Day: February 5, 2018

The Cloud Requires Clear Legislation


FreedomWorks Vice President for Research Wayne Brough has noted that the “major law governing privacy and the government’s ability to access personal data online — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act [ECPA] — was written in 1986.” Yet, as a pending Supreme Court case involving Microsoft indicates, such a decades-old, pre-internet law is grossly inadequate for 21st-century internet commerce and demands forthcoming legislation introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch.

The Supreme Court has taken for review a case involving a federal search warrant served against personal data stored on a Microsoft cloud server in Ireland. Microsoft’s Supreme Court brief notes the principle that “statutes apply only domestically unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise” guides American jurisprudence. Accordingly, lower appellate courts have ruled in Microsoft’s favor against Department of Justice (DoJ) arguments asserting that American law enforcement search and seizure powers extraterritorially supersede Irish law.

Microsoft’s Irish warrant case illustrates the June 2017 congressional hearing testimony of University of Kentucky law professor Andrew Keane Woods. He observed that ECPA internationally “is the greatest source of conflicts of laws in the technology sector today.” Meanwhile Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) designed to overcome such conflicts present a “notoriously slow procedure.” Fellow witness Richard Salgado, Google’s Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security, noted government studies under President Barack Obama that determined MLAT requests “average approximately 10 months to fulfill.”

Accordingly, Salgado observed that some countries “are considering more aggressive and potentially dangerous unilateral approaches” to cloud information legal regimes. His fellow witness, Center for Democracy & Technology Vice President for Policy Chris Calabrese, confirmed this threat. Unilateral legal initiatives worldwide would place cloud “providers in an impossible position between conflicting legal regimes.”

Brough has elaborated upon this “data localization.” Globally “policymakers are considering a host of different policies that would tether data to the country of its origin, drastically reducing the efficient exchange of information across the world.” Woods has observed that “Brazil and India, for example, might simply pass a law requiring any company operating on their soil to store local records locally — where they can more easily be searched and seized.” Additionally, foreign governments are demanding that cloud providers allow for easier government monitoring by foregoing encrypted services.

Meanwhile Woods has noted that “overwhelming agreement” exists over ECPA’s inadequacies. Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer, has observed that “current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud.” ECPA stipulations, for example, currently allow for warrant-free legal searches of emails older than six months under the astonishing theory that they are “abandoned.” He has testified before Congress that a Microsoft Supreme Court loss would “literally take us back to a law that was passed when Mark Zuckerberg was two years old.”

Microsoft’s brief direly warns “U.S. companies are the world leaders in cloud storage. That lead is built on trust.” This “will evaporate entirely the moment this Court directs that U.S. companies must disclose emails stored in foreign nations when doing so would violate the data-privacy laws of those nations.” Meanwhile such extraterritoriality “would instigate a global free-for-all, inviting foreign governments to reciprocate by unilaterally seizing U.S. citizens’ private correspondence from computers in the United States.”

Smith has noted a consensus among all involved with information technology over “real problems that need real solutions. But they need to be crafted with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.” Yet political “[i]naction means that important policy decisions about electronic privacy and government access fall by default to the courts,” Salgado has stated. As Microsoft’s brief indicates and Smith has observed, this is a “blunt instrument. The courts are not able to write a new law.”

Microsoft’s brief elaborates:

only Congress has the authority and tools to rewrite the statute to strike a new, 21st-century balance between law-enforcement interests, our relations with foreign nations, the privacy of our citizens, and the competitiveness of our technology industry.

Overwhelming support for Microsoft’s position has come in 23 amicus briefs. Their 289 signatories represent millions across 37 countries. These include American and European lawmakers, leading technology companies, media organizations, legal scholars, computer scientists, trade associations, and advocacy groups.

Fortunately, Orrin Hatch’s Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act of 2018 uniquely addresses the challenges highlighted by Microsoft’s case. The law establishes a formal American legal framework for bilateral agreements that avoid international conflict of laws problems and gives American companies various statutory rights. According to various sources, President Donald Trump supports CLOUD and its passage is expected to prompt the DOJ to withdraw from Microsoft’s case. America’s global edge in rapidly developing information technologies cannot wait any longer.

FreedomWorks Vice President for Research Wayne Brough has noted that the “major law governing privacy and the government’s ability to access personal data online — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act [ECPA] — was written in 1986.” Yet, as a pending Supreme Court case involving Microsoft indicates, such a decades-old, pre-internet law is grossly inadequate for 21st-century internet commerce and demands forthcoming legislation introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch.

The Supreme Court has taken for review a case involving a federal search warrant served against personal data stored on a Microsoft cloud server in Ireland. Microsoft’s Supreme Court brief notes the principle that “statutes apply only domestically unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise” guides American jurisprudence. Accordingly, lower appellate courts have ruled in Microsoft’s favor against Department of Justice (DoJ) arguments asserting that American law enforcement search and seizure powers extraterritorially supersede Irish law.

Microsoft’s Irish warrant case illustrates the June 2017 congressional hearing testimony of University of Kentucky law professor Andrew Keane Woods. He observed that ECPA internationally “is the greatest source of conflicts of laws in the technology sector today.” Meanwhile Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) designed to overcome such conflicts present a “notoriously slow procedure.” Fellow witness Richard Salgado, Google’s Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security, noted government studies under President Barack Obama that determined MLAT requests “average approximately 10 months to fulfill.”

Accordingly, Salgado observed that some countries “are considering more aggressive and potentially dangerous unilateral approaches” to cloud information legal regimes. His fellow witness, Center for Democracy & Technology Vice President for Policy Chris Calabrese, confirmed this threat. Unilateral legal initiatives worldwide would place cloud “providers in an impossible position between conflicting legal regimes.”

Brough has elaborated upon this “data localization.” Globally “policymakers are considering a host of different policies that would tether data to the country of its origin, drastically reducing the efficient exchange of information across the world.” Woods has observed that “Brazil and India, for example, might simply pass a law requiring any company operating on their soil to store local records locally — where they can more easily be searched and seized.” Additionally, foreign governments are demanding that cloud providers allow for easier government monitoring by foregoing encrypted services.

Meanwhile Woods has noted that “overwhelming agreement” exists over ECPA’s inadequacies. Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer, has observed that “current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud.” ECPA stipulations, for example, currently allow for warrant-free legal searches of emails older than six months under the astonishing theory that they are “abandoned.” He has testified before Congress that a Microsoft Supreme Court loss would “literally take us back to a law that was passed when Mark Zuckerberg was two years old.”

Microsoft’s brief direly warns “U.S. companies are the world leaders in cloud storage. That lead is built on trust.” This “will evaporate entirely the moment this Court directs that U.S. companies must disclose emails stored in foreign nations when doing so would violate the data-privacy laws of those nations.” Meanwhile such extraterritoriality “would instigate a global free-for-all, inviting foreign governments to reciprocate by unilaterally seizing U.S. citizens’ private correspondence from computers in the United States.”

