Tag Archives: Valerie Jarrett

Jun 29 2017

House Passes Kate’s Law and Bill De-funding Sanctuary Cities…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 29, 2017 by

The House of Representatives passed Kate’s Law a bill that increases penalties against deported illegal aliens who reenter the country illegally.  The bill is named for Kate Steinle who was murdered in San Francisco in 2015 by an illegal alien who was previously deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

The passing of Kate’s Law followed passage of another bill that allows the federal government to strip so-called “sanctuary cities” of federal funding if they refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement. San Francisco, where Steinle was killed, is a self-proclaimed sanctuary city.

Jun 29 2017

The “Vast Russian Conspiracy” Media Retreat Continues Obsequiously…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 29, 2017 by

An interesting New York Times “correction“ appears today providing yet further evidence of a convenient retreat from six months of media propaganda.

The correction references a Russian Election Interference Joint Analysis Report, widely called the “Russian Intelligence Report”, which has been falsely used by most media to frame a narrative that 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community agreed that Russia attempted to interfere with the U.S. election:

(Link)

The Times Correction somewhat opaquely clarifies that only the CIA (Brennan), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers) participated in the December Intelligence Analysis that underwrites the overall report.  ODNI (Clapper) is a hub for gathering and sharing information and does not generate intelligence as an entity in/unto itself.

It is not coincidental the two most politicized intelligence operatives, John Brennan (CIA) and James Comey (FBI), presented the information along with like-minded political traveler ODNI James Clapper. While Admiral Mike Rogers (NSA) is also included in the report authorship, it is largely overlooked that Rogers only held a “moderate confidence” in the overall report finding. It was only Brennan and Comey who claimed “high confidence” in the overall report content.

We have continually pointed out at the time the report was written it appeared to be entirely political in construct. The intent of the report was to provide source material for the overall Russian conspiracy narrative; and also establish some framework for the White House to take action, vis-a-vis sanctions.

Against the backdrop of the December 2016 sanctions announcement, President Obama’s administration released the Joint Analysis Report claiming it outlined details of Russia’s involvement hacking into targeted political data-base or computer systems during the election.

Except it didn’t

Not even a little.

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” (full pdf below) was/is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This might as well be a report blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  Just because you didn’t actually win the Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian government are targeting you for your portion of the lottery revenue.

The December FBI report was/is, well, quite simply, pure horse-pucky.

What the report does well is using ridiculous technical terminology to describe innocuous common activity. Example: “ATPT29” is Olaf, the round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and “ATPT28” is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom’s basement down the street.

This paragraph below is priceless in it’s humorous and disingenuous gobblespeak:

Both groups have historically targeted government organizations, think tanks, universities, and corporations around the world. APT29 has been observed crafting targeted spearphishing campaigns leveraging web links to a malicious dropper; once executed, the code delivers Remote Access Tools (RATs) and evades detection using a range of techniques.

APT28 is known for leveraging domains that closely mimic those of targeted organizations and tricking potential victims into entering legitimate credentials. APT28 actors relied heavily on shortened URLs in their spearphishing email campaigns. Once APT28 and APT29 have access to victims, both groups exfiltrate and analyze information to gain intelligence value.

These groups use this information to craft highly targeted spearphishing campaigns. These actors set up operational infrastructure to obfuscate their source infrastructure, host domains and malware for targeting organizations, establish command and control nodes, and harvest credentials and other valuable information from their targets.

(*note the emphasis I placed in the quote) All that nonsense is saying is a general explanation for how hacking, any hacking, is generally carried out. The entire FBI report was nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.

Here’s the “report“:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/335307016/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-qvjYK3gLD9WdgOskmgoe

What was alarming to consider was: A) how far the various radical leftists were willing to go to create a straw man crisis for political benefit; and B) how diminished the executive office of the U.S. presidency actually became amid this level of ridiculous propaganda.

There’s no doubt the intended outcome was to create internal confusion amid the U.S. electorate, and seed a media narrative. There were/are millions of people who bought into these widely discussed fabrications.

Consider the example inside a Yahoo News article showcasing the report:

[…] The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump — a political neophyte who has praised Putin — into the Oval Office. (link)

There was no evidence the DNC was “hacked” (WikiLeaks claims the information was an inside job of “leaking”), Hillary Clinton blames the Macedonians, and even John Podesta admitted himself he was a victim of an ordinary “phishing” password change scam.  Not exactly a “hack” per se’.

