John Redwood, a prominent and experienced Brexit MP, posted on his blog today (http://johnredwoodsdiary.com) about doing an interview on British Press:
Yesterday I was phoned to be asked onto the BBC Radio 4 Today program this morning. They said they wanted me to answer questions about how the election would change the UK’s ability to negotiate a new, good relationship with the EU. I was happy to do so, and said I could make any time at their studio. It seemed like a good topic, and central to what the PM said about her reason for calling the election.
They then proceeded to ask me a series of questions all designed to get me to disagree with the UK negotiating position and Prime Minister. I explained that I supported the PM, agreed with her Brexit White Paper and stated aims, and suggested if all they wanted to do was to criticize her, they should approach the opposition parties. They continued to try to get me to disagree. They did not seem to have read the White Paper or the PM’s speech on the topic, so I had to tell them what was in them and why I agreed with them.
I explained again that their thesis that the leave supporting MPs were in disagreement with the PM and were “rebels” was simply untrue. We are not in disagreement with the PM and we have been strongly supporting the government’s statements and legislation on Brexit. She said she would get back to me about the invitation to go on, with the details.
She did not of course bother to, as it was clear I was unwilling to feed their view of what the news should be.
I then found that another Leave supporting Conservative MP had been given the same treatment, and he too had thought the BBC were trying to change the news rather than report the position. When I came to do a live interview on some other BBC program, I was faced with the same stupid thesis and had to explain on air how wrong their idea was.
I do not know who is feeding the BBC this nonsense, but it is frustrating that they do not accept the truth from those whose views they claim to be reporting, and do not bother to get back and openly say they do not want you on because you won’t say what they want you to say.
There are many people rightly concerned about legislative issues seemingly stuck in the mud. However, what many of those same people seem to forget is the basic reality of President Trump’s America-First agenda being opposed by professional republicans even more than it is opposed by professional Democrats. DC is a UniParty.
Republican and Democrat political leadership, the UniParty writ large, have been paid to protect the legislative priorities of the multi-billion lobbying group known as K-Street.
The fallacy of false choice lies behind the concept of controlled opposition.
Prior to Donald Trump there was only one political party in DC, the Uniparty. President Trump represents the alternative; the second party.
For almost five years we have been pointing out the construct. The UniParty have three unwavering primary objectives as purchased by the lobbying groups: 1) Retention of Obamacare; 2) Budgetary spending to retain growth of government; and 3) comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty.
These three primary legislative issues are not up for debate, modification or discussion. The legislative outcomes have been purchased, multi-million-dollar investments made, and the interests behind the legislative constructs will not allow any elimination or concession.
Beyond that reality, the rest is simply political optics and gamesmanship. If you refuse to accept this baseline, you will continue to find yourself frustrated as you try to reconcile what is not happening.
Congress, as salesmen for the interests funding their activity, does that which is important to it; and congress does not do that which is antithetical to its pre-purchased interests.
President Trump, through his proposed policy objectives, is antithetical to those interests.
FULL STOP.
Essentially, President Trump has requested the following:
A budget with actual baseline reductions in spending. Where Trump’s cabinet, individually and collectively, will actually reduce scale, scope and reach of federal government.
Healthcare reform to include the elimination of ObamaCare and a return to free market principles to drive down the cost of insurance products.
Funding funding to enhance enforcement of existing immigration law and a border wall to ensure the long-term reductions in the ease of illegal, unauthorized migration.
All three of those requests are opposed by Republicans and Democrats in congress. You can beat your head against the wall in frustration, but the reality doesn’t change. The big money interests who write legislation have paid all members of congress to block these basic principles of President Trump policy.
EXAMPLE – You might remember seeing Senator Rand Paul on TV for 10-consecutive-days (March), proclaiming that RyanCare must be defeated. Toward that end Senator Paul put on a tuxedo went to the House of Representatives, lobbied them personally, and handed out instructions and books telling Hillary’s Favorite Caucus (HFC) if they simply blocked President Trump and Secretary Price he (Paul) would, within two weeks, provide a clean repeal bill from the Senate. Senator Rand Paul said he and Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Mike Lee already had the legislation written for the clean repeal. Senator Paul stated if the House members simply followed his plan he would guarantee the “repeal only” bill would advance within two weeks.