Smith has noted a consensus among all involved with information technology over “real problems that need real solutions. But they need to be crafted with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.” Yet political “[i]naction means that important policy decisions about electronic privacy and government access fall by default to the courts,” Salgado has stated. As Microsoft’s brief indicates and Smith has observed, this is a “blunt instrument. The courts are not able to write a new law.”

Microsoft’s brief elaborates:

only Congress has the authority and tools to rewrite the statute to strike a new, 21st-century balance between law-enforcement interests, our relations with foreign nations, the privacy of our citizens, and the competitiveness of our technology industry.

Overwhelming support for Microsoft’s position has come in 23 amicus briefs. Their 289 signatories represent millions across 37 countries. These include American and European lawmakers, leading technology companies, media organizations, legal scholars, computer scientists, trade associations, and advocacy groups.

Fortunately, Orrin Hatch’s Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act of 2018 uniquely addresses the challenges highlighted by Microsoft’s case. The law establishes a formal American legal framework for bilateral agreements that avoid international conflict of laws problems and gives American companies various statutory rights. According to various sources, President Donald Trump supports CLOUD and its passage is expected to prompt the DOJ to withdraw from Microsoft’s case. America’s global edge in rapidly developing information technologies cannot wait any longer.



Source link

Carter Page was the Camel's Nose in Trump's Tent


There is an old Arab proverb, “If the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” A metaphor for a small, insignificant action opening the door to something much larger and more nefarious.

Overlooked in this past weekend’s brouhaha over the Nunes memo is the role of Carter Page. A Russian spy or the FBI camel’s nose to get under the Trump tent? Given that to date Page has not been charged with a single crime, unlike Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, is he really a spy or just a dodgy business consultant who did business with Russia?

And who served conveniently as the camel’s nose to get under the Trump tent, so the Obama justice and intelligence departments could first try to influence the election, then having failed, to overturn the election results.

Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, reviews the history of Carter Page. An energy consultant doing business in Russia that Russia tried to recruit as a spy. Big deal. I suspect most Americans doing business with or within Russia have at one time been approached by the Russian intelligence services to see if they have any appetite for helping Mother Russia.

Page was supposedly viewed by the Russians as “an idiot”, according to Byron York’s piece. So what. Trump is called an idiot on CNN and MSNBC on a daily basis. Is Page an idiot?

His bio suggests otherwise. A distinguished graduate of the US Naval Academy, in the top 10 percent of his class. Unlike Senator John McCain who graduated 894th in a class of 899 at Annapolis.

Page received a master’s degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown, served five years in the Navy, was a fellow at the Council of Foreign relations, received an MBA from NYU, and worked as an investment banker at Merrill Lynch in London, Moscow, and New York.

Adding to his resume, he earned a PhD from SOAS, University of London.

Could he still be an idiot? Sure. Plenty of Ivy League graduates populate the halls of media, academia, and government and could be called idiots, but characterizing Page as some rube plucked off the street to play his brief role as a Trump campaign advisor is a stretch.

Page’s activities in Russia placed him on the FBI’s Russian radar screen as Byron York observed. Reasonably so. Too bad the Obama FBI showed no similar interest in the Clintons’ for far more suspicious activities, such as the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton receiving half a million dollars for giving a speech to a Russian investment bank with Kremlin ties. Far more than anything we know about Carter Page. The FBI radar screen was blind to the Clintons.

Trump, early in his campaign, needed a foreign policy advisory team. NeverTrumpers who would have gladly served in that role for candidate Jeb! or Kasich ran from Trump like scalded dogs. Carter Page, a Republican, was scooped up by the Trump campaign as a volunteer advisor, given the limited choices and media pressure on Trump to name his team.

Boom! Page was the camel’s nose under the tent. A suspicious character who worked in Russia. That was all the FBI needed. And the FBI camel wasted no time in crawling entirely into the tent.

As the Nunes memo clearly outlined, the FBI and DOJ had two choices at this point in their pursuit of Donald Trump via Carter Page. A FISA Title VII warrant, for surveillance of US persons abroad, specifically those in contact with potential terror organizations, which Page was not.

Or a FISA Title I warrant, with a much higher threshold. As Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been explaining, Title I is reserved for an, “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.” The evidence must show the American citizen is an agent of a foreign government. A spy. If Page is a Russian spy, why hasn’t he been arrested, indicted, and prosecuted?

The Obama administration made the claim that Carter Page was an actual Russian spy, basing the claim on the Steele dossier, which FBI director Comey at the time described to Congress as “salacious and unverified.” This FISA application was made on October 21, 2016, months after Page left the Trump campaign. Furthermore, the application was renewed three more times, twice while Trump was President.

Whether the FISA judge was duped or in on the charade is as of yet unknown, but the Obama justice and intelligence forces were now in the Trump tent.

Anyone and everyone who Page had contact with, past, present, and future, was fair game to spy on. If Page was an advisor to the Trump campaign, even if for only a few months, he undoubtedly had contact with every principal in the campaign, including candidate Trump and his family. Obama and Clinton were essentially embedded within the Trump campaign.

These “incidental contacts” of Carter Page could then be unmasked by Susan Rice and others in the Obama administration. This information then was placed in Obama’s Presidential Daily Brief. Not for the President’s eyes only, but disseminated to, “More than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.”

A phone call away from the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN. Or Adam Schiff or John McCain. Now the entire Democratic Party, mainstream media, and a cadre of NeverTrump Republicans were in the Trump tent. Trump might have well conducted his entire campaign as a reality TV show, strategies on full display to the world. Like broadcasting an NFL offensive huddle to the entire stadium.

All due to the FBI using Carter Page to get their nose under the Trump tent. Using dubious and likely illegal means to accomplish their goals. Fortunately not eliminating Trump thus far, but this has not played out yet.

Democrats in particular should be very afraid of this scandal. Rather than defending the Obama abuses, they should be screaming for oversight and an end to these practices.

How easy for Trump to use these tactics against the Democrats in 2020 or 2024? The current crop of Obama appointed FISA judges will be out as their terms are seven years, with a new appointment each year.

A sympathetic Trump-appointed judge may sign off on FISA Title 1 surveillance of candidate Bernie Sanders, since he honeymooned in the USSR and may be a spy. Or on Hillary Clinton, since she and her husband received large sums of money from the Russians. Or Elizabeth Warren, whose Indian ancestors were originally from Siberia, creating sympathies toward her ancestral country.

I doubt President Trump would do such a thing, but the precedent has been set. And as of yet, there has been no accountability or punishment for these misdeeds. Democrats would be wise to remember that by vociferously defending this corrupt process, they pave the way for future camels to poke their noses under Democrat tents.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

There is an old Arab proverb, “If the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” A metaphor for a small, insignificant action opening the door to something much larger and more nefarious.

Overlooked in this past weekend’s brouhaha over the Nunes memo is the role of Carter Page. A Russian spy or the FBI camel’s nose to get under the Trump tent? Given that to date Page has not been charged with a single crime, unlike Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, is he really a spy or just a dodgy business consultant who did business with Russia?