Does hacking exist, of course it does. Do hackers exist in every country connected by the internet, of course they do. Do state governments participate in hacking offense and defense, again – yes, of course they do. And yes, the FBI and U.S. intelligence community act purposefully against all participants they can catch.

But what does that intellectual truism have to do with the specific allegation that hostile Russian hackers attempted to gain entry into the DNC or John Podesta? These are two entirely different issues which the Obama administration (Brennan and Comey) attempted to conflate simply for political and ideological purposes.

Here is where we see the overall intended and conflated outcome. Consider the Yaho0 media paragraph above against the headline which accompanied the content:

afp-yahoo-tweet-2

There’s a reasonable case to be made that all of those previous political players have quite a bit to hide within the construct of the entire narrative. Some like James Comey, and possibly Susan Rice, appear to have violated laws on leaking information and unmasking U.S. citizens within intelligence reports.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has clearly established his own exit from the risk matrix.  While former ODNI James Clapper is almost too inept to be held accountable for any of it.

It would be disingenuous in the extreme to ignore that NSA Director Mike Rogers was the least willing and least engaged intelligence leader within the scheme and simultaneously highly political ODNI James Clapper was calling for him to be fired.

Admiral Mike Rogers traveled to Trump Tower (after the election) on November 17th without notifying the White House or Clapper.  The next day, November 18th, President-Elect Trump moved the entire Transition Team to his New Jersey country club.  Mike Rogers remains the current head of the NSA.

Jun 29 2017

Mark Steyn Discusses: CNN, Potato Chips, Elmo, Teensy Russian Dolls and Jim Acosta’s Interpretive Dance Routine…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 28, 2017 by

Tucker Carlson interviews political humorist Mark Steyn on the current state of the ‘Muh Russia’ CNN planetary conspiracy theorem.

Mark Steyn accurately provides numerous metaphors to encapsulate the latest Russian meme du jour; from empty potato chip bags to Sean Spicer’s interpretive dance routine while CNN’s Jim Acosta interviews Comrade Elmo.  Good Stuff. The best. Bigly:

Jun 29 2017

ABC/Disney Co. Settles $1.9 Billion BPI Defamation Lawsuit – “Pink Slime” Case…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 28, 2017 by

Stunning win for Beef Products Inc (BPI) in a $1.9 billion defamation lawsuit against ABC news (Disney Co.)

The civil trial began June 5th and ABC legal executives must have see the writing on the wall as the initial $1.9 billion in damages could have potentially tripled under South Dakota law (treble damages) to $5.7 billion if they allowed the three week trial to continue.

The actual defamation settlement is undisclosed.  However, at the point of settlement all reasonable assumptions must be that BPI was well positioned to win far more than the initially demanded settlement amount of $1.9 billion.

(Reuters) – The U.S. ABC television network, owned by Walt Disney Co <DIS.N>, has settled its closely watched defamation lawsuit with Beef Products Inc over news reports on a processed beef product that critics dubbed “pink slime,” both companies said on Wednesday.

Terms of the settlement, which also covered the Beef Products Inc (BPI) claims against ABC reporter Jim Avila, were not disclosed.

Privately-held BPI had claimed that the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) and Avila defamed the company by calling its processed beef product “pink slime” and making errors and omissions in a series of 2012 reports. BPI calls the product “lean finely textured beef.”

BPI attorney Dan Webb told Reuters the settlement came together “quickly this week,” but declined to provide details, citing a confidentiality agreement signed by both parties.

The settlement came 3-1/2 weeks after the trial in the case got under way in Elk Point, South Dakota, around 25 miles (40 km) northwest of Sioux City, Iowa. BPI is based in nearby Dakota Dunes, South Dakota.  (read more)

The ramifications of this $1.9+ Billion defamation lawsuit victory will extend far beyond the media settlement in this case and will surely send a massive shock-wave through every media enterprise engaged in investigative and opinion journalism.

Next Up?

Jun 29 2017

EU Political Elites Worried President Trump May Form Alliance With Poland…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 29, 2017 by

President Trump is scheduled to visit Poland on July 6th prior to the upcoming G20 Summit in Germany.   According to a new Reuters report several top-level EU politicians are concerned Polish leadership and President Trump might just get along swimmingly.

