history or status with the OGA.  (read more)

From the nature of the plea, and the defense arguments in court and public, it is obvious there is no arrangement for Clinesmith’s assistance or cooperation on other investigative matters.   This does not bode well for the proper administration of justice….

Aug 19 2020

We must ride to the sounds of the guns. Yell out ‘YGBSM’!


You’ve Got to Be S******g Me

Dr. Sam Clovis image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 19, 2020

WILD WEASEL PILOT, SAM CLOVIS
In one of my most cherished flying assignments, I had the honor of being a Wild Weasel. Those are the intrepid airmen who were given the task of finding, then attacking, surface to air missile sites.

Those who flew these great aircraft and this most dangerous of missions felt much like the brave British warriors who were with King Henry V at the battle of Agincourt. In Shakespeare’s great play about “King Harry,” the King gives one of the most inspirational speeches ever given to a group about to enter battle against overwhelming odds. That speech—the one about St. Crispin’s Day—will stir you to your bones. “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers…”

That is from where that line comes made famous by Stephen Ambrose in his book, then television series, about Easy Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne in WWII— Band of Brothers.

The tie-in back to the Wild Weasels is that we took on overwhelming odds every time we took off and raised the gear handle. Though we never had any in our ranks who were as eloquent as Shakespeare, we did have a modernized response to going into combat— YGBSM. This acronym means You’ve Got to Be S******g Me. I know, it’s a little crude, but it certainly captured the feeling of most of us.

That acronym made it onto all of our unit patches. People used to ask what it meant. Once they found out what we did for a living, they stopped asking.  Funny how that works.

“On you Wolverines. Let us ride to the sounds of the guns.”

The point of bringing this long explanation to this edition of the newsletter is to express how we might feel as we fall inside 80 days or so to the election. The odds seem overwhelming, the chances of success seem so slight. Still, we must put on our gear, go to the airplanes, fire up the engines, taxi out, take off and then engage the enemy with cold, aggressive abandon. We must be merciless in how we execute our grim task of destroying those pockets of cancer that are infecting our American body. We must be ruthless, precise, concise and deliberate in our mission accomplishment. Few will follow us, because they are weak, timid or are more interested in going along to get along. Take heart, though.

As Custer told the Michigan cavalry at the Battle of Gettysburg, “On you Wolverines. Let us ride to the sounds of the guns.” Though his arrogance did him in later in life, he still inspired frightened soldiers to screw their courage to the post and to fight furiously for each other and the Union.

There are times when we face what appear to be overwhelming odds in life. The events that are rocking the nation right now are being perpetrated by doctrine-driven anarchists, the very kind of individuals who led the seizures of power in Russia, Italy, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. And where are our feckless elected officials and most of the voices on our side of the aisle? They have been shamefully and despicably silent. YGBSM.

The Marxists who founded and still run Antifa and Black Lives Matter are taking advantage of the insidious indoctrination of two plus generations of Americans in an education system overtaken by the evil doctrines written in 1848. The building blocks of Marxism have been improved upon and refined over the ensuing decades. Socialism as an economic system has overtaken much of the industrialized world. We even have remnants of it her. Look at our healthcare insurance industry, social media companies, utility companies, and any number of other elements of our economy where the “state” essentially dictates, through legislation, regulation and rules, who can and cannot enter the market.

We must ride to the sounds of the guns. Yell out YGBSM, but take on those threats to our society. Call, write and confront your elected officials.