And who served conveniently as the camel’s nose to get under the Trump tent, so the Obama justice and intelligence departments could first try to influence the election, then having failed, to overturn the election results.

Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, reviews the history of Carter Page. An energy consultant doing business in Russia that Russia tried to recruit as a spy. Big deal. I suspect most Americans doing business with or within Russia have at one time been approached by the Russian intelligence services to see if they have any appetite for helping Mother Russia.

Page was supposedly viewed by the Russians as “an idiot”, according to Byron York’s piece. So what. Trump is called an idiot on CNN and MSNBC on a daily basis. Is Page an idiot?

His bio suggests otherwise. A distinguished graduate of the US Naval Academy, in the top 10 percent of his class. Unlike Senator John McCain who graduated 894th in a class of 899 at Annapolis.

Page received a master’s degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown, served five years in the Navy, was a fellow at the Council of Foreign relations, received an MBA from NYU, and worked as an investment banker at Merrill Lynch in London, Moscow, and New York.

Adding to his resume, he earned a PhD from SOAS, University of London.

Could he still be an idiot? Sure. Plenty of Ivy League graduates populate the halls of media, academia, and government and could be called idiots, but characterizing Page as some rube plucked off the street to play his brief role as a Trump campaign advisor is a stretch.

Page’s activities in Russia placed him on the FBI’s Russian radar screen as Byron York observed. Reasonably so. Too bad the Obama FBI showed no similar interest in the Clintons’ for far more suspicious activities, such as the Uranium One deal and Bill Clinton receiving half a million dollars for giving a speech to a Russian investment bank with Kremlin ties. Far more than anything we know about Carter Page. The FBI radar screen was blind to the Clintons.

Trump, early in his campaign, needed a foreign policy advisory team. NeverTrumpers who would have gladly served in that role for candidate Jeb! or Kasich ran from Trump like scalded dogs. Carter Page, a Republican, was scooped up by the Trump campaign as a volunteer advisor, given the limited choices and media pressure on Trump to name his team.

Boom! Page was the camel’s nose under the tent. A suspicious character who worked in Russia. That was all the FBI needed. And the FBI camel wasted no time in crawling entirely into the tent.

As the Nunes memo clearly outlined, the FBI and DOJ had two choices at this point in their pursuit of Donald Trump via Carter Page. A FISA Title VII warrant, for surveillance of US persons abroad, specifically those in contact with potential terror organizations, which Page was not.

Or a FISA Title I warrant, with a much higher threshold. As Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been explaining, Title I is reserved for an, “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.” The evidence must show the American citizen is an agent of a foreign government. A spy. If Page is a Russian spy, why hasn’t he been arrested, indicted, and prosecuted?

The Obama administration made the claim that Carter Page was an actual Russian spy, basing the claim on the Steele dossier, which FBI director Comey at the time described to Congress as “salacious and unverified.” This FISA application was made on October 21, 2016, months after Page left the Trump campaign. Furthermore, the application was renewed three more times, twice while Trump was President.

Whether the FISA judge was duped or in on the charade is as of yet unknown, but the Obama justice and intelligence forces were now in the Trump tent.

Anyone and everyone who Page had contact with, past, present, and future, was fair game to spy on. If Page was an advisor to the Trump campaign, even if for only a few months, he undoubtedly had contact with every principal in the campaign, including candidate Trump and his family. Obama and Clinton were essentially embedded within the Trump campaign.

These “incidental contacts” of Carter Page could then be unmasked by Susan Rice and others in the Obama administration. This information then was placed in Obama’s Presidential Daily Brief. Not for the President’s eyes only, but disseminated to, “More than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.”

A phone call away from the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN. Or Adam Schiff or John McCain. Now the entire Democratic Party, mainstream media, and a cadre of NeverTrump Republicans were in the Trump tent. Trump might have well conducted his entire campaign as a reality TV show, strategies on full display to the world. Like broadcasting an NFL offensive huddle to the entire stadium.

All due to the FBI using Carter Page to get their nose under the Trump tent. Using dubious and likely illegal means to accomplish their goals. Fortunately not eliminating Trump thus far, but this has not played out yet.

Democrats in particular should be very afraid of this scandal. Rather than defending the Obama abuses, they should be screaming for oversight and an end to these practices.

How easy for Trump to use these tactics against the Democrats in 2020 or 2024? The current crop of Obama appointed FISA judges will be out as their terms are seven years, with a new appointment each year.

A sympathetic Trump-appointed judge may sign off on FISA Title 1 surveillance of candidate Bernie Sanders, since he honeymooned in the USSR and may be a spy. Or on Hillary Clinton, since she and her husband received large sums of money from the Russians. Or Elizabeth Warren, whose Indian ancestors were originally from Siberia, creating sympathies toward her ancestral country.

I doubt President Trump would do such a thing, but the precedent has been set. And as of yet, there has been no accountability or punishment for these misdeeds. Democrats would be wise to remember that by vociferously defending this corrupt process, they pave the way for future camels to poke their noses under Democrat tents.

Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.



Source link

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP: Victim of Bristol University's Red Guards


One Bristol University student, a William Brown, said:

“These people in balaclavas and sunglasses started shouting, things like ‘Tory fascist’.


“They were quite intimidating actually.


“They were waving their hands around, shouting very loudly.”

This student also stated that a few punches were thrown.

The same student added:

“Jacob went to calm them down, I think he came out of it very well.


“He was encouraging them to speak, without shouting, saying something like ‘I’m happy to talk if you want’.”

One other student, a Sebastian Salton, said:

“It was interrupted by antifascists, I don’t think it was assault, I think people were trying to get him out.


“There was some negotiating.


“He went over to them and said ‘lets not shout them down,’ but they weren’t having any of it.


“They were shouting ‘racist, misogynist, homophobe, sexist’. They were talking about austerity.”

Will Smith, another student, said:

“There were people in balaclavas shouting ‘fascist scum’ and ‘sexist’.


“He was the first to approach them.”

Rees-Moog was stuck bang in the middle of all this. However, he said that he wasn’t “shaken or stirred” by the event. Rees-Moog also said that “they were just rather shouty”; though “all is well”. Despite that, some students described Rees-Moog as “looking shaken up” after the event.

So guess what. These typical students yelled “Tory fascist”, “fascist scum”, “sexist, “homophobe” and “Nazi” at an elected British MP. Now, isn’t that highly original? Not really. You’d think that these students would become a little self-conscious about using these left-wing cliches or soundbites. Though since the left-wing politics of student life is effectively a middle-class Rite of Passage, and because all rites of passage must take the same form, then these actions are hardly surprising.

Most left-wing students dress the same; act the same; and, more importantly, think the same.

As ever, the Marxist Left isn’t concerned with debate. It’s concerned with obliterating alternative political views. It often does that with violence or, sometimes, with the “no platform” policy which has often been in force in British universities. (It has only been applied to the Far Right — never to the Far Left.) This policy was established by the National Union of Students in the early 1970s; under the strong influence of the International Marxist Group (IMG) and the International Socialists (IS). It’s been used to ban a whole host of speakers, groups, and even academics.

