Tuesday, November 26, 2019


Study: College Costs Rise 112% Above Inflation over Past Four Years

An employee at a money changer counts USD 100 bills in Manila on October 25, 2012. AFP PHOTO/NOEL CELIS

A study suggests that the cost of college in the United States has risen 112 percent above inflation over the past four years.

According to a report by the College Fix, the cost of a college degree in United States is rising far faster than it should. A study by a startup called Self has shown that the cost of college in the United States has increased dramatically over the past few years.
The report revealed that the cost of university tuition has increased 8.3 percent in the past five years alone. In that same time, the cost of textbooks has increased a whopping 36.3 percent. This increase amounts to an additional $2,835 each year over what students paid in 2015. This increase amounts to 112 percent above the rate of inflation during this time period.
One of the biggest financial challenges younger generations will face in their lifetime is accepting and repaying a student loan. In the last 5 years alone, the cost of university tuition has risen 8.3%, which is below the 9.7% increase in room and board prices and far below the 36.3% increase in books and supplies seen in the same time frame. This means that, per year, university students are paying $29,133 on average across all states just to attend. This is an increase of $2,835 for every year of tuition above the prices student were paying in 2015, which is also 112% above the rate of inflation in the US throughout the same period.
Texas higher education expert Mark Pulliam told The College Fix that the drastic increase in the number of college administrators has played a major role in increased costs. Breitbart News reported in June on a study that revealed that American colleges added 500,000 administrative jobs between 1987 and 2012.
Administrative bloat contributes enormously to the high and rising cost of tuition. In recent years, non-teaching personnel in higher education have exploded. At some colleges bureaucrats outnumber faculty. The ‘diversity bureaucracy’ has proliferated at many schools. UT employs nearly 100 people in its diversity department, some of whom are paid in the six figures. Unnecessary and overpaid administrators are responsible for much of the increased overhead borne by students in the form of tuition increases.
Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.


Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report

Sanders Outlines Health Care Vision
Former President Barack Obama, who has so far taken a neutral position publicly on the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, privately indicated he would speak up to stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the party’s nominee should the Vermont senator make significant gains, Politico reported Tuesday.
Politico’s Ryan Lizza, who spoke to several of Obama’s advisers, wrote that the former president sees his role in the Democratic primary process as “providing guardrails” to make sure it doesn’t get “too ugly” and “to unite the party when the nominee is clear.”
But there’s one exception, Lizza wrote, and that’s Sanders.
“Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him,” according to Lizza’s report. It’s unclear exactly what period of time the Politico reporter was referring to.
Sanders, who lost the Democratic primary race to Hillary Clinton in 2016, has remained among the front-runners since announcing his second presidential bid in February. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted nationally last month of likely Democratic voters showed Sanders at 15%, trailing behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 28% and former Vice President Joe Biden at 21%.
Asked whether Obama would really step in to prevent a Sanders nomination, one adviser told Lizza that he “can’t really confirm that.”
“He hasn’t said that directly to me,” said the adviser, who was not identified. “The only reason I’m hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don’t think that’s likely. It’s not happening.”
Another close Obama friend reportedly told Lizza that “Bernie’s not a Democrat.” (Sanders serves as an independent in the Senate, but caucuses with Democrats.)

Then-President Barack Obama, right, walks with 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at the White House on June 9, 2016. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images)
Then-President Barack Obama, right, walks with 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at the White House on June 9, 2016. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images)

Publicly, Obama has said he would support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee.
“Look, we have a field of very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people who have a history of public service, and whoever emerges from the primary process I will work my tail off to make sure that they are the next president,” he told a crowd at a Democracy Alliance event in Washington earlier this month.
That includes Sanders, someone familiar with Obama’s thinking told HuffPost.
Sanders’ campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Behind closed doors, Obama and his advisers have assessed the various Democratic contenders. For instance, they reportedly said Biden lacks an intimate bond with the electorate, especially in Iowa. And Obama is “deeply skeptical” about South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s chances, Lizza wrote.
In 2016, Obama didn’t publicly intervene in the Democratic primary until June, roughly a month before the Democratic National Convention. During a meeting with Sanders, Obama encouraged him to rally behind Clinton. Soon after, Obama announced his endorsement of Clinton and, in mid-July, Sanders followed suit.
It’s no secret that Obama has been less than enthusiastic about some of the progressive policies pushed by Sanders and Warren. At the same Democracy Alliance event last month, Obama told the crowd that America is “less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement.”
He pushed back on some candidates’ immigration proposals to decriminalize illegally crossing the border.
“You go survey the average Democrat and they still think there’s such a thing as a border,” Obama said. “And if you don’t speak to those values, then you may be in for a rude shock.”
Head over to Politico to read the full report.
This has been updated to include further details about Obama’s comments at the Democracy Alliance event.


California’s DMV makes $50m a year selling driver’s personal information to credit checkers, data brokers and even private investigators hunting cheating spouses

  • In the 2017/2018 year the California DMV made $52,000 from sale of data 
  • Data sold includes names, dates of birth and other personal information
  • Among those buying information are private investigation firms 
California's Department of Motor Vehicles is selling drivers' personal information for around $50,000 a year - some of which may be used to spy on cheating spouses. 
Figures released via a public record act request showed that the total revenue from the sale of such information has been climbing steadily in the past six years. 
The document, related to the California branch of the DMV, did not show who had requested the information. But a previous Vice report found that these could include data brokers, credit agencies and private investigators. 
The information, obtained by Vice's Motherboard team, showed that in the 2013/2014 financial year revenue was $41,562,735 and has climbed steadily each year to $52,048.236 in the 2017/2018 year.   
DMVs across the United States sell data that drivers provide when asking for a license from the organization. This information includes their names, physical addresses and information on car registration. 
A view of the outside of the California Department of Motor Vehicles office in the Arleta neighborhood of Los Angeles. The California branch gets revenue of around $50,000 each year from the sale of drivers' personal information
A view of the outside of the California Department of Motor Vehicles office in the Arleta neighborhood of Los Angeles. The California branch gets revenue of around $50,000 each year from the sale of drivers' personal information 
People fill out forms at a local DMV branch. California's DMV makes around $50,000 a year on the sale of the information people provide when obtaining a license
People fill out forms at a local DMV branch. California's DMV makes around $50,000 a year on the sale of the information people provide when obtaining a license
Public information officer at California DMV Marty Greenstein told Motherboard that those buying the data included insurance companies, vehicle makers and potential future employers. 
He said the selling of such data was about ensuring highway and public safety, including the availability of insurance, risk assessments, vehicle safety recalls, background checks and employment screening.
A stalker managed to obtain actress Rebecca Schaeffer's personal data via a private investigator who accessed her driver record. The stalker went on to kill actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989 - prompting a review and the introduction of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in 1994
A stalker managed to obtain actress Rebecca Schaeffer's personal data via a private investigator who accessed her driver record. The stalker went on to kill actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989 - prompting a review and the introduction of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in 1994
'The DMV takes its obligation to protect personal information very seriously,' he said. 
'Information is only released pursuant to legislative direction and the DMV continues to review its release practices to ensure information is only released to authorized persons/entities and only for authorized purposes.' 
Legislation to tighten access to such data was imposed in 1994 after a case in California where a private investigator was said to have been hired by a stalker. 
The stalker went on to kill actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989 - prompting a review and the introduction of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in 1994. 
The act is meant to restrict access to DMV data, but there remains a number of exemptions - including for private investigators.   

MICHELLE OBAMA TO BE BARACK OBAMA'S THIRD TERM - "“Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama was open about his goals. He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world.” ALAN BERGSTEIN

"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama.  Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie.  His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES



The main objective of “political animals” like Obama and the 

Clintons is to get elected; it’s not to fix a broken America, nor to 

protect her. There are people who govern and there are people who 

campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the latter. Just look at the 

huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the Clintons. It’s

amazing that Democrats who still care about their party still 

support the very people who have brought it down.

“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is 

now “divided, resentful and angry” is because 

race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack 

Hussein Obama was president for eight 

long years.   MATTHEW VADUM

Editorial Reviews: Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?


Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses


 Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s OBAMANOMICS TO SERVE THE RICH AND GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES.

'Don't bet against Michelle Obama': Tucker Carlson predicts former first lady will be 2020 Democratic nominee

Fox News host Tucker Carlson told voters not to rule out the possibility of the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination going to former first lady Michelle Obama, despite her insistence that she isn't planning a run.

"If you're wondering who the Democratic nominee will be, don't bet against Michelle Obama," he said on Monday's Tucker Carlson Tonight. "Last week, the former first lady issued a statement claiming she has no interest in being president, but there are signs that’s not true."
Carlson then pointed to several examples that have made him suspicious about a potential Obama bid, including David Axlerod's attacks on 2020 front-runner and former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama's refusal to endorse Biden in the race so far, and reports that the former president tried to convince his No. 2 not to enter.
"If Obama had endorsed Biden, the race would be over ... Obama hasn’t endorsed Joe Biden because he doesn't want to. Why? Maybe he’s got other plans," he speculated. "Obama's presidential memoir was also supposed to come out this year. Now, its release has been delayed until the middle of the Democratic primaries. In other words, at exactly the moment when Democrats will be thinking deeply about how to beat Trump, America will be talking about the Obamas. Coincidence? Maybe."
He added, "Maybe it’s also a coincidence that Michelle Obama just released yet another book last week, one that will require her, of course, to get on the road and talk to crowds ... The Democratic Party is ripping itself apart over race, and gender, and class. Michelle Obama, let's be honest, is one of the only people who could unite its warring factions."
Carlson then pointed out that the former first lady was found to be the most admired woman in the world in a recent poll. He also warned his viewers to expect the unexpected.
"One of the main lessons of Donald Trump's 2016 election is that you never really know. Unexpected things happen far more often than we imagine," he said, before playing a 2006 clip of Barack Obama insisting he wasn't planning on running for the Oval Office in 2008. "Just months after he did that, Barack Obama joined the presidential race. Three years later, almost to the day, he was inaugurated president of the United States."
In addition to being the most admired woman in the world, another poll found that Michelle Obama would be a front-runner in New Hampshire, a key early voting state, if she runs. While she's insisted there is "zero chance" she'll seek the Oval Office, family friends of the Obamas have publicly said she'd make a "good president."
If she were to enter, she'd be joining a crowded field of 18 Democrats and has already missed some filing deadlines. However, that hasn't deterred other late-entry candidates, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who launched his campaign on Sunday.
The Washington Examiner's Joseph Simonson contributed to this report.

Ain’t this sweet?

Michelle Obama: ‘Many’ Around the World Feel Barack Is ‘Their President’ 

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Former first lady Michelle Obama said Tuesday that her husband, former President Barack Obama, could have built his presidential library anywhere in the world because many feel he is “their president.”

Obama, speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit at the Illinois Institute of Technology, explained Chicago’s Jackson Park was selected as the site for the Obama Presidential Center because it was close to the couple’s former home and situated near her South Side childhood home.
“There’s power in the selection of Jackson Park,” the former first lady said. “Barack and I don’t do things incidentally. There’s a strategy.”
Obama then argued the library could have even been built outside of the United States.
“Barack’s presidential library could have been anywhere in the world, because there are so many people who feel like he is their president,” she stated.
“New York wanted it. Hawaii wants it. Because it’s also an economic engine,” she added.
Michelle Obama appeared at the fireside chat with her brother, Craig Robinson, and interviewed by The Warmth of Other Suns author Isabel Wilkerson.
In June, a federal judge ruled plans to build the $500 million presidential center on Chicago’s lakefront could move forward, dismissing advocacy group Protect Our Parks’s lawsuit objecting to the use of public park land.
The bottom line 3 is this: If Operation Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t a plot to restore Barack Obama to the Presidency, why wasn’t the op shutdown after  the election was over? It wasn’t. Instead it ramped up with the appointment of a special prosecutor whose only raison d’etre is to cover up the original crimes during the primary season and in the run up to the election.

“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”

What no one will say, but I will, is that the ObamaGate /MuellerGate /SpyGate scandal is an ongoing plot to restore Barack Obama to the Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain. 

"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama.  Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie.  His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES

They Destroyed Our Country
“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”

These people were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist foreign policy.
“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG


Anti-Semitic, open borders for cheaper labor and funded by criminal banksters… and these pols are making vast fortunes sucking the blood of America!