2016: “I pledge to you a Trump Administration will be a true friend to Poland and to all Polish Americans.”  ~ Donald Trump

Poland is one of the few EU countries that actually spends the agreed upon amount of 2% GDP for NATO defense.  One of the concerns amid the non-compliant EU nations, is that the visit will present another opportunity for vulgarian President Trump to embarrass the superior EU intellectuals over their ongoing lack of financial support; while simultaneously engaging in fellowship with like-minded vulgarian poles.

(Reuters) […] Brussels diplomats view the July 6 gathering, dubbed the Three Seas summit because the countries involved border the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas, as a Polish bid to carve out influence outside the European Union with which the nationalist government has repeatedly clashed.

[…]  Most diplomats in Brussels dismiss the importance of the Three Seas project, co-hosted by Croatia, but are wary over Trump’s high-profile visit to participate in a project one senior EU official called Poland’s push towards “self-ghettoisation”.

“One cannot but feel a bit suspicious if it isn’t an attempt to break up European unity,” another EU diplomat said about the Three Seas project.

Within the Reuters report outlining the concerns from within Brussels, a few specific quotes provide a particular resonance of the inherent snobbery and elitism:

[…] “We encourage Mr Trump to get out and travel as much as he can. He needs to understand Europe and he can do that by getting out and speaking to people, to European leaders,” said one European official, who declined to be named.

“(But) he can’t do deals with individual countries over the head of the European Union,” he said. “In Hamburg, he will hear different arguments, we can clear up anything that has been misconstrued.” (more)

How typically condescending of the “unnamed” EU official?

How dare President Donald Trump talk to leaders of European countries without the expressed permission of the magnanimous Brussels proletariat?

Good heavens man, the unimaginable horror of it…

[…]  Underscoring Warsaw’s mistrust towards the EU, Prime Minister Beata Szydlo recently called an EU quotas policy for relocation of refugees from the Middle East “a madness of Brussels elites”, in a speech in parliament.

In turn, EU leaders delivered a snub to Poland’s government by steamrolling its objections and reappointing former Polish premier Donald Tusk to chair summits. Szydlo, acting on orders from party boss and long-time Tusk adversary Jaroslaw Kaczynski, had vowed to stop him securing a second 30-month term.

Warsaw portrayed the issue as one of fundamental principle, in which vital national interests had been ignored by a Brussels machine dominated by “German diktat”. Its crushing defeat showed how far the biggest of the ex-communist states that joined the EU after the Cold War appears isolated, even in Eastern Europe.

Deeply distrustful of Moscow, Poland hopes Trump, who once called NATO “obsolete”, will reconfirm his commitment to the alliance’s military build-up in eastern Europe, a deterrence policy against Russia, and possibly promise more.

The United States has about 900 troops on Polish soil as part of a rotating NATO contingent in eastern Europe.  (read more)

Poland is a proud and strong Christian nation filled with nationalists and patriots. And President Trump is rightly affording Poland global recognition for being on the leading edge of the right side of history!  WATCH:

Jun 28 2017

Why is President Trump Threatening Assad Over Chemical Weapon Use?…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 28, 2017 by

There are people on all sides of the political continuum entirely missing the reason for President Trump to threaten Bashir Assad publicly.   Key word to understanding the Trump motive is: “publicly“.

President Trump, according to all high-brow punditry, is breaking diplomatic and national security norms by announcing the threat of punishment publicly instead of directly to Assad via a back-channel like Russia.  However, that approach appears entirely by design; not by some arbitrary dispatch or happenstance breech of security protocol.

Here’s the big picture.

♦ FIRST – Who benefits from the U.S. attacking, weakening or taking out Assad?

Four primary groups:

  • #1) Assad’s political opposition.
  • #2) Islamic Extremist groups (ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra et al) ie. The Muslim Brotherhood.
  • #3) Turkey and Recep Erdogan; and
  • #4) John McCain, Evan McMullin, Adam Kinzinger, the industrial war complex and neo-cons etc.

♦ SECOND – President Trump doesn’t want to engage in Syria beyond the elimination of ISIS (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra) etc.  Trump’s announced strategy is to defeat the Islamic extremists, ISIS; and then work on a regional governorship type structure toward a diplomatic internal political solution (Rex Tillerson).