What happened to Jacob Rees-Mogg has happened countless times in our universities since the 1960s. It’s been happening since the Left has been attempting to create (sometimes it’s been very successful) a “hegemony” in all these “Gramscian institutions”. All sorts of people have been the victim of left-wing violence, intolerance, and political conformity: academics, MPs, politicians, political parties, political and social groups, individuals, etc.

One example of all this which always stuck in mind dates back to 1978 and concerned the biologist, researcher, and naturalist, E.O. Wilson (who, politically, is a liberal). His case parallels, very strongly, the left-wing intolerance of Steven Pinker (also a liberal who’s apparently donated money to the Democratic Party), the Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, etc. today.

E.O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, was published in 1975. It rekindled the ancient nature-vs.-nurture debate. Predictably, Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and even sympathy for eugenics.

Not surprisingly, this led to one incident in November 1978 in which E.O. Wilson was physically attacked (during one of his lectures) by members of the International Committee Against Racism, a front group for the Marxist Progressive Labor Party. Ironically, Wilson said:

“I believe… I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea.”

What Wilson said is false; as the example of scientists in the Soviet Union, for one, shows. In the 1960s, other American scientists and academics were also victims of left-wing violence and intolerance. (As can be seen in the ‘Political Scientists’ chapter of Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.) However, Wilson later said that he was very politically naïve at the time and had no idea that he’d be attacked by the virulent and intolerent Marxist Left.

So, bearing all that in mind, I wonder if professors, academics and other left-wing supporters (whether passive or active) of all this believe that it’s a good thing that so many students are politically conformist, intolerant, and violent?

Is it a good thing that being left-wing or a revolutionary socialist is a middle-class Rite of Passage for so many students between the ages of 18 and 22?

Is it a good thing that so many right-wing academics, groups, and individuals have their talks and seminars banned and have also even been the victims of physical violence?

Do they think it’s a good thing that many university departments are effectively Gramscian institutions and that this has been the case going back to the 1960s — for some 60 or so years?

All this is nothing new. It has a history.

In the Germany of the 1930s, Hitler Youth and other young Nazis ruled the roost in German universities. Indeed, all academics were Nazis, although some were only nominally so.

In the 1940s in the Soviet Union, all academics were Marxists/communists. And, again, young students often victimised all political dissidents — even the ones who weren’t political dissidents.

Under Chairman Mao (in the 1960s) we had the young Red Guards who terrorised the university campuses and enforced their political will on all students and indeed even on professors and academics.

And today (in the UK) we have Momentum, Social Justice Warriors, the Socialist Workers Party, etc. who, in their fight for tolerance, peace, and open-mindedness, indulge in extreme intolerance, violence, and closed-mindedness.

Yes, it all sounds terribly familiar. Yet to those deeply embedded in university environments (in which being left-wing — or at least liberal left — is de rigueur), it will all seem so terribly normal and acceptable. Of course it will!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, New English Review, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics: http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.co.uk/. And Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy: http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.co.uk/.  His Twitter account can be found here: https://twitter.com/PaulAustMurphy.

The British Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has just been caught up in the middle of a violent scuffle while giving a talk at a British university. This is the very same Rees-Mogg who’s been tipped to be the next leader of the British Conservative Party.

He’d been speaking at the University of Bristol’s Politics and International Relations Society when it was stormed by left-wing Red Guards.

One Bristol University student, a William Brown, said:

“These people in balaclavas and sunglasses started shouting, things like ‘Tory fascist’.


“They were quite intimidating actually.


“They were waving their hands around, shouting very loudly.”

This student also stated that a few punches were thrown.

The same student added:

“Jacob went to calm them down, I think he came out of it very well.


“He was encouraging them to speak, without shouting, saying something like ‘I’m happy to talk if you want’.”

One other student, a Sebastian Salton, said:

“It was interrupted by antifascists, I don’t think it was assault, I think people were trying to get him out.


“There was some negotiating.


“He went over to them and said ‘lets not shout them down,’ but they weren’t having any of it.


“They were shouting ‘racist, misogynist, homophobe, sexist’. They were talking about austerity.”

Will Smith, another student, said:

“There were people in balaclavas shouting ‘fascist scum’ and ‘sexist’.


“He was the first to approach them.”

Rees-Moog was stuck bang in the middle of all this. However, he said that he wasn’t “shaken or stirred” by the event. Rees-Moog also said that “they were just rather shouty”; though “all is well”. Despite that, some students described Rees-Moog as “looking shaken up” after the event.

So guess what. These typical students yelled “Tory fascist”, “fascist scum”, “sexist, “homophobe” and “Nazi” at an elected British MP. Now, isn’t that highly original? Not really. You’d think that these students would become a little self-conscious about using these left-wing cliches or soundbites. Though since the left-wing politics of student life is effectively a middle-class Rite of Passage, and because all rites of passage must take the same form, then these actions are hardly surprising.

Most left-wing students dress the same; act the same; and, more importantly, think the same.

As ever, the Marxist Left isn’t concerned with debate. It’s concerned with obliterating alternative political views. It often does that with violence or, sometimes, with the “no platform” policy which has often been in force in British universities. (It has only been applied to the Far Right — never to the Far Left.) This policy was established by the National Union of Students in the early 1970s; under the strong influence of the International Marxist Group (IMG) and the International Socialists (IS). It’s been used to ban a whole host of speakers, groups, and even academics.

What happened to Jacob Rees-Mogg has happened countless times in our universities since the 1960s. It’s been happening since the Left has been attempting to create (sometimes it’s been very successful) a “hegemony” in all these “Gramscian institutions”. All sorts of people have been the victim of left-wing violence, intolerance, and political conformity: academics, MPs, politicians, political parties, political and social groups, individuals, etc.

One example of all this which always stuck in mind dates back to 1978 and concerned the biologist, researcher, and naturalist, E.O. Wilson (who, politically, is a liberal). His case parallels, very strongly, the left-wing intolerance of Steven Pinker (also a liberal who’s apparently donated money to the Democratic Party), the Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, etc. today.

E.O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, was published in 1975. It rekindled the ancient nature-vs.-nurture debate. Predictably, Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and even sympathy for eugenics.

Not surprisingly, this led to one incident in November 1978 in which E.O. Wilson was physically attacked (during one of his lectures) by members of the International Committee Against Racism, a front group for the Marxist Progressive Labor Party. Ironically, Wilson said:

“I believe… I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea.”

What Wilson said is false; as the example of scientists in the Soviet Union, for one, shows. In the 1960s, other American scientists and academics were also victims of left-wing violence and intolerance. (As can be seen in the ‘Political Scientists’ chapter of Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.) However, Wilson later said that he was very politically naïve at the time and had no idea that he’d be attacked by the virulent and intolerent Marxist Left.

So, bearing all that in mind, I wonder if professors, academics and other left-wing supporters (whether passive or active) of all this believe that it’s a good thing that so many students are politically conformist, intolerant, and violent?