.
.
Remember that?
Well?…
This is the same UniParty that approved Trade Promotion Authority, a Republican Bill, that allowed President Obama to construct TPP and congress reversed the threshold for approval – making it necessary for two-thirds of the Senate to oppose passage to stop it, instead of two-thirds necessary to approve passage. Why would a republican controlled congress make it easier for Obama-Trade to pass and make it harder to stop?
This is the same UniParty that has refused to accept the ‘Notification of Intent’ letter from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross permitting him to renegotiate NAFTA. Why would a republican controlled congress block President Trump from re-negotiating NAFTA?
Go back and look at the lobbying money spent by the U.S. CoC.
You see, this is where CTH refuses to be co-dependents in our own abuse. We fully understand, and more importantly ‘accept’, the DC UniParty congress has no intention of: Providing a budget to lower spending; repealing and replacing ObamaCare; allowing enforcement of immigration law to include deportation and a southern border wall.
It can be difficult to accept these realities. It can be difficult to confront your abuser. However, until the larger electorate understand the structural concept of the UniParty, there will be hours-upon-hours of talking in circles, and tens of thousands of column inches typed in an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable and avoid accepting the diagnosis:
Whether China is right about North Korea conducting a nuclear test on April 25 remains to be seen, but for now Kim Jong-Un is content with merely escalating the verbal warfare and overnight North Korean state media warned the United States of a “super-mighty preemptive strike” following the latest round of comments by Rex Tillerson who said the United States was looking at ways to bring pressure to bear on North Korea over its nuclear programme.
The Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the North’s ruling Workers’ Party, did not mince its words: “In the case of our super-mighty preemptive strike being launched, it will completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists’ invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes” it said according to Reuters.
The threat will hardly come as a surprise: the reclusive communist nation regularly threatens to destroy Japan, South Korea and the United States “and has shown no let-up in its belligerence after a failed missile test on Sunday, a day after putting on a huge display of missiles at a parade in Pyongyang.”
The comments come in response to Tillerson statement in Washington on Wednesday when he told reporters that “we’re reviewing all the status of North Korea, both in terms of state sponsorship of terrorism as well as the other ways in which we can bring pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to re-engage with us, but re-engage with us on a different footing than past talks have been held,”
Furthermore, Paul Ryan said during a visit to London the military option must be part of the pressure brought to bear. “Allowing this dictator to have that kind of power is not something that civilised nations can allow to happen,” he said in reference to Kim. Ryan said he was encouraged by the results of efforts to work with China to reduce tension, but that it was unacceptable North Korea might be able to strike allies with nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the US and Russia clashed at the United Nations on Wednesday over a U.S.-drafted Security Council statement – which has to be agreed by all participants in the 15-member council – to condemn North Korea’s latest failed ballistic missile test. Curiously, diplomats said China had agreed to the statement.
Previous statements denouncing missile launches “welcomed efforts by council members, as well as other states, to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue”. The latest draft statement dropped “through dialogue” and Russia requested it be included again.
“When we requested to restore the agreed language that was of political importance and expressed commitment to continue to work on the draft … the U.S. delegation without providing any explanations cancelled the work on the draft,” the Russian U.N. mission said in a statement.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China believed in the Security Council maintaining unity. “Speaking with one voice is extremely important to the Security Council appropriately responding to the relevant issue on the peninsula,” he told reporters.
With North Korean tensions lingering, there remains some confusion over the whereabouts of a U.S. aircraft carrier group after Trump said last week he had sent an “armada” as a warning to North Korea, even as the ships were still far from Korean waters. The U.S. military’s Pacific Command explained that the USS Carl Vinson strike group first had to complete a shorter-than-planned period of training with Australia. It was now heading for the Western Pacific as ordered, it said.
The incident has also become a source of mockery for China, whose influential Global Times newspaper, which is published by the People’s Daily, wondered whether the misdirection was deliberate.