[…]  In terms of the future of Bashar al-Assad, it is important to us that we undertake a political process that leads to the final conclusion of how Syria will be governed. It is our policy for a unified Syria that is governed by the people of Syria.

I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end; but the question of how that ends and the transition itself could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria, and its stability and durability of the outcome going forward.

So that’s why we are not presupposing how that occurs, but I think it is clear that we see no further role for the Assad regime longer-term given that they have effectively given up their legitimacy with these type of attacks.  (more) ~ Rex Tillerson

However, all of the four aforementioned vested interests want a civil war type military conflict and the mutually beneficial opportunities arising therein.

♦ THIRD – Bashir Assad, and by extension Vladimir Putin and Iran, don’t want to see ISIS defeated (leading to space for a political opposition within the country).  So long as the fire that is ISIS remains, the fireman that is Assad has a purpose. Assad has a vested interest in containing, but not necessarily defeating, ISIS.

That’s why Russia and Assad made so much initial progress crushing ISIS then paused and preferred to just contain them. For several months Assad/Putin have NOT been working to eliminate ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood.  ISIS has become the shield for Assad to remain in power with a purpose to sell to the rest of the world.

All of Assad/Putin’s recent military engagements have been targeted attacks against Assad’s political opposition, not extremists and jihadists.

• President Trump wants ISIS defeated; Assad/Putin, notsomuch.

•ISIS, Turkey, the EU and John McCain want Assad defeated (regime change);  President Trump, notsomuch.

Who has a vested interest in using Chemical Weapons that will draw the U.S. into removing Assad?  Answer: ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Turkey, Recep Erdogan, John McCain, Evan McMullin, Deep State CIA and EU counterparts etc.

To counteract this interest President Trump tells the world publicly:

“If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.” (link)

In essence any entity that uses chemical weapons will trigger an attack against Assad.

So what’s Assad’s best play now?

Stop anyone from using Chemical Weapons.

What does that mean?

It means Assad/Putin needs to fight ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra etc. to ensure chemical weapons are not used.

This forces Assad to fight the and defeat forces he and Putin, in actuality, don’t want to fight (but Trump does).

If Assad doesn’t fight to defeat ISIS (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra etc.) he runs the risk of those people using chemical weapons to initiate Assad’s own demise.  Ergo it is now in Assad’s best interest to fight ISIS (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra etc.).

♦ Lastly, by making the threat as big, loud and unusually public as possible, it stops the rogue industrial war machine: CIA, Senator John McCain, Evan McMullin, Adam Kizinger and the Muslim Brotherhood crew, from using chemical weapons to force Trump’s hand.

The unusually public broadcast by President Trump makes it transparently clear that Bashir Assad wouldn’t be the most likely suspect, and increases the likelihood any covert false-flag operator would be fingered.

The McCain crew customarily prefer shadows, not sunlight.

In essence, Trump presents protection to Assad from the rogue Deep State CIA operatives who work with John McCain and crew on all of their regime change operations on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

That’s why President Trump used the *unusual* public announcement approach.

If chemical weapons are used, the global community will question the motives of the user.  As a consequence, if chemical weapons are used President Trump has also given himself space to question the motives of the user.

Those who initiate war and regime change are usually successful.  Look at their success with the ‘vast Russian conspiracy’ in the U.S. election.  President Trump has no ambitions to be manipulated into such a position.  So,… go loud:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Jun 28 2017

The Firm That Created the Dossier Refuses to Produce Docs to Congress


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jun 28, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

 

The clandestine firm that created the false dossier on Trump is refusing to cooperate with Congress. They are refusing to turn over to congress information of not just how the report was crafted, but who paid for it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee threatened now to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel. They have been ordered to identify who financed the fake dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russian scandal now engulfing the White House cost untold millions so far in investigations.

The firm is clearly a partisan operation that is typical of Washington DC based research. They will turn out whatever they are told for big bucks. The firm has gotten caught with its hand in the cookie jar because the mainstream media has used the Russian scam to constantly bash Trump. Fusion GPS describes itself as a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” You might as well say three cab drivers since being a journalist does not qualify as having experience in anything except English class.

This is one firm that may have flown too close to the political sun and it could find itself with melting wings and in prison.