Is it a good thing that being left-wing or a revolutionary socialist is a middle-class Rite of Passage for so many students between the ages of 18 and 22?

Is it a good thing that so many right-wing academics, groups, and individuals have their talks and seminars banned and have also even been the victims of physical violence?

Do they think it’s a good thing that many university departments are effectively Gramscian institutions and that this has been the case going back to the 1960s — for some 60 or so years?

All this is nothing new. It has a history.

In the Germany of the 1930s, Hitler Youth and other young Nazis ruled the roost in German universities. Indeed, all academics were Nazis, although some were only nominally so.

In the 1940s in the Soviet Union, all academics were Marxists/communists. And, again, young students often victimised all political dissidents — even the ones who weren’t political dissidents.

Under Chairman Mao (in the 1960s) we had the young Red Guards who terrorised the university campuses and enforced their political will on all students and indeed even on professors and academics.

And today (in the UK) we have Momentum, Social Justice Warriors, the Socialist Workers Party, etc. who, in their fight for tolerance, peace, and open-mindedness, indulge in extreme intolerance, violence, and closed-mindedness.

Yes, it all sounds terribly familiar. Yet to those deeply embedded in university environments (in which being left-wing — or at least liberal left — is de rigueur), it will all seem so terribly normal and acceptable. Of course it will!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, New English Review, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics: http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.co.uk/. And Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy: http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.co.uk/.  His Twitter account can be found here: https://twitter.com/PaulAustMurphy.



Source link

Confronting Leftist Lies


Leftists who hate America as founded dominate fake news media, Hollywood, public education, and social media. Their mission is to bring America down from her status as the world power. This is why leftists are so repulsed by Trump’s desire to make America great again. Leftists hate the free market and seek to replace it with socialism; a big brother government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Leftists are liberals. Most people think “liberal” means having a live and let live attitude. The reality is that liberals are super aggressive, using government to force their ungodly agenda items down the throats of the masses. This why Obama hates our Constitution — because it restricts government from dictating how we behave. Obama dissed our Constitution with these words: “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” 

Obama’s rant against our Constitution is typical leftist arrogance. They believe their superior intellect should grant them the authority to dictate how we peons should live.

Leftists are also obsessed with poking their finger in the eye of the God of Christianity; transforming America into an anything goes sexually society (bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and etc.). Leftists hate the God of Christianity because He requires moral standards of behavior.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The American left is in a relentless pursuit to strip America of an remnant of her moral and religious roots and heritage.

I watched Alex Azar being sworn in as the new secretary of HHS (Health and Human Services). It was truly refreshing to see Azar with his hand on the Bible, swearing his oath to God to defend our Constitution. Leftists have not successfully totally banned God from our government. Praise God.

It is a shame the way the American left has been allowed to indoctrinate generations of young Americans into believing this divinely conceived, unique experiment called America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. Our Christian roots, birthed out of the teachings of Jesus Christ, makes us the most loving, giving, and compassionate nation on the planet. We are Americans; good people blessed by God.

Since his election, Trump has dramatically dialed back Obama’s legacy of government unlawfully usurping control of our lives. In a nutshell, Trump is making decisions, deals, and policies best for America. Leftists are out of their minds with rage and frustration. Every play in leftists’ “How to Destroy a Republican” playbook has bombed big time against Trump. Fake news media has abandon any pretense of fair and balanced reporting. Every news story is either a distortion or blatant lie about Trump.

For example. Trump’s tax cuts have already sparked a boom in our economy, beneficial to all Americans. Businesses are coming back from overseas. American companies are raising wages and giving bonuses.  And yet, everywhere you turn, leftists are spreading their lie that Trump’s tax cut only impacts the rich. Disgustingly, leftists always play upon our baser instincts; class envy and the sin of covetousness. Leftists want you to hate and feel victimized by anyone who has more than you.

Every day we must be truth warriors slaying lies from the American left about Trump, his agenda, and America.

Movies and TV shows are no longer mindless entertainment. Ninety-nine percent of what comes out of Hollywood is lies; designed to seduce Americans into embracing Leftists’ ungodly agenda. Hollywood relentlessly demonizes Christians, America, mainstream Americans, and Trump.

Leftists in media, colleges and corporations are breaking new ground in their intense efforts to stop Trump’s agenda and silence conservative speech.

Millions are outraged at the NFL. Americans who simply tuned in to watch Sunday football games were slapped in the face by NFL players, coaches, and management politically protesting on the field against our flag, country, national anthem, and police. And yet, NFL management had the audacity to reject an ad for the Superbowl program booklet, claiming it is too political. The ad featured a veteran, a U.S. flag and the words, “#Please Stand.” The NFL’s rejection of the ad is evidence of the NFL arrogantly supporting the American Left while dissing mainstream Americans.

Psychotherapist James Caspian specializes in studying transgenders. Leftists are bullying Caspian into silence for exposing the truth that transgenders who regret having sex change surgery are on the rise. Leftists always quickly seek to silence any truth that contradicts their agenda. We are in a war of Leftists’ lies vs truth. 

The 6 o’clock news was on the TV in the background while I was chatting with a relative at his home Folks, it was a truly painful experience. Every news story was liberal spin and/or lies. Programming after the news was seductive liberal propaganda. I watched my relatives unknowingly soaking in all the Leftist beautifully presented excrement. This is what we are up against, folks. If it were not for my Christian faith, I could be discouraged; believing our battle for the hearts and soul of America is already lost.

Since moving to West Virginia from Florida, I stumbled across One America News, a great source of real news on DirecTV. Dish Network refuses to carry OAN.  Facebook is shutting down conservative pages. We are at war, folks.

Pray for God’s wisdom and guidance. Boldly confront Leftists’ lies with truth. God has given us a chance to take back America via President Trump. We have surrendered too much ground to the American Left. Time for us to stand for our flag, our country, and stand with Trump.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth.

http://LloydMarcus.com

Leftists who hate America as founded dominate fake news media, Hollywood, public education, and social media. Their mission is to bring America down from her status as the world power. This is why leftists are so repulsed by Trump’s desire to make America great again. Leftists hate the free market and seek to replace it with socialism; a big brother government controlling every aspect of our lives.

Leftists are liberals. Most people think “liberal” means having a live and let live attitude. The reality is that liberals are super aggressive, using government to force their ungodly agenda items down the throats of the masses. This why Obama hates our Constitution — because it restricts government from dictating how we behave. Obama dissed our Constitution with these words: “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” 

Obama’s rant against our Constitution is typical leftist arrogance. They believe their superior intellect should grant them the authority to dictate how we peons should live.

Leftists are also obsessed with poking their finger in the eye of the God of Christianity; transforming America into an anything goes sexually society (bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and etc.). Leftists hate the God of Christianity because He requires moral standards of behavior.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The American left is in a relentless pursuit to strip America of an remnant of her moral and religious roots and heritage.

I watched Alex Azar being sworn in as the new secretary of HHS (Health and Human Services). It was truly refreshing to see Azar with his hand on the Bible, swearing his oath to God to defend our Constitution. Leftists have not successfully totally banned God from our government. Praise God.

It is a shame the way the American left has been allowed to indoctrinate generations of young Americans into believing this divinely conceived, unique experiment called America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. Our Christian roots, birthed out of the teachings of Jesus Christ, makes us the most loving, giving, and compassionate nation on the planet. We are Americans; good people blessed by God.

Since his election, Trump has dramatically dialed back Obama’s legacy of government unlawfully usurping control of our lives. In a nutshell, Trump is making decisions, deals, and policies best for America. Leftists are out of their minds with rage and frustration. Every play in leftists’ “How to Destroy a Republican” playbook has bombed big time against Trump. Fake news media has abandon any pretense of fair and balanced reporting. Every news story is either a distortion or blatant lie about Trump.

For example. Trump’s tax cuts have already sparked a boom in our economy, beneficial to all Americans. Businesses are coming back from overseas. American companies are raising wages and giving bonuses.  And yet, everywhere you turn, leftists are spreading their lie that Trump’s tax cut only impacts the rich. Disgustingly, leftists always play upon our baser instincts; class envy and the sin of covetousness. Leftists want you to hate and feel victimized by anyone who has more than you.

Every day we must be truth warriors slaying lies from the American left about Trump, his agenda, and America.

Movies and TV shows are no longer mindless entertainment. Ninety-nine percent of what comes out of Hollywood is lies; designed to seduce Americans into embracing Leftists’ ungodly agenda. Hollywood relentlessly demonizes Christians, America, mainstream Americans, and Trump.

Leftists in media, colleges and corporations are breaking new ground in their intense efforts to stop Trump’s agenda and silence conservative speech.

Millions are outraged at the NFL. Americans who simply tuned in to watch Sunday football games were slapped in the face by NFL players, coaches, and management politically protesting on the field against our flag, country, national anthem, and police. And yet, NFL management had the audacity to reject an ad for the Superbowl program booklet, claiming it is too political. The ad featured a veteran, a U.S. flag and the words, “#Please Stand.” The NFL’s rejection of the ad is evidence of the NFL arrogantly supporting the American Left while dissing mainstream Americans.

Psychotherapist James Caspian specializes in studying transgenders. Leftists are bullying Caspian into silence for exposing the truth that transgenders who regret having sex change surgery are on the rise. Leftists always quickly seek to silence any truth that contradicts their agenda. We are in a war of Leftists’ lies vs truth. 

The 6 o’clock news was on the TV in the background while I was chatting with a relative at his home Folks, it was a truly painful experience. Every news story was liberal spin and/or lies. Programming after the news was seductive liberal propaganda. I watched my relatives unknowingly soaking in all the Leftist beautifully presented excrement. This is what we are up against, folks. If it were not for my Christian faith, I could be discouraged; believing our battle for the hearts and soul of America is already lost.

Since moving to West Virginia from Florida, I stumbled across One America News, a great source of real news on DirecTV. Dish Network refuses to carry OAN.  Facebook is shutting down conservative pages. We are at war, folks.

Pray for God’s wisdom and guidance. Boldly confront Leftists’ lies with truth. God has given us a chance to take back America via President Trump. We have surrendered too much ground to the American Left. Time for us to stand for our flag, our country, and stand with Trump.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth.

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

Mueller Investigation: Illegal 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?'


Over the past year the United States and, secondarily, the rest of the world, have been bombarded with the Democratic Party’s take on “Russia collusion.” Democrats have persistently declared that President Donald J. Tramp’s political ascendancy signals Armageddon. The insults started with the snarky “he’s not one of us,” to myriad accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, serial sexual harassment, xenophobia, vulgar speech, facilitation of white supremacists and violence, a crashed economy, and soured foreign relations. When none of these accusations stuck, they settled on an unrelenting, unsubstantiated drumbeat of claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

At last, the truth regarding these false accusations has been uncovered. The declassified House memo has revealed the perfidy of the Democrats’ ‘accusations against Trump, and the illegality of the Special Counsel and his investigation.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution provides that:

  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched.”

From that principle, United States criminal law has evolved to provide a balancing act between the rights of the individual against unlawful privacy invasion, and the rights of the “State” to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers. Myriad laws exist to protect the individual from illegal searches and seizure, while providing authorities a roadmap that ensures due process is effectuated.

Also, it is imperative to note that every attorney is required to take a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, before being allowed to practice law. Attorneys working in governmental judicial offices are required to take an expanded, special oath. It is incumbent upon every attorney to uphold their oath and not perpetrate a fraud on the court.

Regardless of court, state or federal, the same principles apply: a warrant application must be signed by an authorized agency, that states with specificity the person to be searched or wiretapped, the alleged crime, and the exact location of the search or wiretap. Any exculpatory evidence, that which exists to exonerate the target of the warrant, must be included.  Moreover, every application must be accompanied with an affirmation that all the facts contained therein are true.

To further protect the individual against the overarching power of the State, certain “exclusionary” rules prohibit the State from using evidence that is obtained, illegally. One such doctrine is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” established in the Supreme Court case Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. (The phrase itself was first used by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States.)

Essentially, this doctrine provides that if the State obtains evidence from an illegal source (the poisonous tree), that evidence is tainted. Accordingly, any tainted evidence (fruit) is also poisonous and may not be admitted into any court proceeding.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), is a federal court established to oversee requests for surveillance against foreign spies inside the United States. Warrants are typically issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the National Security Agency (NSA). The Department of Justice (DOJ) may also file warrant applications. The FISA Court was not created to spy on United States presidential candidates.

However, during the presidential campaign of 2016-2017, the FBI filed a warrant with the FISA court based on a dossier paid for by the Democratic National Party (DNC) and then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The warrant did not specify the genesis of the report. Instead, it cited as a secondary source a Yahoo news article, based on information provided by the same, uber-biased author of the dossier. Because the warrants are only valid for ninety days, the warrant was signed and submitted by the FBI six times! And, for six times, they were signed by attorneys who had sworn an oath to act with fidelity to the courts. It appears that without the now-disabused dossier as supporting evidence, the FISA Court would never have signed the warrants — thus the warrants were poisonous trees.

Carter Page, then advisor to Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, was the first target of the FISA-granted surveillance for purportedly colluding with Russia. From Page, the surveillance morphed to other inner circle members of the Trump campaign, and ultimately, after Trump’s presidential victory, to Trump himself, in the creation of a special counsel, former FBI Director, Robert Mueller.

Instead of a neutral investigation into whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidential election, Mueller stacked his team with partisan Democrats, negating even a whiff of impartiality.

Now that the credibility of the dossier that formed the basis of the FBI warrant application has been totally eviscerated, it epitomizes a poisonous tree. Clearly, under United States criminal law, the Mueller investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be shut down.  

Over the past year the United States and, secondarily, the rest of the world, have been bombarded with the Democratic Party’s take on “Russia collusion.” Democrats have persistently declared that President Donald J. Tramp’s political ascendancy signals Armageddon. The insults started with the snarky “he’s not one of us,” to myriad accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, serial sexual harassment, xenophobia, vulgar speech, facilitation of white supremacists and violence, a crashed economy, and soured foreign relations. When none of these accusations stuck, they settled on an unrelenting, unsubstantiated drumbeat of claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

At last, the truth regarding these false accusations has been uncovered. The declassified House memo has revealed the perfidy of the Democrats’ ‘accusations against Trump, and the illegality of the Special Counsel and his investigation.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution provides that:

  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched.”

From that principle, United States criminal law has evolved to provide a balancing act between the rights of the individual against unlawful privacy invasion, and the rights of the “State” to apprehend and prosecute lawbreakers. Myriad laws exist to protect the individual from illegal searches and seizure, while providing authorities a roadmap that ensures due process is effectuated.

Also, it is imperative to note that every attorney is required to take a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, before being allowed to practice law. Attorneys working in governmental judicial offices are required to take an expanded, special oath. It is incumbent upon every attorney to uphold their oath and not perpetrate a fraud on the court.

Regardless of court, state or federal, the same principles apply: a warrant application must be signed by an authorized agency, that states with specificity the person to be searched or wiretapped, the alleged crime, and the exact location of the search or wiretap. Any exculpatory evidence, that which exists to exonerate the target of the warrant, must be included.  Moreover, every application must be accompanied with an affirmation that all the facts contained therein are true.

To further protect the individual against the overarching power of the State, certain “exclusionary” rules prohibit the State from using evidence that is obtained, illegally. One such doctrine is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” established in the Supreme Court case Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. (The phrase itself was first used by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States.)

Essentially, this doctrine provides that if the State obtains evidence from an illegal source (the poisonous tree), that evidence is tainted. Accordingly, any tainted evidence (fruit) is also poisonous and may not be admitted into any court proceeding.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), is a federal court established to oversee requests for surveillance against foreign spies inside the United States. Warrants are typically issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the National Security Agency (NSA). The Department of Justice (DOJ) may also file warrant applications. The FISA Court was not created to spy on United States presidential candidates.

However, during the presidential campaign of 2016-2017, the FBI filed a warrant with the FISA court based on a dossier paid for by the Democratic National Party (DNC) and then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The warrant did not specify the genesis of the report. Instead, it cited as a secondary source a Yahoo news article, based on information provided by the same, uber-biased author of the dossier. Because the warrants are only valid for ninety days, the warrant was signed and submitted by the FBI six times! And, for six times, they were signed by attorneys who had sworn an oath to act with fidelity to the courts. It appears that without the now-disabused dossier as supporting evidence, the FISA Court would never have signed the warrants — thus the warrants were poisonous trees.

Carter Page, then advisor to Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump, was the first target of the FISA-granted surveillance for purportedly colluding with Russia. From Page, the surveillance morphed to other inner circle members of the Trump campaign, and ultimately, after Trump’s presidential victory, to Trump himself, in the creation of a special counsel, former FBI Director, Robert Mueller.

Instead of a neutral investigation into whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidential election, Mueller stacked his team with partisan Democrats, negating even a whiff of impartiality.

Now that the credibility of the dossier that formed the basis of the FBI warrant application has been totally eviscerated, it epitomizes a poisonous tree. Clearly, under United States criminal law, the Mueller investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be shut down.  



Source link

Explosion over the Washington Swamp


On Friday morning, President Trump declassified the memo prepared by the Intelligence Committee of the House. This document was originally marked “Top Secret.” Of course, there is nothing new for the inquisitive reader in this memo. Everything that is described there has long been widely discussed in America. But none of the participants in these discussions have ever had any evidence. Now this evidence, gathered during the closed sessions of the Intelligence Committee, has become public.

As a result, we know that the chain of events associated with the case of Trump’s “criminal collusion with Putin” looks like this:

  • Trump’s political opponents during the primaries hired the firm Fusion GPS, which specializes in opposition research, to dig up some dirt on Trump
  • After Trump won the primaries, Fusion GPS lost the customer, but just for a short while
  • The new customers of the dirt on Trump become the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC
  • The new customers requested dirt on Trump from Fusion GPS, not only in the American domain but also in the international arena
  • To add international dimension, Fusion GPS hired a subcontractor – former resident of British intelligence in Moscow Christopher Steele, known for his open anti-Trump beliefs
  • Christopher Steele hired some former agents of the Russian intelligence services (against whom he once fought during the Cold War)
  • The agents of Russian intelligence services concoct a dirty file on Trump (linguistic analysis confirmed that this dossier was written in “Russian English” with minimal editing by native English speakers)
  • It is still unclear as to what extent these Russian agents were the “former” agents of the Russian intelligence services (that is, to what extent this dossier is fiction, and to what extent is it the deliberate work of the KGB/FSB disinformation effort)
  • Trump’s dossier, compiled by the Russians, gets to the FBI through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who received it from his wife. At that time, she was working for Fusion GPS and was a part of the anti-Trump research team
  • The FBI used this dossier as one of the key arguments in the secret intelligence court FISC to obtain a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign

In other words, the Obama administration used a dossier concocted by Russian agents to legitimize its surveillance of their political opposition.

According to the memo, FBI leaders knew precisely where the dossier came from, but in the application to the FISC, they presented the dossier as a proven fact, and not as opposition research. It was not just a mere bureaucratic mistake — the FBI used the dossier in such a way not once, but at least four times.

As a result, the Trump campaign was under surveillance by the FBI before the elections, after the elections, and even after the inauguration of President Trump.

Also, it became clear from the memo how the sale of this dirty product was conducted. Christopher Steele organized a “leak” of information from the dossier to the media. The article published in Yahoo News added some missing details, so it appeared like independent confirmation of the Russian dossier. In other words, the FBI submitted false information to the FISC about the authenticity of the Trump dossier. And as a “confirmation,” they used an open publication organized by the authors of the dossier themselves.

Corruption in the highest echelons of power of the Obama administration is now no secret to anyone.

American intelligence agencies, like all other intelligence agencies around the world, have always been content with the level of “Gray Eminences.” They were very close to any political power, but they have never formally become the heads of state. So, it was since ancient times, and it became an unwritten tradition until Putin came to power in Russia.

The coming to power of an intelligence officer aroused envy in all intelligence services in the world. After all, they consider themselves to be real rulers, and whoever is currently formally at the head of the state is unimportant. An additional irritant was that Putin came to power legally (meaning that if his coming to power was a coup led by intelligence agencies, then it was bloodless).

The first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was at the helm for almost 50 years. During this time, the FBI turned from a small agency that dealt with federal crimes to one of the leading political forces of Washington. Hoover transformed the FBI from a criminal investigation agency into a criminal and political investigation agency. The files he collected over the years (both real and imaginary) made the FBI a powerful lever of political influence.

Probably, Hoover could have become president if he wanted to. But he played the role of the “Gray Eminence” until the end. However, Putin violated the unofficial taboo.

Since the 1930s, thanks to the “active measures” of the Soviet intelligence services of the OGPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB, many American institutions have picked up the virus of socialism (in schools, universities, Hollywood, the State Department, etc.)

But during Cold War, an unusual “exchange of viruses” took place — the KGB picked up the virus of American pragmatism and capitalism, and the FBI/CIA picked up the virus of socialism.

The American virus turned out to be so strong that the intelligence services of Russia succeeded in what the intelligence services of all countries dreamed about — gaining political power in their country.

The Soviet virus was strong enough for the entire Democratic Party to be affected, but the CIA and the FBI were only partially infected. Another significant difference is that the American virus spread from the bottom up, that is, from rank-and-file Soviet agents to the top-level officers. On the contrary, the Soviet virus propagated from top to bottom, that is, the neo-Marxist worldview was implanted in America by appointing political activists, donors, and agitators of the Democratic Party to critical high-ranking posts.

Eventually, the coming to power of Putin pushed the top of the preconditioned American intelligence services to the idea of ​​a bloodless coup to remove the unwanted President Trump from the Oval Office. They showed such scrupulous tactics in this matter to ensure all their steps were based on formal legal grounds. They did not dare install the “listening equipment” without the court’s warrant.

But the Washington swamp miscalculated. The publication of the memo removes the veil only over one episode of the war that U.S. intelligence agencies are waging against the sitting president. Soon, other memos will follow, including the expected report of the Inspector General about power abuses at the FBI.

The Watergate scandal lasted more than two years, while this Obamagate outrage is a little more than a year. The explosion of the memo over the Washington swamp is only the first blast. It’s not going to be a long wait for more bombshell revelations in this matter.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

On Friday morning, President Trump declassified the memo prepared by the Intelligence Committee of the House. This document was originally marked “Top Secret.” Of course, there is nothing new for the inquisitive reader in this memo. Everything that is described there has long been widely discussed in America. But none of the participants in these discussions have ever had any evidence. Now this evidence, gathered during the closed sessions of the Intelligence Committee, has become public.

As a result, we know that the chain of events associated with the case of Trump’s “criminal collusion with Putin” looks like this:

  • Trump’s political opponents during the primaries hired the firm Fusion GPS, which specializes in opposition research, to dig up some dirt on Trump
  • After Trump won the primaries, Fusion GPS lost the customer, but just for a short while
  • The new customers of the dirt on Trump become the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC
  • The new customers requested dirt on Trump from Fusion GPS, not only in the American domain but also in the international arena
  • To add international dimension, Fusion GPS hired a subcontractor – former resident of British intelligence in Moscow Christopher Steele, known for his open anti-Trump beliefs
  • Christopher Steele hired some former agents of the Russian intelligence services (against whom he once fought during the Cold War)
  • The agents of Russian intelligence services concoct a dirty file on Trump (linguistic analysis confirmed that this dossier was written in “Russian English” with minimal editing by native English speakers)
  • It is still unclear as to what extent these Russian agents were the “former” agents of the Russian intelligence services (that is, to what extent this dossier is fiction, and to what extent is it the deliberate work of the KGB/FSB disinformation effort)
  • Trump’s dossier, compiled by the Russians, gets to the FBI through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who received it from his wife. At that time, she was working for Fusion GPS and was a part of the anti-Trump research team
  • The FBI used this dossier as one of the key arguments in the secret intelligence court FISC to obtain a warrant to wiretap the Trump campaign

In other words, the Obama administration used a dossier concocted by Russian agents to legitimize its surveillance of their political opposition.

According to the memo, FBI leaders knew precisely where the dossier came from, but in the application to the FISC, they presented the dossier as a proven fact, and not as opposition research. It was not just a mere bureaucratic mistake — the FBI used the dossier in such a way not once, but at least four times.

As a result, the Trump campaign was under surveillance by the FBI before the elections, after the elections, and even after the inauguration of President Trump.

Also, it became clear from the memo how the sale of this dirty product was conducted. Christopher Steele organized a “leak” of information from the dossier to the media. The article published in Yahoo News added some missing details, so it appeared like independent confirmation of the Russian dossier. In other words, the FBI submitted false information to the FISC about the authenticity of the Trump dossier. And as a “confirmation,” they used an open publication organized by the authors of the dossier themselves.

Corruption in the highest echelons of power of the Obama administration is now no secret to anyone.

American intelligence agencies, like all other intelligence agencies around the world, have always been content with the level of “Gray Eminences.” They were very close to any political power, but they have never formally become the heads of state. So, it was since ancient times, and it became an unwritten tradition until Putin came to power in Russia.

The coming to power of an intelligence officer aroused envy in all intelligence services in the world. After all, they consider themselves to be real rulers, and whoever is currently formally at the head of the state is unimportant. An additional irritant was that Putin came to power legally (meaning that if his coming to power was a coup led by intelligence agencies, then it was bloodless).

The first director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, was at the helm for almost 50 years. During this time, the FBI turned from a small agency that dealt with federal crimes to one of the leading political forces of Washington. Hoover transformed the FBI from a criminal investigation agency into a criminal and political investigation agency. The files he collected over the years (both real and imaginary) made the FBI a powerful lever of political influence.

Probably, Hoover could have become president if he wanted to. But he played the role of the “Gray Eminence” until the end. However, Putin violated the unofficial taboo.

Since the 1930s, thanks to the “active measures” of the Soviet intelligence services of the OGPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB, many American institutions have picked up the virus of socialism (in schools, universities, Hollywood, the State Department, etc.)

But during Cold War, an unusual “exchange of viruses” took place — the KGB picked up the virus of American pragmatism and capitalism, and the FBI/CIA picked up the virus of socialism.

The American virus turned out to be so strong that the intelligence services of Russia succeeded in what the intelligence services of all countries dreamed about — gaining political power in their country.

The Soviet virus was strong enough for the entire Democratic Party to be affected, but the CIA and the FBI were only partially infected. Another significant difference is that the American virus spread from the bottom up, that is, from rank-and-file Soviet agents to the top-level officers. On the contrary, the Soviet virus propagated from top to bottom, that is, the neo-Marxist worldview was implanted in America by appointing political activists, donors, and agitators of the Democratic Party to critical high-ranking posts.

Eventually, the coming to power of Putin pushed the top of the preconditioned American intelligence services to the idea of ​​a bloodless coup to remove the unwanted President Trump from the Oval Office. They showed such scrupulous tactics in this matter to ensure all their steps were based on formal legal grounds. They did not dare install the “listening equipment” without the court’s warrant.

But the Washington swamp miscalculated. The publication of the memo removes the veil only over one episode of the war that U.S. intelligence agencies are waging against the sitting president. Soon, other memos will follow, including the expected report of the Inspector General about power abuses at the FBI.

The Watergate scandal lasted more than two years, while this Obamagate outrage is a little more than a year. The explosion of the memo over the Washington swamp is only the first blast. It’s not going to be a long wait for more bombshell revelations in this matter.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link