“The truth seems to be that the U.S. military and president jointly created fake news and it is without doubt a rare scandal in U.S. history, which will be bound to cripple Trump’s and U.S. dignity,” it said.
Reuters is reporting that a lawsuit was just filed on Tuesday in federal court in Chicago seeking an injunction to stop Bose’s “wholesale disregard” for the privacy of customers who download its free Bose Connect app from Apple Inc or Google Play stores to their smartphones. The lawsuit alleges that Bose Corp spies on its wireless headphone customers by using an app that tracks the music, podcasts and other audio they listen to and then sells that information thereby violating their privacy rights. Many serviced offices force you to go through their network and they too are tracking what you search so they too can resell that info to others.
The real question is coming to a head. You do you value? Your customer or the few extra pennies you can get buy selling what they look at or sell.
The first round of the 2017 French presidential election is set to be held this coming Sunday on the 23rd of April 2017. Should no candidate win a majority, which is usually the case in France, a run-off election between the top two candidates will be held on May 7th, 2017.
Macron and Le Pen are tied at 22% each – a far cry from a majority. Yet, what people fail to comprehend is regardless of who wins, a sizable portion of the population throughout all of Europe is anti-EU. Economically, if Le Pen does not win, it will be a very hard landing for the EU going forward for the politicians will refuse to reform and assume they have beaten the “populist” movement.
Like many Euro countries, France’s economy has reached a dead-end, or in French an economic cul-de-sac. This creates the social unrest, which is the seed of Revolution. France, as strange as it may sound, is actually closer to Britain than Germany or Italy. However, the French labor market is even more socialistic than that in Britain and it is in a major crisis. France has a major energy problem that is very specific to France. France uses primarily nuclear power. However, it does import energy from Britain.
With the elections coming up this Sunday, the EU suffered a major shock with the BREXIT vote in 2016. Then the election of Donald Trump smacked them square in the face, yet a deep-haze manifested in their eyes as the politicians refused to recognize that they were the targets.
Panic has given way to confidence in the last few months and politicians are preparing to blame Russia for their own failures. Before the first round of the elections in France, the EU is on guard desperately trying to defeat Le Pen at all costs. They cling to the large portion of undecided and they are calling in all the markers desperately trying to get the press to manipulate this election to save Brussels.
The polls reflect considerable uncertainty. Many voters, perhaps 30 to 40% of the total, have not yet decided. This reflects the 22% poll for both Le Pen and Macron.
What is clear is that a Le Pen victory will provide a soft-landing for the Euro. If she loses, then this is going to be a very hard landing indeed in 2018. There will be no hope of reform and Brussels will push it into collapse cheering how they have defeated the “populist” movement
Rupert, Lachlan and James Murdoch have fired Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly who will not be returning to the network April 24th at the conclusion of his vacation. Meh.
Fox News has announced the decision to move Tucker Carlson to the 8:00pm slot and shift their 5:00pm program “The Five” to the 9:00pm hour. The centerpiece of the panel show, Eric Bolling, will remain at 5:00pm with his own hour long program.
Effective April 24th the line-up appears to look like this:
5:00pm – Eric Bolling
6:00pm – Brett Baier Special Reports
7:00pm – Martha MacCallum (temp 100 days)
8:00pm – Tucker Carlson
9:00pm – The Five
10:00pm – Sean Hannity
More than likely this line-up will not work long-term.
The Fox Show “The Five” is not ideologically aligned between Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. The Five show is fraught with inconsequential gnat banter and provides no substantive intellectual perspectives to warrant a prime-time following.
The 9:00pm hour will fail because gnat banter is shallow and solid prime-time political/consequential news requires newsworthy guests to discuss important topics and intellectual discussion. Absent intelligent and stimulative guests, people tune out. Roger Ailes knew this key and critical aspect of constructing political TV viewership.
No-one cares about the opinion of the “The Five” annoying gnats who collectively end up tuned out because their voices instinctively force the eardrum to protect itself and the broadcast ends up sounding like a round table of Charlie Brown’s teachers: “wauh, wauh, wauh”. Additionally, everyone already knows the opinions and tastes of the cucumber and mayonnaise on wonder-bread punditry.