Jun 27 2017

Undercover Video: CNN Producer Admits Russia Story is “Bullsh*t”, Manufactured For Ratings…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 27, 2017 by

Project Veritas and James O’Keefe has produced another explosive undercover story showcasing CNN producers who admit the Trump-Russia story is manufactured and promoted for ratings by the network.  Watch The Video

(NEW YORK) — Project Veritas has released a video of CNN Producer John Bonifield who was caught on hidden-camera admitting that there is no proof to CNN’s Russia narrative.

“I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now,” Bonifield says. “Like, we don’t have any giant proof.”  He confirms that the driving factor at CNN is ratings:

“It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss… All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business.”

According to the CNN Producer, business is booming. “Trump is good for business right now,” he concluded.

Bonifield further goes on to explain that the instructions come straight from the top, citing the CEO, Jeff Zucker:

“Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.”

Bonifield also acknowledged: “I haven’t seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime.” He continues: (read more)

 

Jun 27 2017

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Jun 27, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. No. 16–1436 (16A1190) v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL.

582 U. S. ____ (2017) (Per Curiam)

Trump-Internation al Refugee Assistance Project

Donald Trump was vindicated by the Supreme Court regarding the dispute over the provisional entry ban for citizens from six countries. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the provisional injunctions of subordinate authorities. Of course mainstream media is once again misrepresenting the decision. The New York Times wrote: “On Monday, the justices agreed to review both appellate decisions, but their unsigned opinion did not address the merits of those cases. “

The “unsigned opinion” was Per Curiam meaning it was the UNANIMOUS decision of the entire court and this did not requite an opinion written by one Justice. This is a STAY to allow Trump to do what the travel ban was all about – a review. Such stays are typically Per Curiam when granted for the Supreme Court rarely grants such a stay. Here we have two lower courts interfering with the Executive Powers, for which there was absolutely NO historical precedent. If ISIS openly sent in 1,000 people to be terrorists, they would be able to freely enter all because the lower courts were playing politics rather than law.

Of course there is the famous Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) where the constitutionality of the Presidential Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship was upheld. There the Supreme Court upheld held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu’s individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. So even American born Japanese were locked up just because they were Japanese.

There is even a statue specifying who may not receive a entry visa: 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens. This even bans people with physical disease or mental disorder with the exception of adopting children under the age of 10. Criminals are barred if their crime was involving moral turpitude (sex crime) or a drug dealers. Those convicted otherwise of two or more crimes are banned or women who have been convicted of prostitution within 10 years. Moreover, the Attorney General may ban anyone he reasonably has grounds to believe is seeking to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in the violation of U.S. law.

So why has the media called Trump racist and treated him with such hatred over a 90 day ban? It is just politics. There is absolutely no legal ground whatsoever to deny the order. The Supreme Court noted the exceptions that Trump himself acknowledge needed some qualification.  The court provided general guidelines — say, a family member of someone living in the country, a student admitted to a university or a worker with an employment offer in hand.

The Fourth Circuit had struck down the ban using the First Amendment claiming it was religious focused saying Trump’s ban “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” That was really a very bad decision since they were bans on six countries not Muslims and that would include even Christians. I have Muslim employees and they come and go with no problem. Clearly, it is not a ban on all Muslims and thus their narrowly focused decision was political, not legally sound. It was a 90 day ban while a review was to be taken. The ban would have been long over by now. In fact, the Supreme Court pointed that out: “We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments” within 90 days, the court said.

The legal grounds for granting a stay by the Supreme Count is straight forward. It must meet a two-prong test (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits and (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured. The mere fact that the Supreme Court issued the stay proves that Trump acted constitutionally and the President has that power.

Had there been only one lower court decision, then the Circuit Justice overseeing that circuit could have issued a stay by himself. In this case, we had two separate decisions from two separate circuits and thus it went to the whole court. That is why the decision a unanimous and thus Per Curiam.

 

 

Jun 26 2017

Sunday Talks: Kellyanne Conway -vs- George Stephanopoulos…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on June 25, 2017 by

White House Senior Adviser to the President Kellyanne Conway is interviewed by former Clinton White House aide ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos about the current healthcare bills on Capitol Hill.

ABC’s Stephanopoulos is one of the most ardent Democrat party ideologues/operatives within media and this interview is a representative example of how he argues exclusively from a position of ideological advocacy against the Trump administration.

The example above explains the following: