Posts Tagged ‘for political purposes’

Confirmed: Fascist, Felonious Obama Administration Spied On Private American Citizens And Used US Intelligence Services As Political Weapon

March 31, 2017

What do you call using our nation’s national intelligence services charged with identifying terrorists before they can viciously murder Americans as an internal weapon against private US citizens for naked political purposes?

Keep in mind, Obama has already done it once, against hundreds of tea party organizations legitimately seeking their 501c3 status and being illegally delayed and even audited only to find out that Obama had weaponized the IRS into his own Internal Revenge Service.

This is THE worst, THE most corrupt, THE most evil, behavior EVER exhibited by an American president.

If you’re a liberal, just imagine Donald Trump exploiting our intelligence services, the NSA etc., to spy on you and publicly disgrace you.

This is nakedly in-American and anti-American.

Honk if you think an American president ought to be allowed to get away with this kind of criminal fascism.

Because what happened was not only a crime but a felony for damn good reason on multiple fronts.

This is Big Brother at his very most evil.  And Big Brother needs to go to prison and have the cell door slammed hard in his face.

It is now a proven fact that Barack Obama’s thug regime did just this very thing in the waning days of his life inside the Führerbunker.

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal put this piece out yesterday that not only establishes the blatant criminality of the Obama administration, but in the complicit pathological fascism of the Democratic Party machine (I will be boldfacing the criminality of Obama and leave the rest for you to read):

What Devin Nunes Knows
Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
March 30, 2017 6:53 p.m. ET
California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.
Mr. Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information. The press dutifully regurgitated the outrage, as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.
All this engineered drama served to deep-six the important information Americans urgently deserve to know. Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This goes far beyond a mere scandal. It’s a potential crime.
We’ve known since early February that a call by former national security adviser Mike Flynn to the Russian ambassador was monitored by U.S. intelligence. There’s nothing improper in tapping foreign officials. But it was improper that Mr. Flynn’s name was revealed and leaked to the press, along with the substance of his conversation. The media nonetheless excused all this by claiming one piece of Mr. Flynn’s conversation (sanctions) was relevant to the continuing investigation into Trump-Russia ties.
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes’s own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren’t easily obtainable, since they aren’t the “finished” intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents—with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did “mask” identities (referring, for instance, to “U.S. Person 1 or 2”) they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
Mr. Schiff’s howls about Mr. Nunes’s methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well. Mr. Nunes has spent years cultivating whistleblowers and sources as part of his oversight responsibilities, and that network scored him information that has otherwise remained hidden. It isn’t clear if the White House itself attempted to obtain these documents, but even if it did, the Senate has confirmed few Trump political appointees, which means there aren’t many loyal staffers among the Obama holdovers to attempt it. It’s also possible the Trump White House was wary of making such a demand, since it would inevitably leak. The last thing the administration wants is wild speculation that it was interfering with the FBI’s Russia probe.
Meantime, few things match the ludicrous furor over Mr. Nunes’s source-meeting place, or his visit to brief Mr. Trump. Congress members must view most classified material on executive-branch grounds, since that’s the only way to access it physically. Having discovered the former administration’s surveillance of Trump officials, Mr. Nunes had a duty to let the White House know. (Imagine if he’d sat on it.) He could hardly let Democrats know first, since their only interest these days is in leaking and twisting stories. And the reason he held press briefings before and after his meeting with Mr. Trump was to be transparent about his purpose.
Hint to the press corps: If Mr. Nunes wanted to tip off the White House about his Russia probe, it’d be a lot easier to speed-dial Steve Bannon secretly from his office.
If Mr. Schiff wants to be trusted with important information, he might start by proving he is trustworthy—rather than rumor-mongering that there is “more than circumstantial evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion. He might voice some concern that a prior White House was monitoring its political opponents. He might ask whether Obama officials had been “reverse monitoring”—tracking foreign officials solely so they could spy on the Trump team.
Mr. Nunes has zero reason to recuse himself from this probe, because he is doing his job. It’s Mr. Schiff who ought to be considering recusal, for failing to do his own.

At this point, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ADMISSIONS OF GUILT FROM A TOP OBAMA OFFICIAL THAT SHE IN FACT COMMITTED A FELONY AND LEAKED CLASSIFIED MATERIAL FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ATTACKING THE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION.

Evelyn Farkas, Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of defense, openly admitted that she participated in a giant conspiracy to treasonously undermine the administration of the next president of the United States:

Highlights of her criminal admission:

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 [Democrat politicians].

We now know this for a fact:

With the help of MSNBC, simultaneous to her admission of first-hand specific knowledge of the administration spying on Mr. Trump, Ms. Evelyn Farkas outs herself as the key source for a New York Times report which discussed President Obama officials leaking classified information to media.

Considerable irony jumps to the forefront when you recognize, the New York Times tried to protect Evelyn Farkas as the source of their reporting by stating:

“More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret.” (link)

Personally, I don’t understand why life in prison at hard manual labor until she tells us what bigger fish instructed her to do this is not entirely reasonable.  It is a crime against our very way of life for an intelligence official with access to our deepest and most classified information on American citizens to provide that information to a political party for political purposes out of political motivation.  And that is EXACTLY what the Obama administration did.

We have an open acknowledgement that Obama officials were intentionally compiling top secret classified information on Trump officials at a time when they were private American citizens and that that information was illegally not only unmasked but in fact deliberately spread for political purposes.

Which ought to amount to a sentence of death by firing squad with 300 million rifle barrels firing skull-shattering death at the same time.

This woman needs to go down harder than Osama bin Laden went down.  Because she is a FAR greater threat to our way of life than bin Laden ever was.

And people either need to go to prison and do very hard and very long time or we just need to have complete anarchy.  Because millions of us would rather die fighting with our last breath than live under the Democratic Party’s very clearly Stalinist option.

Democrats – i.e. DEMOnic bureaCRATS – did this and they are now screaming about Nunes’ procedure for revealing their rabid treason to cover up their crimes against democracy and any form of open society itself.

For the factual record, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT DONALD TRUMP OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS CAMPAIGN TEAM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM COLLABORATED WITH RUSSIA OR PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACTIVITY WITH RUSSIA.  That has been repeatedly admitted by Obama’s TOP intelligence officials.

On “Meet the Press” on March 5, host Chuck Todd asked Clapper, “Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?”

Citing a report compiled by the “NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,” Clapper answered, “There was no evidence of that included in our report.”

Did any such evidence exist, asked Todd?

“Not to my knowledge,” replied Clapper.

On March 16, Hillary Clinton supporter and severe Trump critic Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director under Obama, said, “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.”

“And there’s a lot of people looking for it,” he added.

Morrell also cited “a pretty strong statement by General Clapper.”

So what was in the intelligence information that Farkas sought to spread far and wide?

So we have Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper AND we have Obama’s CIA Director Michael Morrell both stating that there is nothing whatsoever about the naked political allegation that Trump colluded/conspired with Russia to steal the election.  Period.

There is NO evidence that the same thing was done to Hillary Clinton or to her top campaign officials. In spite of the fact that Russia had her illegal secret server because of HER criminality and in spite of the fact that the FBI wanted to look at the DNC servers to see if there was any foreign activity going on and the Democratic Party refused to allow them.

Which proves that the real reason the Obama administration was feverishly collecting and sharing the classified information was not for national security purposes, but for nakedly POLITICAL reasons having nothing to do with anything other than Democrats being nothing but rancid, rotten, toxic piles of demonized slime.
So you have Russia, but what you REALLY have is American election hacking under Obama.  Which for the record it is a FACT that Obama actually DID to our ally Israel when Obama tried to get Benjamin Netanyahu voted out and used US taxpayer money to try to do it.
And now the screaming rabid Democrat traitors to America are trying to manufacture Nunes into some kind of scapegoat to cover up their crimes.

We need right now today to either disband our intelligence services ENTIRELY, disband our military, disband our police forces, open up the gun stores and just allow total nihilism to take its rightful place in this nation, or we need to start putting Obama officials by the hundreds in jail until we get to the bottom of this fascist weaponization of intelligence organizations that we depend upon not to take us down the road to Stalinism.

Advertisements

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

May 8, 2010

Laura Ingraham’s site details the basic facts regarding what Obama said and why it isn’t true:

Obama attacks again: AZ law would ‘single out people because of who they look like’
Posted by Staff

At a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House Wednesday evening, President Obama launched another attack on Arizona’s new immigration law. “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president told the crowd. As he had in earlier criticisms of the law, Obama ignored the law’s specific stipulation that any check on a person’s immigration status can only come after a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when a person is suspected of breaking some law — that is, as Arizona lawmakers explained in a footnote to the bill, it must come “during the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

And even after meeting that standard, the law directs that police meet a “reasonable suspicion” standard before “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” The phrase “reasonable suspicion” means that there must be a number of specific factors that an officer can cite before taking action, and the law specifically says that prosecutors “shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

And even with those safeguards, the law specifies that if the person involved produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other forms of identification specified in the law, then that person is immediately presumed to be in the country legally. In other words, the whole question of legal or not legal becomes moot once the person produces a driver’s license — a common experience for nearly every American, regardless of his or her race or ethnicity.

So there’s the fact that Obama is simply wrong on the facts.  And he’s not only wrong, he’s demagogic.  He uses his lies to slander and demonize his opponents.

But there’s another aspect to this story that comes out of something else that Obama recently said:

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

So, okay, we’ve got Obama saying that we shouldn’t distrust government, or view it as inherently bad (like conservatives are out there demanding that all government be abolished and we live in total anarchy – which is to say that Obama is yet again being the slandering demagogue here).  But let’s take Obama’s statement here at face value.

Isn’t what Obama says we shouldn’t do exactly what he’s in fact doing?

What is the cornerstone of our society if not our laws and our justice?  And what is the cornerstone of our system of justice if not our police who are out on the streets enforcing our laws?

But Obama and liberals – even as they decry the right as being “anti-government” – are patently anti-government when it comes to the Arizona law.

Because they demagogue the police who are the ones at the very forefront of our system of justice.  They claim that the fact that the law specifically says that police can’t just walk around saying “show me your papers,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Why?  Because these guarantors of our system of justice are inherently evil, inherently biased, and inherently racist.  You can’t trust the American police officer.  And you can’t trust the government to enforce its laws fairly or honestly because it’s those same dishonest, biased, bigoted, and deceitful police officers who would do it.

Now, as a laughably hypocritical matter, it doesn’t matter to liberals that most Americans are compelled to “show their papers” to their government as a matter of routine course.  It’s okay all the other times when government demands proof of our identities; it’s only evil this time, when Arizona tries to deal with a population that Democrats regard as “their” race who will vote for them.

A Politico article understands Obama’s racial polititicking quite straightforwardly:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Which makes another of Obama’s remarks beyond asinine:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who “exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes.” President said Arizona’s new immigration law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He painted an alarming picture: “local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Just who’s exploiting immigration for political purposes?  How on earth can Obama possibly claim that it isn’t anyone other than himself?!?!?!

And why are these legal immigrants going to be harassed?  Because, to put it in terms that Obama has made in the past, “police act stupidly.”

What a profoundly anti-government thing to say.  If Obama is right, and our police – who are all-too-prone to “acting stupidly” or in a racist and bigoted manner – are fundamentally incapable of being honest or fair, then on what possible basis do you want to grow the size of government, so that there are more laws for more police to enforce in a fundamentally unfair and bigoted manner?

Let me put it bluntly: if I can’t trust the police – the guys who go out to your house and arrest you for disobeying all the laws that increasingly big-government will pass – then why in the freaking world would I want MORE government that will pass MORE laws for the dishonest police to maliciously and falsely roust me over?

Just who are the ones out there referring to “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity”?

By Obama’s own logic, YOU SHOULD BE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

Obama and the Democrats – who falsely charge that conservatives are “anti-government” – are therefore the ones who are themselves profoundly anti-government.

They are also anti-truth, and pro-race baiting:

So, do all these politicians have a point or is it just scaremongering? Unlike the couple thousand plus page laws passed in Washington that are filled with very complicated legalese, the Arizona law, along with the minor clarifications passed last week, is only about four pages long and is written in pretty straightforward English. Anyone reading the law will clearly see that the claims made by some Democrats are false.

As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn’t want the police to have the power to simply “ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers.” So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have “lawful contact,” meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

Even then, authorities must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien. This “reasonable suspicion” standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed.

Opponents of the law claimed “lawful contact” was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

We can look at the actual language used. After Friday’s bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin.” Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful stop, detention or arrest” mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are “outrageous.” The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.

Barack Hussein: the demagogic, anti-government race baiter-in-chief.