(Via USA Today) Federal agents ignored President Trump’s pledge to protect from deportation undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by sending a young man back to his native Mexico, the first such documented case, a USA TODAY examination of the new administration’s immigration policies shows.
After spending an evening with his girlfriend in Calexico, Calif., on Feb. 17, Juan Manuel Montes, 23, who has lived in the U.S. since age 9, grabbed a bite and was waiting for a ride when a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer approached and started asking questions. (read more)
However, the U.S. Border Patrol presents an entire divergent set of facts to the Daily Caller:
[…] David Lapan, a DHS spokesman, told TheDC, “Juan Manuel Montes Bojorquez was apprehended by the Calexico Station Border Patrol after illegally entering the U.S. by climbing over the fence in downtown Calexico. He was arrested by BP just minutes after he made his illegal entry and admitted under oath during the arrest interview that he had entered illegally.”
The spokesman added, “His DACA status expired in Aug. 2015 and he was notified at that time. In addition, he has a conviction for theft for which he received probation.” (read more)
Oh what a tangled web is weaved…. Apparently, the FBI used the Jeb Bush/DNC Commissioned opposition research dossier on candidate Trump as evidence to the FISA court to gain a warrant for surveillance. Things just got more interesting.
If this report via CNN is factual in its baseline accuracy, methinks the motive for the stuttering obfuscation of FBI Director James Comey just gained some sunlight.
Washington (CNN) – The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump’s campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.
This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security. (read more)
Remember the comments from Chairman Devin Nunes when he shared: Mike Rogers (NSA) was very willing to provide the intelligence committee with evidence; however, James Comey (FBI) was not forthcoming with the requests made by the committee.
Why would FBI Director James Comey be vested in keeping information withheld from the oversight committee? Ah, now it’s time to bring back the public hearings.
FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.
Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.
Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.
In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.
Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.
As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.
Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:
No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House?
….. then it would get a little ugly:
Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?
With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:
There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.
FBI Director Comey states his organization is “investigating”. Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he is the source of the unmasking or leaks.
♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don’t know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?
♦ Wouldn’t the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?
Think.
Avoid the shiny things.
Why wouldn’t congress ask this simple question?
Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media. Fair enough.
♦ Wouldn’t the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?
♦ Wouldn’t the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers: if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?
If Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for leak activity (expressly known illegal behavior)… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?
Occam’s Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up: If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A) How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing”? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…
The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.
If they were not merely giving an illusion…. Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it’s unfathomable no-one see it.
Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Didn’t Comey further claim in this hearing that lying about the content of (or even the existence of) a counter-intelligence investigation was not itself a criminal act? Hello?
That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists (even if it doesn’t) just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of “an ongoing investigation”. Comey says: “Because of the sensitivity of the matter”.. Where “the matter” is the politicized and entirely false information from the White House.
FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no “oversight” of his claims.
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
See how that works?
At one point in his political life Comey may have been a White Hat, but there’s no doubt his behavior is exactly what a black hat operative would be doing to shield his connection to the black hat activity of the prior administration.
Summary: Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere. The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus. Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
“I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.”
“Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.”
“So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.”
This is really quite incredible and I’m not sure if I can do justice to the significance of it. Earlier today President Trump directly called out President Obama for the explosion of MS13 gang violence.
President Trump is 100% correct in doing this.
It was President Obama’s Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program that created the policy vehicle for Central American gang members to deliver their MS13 foot soldiers into the U.S.
Take a close look at the following three graphics. The first is a graphic of the ICE offices with multiple arrests of MS13 gang members:
The second graphic is from our previous deep research into the distribution of President Obama’s UAC immigration program:
The evidence is overwhelming. It is beyond refute, the Obama UAC program is what led to the explosion of Central American MS13 members into the United States.
Now the job falls to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to capture these violent criminals. In a great interview with Tucker Carlson AG Sessions explains his approach:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Panic has given way to confidence in the last few months and politicians are preparing to blame Russia for their own failures. Before the first round of the elections in France, the EU is on guard desperately trying to defeat Le Pen at all costs. They cling to the large portion of undecided and they are calling in all the markers desperately trying to get the press to manipulate this election to save Brussels.