We must not let them cheat their way to power over the rest of us.  Their ongoing vote fraud must be stopped and the Democrats need to take a look at themselves and at what they have become. It's not a pretty picture.  What they have become threatens to destroy the greatest nation on the planet and they are doing it on purpose.  They have nothing but contempt for the US as founded and for those of us who love this country. PATRICIA McCARTHY – AMERICAN THINKER

“Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate.  His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret.  Obama was open about his goals.  He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world.”  ALAN BERGSTEIN

Obama ‘Very Confident’ He Would’ve Won Third Term

Former President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that he was “very confident” he would have won a third term had the Constitution and his wife allowed him to run again.

Speaking to his former top adviser David Axelrod at a live recording of the “The Axe Files” podcast at the University of Chicago, Obama said he believes voters felt that he had “taken the job seriously, worked hard, been true to my oath, observed and hopefully strengthened the norms and the rules and the values of our democracy.”

“I feel very confident that I was in a position—had it not been for both the Constitution and Michelle—to continue in office,” Obama said.

Axelrod had earlier said that some people would like Obama to serve in perpetuity and joked about some of Obama’s supporters even wanting him to run for vice president.

The former president, though, added that he is “not sure it is a healthy thing” to serve more than two terms, pointing out that in countries without term limits, “even very good people… lose their edge and get stale and comfortable in the position.”
Obama said it is “useful to have a democracy have to continually evolve.”

Had Obama been allowed to run for a third term, he would have faced off against Donald Trump in 2016. But when Axelrod asked whether Obama believed he could defeat President Trump in 2020 in a hypothetical one-on-one matchup, Obama did not take the bait.

“I will not answer that direct question for obvious reasons,” Obama said.

Impeachment is Built on a Trap That Obama Created for Romney

A weapon against a Romney administration gets used against Trump.
October 7, 2019 
Daniel Greenfield

The Whistleblower Protection Act was put into place for the stated purpose of fighting waste and mismanagement in the civil service. It’s a controversial piece of legislation, but its purpose is clear.
As a Senate report on the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act put it, “What is needed is a means to protect the Pentagon employee who discloses billions of dollars in cost overruns, the GSA employee who discloses widespread fraud, and the nuclear engineer who questions the safety of certain nuclear plants. These conscientious civil servants deserve statutory protection rather than bureaucratic harassment and intimidation.” This does not cover a partisan effort to undermine the President of the United States.

It does not mean a government employee taking issue with a president’s foreign policy.

A whistleblower exposes structural waste, mismanagement and abuse within the civil service, among government contractors and in varied ways within the private sector. This is meant to protect employees who blow the whistle on misbehavior, not to serve as cover for assorted political agendas.

In the Trump era, whistleblowing and partisan leaks to the media have been conflated by the media. Partisan government workers, some openly aligning with the “resistance” and participating in partisan groups within government agencies, have sought to undermine administration policies through leaks. These leaks were in turn meant to generate congressional investigations of cabinet officials.
The impeachment effort against President Trump takes that ongoing tactic to the ultimate extreme.
The politicization of the civil service is a deeply troubling phenomenon. Efforts by members of the civil service to undermine elected officials is a threat to our entire system of representative government.
This problem goes beyond the ‘Deep State’ and has shown up in a wide variety of government agencies. But its appearance in national security agencies is deeply troubling because these agencies have the infrastructure to act as a police state. The existence of national security agencies in a free country is contingent on their subservience to elected officials. Anything else isn’t whistleblowing, it’s a coup.
Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 19 opened the door by expanding whistleblowing protection to members of the “intelligence community” and other personnel handling classified information.
A few years earlier, Bradley Manning had ushered in a new era of espionage by enemy state actors using front groups to solicit spies as whistleblowers. While the court threw the book at Manning, Obama commuted his sentence. PPD19 was supposed to avoid another Manning case, which it utterly failed to do when Edward Snowden repeated Manning’s treason on a larger scale before escaping to Russia.
But PPD19 was never really meant to help the likes of Manning and Snowden. Instead it was part of a larger pattern of politicizing national security organizations that led directly to the current crisis.
While the Russians were soliciting whistleblowers from inside the national security sphere to act as spies, which was exactly what they had been doing throughout the Cold War, Obama’s people were building partisan networks within the national security infrastructure to act as their political agents.
Both the Russians and the Democrats understood that whistleblowers were a strategic vulnerability. Whistleblowers were seen as sympathetic underdogs who were trying to do the right thing. That was the perfect camouflage for an enemy agent or the agent of a police state. Astroturfing, the practice of manufacturing grass roots efforts and building causes around individual protesters, like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg, had moved into the national security infrastructure before going off like a bomb.
PPD19 was issued on October 10, 2012.
The presidential debates were underway and the election was up in the air. In the weeks before PPD19, Mitt Romney had begun to lead in a number of polls. It is striking that PPD19 came out during the exact same period that Romney was leading in as many polls as he ever would in that election.
On October 9, the day before PPD19, even a DailyKos/SEIU poll showed Romney in the lead. After Obama’s disastrous debate performance, his people had to be worried about the possibility of defeat.
The real purpose of PPD19 was to aid Obama loyalists is undermining a Romney administration.
The Obama administration would not have been too worried about Romney reversing its social policies. But Romney had run sharply against Obama on national security. And Obama’s cronies knew that there would be significant foreign policy differences there. PPD19 may have been their answer.
Romney lost. PPD19 remained obscure.
By the time Trump won, the weaponization of the national security infrastructure in national politics was complete with national security organs spying on Trump associates, investigating his campaign, entrapping his associates, leaking his phone calls, and now setting the stage for impeachment.
The Russia conspiracy theory was not a counterintelligence investigation. And Ukraine impeachment isn’t whistleblowing. Investigating the domestic political opposition is only a counterintelligence investigation in China, Russia or Cuba. Launching such an effort is the hallmark of a police state.
And whistleblowers don’t have partisan political agendas aimed at elected officials.
Until now, the two worst cases of activists and spies pretending to be whistleblowers were Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. The Ukraine case has some similarities to the Pentagon Papers case, but there isn’t even the pretense that this fake whistleblowing is about anything other than going directly for the President of the United States, not indirectly through his policies, but directly aimed at him.
Whistleblowers aren’t supposed to have any agenda except the law and organizational standards.
And whistleblowing protections are absolutely not meant to serve as cover for partisan fights or assaults on elected officials. Whistleblowing protections are meant to protect government employees in the civil service from retaliation by their supervisors in the civil service when they report waste or abuse.
They are not meant to allow an anonymous government employee to assist in a partisan campaign to remove the President of the United States as part of a ploy orchestrated by the opposition party.
That is a breathtaking abuse that will damage whistleblower protections indefinitely.
Whistleblower protections have traditionally been a bipartisan project. But courts have repeatedly limited the scope of how and what a whistleblower can disclose. It appears that they were wise to do so.
The eavesdropping and entrapment of Trump allies in the last election was the ultimate nightmarish abuse of national security. The same folks who brought you that violation have now contrived to produce the worst possible abuse of whistleblower protections. The abuse of the NSA has dealt a fatal blow to Republican support for national security measures used to fight enemy nations and terrorists. The abuse of whistleblowing will lead to an identical loss of support for whistleblower protections.
The Obama administration and its allies have tried to turn government agencies into bear traps, seeking to retain control of policymaking through a network of lefty loyalists in agencies and activist judges in the courts, and, beyond that, to force out Trump appointees and to even force out President Trump.
At the heart of this crisis is the conflict between representative government and the infrastructure of government, between the will of the voters and the will of D.C., between the taxpayers and officials, that is the breaking point of any free country. Some countries lose their freedom through violent revolutions. Others ossify into an oligarchy of government officials and elites who call all the shots.
This is not about the Ukraine. Just as it wasn’t about Russia. It’s about whether our governments are elected or selected.
Elected government requires that government officials be neutral and non-partisan. When partisan factions use the machinery of government to wage war on their opponents, that’s a coup.
A day after President Trump survived one coup, the deep state debuted a second coup.

Obama is not stupid. He knows this. It's his road map.

“The Democrats would be clamoring for a suspension of the 22nd Amendment and calling for Barack Obama, to "restore calm and order", to step back into his role for the "good of the country". They will still call for Obama if the Democrats manage to Impeach and convict Trump.”

“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”

“The bottom line 2 is this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!”

Right back to the White House. That was the plan all along
What no one will say, but I will, is that the ObamaGate/MuellerGate/SpyGate scandal is an ongoing plot to restore Barack Obama to the Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain.
To believe any part of my theory you have to get to certain assumptions. 

1) Obama never intended to leave office. Indeed he has a house a few blocks from the White House. 

2) Hillary and Obama despise each other and, had Hillary been elected, he would have undermined her as he is trying to undermine Trump. 

3) To make way for the Obama restoration 

The Constitution would have been shredded 

for the good of the country, and it would have 

been seen to have been done legally.

As Mark Levin says, we are in the middle of a slow motion soft coup Joseph diGenova, former federal 

prosecutor and Trump loyalist, says the truth is starting 

to seep out about the Obama Administration’s “brazen 

plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an 

incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy,” 

according to an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller

Dan Bongino, on Tucker Carlson's show, has called the operation a sting.
Mar 26, 2012 - SEOUL President Barack Obama was caught on camera on assuring outgoing Russian President and Putin Poodle Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile 
Dan Bongino, on Tucker Carlson's show, has called the operation a sting.
Mar 26, 2012 - SEOUL President Barack Obama was caught on camera on assuring outgoing Russian President and Putin Poodle Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. I just happen to have it on film:

Sept 11, 2012 -- Benghazi: In the run up to Obama’s re-election Obama was running around claiming he had decimated Al Qaeda. One can only imagine the panic in the WH when the Al Qaeda attack occurred on our annex. So Hillary and Obama concocted the Muslim film cover up, jailed the filmmaker, and sent Susan Rice out to lie on all of the Sunday chat shows that the attack was all about the film.
Oct 22, 2012 -- During one of the Romney/Obama debates one of the moderators asked Romney who our greatest threat was. He said the Russians, Obama smugly “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”.
The annexation of Crimea by Putin’s Russia Federation occurred in March 2014. On 17 July 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17), a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that, was shot down while flying over eastern Ukraine, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.
The first indications of the Russian Hacking occurred in late 2015 and early 2016. Considering Wikileaks published the hack in July 2016 confirms the hack occurred at least 6 months before, long before Trump's campaign was really up and running.
Afterwards the DNC didn't let the FBI anywhere near the server. They let Crowdstrike go through it. And curiously, Obama and Comey's FBI seemed just fine being shut out of the loop and they couldn’t have anything about the hack leaking out. And when you are formulating a plan to get Hillary “elected” via exoneration, as Comey and Strzok were doing, you don’t want the pot stirred.
I wonder what Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz and Donna Brazile were trying to hide. Probably their own incompetence and the fact that Hillary and the DNC was playing Bernie Sanders by rigging the primaries.

And the Awan brothers, two Pakistanis that had been hired by Schultz, had access to everybody in Congress's emails because they were the IT guys...which means they also had access to the DNC server.
Then Obama began the essence of the coup. He said that our elections couldn't be hacked and that Trump should quit whining

Then Obama got serious and really got tough. He told Putin to "Cut it out!"

The Russian hack damage was done on Obama's watch. Susan Rice (of the 5 Sunday Show Benghazi lies) ordered Michael Daniel, chief of cyber security investigating the hack, to stand down per Obama, according to a new book by Michael Isikoff and David Korn, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.”

So here’s what we know from the Nunes memo (
https://www.scribd.com/docu...and the Grassly memo (http://www.powerlineblog.co....

Hillary kept a secret server overflowing with national security info which, more than likely, was hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be prosecuted. On July 5, 2016 James Comey exonerated Hillary when he said he would not prosecute, after Barack Obama said there is no evidence that Hillary did anything wrong. Lynch also instructed Comey to call the Hillary scandal a “matter”. 

Disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and Comey made sure the earlier draft language describing Hillary's actions as "grossly negligent" was changed to "extremely careless." That small change in wording has significant legal implications. "Gross negligence" in handling classified information carries criminal penalties.
The Hillary campaign also paid Fusion GPS to gather dirt on Trump which became the dossier, compiled by Brit agent Christopher Steele, relying on Russian sources. Steele and Fusion GPS gave the Dossier to the FBI and DOJ with the help of FBI employee Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie, who worked at Fusion GPS.
We also now that, per Strzok's recent testimony on July 12, 2018, that fourth highest ranking Justice Department official Bruce Ohr gave parts of the Russia dossier to the FBI and DOJ.
FBI guys James Comey and Andrew McCabe didn't bother to tell the FISA Judges under what circumstances the dossier was obtained and that it was unverified. In other words they lied to the FISA judge at least three times to get the warrants renewed, because the people who worked for them didn't want to see Trump elected.
Thus, the Department of Justice used the unverified dossier to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an alleged “foreign policy adviser” to Donald Trump and the last frayed thread of the Russian collusion story. The FISA court was not told who had paid Steele to create the “salacious and unverified” dossier — in the words of the showboating former FBI Director James Comey — much less about Steele’s personal hatred of Trump. And McCabe has testified that the Dossier was the basis of getting the FISA warrants. Two days later McCabe was fired.
And this now leads back to the Oval office. Texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page reveal Obama wanted to be briefed on EVERYTHING happening in the "Russia" investigation – after he 'guaranteed' he wouldn't get involved. Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'.
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation. This was after he ordered Rice to tell Michael Daniel chief of cyber security to stand down on the DNC server.
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more than 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair. Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation. Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a ******g idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance policy' against a Trump presidency.
In the spring of 2017, after James Comey was fired, deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein was planning on wearing a wire to secretly record Trump to gather damaging information in an effort to have him removed by recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment. Rosenstein, ironically, played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. It sounds like Rosenstein was trying to set up Trump from the day he was hired by the President. Rosenstein made the remarks in meetings with Department of Justice and FBI officials shortly after the May 9, 2017 firing of James Comey as FBI director.
And now, as Russia Collusion falls apart, Herr Reichsmarshall Mueller and his Kapo Rod Rosenstien engaged in a Gestapo like raid of Trump's lawyer to secure Trump's private papers.
Folks, the coup attempt is ongoing.
Prior to Trump's Euro trip a dozen Russian GRU military intelligence officers were indicted by the Mueller investigation on charges they hacked Democrats’ computers, stole their data and published those files to disrupt the 2016 election. Promptly following Asst AG Rosenstein announced no votes were changed and no Americans were involved. You could hear the air go out of Democrat balloons especially when Rosenstein announced that Mueller was sending this case to the counterintelligence investigative department in the DOJ. No trial, no evidence, No nothing.
Rosenstein: "There’s no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There’s no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result." https://www.vox.com/2018/7/...
Obama and Brennan were weaponizing the CIA for years. Basically Trump called Brennan and his corrupt agency out. No wonder Brennan is pissed.
A lot of Obama's people are still at CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ. Of course Trump doesn't believe any of the intel he gets from these still compromised agencies
The presser was a setup and Trump didn't take the bait. If Trump had acknowledged Russian meddling the press would have turned into Trump collusion and that would have been the narrative instead of all the over the top faux outrage..


We are in the middle of what Mark Levin calls a soft coup, involving Obama, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Rhodes, Rice, Lynch, Power, McCabe, Mueller and rogue FBI/DOJ officials. The “resistance” to duly elected president Donald Trump, writes Michael Walsh, “was an intelligence operation from the start, engineered by Barack Obama, the FBI/DOJ nexus, James Clapper, John Brennan, Loretta Lynch, leading Democrats, rogue Republicans, and using a deeply partisan and thus compromised media as its vengeful Greek chorus.”
"Operation Crossfire Hurricane" was that small cabal of five rogue senior FBI and DOJ officials, and Obama officials who started this coup 100 days before the election was even decided. They set about to exonerate Hillary, illegally, and frame Donald Trump and the people in his campaign should he have won. The FBI went so far as to plant a mole inside the campaign to start asking questions on foreign policy, to later entrap Trump people. https://legalinsurrection.c.... Former Director of National Intelligence and serial lier James Clapper told CNN's Don Lemon that the president's claim that the Obama administration spied on his campaign is "hyperbole" but if it is true, it is a "good thing."

In the now released FBI IG report there is detailed several texts by Strozk and Page saying the following:
Lisa Page text to Peter Strzok: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Was this Strozk's cryptic insurance policy? What could that be?
Strozk's and Page's 'insurance policy' might well have been one of two things. If the faux legal mechanisms (the Mueller investigation and impeachment) failed the 'insurance policy' may just be an on-call hit squad to take Trump out. Pence would have been denied his right to take office as he would have been falsely implicated as well.
Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became disabled?
The Democrats would be clamoring for a suspension of the 22nd Amendment and calling for Barack Obama, to "restore calm and order", to step back into his role for the "good of the country". They will still call for Obama if the Democrats manage to Impeach and convict Trump
And then the door would slam shut. The FBI would basically become the State Police, so to speak, the DOJ a collection of corrupt prosecutors and the intelligence community the new KGB
Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.

In his heart Obama is a small time, garden variety leftist Communist. During his eight years Obama just ran out of time and he was just too incompetent. Fortunately, he was also constrained (barely) by the Constitution. He didn't have the guts to follow through. But he has the totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.
The bottom line 1 is this: The Mueller investigation is simply a coverup for the three original crimes of this coup 1) the original illegal exoneration of Hillary by Comey to insure she won. 2) the penetration of the Trump campaign by an FBI mole during the late summer and early fall 3) the ongoing penetration by that mole of the Trump transition after the election and finally 4) the Special Council effort to destroy the Trump presidency in it's infancy.
The bottom line 2 is this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!

The bottom line 3 is this: If Operation Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t a plot to 
restore Barack Obama to the Presidency, why wasn’t the op shutdown after  the election was over? It wasn’t. Instead it ramped up with the appointment of a special prosecutor whose only raison d’etre is to cover up the original crimes during the primary season and in the run up to the election.

At this point the game is up. Even Clintonista Mark Penn writing at the Hill knows it's over. http://thehill.com/opinion/...

Everything about this coup is rapidly coming to light, except for my theory of the Barack Obama restoration end game. We shall see. One thing is for certain, had Hillary been elected nothing about this coup would have come to light.

(Illustration by The Epoch Times)

Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump

Efforts by high-ranking officials in the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and State Department to portray President Donald Trump as having colluded with Russia were the culmination of years of bias and politicization under the Obama administration.
Click on image to enlarge.
The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction in the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured collusion narrative against Trump.
A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative.
The Spygate scandal also raises a bigger question: Was the 2016 election a one-time aberration, or was it symptomatic of decades of institutional political corruption?
This article builds on dozens of congressional testimonies, court documents, and other research to provide an inside look at the actions of Obama administration officials in the scandal that’s become known as Spygate.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
To understand this abuse of power, it helps to go back to July 2011, when DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed.
From the very start, Horowitz found his duties throttled by Attorney General Eric Holder, who placed limitations on the inspector general’s right to have unobstructed access to information. Holder used this tactic to delay Horowitz’s investigation of the failed sting operation known as Operation Fast and Furious.
“We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. … It was simply a decision by the General Counsel’s Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren’t going to give us that information,” Horowitz told members of Congress in February 2015.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general had sent a letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015, with a 58-page memorandum, titled “Memorandum for Sally Quillian Yates Deputy Attorney General,” written by Karl R. Thompson, the principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The July 20, 2015, opinion was widely criticized. But it accomplished what it was intended to do. The opinion limited IG Horowitz’s oversight from extending to any information collected under Title III—including intercepted communications and national security letters. (Notably, The New York Times disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.)
In response, on Aug. 3, 2015, IG Horowitz sent a blistering letter to Congress. The letter was signed not only by Horowitz but by all other acting inspectors general as well:
“The OLC opinion’s restrictive reading of the IG Act represents a potentially serious challenge to the authority of every Inspector General and our collective ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner. Our concern is that, as a result of the OLC opinion, agencies other than DOJ may likewise withhold crucial records from their Inspectors General, adversely impacting their work.
Horowitz continued to push Congress for oversight access and encouraged passage of the Inspector General Empowerment Act. Horowitz would ultimately win his battle, but only as President Barack Obama was leaving office. On Dec. 16, 2016, Obama finally signed the Inspector General Empowerment Act into law.
It is against this backdrop of minimal oversight that Spygate took place.
Ironically, the Clinton email server investigation, known as the “Mid-Year Exam,” originated from a disclosure contained in a June 29, 2015, memo sent by the inspectors general for both the State Department and the Intelligence Community to Patrick F. Kennedy, then-undersecretary of state for management.
The IGs’ memo included an assessment that Clinton’s email account contained hundreds of classified emails, despite Clinton’s claims that there was no classified information present on her server.
On July 6, 2015, the IG for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, which resulted in the official opening of an investigation into the Clinton email server by FBI officials Randall Coleman and Charles Kable on July 10, 2015.
(L-R) FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Getty Images/Epoch Times)

A Hand-Picked Team

At this time, Peter Strzok was an assistant special agent in charge at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The assistant director in charge at the Washington Field Office during this period was Andrew McCabe, a position he assumed on Sept. 14, 2014.
On July 30, 2015, within weeks of the FBI’s opening of the Clinton investigation, McCabe was suddenly promoted to the No. 3 position in the FBI. With his new title of associate deputy director, McCabe was transferred to FBI headquarters from the Washington Field Office, and his direct involvement in the Clinton investigation began.
Strzok would follow shortly. Less than a month after McCabe was transferred, FBI headquarters reached out to the Washington Field Office, saying it needed greater staffing and resources “based on what they were looking at, based on some of the investigative steps that were under consideration,” Strzok told congressional investigators in a closed-door hearing on June 27, 2018.
Strzok was one of the agents selected, and in late August 2015, he was assigned to the Mid-Year Exam team and transferred to FBI headquarters. Strzok, in his comments to lawmakers, acknowledged that the newly formed investigative team was largely made up of hand-picked personnel from the Washington Field Office and FBI headquarters.
Starting in October 2015 and continuing into early 2016, FBI Director James Comey made a series of high-profile reassignments that resulted in the complete turnover of the upper-echelon of the FBI team working on the Clinton email investigation:
·         Oct. 12, 2015: Louis Bladel was moved to the New York Field Office.
·         Dec. 1, 2015: Randall Coleman, assistant director of Counterintelligence, was named as executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, and was replaced by Bill Priestap.
·         Dec. 9, 2015: Charles “Sandy” Kable was moved to the Washington Field Office.
·         Feb. 1, 2016: Mark Giuliano retired as FBI deputy director and was replaced by Andrew McCabe.
·         Feb. 11, 2016: John Giacalone retired as executive assistant director and was replaced by Michael Steinbach.
·         March 2, 2016: Gerald Roberts, Jr. was moved to the Washington Field Office.
Comey is the only known senior FBI leadership official who remained involved throughout the entire Clinton email investigation. McCabe had the second-longest tenure.
On Jan. 29, 2016, Comey appointed McCabe as FBI deputy director, replacing the retiring Giuliano, and McCabe assumed the No. 2 position in the FBI, after having held the No. 3 position for just six months.
It was at this point that FBI lawyer Lisa Page was assigned to McCabe as his special counsel. This was not the first time that Page worked directly for McCabe. James Baker, the FBI’s former general counsel, told congressional investigators that Page had worked for McCabe at various times during McCabe’s career, going back as far as 2013.
By early 2016, the three participants in the infamous “insurance policy” meeting—McCabe, Strzok, and Page—were now in place at the FBI.
In January 2016, Bill Priestap was named as head of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, replacing Coleman and inheriting the Clinton email investigation in the process.
According to Priestap, Coleman had “set up a reporting mechanism that leaders of that team would report directly to him, not through the customary other chain of command” in the Clinton email investigation. Priestap, who said he didn’t know why Coleman had “set it up,” kept the chain of command in place when he assumed Coleman’s position in January 2016.
This new structure resulted in some unusual reporting lines that went outside normal chains of command. Strzok, who would not normally fall under Priestap’s oversight, was now reporting directly to him.
As Priestap described it, the team involved in the Clinton investigation comprised three different but intertwined elements: the primary team, the filter team, and the senior leadership team.
The primary team was small, consisting only of Strzok, FBI analyst Jonathan Moffa, and, to varying degrees, filter team leader Rick Mains and FBI lawyer Sally Moyer. Mains reported to Strzok and Moffa, who in turn, along with Moyer, provided briefings to Priestap.
Below Strzok and Moffa was the day-to-day investigative “filter” team of approximately 15 FBI agents and analysts that was overseen by Mains, a supervisory special agent.
The senior leadership team was more fluid, consisting of higher-level FBI officials who provided briefings and updates to Comey and/or McCabe. In addition to Priestap, Strzok, and Moffa, frequent attendees included Moyer, Page, Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson, chief of staff Jim Rybicki, and General Counsel James Baker.
While the elements of the day-to-day investigative team differed for the Clinton email investigation and the Trump–Russia investigation, the primary team remained the same throughout both cases—as did the lines of communication between the FBI and the DOJ. According to testimony by Page, John Carlin, who ran the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD), was receiving briefings on both investigations directly from McCabe.

Priestap Left in the Dark

Priestap, who testified that he was unaware of the frequency of meetings between McCabe, Strzok, and Lisa Page, seems to have been kept in the dark regarding many of the actions taken by Strzok, who appeared to be exercising significant investigative control. Priestap was asked about this by congressional investigators during a June 5, 2018, testimony:
Rep. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap. (Jennifer Zeng/The Epoch Times)
Additionally, Page often circumvented the established chain of command, not only with McCabe, for whom she reportedly served as a conduit for Strzok, but also with Baker. Additionally, there were concerns that Page bypassed both the executive assistant director for the National Security Branch—first Giacalone, then Steinbach—and Priestap, the head of counterintelligence. Anderson, the No. 2 lawyer, admitted in her testimony to congressional investigators that she had been aware of these concerns, saying, “Neither of them personally complained to me, but I was aware of their concerns.”
A report published by IG Horowitz in June 2018, which reviewed the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton email case, included the notable statement that several witnesses had informed the IG that Page “circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap’s or Steinbach’s knowledge.” Steinbach, who was the executive assistant director and Priestap’s direct supervisor, left the FBI in early 2017.
According to Anderson, McCabe was aware of the ongoing concerns regarding Page’s circumventions, but it appears that nothing was done to address them:
Mr. Baker: “Do you know if Mr. McCabe was aware that some of his agent executives were concerned that they were being bypassed on information on what, by all accounts, was a sensitive, critical investigation?”
Ms. Anderson: “My understanding was that he was aware.”

DOJ Prevents ‘Gross Negligence’ Charges

By the spring of 2016, the Clinton email investigation was already winding down. This was due in large part to the fact that the DOJ, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had decided to set an unusually high threshold for the prosecution of Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she would not be charged.
In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the DOJ required the FBI to establish evidence of intent—even though the gross negligence statute explicitly does not require this.
This meant that the FBI would have needed to find a smoking gun, such as an email or an admission made during FBI questioning, revealing that Clinton or her aides knowingly set up the private email server to send classified information.
According to Page, the DOJ played a far larger role in the Clinton investigation than previously had been known:
“Everybody talks about this as if this was the FBI investigation, and the truth of the matter is there was not a single step, other than the July 5th statement, there was not a single investigative step that we did not do in consultation with or at the direction of the Justice Department,” Page told congressional investigators on July 13, 2018.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Comey also had hinted at the influence exerted by the DOJ over the Clinton investigation, at a July 5, 2016,press conference, in which he recommended that Clinton not be charged, stating that “there are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”
Notably, Comey had been convinced to remove the term “gross negligence” to describe Clinton’s actions from his prepared statement by, among others, Page, Strzok, Anderson, and Moffa.

CIA Director Instigates Trump Investigation

As the Clinton investigation wound down, interest from the intelligence community in the Trump campaign was ramping up. Sometime in 2015, it appears former CIA Director John Brennan established himself as the point man to push for an investigation into the Trump campaign. Using a combination of unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates—primarily from the UK, but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia—Brennan then fed this information to the FBI. Brennan stated this fact repeatedly during a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony:
“I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the [FBI].”
CIA Director John Brennan. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Brennan also admitted that it was his intelligence that helped establish the FBI investigation:
“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”
In late 2015, Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was involved in collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. The GCHQ is the UK equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
While GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted, after a series of highly coincidental meetings.
Most of these meetings with Papadopoulos—whose own background and reasons for joining the Trump campaign remain suspicious—occurred in the first half of 2016.
Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos—some repeatedly so.
Mifsud, who introduced Papadopoulos to a series of Russian contacts, appears to have more connections with Western intelligence than with Russian intelligence.
Downer, then Australia’s high commissioner to the UK, met with Papadopoulos in May 2016, in a meeting established through a chain of two intermediaries.
Information allegedly relayed by Papadopoulos during the Downer meeting—that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton—appears nearly identical to claims later contained in the first memo from former MI6 spy and dossier author Christopher Steele that the FBI obtained in early July 2016.
Australian high commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer. (GOH CHAI HIN/AFP/Getty Images)
Downer’s conversation with Papadopoulos was reportedly disclosed to the FBI on July 22, 2016, through Australian government channels, although it may have come directly from Downer himself.
Details from the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos were then used by the FBI to open its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, the head of the UK’s GCHQ, traveled to Washington to meet withBrennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Around the same time, Brennan formedan inter-agency task force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the NSA handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
During this time, Brennan appeared to have employed the use of reverse targeting, which refers to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Brennan: “We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA’s foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there—so they could piece it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here.”
As this foreign intelligence—unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels—was gathered, Brennan began a process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation.
The last major segment of Brennan’s efforts involved a series of three reports. The first, titled the “Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security,” was released on Oct. 7, 2016. The second report,“GRIZZLY STEPPE —Russian Malicious Cyber Activity,” was released on Dec. 29, 2016. The third report, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections”—also known as the intelligence community assessment (ICA)—was released on Jan. 6, 2017.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump. Notably, Adm. Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only a moderate confidence level.

Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier

Meanwhile, another less official effort began. Information paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign targeting Trump made its way to the highest levels of the FBI and the State Department, with a sophisticated strategy relying on the personal connections of hired operatives.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
At the center of the multi-pronged strategy to disseminate the information were Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and former British spy Steele.
In early March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie—the law firm used by the Clinton campaign and the DNC—expressing interest in an “engagement,” according to an Oct. 24, 2017, response letter by Perkins Coie. The firm hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to “perform a variety of research services during the 2016 election cycle.”
Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, was retained by Fusion GPS during the period between June and November 2016. During this time, Steele produced 16 memos, with the last memo dated Oct. 20, 2016. There is one final memo that Steele wrote on Dec. 13 at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Sen. John McCain commissioned one of Steele’s memos. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Steele provided Fusion GPS with something that Simpson’s firm was lacking: access to individuals within the FBI and the State Department. These contacts could be traced back to at least 2010, when Steele had provided assistance in the FBI’s investigation into FIFA over concerns that Russia might have been engaging in bribery to host the 2018 World Cup.
Sometime in the latter half of 2014, Steele began to informally provide reports he had prepared for a private client to the State Department. One of the recipients of the reports was Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
After Steele’s company was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016, he began to reach out to the FBI through Michael Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Rome who Steele had worked with on the FIFA case. Gaeta also headed up the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime unit, which specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Gaeta was later identified as Steele’s FBI handler, in a July 16, 2018, congressional testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees by Page.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
On July 5, 2016, Gaeta traveled to London and met with Steele at the offices of Steele’s firm, Orbis. At some point in early July, Steele passed his initial report to Nuland and the State Department. Nuland later said these documents were passed on at some point to both the FBI and then-Secretary of State John Kerry.
Exactly what happened with the reports that Gaeta brought back from London, and precisely who he gave them to within the FBI, remains unknown, although some media reports have indicated they might have been sent to the FBI’s New York Field Office. During the period following Steele’s initial contact with the FBI, there appears to have been no further FBI interaction or contact with Steele.

Former CIA Contractor Worked for Fusion GPS

Notably, eight months before Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, Simpson had hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, to work for his firm as a researcher in October 2015. It was at this time that Fusion GPS was retained by the Washington Free Beacon to engage in research on the Trump campaign.
Prior to joining Fusion GPS, Nellie had worked as an independent contractor for an internal open-source division of the CIA, Open Source Works, from 2008 to at least June 2010; it appears likely she remained in that role into 2014.
Nellie told congressional investigators, in her Oct. 19, 2018, closed-door testimony, that part of her work for Fusion GPS was to research the Trump 2016 presidential campaign, including campaign associate Carter Page, early campaign supporter Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as Trump’s family members, including some of his children.
Additionally, email communications between her and Bruce Ohr show that she routinely sent her husband at the DOJ articles on Russia—most carrying a similar negative slant. The emails continued through the duration of Nellie’s employment with Fusion GPS and usually contained a brief, often one-line comment from Nellie.
In her testimony, Nellie described her work as online open-source efforts that utilized “Russian sources, media, social media, government, you know, business registers, legal databases, all kinds of things.” Ohr said that she would “write occasional reports based on the open-source research that I described about Donald Trump’s relationships with various people in Russia.”
The work Nellie conducted for Fusion GPS matches the same skill set used when she worked for Open Source Works, which is a division within the CIA that uses open-source information to produce intelligence products.
When asked how she came to be hired by Fusion GPS and who had approached her, Nellie responded, “Nobody approached me,” telling investigators that it was she who had initiated contact and approached Fusion GPS after reading an article on Simpson.
Nellie would continue to work for Fusion GPS until September 2016. By this time, Simpson and Steele already had started working on pushing the Steele dossier into the FBI.
Following the end of her employment with Fusion GPS, Nellie provided Bruce with a memory stick that contained all of the research she had compiled during her time at the firm. Bruce then gave the memory stick to the FBI, through his handler, Joe Pientka.

Bruce Ohr Becomes a Conduit

Nearly a month after Gaeta brought back the reports that Steele provided in London, Simpson and Steele decided to pursue a new channel into the FBI through Bruce Ohr. Bruce had known Steele since at least 2007, when they met during an “official meeting” while Steele was still employed by the British government as an MI6 agent. Steele had already been in contact with Bruce via email in early 2016. Notably, most of these prior communications appeared to discuss Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and his ongoing efforts to obtain a U.S. visa.
Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
On July 29, 2016, Steele wrote to Bruce, saying that he would “be in DC at short notice on business,” and asked to meet with both Bruce and his wife. On July 30, 2016, the Ohrs met Steele for breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel. Also present at the breakfast meeting was a fourth individual, described by Bruce as “an associate of Mr. Steele’s, another gentleman, younger fellow. I didn’t catch his name.” Nellie testified that Steele’s associate had a British accent.
The timing of the July 30 breakfast meeting is of particular note, as the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane,” was formally opened the following day, on July 31, 2016, by FBI agent Peter Strzok.
Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
According to a transcript of Bruce’s testimony before Congress, Steele relayed information from his dossier at this meeting and claimed that “a former head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, had stated to someone … that they had Donald Trump over a barrel.”
Steele also referenced Deripaska’s business dealings with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter Page’s meetings in Moscow.
Lastly, Bruce noted that Steele told him he had been in contact with the FBI but now had additional reports. “Chris Steele had provided some reports to the FBI, I think two, but that Glenn Simpson had more,” he said.
Immediately following the Ohrs’ breakfast meeting with Steele, Bruce Ohr reached out to FBI Deputy Director McCabe and the two met in McCabe’s office—sometime between July 30 and the first days of August. Also present at this meeting was FBI lawyer Page, who had previously worked for Bruce Ohr at the DOJ, where he was her direct supervisor for five to six years.
Bruce Ohr would later testify that during the July/August meeting, he told McCabe that his wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion, noting, “I wanted the FBI to be aware of any possible bias.” FBI General Counsel Baker, who reviewed a portion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—which relied in part on the information from Steele—told congressional investigators that he was never told of Ohr’s concerns regarding possible bias and conflicts of interest.
On Aug. 15, 2016, a week or two following Bruce Ohr’s meeting with McCabe, Strzok would send the now-infamous “insurance policy” text referencing McCabe to Lisa Page:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
On Aug. 22, Bruce Ohr had a meeting with Simpson. Ohr would later discuss that meeting during his testimony:
“I don’t know exactly what Chris Steele was thinking, of course, but I knew that Chris Steele was working for Glenn Simpson, and that Glenn might have additional information that Chris either didn’t have or was not authorized to prevent [present], give me, or whatever.”
It was at this meeting that Simpson first mentioned Belarusan-American businessman Sergei Millian and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

Brennan’s Briefings to the Gang of Eight

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
During this same period in late August 2016, Brennan began briefing members of the Gang of Eight on the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, through a series of meetings in August and September 2016. Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information. Efforts by Democrats to block the release of transcripts from each meeting are ongoing. Comey, however, did not notify Congress of the FBI investigation until early March 2017, and it’s entirely possible he was unaware of Brennan’s private briefings during the summer of 2016.
During her testimony, FBI lawyer Lisa Page was questioned by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) in relation to an Aug. 25, 2016, text message that read, “What are you doing after the CH brief?” CH almost certainly referred to Crossfire Hurricane.
Lisa Page then was asked about an event that took place on the same day as the “CH brief”—a briefing provided by Brennan to then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:
“You give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan is giving a brief. It’s not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one, from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that point.”
According to Meadows, Brennan briefed Reid on the Steele dossier:
“We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we’re going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware [of the dossier]?”
Lisa Page appeared genuinely surprised that Brennan would have been aware of the dossier’s existence at this early point, telling Meadows: “The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did.”
She elaborated further: “As of August of 2016, I don’t know who Christopher Steele is. I don’t know that he’s an FBI source. I don’t know what he does. I have never heard of him in all of my life.”
This claim by Page seems incongruous when viewed against Bruce Ohr’s testimony that he met with Page and McCabe in the first days of August following his July 30, 2016, breakfast with Steele:
“My initial meeting was with Mr. McCabe and with Lisa Page.
“I was telling them about what I was hearing from Chris Steele.”
Meanwhile, Brennan’s briefing prompted Reid to write not one but two letters to Comey. Both demanded that Comey commence an investigation, with the details to be made public.
Reid’s first letter, which touched on Carter Page, was sent on Aug. 27, 2016. Reid’s second letter, far angrier and declaring Comey to be in possession of material information, was sent on Oct. 30, 2016.
There had been reports that Comey had been considering closing the FBI investigation of Trump, something Brennan strongly opposed. Now, with Reid’s letters sent, that avenue was effectively closed. The termination of the FBI’s Trump–Russia investigation would be all but impossible in the face of Reid’s public demands.
Perhaps it was in response to Reid’s Aug. 27 letter that the FBI suddenly reached out to Steele in September 2016, asking him for all the information in his possession. The team working on Crossfire Hurricane received documents and a briefing from Steele in mid-September, reportedly at a meeting in Rome, where Gaeta also was present.
During Lisa Page’s testimony, she appeared to corroborate this account, noting that the team received the “reports that are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler in September of 2016.”  She would later clarify the timing, noting “we received the reporting from Steele in mid-September.” A text sent to her by FBI agent Peter Strzok on Oct. 12, 2016, may provide us with the actual date:
“We got the reporting on Sept 19. Looks like [redacted] got it early August.”
Steele had produced eight reports from June 20, 2016, through the end of August 2016 (there also is one undated report included in the dossier). No further reports were generated by Steele until Sept. 14, when he suddenly wrote three separate memos in one day. One of the memos referenced a Russian bank named Alfa Bank, misspelled as “Alpha” in his memo. Steele’s sudden burst of productivity was likely done in preparation for his Oct. 19 meeting in Rome with the FBI.
The impact of Brennan’s potential knowledge of the dossier in August 2016 should not be underestimated. As Brennan testified to Congress, his briefing to the Gang of Eight was done in consultation with the Obama administration:
“Through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept Congress apprised of these issues as we identified them. Again, in consultation with the White House, I personally briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership.
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case, involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of Congress.”

The Carter Page FISA Warrant

Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
As the dossier was making its way into the FBI, the agency began its preparations to obtain a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who was surveilled under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
According to Baker’s testimony, it appears that the FBI began to set its sights on Carter Page in the summer of 2016. When asked how he had first gained knowledge of the FBI’s intention to pursue a FISA warrant on Carter Page, Baker testified that it came through his familiarity with the FBI’s investigation:
Mr. Baker: “I learned of — so I was aware when the FBI first started to focus on Carter Page, I was aware of that because it was part of the broader investigation that we were conducting. So I was aware that we were investigating him. And then at some point in time –”
Rep. Meadows: “But that was many years ago. That was in 2014. Or are you talking about 2016?”
Mr. Baker: “I am talking about 2016 in the summer.”
Rep. Meadows: “Okay.”
Mr. Baker: “Yeah. And so I was aware of the investigation, and then at some point in time, as part of the regular briefings on the case, the briefers mentioned that they were going to pursue a FISA.”
It appears the FBI, and possibly the CIA, began to focus on Carter Page earlier than Baker was aware. Carter Page had been invited some months prior to a July 2016 symposium held at Cambridge regarding the upcoming election. The speaker list was notable:
·         Madeleine Albright (former U.S. secretary of state)
·         Vin Weber (Republican Party strategist and former congressman)
·         Peter Ammon (German ambassador to the UK)
·         Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6 and Steele’s former boss)
·         Bridget Kendall (BBC diplomatic correspondent and the next master of Peterhouse College)
·         Sir Malcolm Rifkind (former defense and foreign secretary)
Carter Page attended the event just four days after his July 2016 Moscow trip, and it was during this time in the UK that he first encountered Stefan Halper. Page’s Moscow trip would later figure prominently in the Steele dossier.
Halper, who has been outed as an FBI informant, stayed in contact with Carter Page for the next 14 months, severing ties exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired.
Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel for the FBI and head of the bureau’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch, approved the application for a warrant to spy on Carter Page before it went to FBI Director James Comey.
According to Anderson, pre-approvals for the Carter Page FISA warrant were provided by both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, before the FISA application was ever presented to Anderson for review.
“[M]y boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application. And, in fact, the Deputy Attorney General, who had the authority to sign the application, to be the substantive approver on the FISA application itself, had approved the application. And that typically would not have been the case before I did that,” said Anderson.
The unusual preliminary reviews and approvals from both McCabe and Yates appear to have had a substantial impact on the normal review process, leading other individuals like Anderson to believe that the warrant application was more vetted than it really was.
Anderson also testified that she had not read the Carter Page FISA application prior to signing off on it and passing it along to Comey for the final FBI signature. According to FBI lawyer Sally Moyer, the underlying Woods file (a document that provides facts supporting the allegations made in a FISA application) was only read by the originating agent and the supervisory special agent in the field. Moyer also noted that the Woods file relating to the Page FISA had not been reviewed or audited by anyone.
The Carter Page FISA application was largely reliant on the Steele dossier, which was unverified at the time of its submission to the FISA court and remains unverified by the FBI to this day. Circular reporting, provided by Steele himself, was used as corroboration of the dossier. Additionally, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, whose conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer was used to open the FBI’s July 31, 2016, counterintelligence investigation, is referenced in the FISA, yet there “is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos,” according to a House Intelligence Committee memo.
Moyer testified that without the Steele dossier, the Carter Page application would have had a “50/50” chance of achieving the probable cause standard before the FISA court. Notably, the Steele dossier is generally considered to have been largely discredited.

A Perkins Coie Partner and Alfa Bank Allegations

Michael Sussmann, partner at Perkins Coie. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
On Sept. 19, shortly after Steele completed his latest three memos, FBI General Counsel James Baker met with Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann, the lawyer the DNC turned to on April 28, 2016, after discovering the alleged hacking of their servers.
Sussman, who sought out the meeting, presented Baker with documents that Baker described as “a stack of material I don’t know maybe a quarter inch half inch thick something like that clipped together, and then I believe there was some type of electronic media, as well, a disk or something.”
The information that Sussmann gave to Baker was related to what Baker described as “a surreptitious channel of communications” between the Trump Organization and “a Russian organization associated with the Russian Government.”
Baker was describing alleged communications between Alfa Bank and a server in the Trump Tower. The allegations, which were investigated by the FBI and proven to be false, were widely covered in the media.
Just four days earlier, on Sept. 14, Steele mentioned Alfa Bank (misspelled as Alpha bank) in one of his memos.
According to Baker’s testimony, there appears to have been at least three meetings with Sussmann—the first in person and at least two subsequent meetings by phone. In either the second or third conversation, Baker came to understand The New York Times was also in possession of Sussmann’s information. As would become clear later, other members of the media also had this same information.
As Baker was meeting with Sussmann, Steele was back in Washington for a series of meetings that included his DOJ contact, Bruce Ohr.
On Sept. 23, 2016, Bruce Ohr again met with Steele for breakfast, telling lawmakers during testimony, “Steele was in Washington, D.C., again, and he reached out to me, and, again, we met for breakfast, and he provided some additional information.” Ohr said this meeting concerned similar topics that were discussed at the July 30, 2016, meeting but did not provide further details.
Bruce Ohr would also meet either that same month or in early October with FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and DOJ career officials from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman (Ohr testified that he was unsure whether Weismann was at this or a later meeting). Both Weissman and Ahmad would later become part of the team assembled by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Steele’s Meetings With the Media

On the same day that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele for breakfast, on Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff published an article about Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The article, headlined “U.S. Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin,” was based on an interview with Steele. Isikoff’s article would later be used by the FBI in the FISA spy warrant application on Carter Page as corroborating information.
Following the publication of the Isikoff article, the Hillary for America campaign released a statement on the same day that touted Isikoff’s “bombshell report,” with the full article attached.
A second lengthy article was published on Sept. 23, by Politico: “Who Is Carter Page? The Mystery of Trump’s Man in Moscow,” by Julia Ioffe. This article was particularly interesting as it appeared to highlight media efforts by Fusion GPS:
“As I started looking into Page, I began getting calls from two separate ‘corporate investigators’ digging into what they claim are all kinds of shady connections Page has to all kinds of shady Russians. One is working on behalf of various unnamed Democratic donors; the other won’t say who turned him on to Page’s scent. Both claimed to me that the FBI was investigating Page for allegedly meeting with Igor Sechin and Sergei Ivanov, who was until recently Putin’s chief of staff—both of whom are on the sanctions list—when Page was in Moscow in July for that speech.”
Ioffe noted that “seemingly everyone I talked to had also talked to the Washington Post, and then there were these corporate investigators who drew a dark and complex web of Page’s connections.”
Her article also mentioned rumors regarding Alfa Bank:
“In the interest of due diligence, I also tried to run down the rumors being handed me by the corporate investigators: that Russia’s Alfa Bank paid for the trip as a favor to the Kremlin; that Page met with Sechin and Ivanov in Moscow; that he is now being investigated by the FBI for those meetings because Sechin and Ivanov were both sanctioned for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
It was probably during this same trip to Washington that Steele met withJonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy for Libya, whom Steele had known since at least 2010.
Winer had received a separate dossier, very similar to Steele’s, from longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This “second dossier” had been compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer gave Steele a copy of the “second dossier.” Steele then shared this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it as a means to corroborate Steele’s own dossier.
Steele also met with U.S. media during his visit to Washington, doing so “at Fusion’s instruction.” According to UK Court documents, Steele testified that he “briefed” The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Steele would engage in a second round of media contact in mid-October 2016, meeting again with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Yahoo News. Steele testified that all these meetings were “conducted verbally in person.”

Alfa Bank Media Leaks

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker.
As Steele’s media meetings were going on, FBI General Counsel James Baker learned that Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann was also speaking with reporters from The New York Times regarding the Alfa Bank information that Sussmann had provided to the FBI. After some internal discussion, the FBI approached both Sussmann and The New York Times, asking that any story be held until the FBI had time to complete an investigation into the documents provided by Sussmann. It appears that an agreement was reached, and the FBI began to look into the claims regarding Alfa Bank and the server at Trump Tower.
But Sussman wasn’t the only one that Baker, currently the subject of an ongoing criminal leak investigation, was speaking with. According to congressional investigators, beginning sometime in September 2016—before the presidential election—Baker began having conversations with his old friend and journalist, David Corn of Mother Jones.
According to Baker, these conversations were in relation to ongoing FBI matters:
Rep. Jordan: “Did you talk to Mr. Corn prior to the election about anything, anything related to FBI matters? Not — so we’re not going to ask about the Steele dossier. Anything about FBI business, FBI matters?”
Mr. Baker: “Yes.”
Rep. Jordan: “Yes.  And do you know — can you give me some dates or the number of times that you talked to Mr. Corn about FBI matters leading up to the 2016 Presidential election?”
Mr. Baker: “I don’t remember, Congressman.”
By Oct. 31, 2016, the FBI had apparently wrapped up their investigation into the Alfa Bank allegations, finding no evidence of anything untoward in the process. It was on this day that three separate articles on Alfa Bank would be published.
The first, “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” by The New York Times, appeared to be an updated version of the article they had intended to publish before the FBI asked them to delay their reporting. It stated the following:
“In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.”
The reference to “classified sessions in August and September” is likely in relation to the series of Gang of Eight briefings that former CIA Director John Brennan engaged in at that time—including his briefing to then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The article continued:
“F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 ‘look-up’ messages—a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another—to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”
The second article, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?” by Slate Magazine, was solely focused on the allegations regarding a server in the Trump Tower that had allegedly been communicating with a server at Alfa Bank in Russia.
Immediately following the publication of the Slate article, Clinton posted a tweet that included a statement from Jake Sullivan, a senior policy adviser:
“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
Sullivan’s statement referenced the Slate article and included the following:
“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
“This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists.”
The Alfa Bank story took off—despite the same-day story from The New York Times that specifically noted the FBI had investigated that matter and found nothing untoward.
The final article published on Oct. 31, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump” by Mother Jones reporter—and Baker’s friend —David Corn, also mentioned Alfa Bank:
“In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous online reports that a computer server related to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia. On Monday, a Slate investigation detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, ‘We don’t yet know what this [Trump] server was for, but it deserves further explanation.’ In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, ‘The Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.’”
More notably, Corn’s article also provided the first public reporting on the existence of the Steele dossier:
“A former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.”
As it turns out, Corn had detailed, first-hand knowledge of the dossier. According to testimony from Baker, Corn had been provided with parts of the dossier by Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson. Baker knew of this fact, because within a week of publishing his article, Corn passed these dossier parts on to Baker personally:
Rep. Jordan: “Prior to the election Mr. Corn had a copy of the dossier and was talking to you about giving that to you so the FBI would have it. Is that all right? I mean all accurate.”
Mr. Baker: “My recollection is that he had part of the dossier, that we had other parts already, and that we got still other parts from other people, and that — and nevertheless some of the parts that David Corn gave us were parts that we did not have from another source?”
Steele had written four memos after the FBI team received his information in mid-September. All of the memos were written in October—on the 12th, 18th, 19th, and the 20th. It is possible that these were the memos passed along to Baker by Corn.
Baker testified that he received elements of the dossier from Corn that were not in the FBI’s possession at the time. He said that he immediately turned this information over to leadership within the FBI, noting, “I think it was Bill Priestap,” the head of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.
The use of personal relationships as a mechanism to transmit outside information to the FBI was actually noted by Baker, who said of Corn: “Even though he was my friend, I was also an FBI official. He knew that. And so he wanted to somehow get that into the hands of the FBI.”

Bruce Ohr’s FBI Handler

Christopher Steele was terminated as a source by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016, for communicating with the media. Despite this, DOJ official Bruce Ohr and Steele communicated regularly for another full year, until November 2017.
On Nov. 21, 2016, Ohr had a meeting with FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and was introduced to FBI agent Joe Pientka, who became Ohr’s FBI handler. Pientka was also present with Strzok during the Jan. 24, 2017, interview of Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
The next day, Nov. 22, 2016, Ohr met alone with Pientka. Ohr would continue to relay his communications with Steele to the FBI through Pientka, who then recorded them in FD-302 forms. What Ohr didn’t know was that Pientka was transmitting all the information directly to Strzok.
Ohr, in his testimony, detailed his interactions with Steele and Glenn Simpson, as well as his communications with officials at the FBI and DOJ. Notably, Ohr repeatedly stated that he never vetted any of the information provided by either Steele or Simpson. He simply turned it over or relayed it to the FBI—usually to Pientka—but Ohr also testified that “at least on two occasions I was handed onto a new agent.”
Sometime in late 2016, his wife, Nellie Ohr, provided him with a memory stick containing all of her research that she had compiled while employed at Fusion GPS. Bruce Ohr testified he gave the memory stick to Pientka. Nellie Ohr had left Fusion in September 2016. Through Pientka, Strzok now had all of Nellie Ohr’s Fusion research in his possession.
On Dec. 10, 2016, Bruce Ohr met with Simpson, who gave him a memory stick that Ohr believed contained a copy of the Steele dossier. Ohr also passed this second memory stick along to Pientka.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Ohr had one final communication with Simpson, a phone call that took place on the same day as Trump’s inauguration. Ohr testified that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was concerned that one of Steele’s sources was about to be exposed through the pending publication of an article:
Mr. Ohr: “He says something along the lines of, I — there’s going to be some reporting in the next few days that’s going to — could expose the source, and the source could be in personal danger.”
Rep. Meadows: “And why was he concerned about that source being exposed?”
Mr. Ohr: “I think he was aware of some kind of article that was likely to come out in the next, you know, few days or something.”
Apparently, Simpson’s information was at least partly accurate. On Jan. 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sergei Millian, a Belarusan-American businessman and onetime Russian government translator, was both “Source D” and “Source E” in the dossier. It remains unknown exactly how Simpson knew in advance that Millian would be outed as a source.
But there are some questions as to the accuracy of the Journal’s reporting. The dossier appears to conflict with the newspaper’s article in at least one aspect. According to the dossier, Source E was used as confirmation for Source D—meaning they can’t be the same person.

McCain, the Dossier, and a UK Connection

Simpson and Steele were carefully thorough in their dissemination efforts. The dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources.
One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood may have previously worked on behalf of Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence; he was referenced in a UK court filing as an associate of Orbis. Wood was also referred to as an adviser to Orbis in a deposition by an associate of late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), David Kramer.
Kramer knew Wood previously from their mutual expertise on Russia. Kramer said in his deposition, which was part of a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed News, that Wood told him that “he was aware of information that he thought I should be aware of and that Senator McCain might be interested in.”
McCain associate David Kramer. (Courtesy McCain Institute)
McCain, Wood, and Kramer would meet later that afternoon, on Nov. 19, 2016, in a private meeting room at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.
Wood told both Kramer and McCain that “he was aware of this information that had been gathered that raised the possibility of collusion and compromising material on the president-elect. And he explained that he knew the person who gathered the information and felt that the person was of the utmost credibility,” Kramer said.
Kramer ascribed the word “collusion” three times to Wood in his deposition. He also said that Wood mentioned the possible existence of a video “of a sexual nature” that might have “shown the president-elect in a compromising situation.” According to Kramer, Wood said that “if it existed, that it was from a hotel in Moscow when president-elect, before he was president-elect, had been in Moscow.”
No such video was ever uncovered or given to Kramer.
Kramer testified that following the description of the video, “the senator turned to me and asked if I would go to London to meet with what turned out to be Mr. Steele.”
Kramer traveled to London to meet with Steele on Nov. 28, 2016. Kramer reviewed all the memos during his meeting with Steele but wasn’t provided with a physical copy of the dossier.
When Kramer returned to Washington, he was provided with a copy of the dossier—which, at that point, consisted of 16 memos—during a meeting with Simpson on Nov. 29, 2016. Kramer also testified that there was another individual, “a male,” present at the meeting.
Late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Interestingly, Kramer testified that Simpson gave him two copies of the dossier, noting that Simpson told him that “one had more things blacked out than the other.” Kramer said, “It wasn’t entirely clear to me why there were two versions of this, so but I took both versions.”
Kramer noted that Simpson, who was aware the dossier was being given to McCain, said the dossier “was a very sensitive document and needed to be handled very carefully.”
Despite that warning, Kramer showed the dossier to a number of journalists and had discussions with at least 14 members of the media, along with some individuals in the U.S. government.
Kramer testified that he gave a physical copy of the dossier to reporters Peter Stone and Greg Gordon of McClatchy; to Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Washington Post editorial page; Alan Cullison of The Wall Street Journal; Bob Little at NPR; Carl Bernstein at CNN; and Ken Bensinger at BuzzFeed. It’s possible that Kramer gave copies to other reporters as well.
Kramer said that Simpson and Steele were aware of most of these contacts, but that Kramer hadn’t told either of them that he gave the dossier to NPR. He also noted that Steele had been in contact with Bernstein at CNN and that the CNN and BuzzFeed meetings occurred at Steele’s request. Steele told Kramer that he and Bensinger “had been in touch during the FIFA investigation; they got to know each other that way.”
According to Kramer, he didn’t believe that Fusion GPS and Simpson were aware of these two meetings with CNN and BuzzFeed.
Kramer testified that he, McCain, and McCain’s chief of staff, Christopher Brose, met to review the dossier on Nov. 30, 2016. Kramer suggested that McCain “provide a copy of [the dossier] to the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA.” McCain later passed a copy of the dossier to James Comey on Dec. 9, 2016. It isn’t known whether McCain also provided a copy to then-CIA Director John Brennan. Notably, Brennan did attach a two-page summary of the dossier to the intelligence community assessment that he delivered to outgoing President Barack Obama on Jan. 5, 2017.
Kramer said that he wasn’t aware of the content of McCain’s Dec. 9 discussion with Comey, noting that he “did not get any readout from the senator on the meeting, but just that it had happened.”
Kramer did, however, provide updates to both Steele and Simpson regarding the status of McCain’s meeting with Comey, in subsequent discussions with Simpson and Steele:
“It was mostly just to inform him about whether or not the senator had transfer — transmitted the document to the FBI. Both he and Mr. Steele were — I kept them apprised of whether the senator was — where the senator was in terms of his contact with the FBI.”
The implications of this statement are significant. Kramer, a private citizen, was providing updates to a former British spy as to what a sitting senator, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was saying to the director of the FBI.
Other members of the media also had advance knowledge of McCain’s intention to meet with Comey. Kramer testified that both Mother Jones reporter David Corn and Guardian reporter Julian Borger came to meet with him. According to Kramer, “They were mostly interested in Senator McCain and his, whether he had given it to Director Comey or not.”
Several days after McCain, Brose, and Kramer met to discuss the dossier, Kramer said that McCain instructed him to meet with Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, and Celeste Wallander, the senior director for Russia and Central Asia on the National Security Council.
The purpose of the meeting was to verify whether the dossier “was being taken seriously.” Both Nuland and Wallander were previously aware of the dossier’s existence, and both officials previously knew Steele, whom “they believed to be credible.” Kramer said he didn’t physically share the dossier with them at this point, but met again with Wallander “around New Years” and “gave her a copy of the document”
Nuland had actually received a copy of the earlier Steele memos back in July 2016.
Steele produced a final memo dated Dec. 13, 2016. According to UK court documents, Kramer, on behalf of McCain, had asked Steele to provide any further intelligence that he had gathered relating to “alleged Russian interference in the US presidential election.” Notably, it appears it was this request from McCain that led Steele to produce his Dec. 13 memo.
Although Kramer didn’t provide a date, he said he received the final Steele memo sometime after “Senator McCain had provided the copy to Director Comey.” We know that Kramer received the final memo prior to Dec. 29—when Kramer met with BuzzFeed’s Bensinger.
Kramer testified that Bensinger “said he wanted to read them, he asked me if he could take photos of them on his—I assume it was an iPhone. I asked him not to. He said he was a slow reader, he wanted to read it. And so I said, you know, I got a phone call to make, and I had to go to the bathroom…” Kramer said that he “left him to read it for 20, 30 minutes.”
Kramer also testified that besides the reporters, he gave a final copy of the dossier to two other people in early January 2017: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Il.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.

James Clapper Leaks Details of Obama–Trump Briefings

The ICA on alleged Russian hacking was released internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, outgoing president Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the assessment—and the attached summation of the dossier—with national security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Rice would later send herself an email documenting the meeting.
The following day, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey, Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the ICA and the Steele dossier.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Comey would only inform Trump of the “salacious” details contained within the dossier. He laterexplained on CNN in an April 2018 interview that he had done so at the request of Clapper and Brennan, “because that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community agreed he needed to be told about.”
Shortly after Comey’s meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The significance of the meeting was material, as Comey noted in a Jan. 7 memo:
“Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material.”
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey briefed Trump on it that CNN reported on the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee report on Russian election interference confirmed that Clapper personally leaked confirmation of the dossier, along with Comey’s meeting with Trump, to CNN:
“The Committee’s investigation revealed that President-elect Trump was indeed briefed on the contents of the Steele dossier and when questioned by the Committee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that he confirmed the existence of the dossier to the media.”
Additionally, the House intelligence report shows Clapper appears to have been the direct source for CNN’s Jake Tapper and his Jan. 10 story that disclosed the existence of the dossier:
“When initially asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017, former DNI Clapper flatly denied ‘discuss[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.’ Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic.
“Clapper’s discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information,’ a two-page summary of which was ‘enclosed in’ the highly-classified version of the ICA.”
On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN published the article “Intel Chiefs Presented Trump With Claims of Russian Efforts to Compromise Him” by Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, and Carl Bernstein. (The article would later be updated and have a Jan. 12, 2017, date.)
The allegations within the dossier were made public, and with reporting of the briefings by intelligence community leaders, instant credibility was given to the dossier’s assertions.
Immediately following the CNN story, BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier, and the Trump–Russia conspiracy was pushed into the mainstream.
David Kramer was asked about his reaction when CNN broke the story on the dossier. According to his deposition, Kramer stated, “I believe my words were ‘Holy [expletive].’”
Kramer, who was actually meeting with The Guardian’s Julian Borger when CNN reported on the dossier, said that he quickly spoke with Steele, who “was shocked.”
On the following day, Jan. 11, 2017, Clapper issued a statement condemning the leaks—without revealing the fact that he was the source of the leak.
On Nov. 17, 2016, Clapper submitted his resignation as director of national intelligence; his resignation became effective on Jan. 20, 2017. Later that year, CNN hired Clapper as its national security analyst.

The Effort to Remove General Flynn

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then-national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka about two December 2016 conversations that Flynn had had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
National security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. (Kevin Hagen/Getty Images)
Details of the phone conversation had leaked to the media. Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI regarding his conversations with Kislyak. It remains unknown to this day who leaked Flynn’s classified call—a far more serious felony violation.
The Washington Post reported in January 2017 that the FBI had found no evidence of wrongdoing in Flynn’s actual call with the Russian ambassador. The call, and the matters discussed in it, broke no laws.
Flynn has been portrayed in the media as being suspiciously close to Russia; a dinner in Moscow that occurred in late 2015 is frequently cited as evidence of this.
On Dec. 10, 2015, Flynn attended an event in Moscow to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Russian television network RT. Flynn, who was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the culminating dinner, was also interviewed on national security matters by an RT correspondent. Flynn’s speaker’s bureau, Leading Authorities Inc., was paid $45,000 for the event and Flynn received $33,000 of the total amount.
Seated at the same table with Flynn was Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in the 2016 election. By all accounts, including Stein’s, Flynn and Putin didn’t engage in any real conversation. At the time, Flynn’s trip didn’t garner significant attention. But it would later be used by the media and the Clinton campaign to push the Russia-collusion narrative.
Notably, as stated by lawyer Robert Kelner, Flynn disclosed his Moscow trip to the Defense Intelligence Agency before he traveled there and provided a full briefing upon his return:
“As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of the DoD, extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by the DIA concerning the trip during those briefings.”
Flynn’s trip to Russia was first brought to broader attention on July 18, 2016, during a live interview at the Republican National Convention with Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff.
The Isikoff interview took place on July 18, 2016. Unknown at the time, the matter had also captured the attention of Christopher Steele, who had begun publishing his dossier memos on June 20, 2016.
Contained within an Aug. 10, 2016, memo was this initial reference to Flynn:
“Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn) and funding their recent visits to Moscow.”
In addition to the obvious questions raised by the timing of Flynn’s name appearing in Steele’s Aug. 10 memo, is the manner in which Flynn is denoted. All other names are capitalized, in the manner of intelligence briefings. Flynn’s name isn’t capitalized and, in one case, appears within parentheses.
Steele met with Yahoo News’ Isikoff in September 2016 and gave him information from the dossier. The resulting Sept. 23, 2016, article from Isikoff was then cited by the FBI as validating Steele’s claims and was featured in the original FISA application, and its three subsequent renewals, for a warrant to spy on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Steele wasn’t the only person Isikoff was working with. On April 26, 2016, Isikoff published a story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort’s business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a Democratic National Committee (DNC) email leaked by Wikileaks that Isikoff had been working with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American operative who was doing consulting work for the DNC. Chalupa met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose alleged ties between Trump, Manafort, and Russia.
The obvious question remains: How did the information on Flynn make its way into the dossier at the time it did, and who provided the information to Steele?
Flynn’s 2015 dinner in Moscow was initially used to implicate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. It was then used as a means to cast doubts on Flynn’s ability as Trump’s national security adviser. Following Flynn’s resignation, it was then used as a means to pursue the ongoing collusion narrative that gained full strength in the early days of the Trump administration.
A Jan. 10, 2017, article in The New York Times, “Trump’s National Security Pick Sees Ally in Fight Against Islamists: Russia,” highlighted the efforts:
“In an extraordinary report released last week, the agencies bluntly accusedthe Russian government of having worked to undermine American democracy and promote the candidacy of Mr. Trump. The report is likely to renew questions about Mr. Flynn’s avowed eagerness to work with Russia, and his dismissal of concerns about President Vladimir V. Putin.”
Flynn would resign from his position as national security adviser in February 2017. The sequence of events leading to his resignation were both coordinated and orchestrated, with acting Attorney General Sally Yates playing a leading role.
On Jan. 12, 2017, Flynn’s Dec. 29, 2016, call with Kislyak was leaked to The Washington Post. The article portrayed Flynn as undermining Obama’s Russia sanctions that had been imposed on the same day as Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador.
On Jan. 15, five days before Trump’s inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence appeared on “Face the Nation” to defend Flynn’s calls.
A few days later, on Jan. 19, Obama officials—Yates, Clapper, Brennan and Comey—met to discuss Flynn’s situation. The concern they reportedlydiscussed was that Flynn might have misled Trump administration officials regarding the nature of his call with Kislyak.
Click on the infographic to enlarge
Yates, Clapper, and Brennan supported informing the Trump administration of their concerns. Comey took a dissenting view. On Jan 23, Yates again pressured Comey, telling the FBI director that she believed Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail. At this point, according to media reports, Comey relented, despite the FBI finding nothing unlawful in the content of Flynn’s calls.
Strzok and Pientka, at the instruction of McCabe, interviewed Flynn the following day. According to court documents, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.” It was during this interview that Flynn reportedly lied to the FBI.
The DOJ was provided with a detailed briefing of the Flynn interview on the following day. On Jan. 26, Yates contacted White House counsel Don McGahn, who agreed to meet to discuss the matter. Yates arrived at McGahn’s office, bringing Mary McCord, John Carlin’s acting replacement as head of the DOJ’s National Security Division.
Yates later testified before Congress that the meeting surrounded Flynn’s phone calls and his FBI interview. She also testified that Flynn’s call and subsequent interview “was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.” McGahn reportedly asked Yates, “Why does it matter to the DOJ if one White House official lies to another official?”
McGahn called Yates the following day and asked her to return for a second meeting. Yates returned to the White House without McCord. McGahn asked to examine the FBI’s evidence on Flynn. Yates said she would respond by the following Monday.
Yates failed to provide McGahn with the FBI’s evidence on Flynn. From that point, the pressure on Flynn and the Trump administration escalated—with help from media reporting.
Flynn resigned on Feb. 13, after it was reported that he had misled Pence about phone conversations he’d had with Kislyak.
The following day, The New York Times reported that “phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”
With Flynn gone and the Russian narrative firmly established, the conspirators then turned their attention to Trump’s newly confirmed attorney general, Jeff Sessions. On March 1, 2017, The Washington Postreported that Sessions had twice had contact with the Russian ambassador, Kislyak. The following day, March 2, Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation.
On the same day that Sessions recused himself, Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, detailed efforts at hampering the newly installed Trump administration, during a March 2, 2017, interview with MSNBC, in which she described how the Obama administration gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill … ‘Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.’
“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, [they] would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. … That’s why you have the leaking.”
Note that Farkas said “how we knew,” not just “what we knew.”

Obama Officials Used Unmasking to Target the Trump Campaign

On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), met a classified source who showed him “dozens” of intelligence reports. Contained within these reports was evidence of surveillance on the Trump campaign. Nunes held a press conference on March 22 highlighting what he had found:
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
“I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”
In a series of rapid-fire questions and answers, Nunes attempted to elaborate on what he had been shown:
“From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don’t know exactly how that was picked up but we’re trying to get to the bottom of it…I think the NSA’s going to comply. I am concerned – we don’t know whether or not the FBI is going to comply. I have placed a call, I’m waiting to talk to Director Comey, hopefully later today.
“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the President-elect and his team were at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in what appears to be raw—well I shouldn’t say raw—but intelligence reporting channels.
“It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the President-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.”
The documents Nunes had been shown highlighted the unmasking activities of the FBI, the Obama administration, and CIA Director Brennan in relation to the Trump campaign. Although March 2017 would prove chaotic, the Trump administration had survived the first crucial months, and would now begin to slowly assert its administrative authority.

Comey Testifies No Obstruction by Trump Administration

On May 3, 2017, James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under oath, Comey stated that his agency—and the FBI’s investigation—had not been pressured by the Trump administration:
Sen. Hirono: “So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?”
Mr. Comey: “In theory, yes.”
Sen. Hirono: “Has it happened?”
Mr. Comey: “Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don’t see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
FBI Director James Comey. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
Less than a week later, on May 9, Trump fired Comey based on a May 8 recommendation by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein would later tell members of Congress: “In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.”
Regarding the recommendation, Rosenstein said: “I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.”

McCabe’s FBI Reaches Out Again to Steele

Within days of Trump’s firing of Comey, the FBI, now under the leadership of acting-FBI Director Andrew McCabe, suddenly decided to reestablish direct contact with Christopher Steele through DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
The re-engagement attempt came six months after Steele had been formally terminated by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016.
The FBI’s re-engagement of Ohr was highlighted during a congressional review of some text messages between Ohr and Steele:
Mr. Ohr: “The FBI had asked me a few days before, when I reported to them my latest conversation with Chris Steele, they had had would he—next time you talk with him, could you ask him if he would be willing to meet again.”
Rep. Jordan: “So this is the re-engagement?”
Mr. Ohr: “Yes.”
The texts being referenced were sent on May 15, 2017, and refer to a request that Ohr received from the FBI to ask Steele to re-engage with the FBI in the days after Comey had been fired on May 9.
This was the only time the FBI used Ohr to reach out to Steele.

The Battle Between McCabe and Rosenstein

Two days after Comey was fired, on May 11, 2017, McCabe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. While the hearing’s original intent had been to focus on national security threats, Trump’s firing of Comey completely altered the topic of the hearing.
McCabe, who agreed that he would notify the committee “of any effort to interfere with the FBI’s ongoing investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign,” told members of Congress that there had been “no effort to impede our investigation to date.” In other words, McCabe testified that he was unaware of any evidence of obstruction from Trump or his administration. Notably, Comey’s May 3 testimony may have left McCabe with little choice other than to confirm there had been no obstruction.
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
McCabe, however, failed to inform the committee that he was actively considering opening an obstruction-of-justice probe of Trump—a path he would initiate in a meeting with Rosenstein just five days later.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein allegedly suggested to McCabe that he could secretly record Trump. It was at this meeting that McCabe was “pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president,” according to witness accounts reported by The Washington Post.
In addition to McCabe, Rosenstein, and McCabe’s special counsel, Lisa Page, there were one or two others present, including Rosenstein’s chief of staff, James Crowley, and possibly Scott Schools, the senior-most career attorney at the DOJ and a top aide to Rosenstein.
An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation between McCabe and Rosenstein in an entirely different light, noting that Rosenstein had responded with angry sarcasm to McCabe, saying, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
This was just five days after McCabe had publicly testified that there was no obstruction on the part of the Trump administration.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
Sometime later that same day, both Rosenstein and Trump met with former FBI Director Robert Mueller in the Oval Office. The meeting was reported as being for the FBI director position, but the idea that Mueller would be considered for the FBI director role seems highly unlikely.
Mueller had previously served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013—two years beyond the normal 10-year tenure for an FBI director. In 2011, Obama requested that Mueller stay on as FBI director for an additional two years, which required special congressional approval.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the following day, on May 17, 2017, and in doing so, Rosenstein removed control of the Trump–Russia investigation from McCabe and put it in the hands of Mueller.
This was confirmed in a recent statement by a DOJ spokesperson, who said, “The deputy attorney general in fact appointed special counsel Robert Mueller, and directed that Mr. McCabe be removed from any participation in that investigation.”
Following the appointment of Mueller as special counsel, it also appears the FBI’s efforts to re-engage with Steele abruptly ended.

‘There’s No Big There There’

We know the FBI hadn’t found any evidence of collusion in the May 2017 timeframe. While McCabe was attempting to open an obstruction investigation, Peter Strzok—who played a key role in the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign—texted Lisa Page about lacking evidence of collusion:
“You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there, no question. I hesitate, in part, because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
Page, who was asked about this text during her July 2018 testimony, said, “So I think this represents that even as far as May of 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question.”
James Baker, who was questioned about the Strzok text, was then asked if he’d seen any evidence to the contrary. He stumbled a bit in his reply:
Rep. Meadows: “Do you have any evidence to the contrary that you observed personally in your official capacity?”
Mr. Baker: “So the difficulty I’m having with your question is, what does ‘collusion’ mean, and what does ‘prove’ mean? And so I don’t know how to respond to that.”

FBI Leadership Speculates on New Trump–Russia Collusion Narrative

In his testimony, Baker disclosed the actual substance of discussions taking place at the upper echelons of the FBI immediately following Comey’s firing—that Vladimir Putin had ordered Trump to fire Comey:
Mr. Baker: “We discussed, so to the best of my recollection, with the same people I described earlier: Mr. McCabe, possibly Mr. Gattis [Carl Ghattas, executive assistant director of the National Security Branch], Mr. Priestap, possibly Lisa Page, possibly Pete Strzok. I don’t remember that specifically.”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “So there was—there was a discussion between those folks, possibly all of the folks that you’ve identified, about whether or not President Trump had been ordered to fire Jim Comey by the Russian Government?”
Mr. Baker: “I wouldn’t say ordered. I guess I would say the words I sort of used earlier, acting at the behest of and somehow following directions, somehow executing their will, whether—and so literally an order or not, I don’t know. But—”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “And so—”
Mr. Baker: “As a—it was discussed as a theoretical possibility.”
Rep. Ratcliffe: “When was it discussed?”
Mr. Baker: “After the firing, like in the aftermath of the firing.”
The FBI, with no actual evidence of collusion after 10 months of investigating, began discussing a complete hypothetical at the highest levels of leadership as a means to possibly open an obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president of the United States.
During his testimony, Baker told lawmakers: “I had a jaundiced eye about everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff. I was concerned about all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual.”
McCabe was later fired for lying to the DOJ inspector general and is currently the subject of a criminal grand jury investigation.

The Fixer

Despite the ongoing assault from the intelligence community and holdovers from the Obama administration, Trump was not entirely without allies.
Dana Boente, one of the nation’s highest-profile federal prosecutors, served in a series of critical shifting roles within the Trump administration. Boente, who remained the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia until early 2018, concurrently became the acting attorney general following the firing of Sally Yates. Boente, who was specifically appointed by Trump, was not directly in the line of succession that had been previously laid out under an unusual executive order from the Obama administration.
FBI General Counsel Dana Boente. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Upon the confirmation of Sessions as attorney general, Boente next served as acting deputy attorney general until the confirmation of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general on April 25, 2017. Boente then became the acting head of the DOJ’s National Security Division on April 28, 2017, following the sudden resignation of Mary McCord.
Boente was appointed as FBI general counsel on Jan. 23, 2018, replacing Baker, who was demoted and reassigned. Baker is currently the subject of a criminal leak investigation. Boente remains in his position as FBI general counsel.
On March 31, 2017, the Trump administration asked for the resignations all 46 holdover U.S. attorneys from the Obama administration. Trump refused to accept the resignations of just three of them—Boente, Rosenstein, and John Huber.
As Sessions noted in a March 29, 2018, letter to congressional chairmen Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte, and Trey Gowdy, Huber was assigned by Sessions to lead a prosecution team and is currently working with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz:
“I already have directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues previously raised by the Committee. … Specifically, I asked United States Attorney John W. Huber to lead this effort.”

John Carlin’s Race With Admiral Rogers

Director of the National Security Agency Admiral Mike Rogers. (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
The Carter Page FISA application has been the subject of significant media attention, but there’s another element to the story that, although largely ignored, is equally important. It involved what amounted to a surreptitious race between then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers and DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin.
Following a March 9, 2016, discovery that outside contractors for the FBI had been accessing raw FISA data since at least 2015, Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to conduct a “fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702” at some point in early April 2016 (Senate testimony & pages 83–84 of court ruling).
On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor access. At this point, both the FBI and the DOJ’s NSD became aware of Rogers’s compliance review. They may have known earlier, but they were certainly aware after outside-contractor access was halted.
The DOJ’s NSD maintains oversight of the intelligence agencies’ use of Section 702 authority. The NSD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) jointly conduct reviews of the intelligence agencies’ Section 702 activities every 60 days. The NSD—with notice to the ODNI—is required to report any incidents of agency noncompliance or misconduct to the FISA court.
Instead of issuing individual court orders, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence (DNI) are required by Section 702 to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) with annual certifications that specify categories of foreign intelligence information the government is authorized to acquire, pursuant to Section 702.
The attorney general and the DNI also must certify that Intelligence Community agencies will follow targeting procedures and minimization procedures that are approved by the FISC as part of the certification.
Carlin filed the government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of the compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the NSA inspector general and associated FISA abuse to the FISA court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers’s ongoing Section 702-compliance review.
On Sept. 27, 2016, the day after he filed the annual certifications, Carlin announced his resignation, which would become effective on Oct. 15, 2016.
John Carlin, DOJ’s National Security Division. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
On Oct. 4, 2016, a standard follow-up court hearing was held (Page 19), with Carlin present. Again, he made no disclosure of FISA abuse or other related issues. This lack of disclosure would be noted by the court later in the April 2017 ruling:
“The government’s failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing [was ascribed] to an institutional ‘lack of candor.’”
On Oct. 15, 2016, Carlin formally left the NSD.
On Oct. 20, 2016, Rogers was briefed by the NSA compliance officer on findings from the 702 NSA compliance audit. The audit had uncovered a large number of issues, including numerous “about query” violations (Senate testimony).
Rogers shut down all “about query” activity on Oct. 21, 2016. “About queries” are particularly worrisome, since they occur when the target is neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication; rather, the target’s “query,” such as an email address, is being passed between two other communicants.
On the same day, the DOJ and FBI sought and received a Title I FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. At this point, the FISA court still was unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his findings:
“On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”
Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and presented the written findings of his audit:
“Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a written submission regarding those compliance problems … and the Court held a hearing to address them.
“The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary results suggesting that the problem was widespread during all periods under review.”
The FISA court was unaware of the FISA “query” violations until they were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.
Carlin didn’t disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications, apparently in order to avoid raising suspicions at the FISA court ahead of receiving the Carter Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers’s investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

FISA Abuse & the FISC

Rogers presented his findings directly to the FISA court’s presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer. Collyer and Rogers would work together for the next six months, addressing the issues that Rogers had uncovered.
It was Collyer who wrote the April 26, 2017, FISA court ruling on the entire episode. It also was Collyer who signed the original FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016, before being apprised of the many issues by Rogers.
The litany of abuses described in the April 26, 2017, ruling was shocking and detailed the use of private contractors by the FBI in relation to Section 702 data. Collyer referred to it as “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” The FBI was specifically singled out by the court numerous times in the ruling:
“The improper access previously afforded the contractors has been discontinued. The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI’s apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported.”
Rogers informed Collyer of the ongoing FISA abuses by the FBI and NSD just three days after she personally signed the Carter Page FISA warrant.
Virtually every FBI and NSD official with material involvement in the original Carter Page FISA application would later be removed—either through firing or resignation.
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama.  Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie.  His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES

October 3, 2019

The Political Civil War is real

The American Political Civil War, which began in November 2016, has so far witnessed leftist Democrats initiating a series of unsuccessful offensive maneuvers against the president and his allies.  The unrelenting Russian collusion bombardment did not produce the shock and awe promised by leftist operatives such as Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi.  And so a new front was opened up against the president, having the appearance of impeachment proceedings that dealt with a routine phone call from President Trump to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Sometimes aggression must be met head on, with resolve to stop it in its tracks.  History reviles Neville Chamberlain not because he was unsuccessful in halting German expansion, but because he couldn't identify or didn't want to acknowledge the clear evidence of imminent war. 
Chamberlain's self-deception and fear helped pave the way in allowing an aggressor to gather strength and strike when he had amassed enough power.  In the same way, it was the self-deception and cowardice of Republican members of Congress that allowed the Democrat impeachment machine to gain control of the House during the midterm elections. 
But the leftist Democratic Party has taken a different approach toward total political and social conquest.  Unlike the German war machine that promised peace but delivered war, leftist Democrats do not promise any compromises.  Instead, they are openly mobilizing for political war and are prepared to deliver on that threat, no matter the cost to the country.
And to be clear, it will continue to be an all-out, extremely aggressive assault on the president and any American who wants nothing more than to live in peace and raise a family.  To pretend that what is happening today is merely dirty politics as usual would be the equivalent of British citizens identifying descending V-1 rockets in the battle of Britain as no more than pesky mosquitoes.  
It is, thus far, a bloodless, political civil war to change America forever.  And it has already seen a coup attempt against the president by the Left that desires a winner-take-all conclusion.  And because Leftist Democrats never conceived that anyone other than a person they selected would become president, the rules, laws, and language must change and contort to fit their agenda so they can finally seize power.  Once in power, the rules and laws dictated by the Left will become unrecognizable, and there will be no bridge to cross to get back to the Constitution.  
Politically speaking, these leftist radicals have proven that they will attack all those who want to remain living in a Republic.  As in every past revolution into socialism, the socialist victors demand complete obedience from the conquered. 
In their own words, leftist Democrats confirm that they are counting on a misinformed public in order to gain power.  Take, as an example, the statement made by Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, where he brags to a group of people how in order to pass Obamacare he relied on "the stupidity of the American voter."  Although Gruber doesn't explain how the American voter becomes so "stupid," the evidence is clear that the corrupt, indoctrinating media play a crucial role.  They dole out misinformation and deceit, as does the leftist education system.
There are no more pretenses, as the corrupt major media have all but announced their alliance with the far left's aggressive goals.  An article in the October 2018 edition of Investor's Business Daily points out this blatant one-sided absurdity that passes for today's media:
To say that the big networks haven't exactly had a love affair with Donald Trump, as they did with President Obama, is an understatement. A new survey shows that not only is coverage of Trump overwhelmingly negative, but the President's biggest accomplishment — the roaring economy — gets almost no attention.
The article goes on to say Trump receives 92% negative coverage and that the Media Research Center watched network TV for four months and found that the coverage surrounding Trump's economic boom was only 0.7% of the entire coverage.
It cannot be overstated that for America to "change," there had to be a push to revoke some or all of the Bill of Rights.  That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama.  Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie.  His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal.  Only because outsider citizen Trump became President Trump do we now know that there was no chance that justice would have ever been served for the victims of the scandals of Benghazi, the IRS, and Fast and Furious while Obama was in office.  Just like the leftist Democrats of today, Obama was protected by America's version of Pravda.
The ongoing coup attempt against President Trump and his administration will continue.  The American people will get deluged with fake news and lies from hostile media sources.  There still exists a sliver of hope in the name of William Barr.  But even Barr holding a winning hand is not enough to turn the tide against the waves of corruption slamming into America.  It will also take the selfless efforts of the average American who demands liberty.  It will take the courage and grit of ordinary men and women to secure a victory — not just for the president, but for America's bright future and the joy of living in ultimate freedom.

Mecha's  (M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."

LA RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and surrender of America to NARCOMEX

The comparison to the Nazi Party is well deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino Americans out of a portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call for 'Reconquista' or the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the re-occupation of the Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is the utopian all-Latino version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf Hitler planned to called his utopia Germania).

"Despite the fact that the majority of documented hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferously oppose it is scorned as racism."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."

"We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within  our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan”  or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New  Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico."

"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party… NOW THE PARTY for LA RAZA SUPREMACY… do a search for Barack Obama and LA RAZA.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."  --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times  

“Make no mistake about it: the Latino community holds this election in your hands. Some of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico -- states with large Latino populations.”   PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA  

“I know how powerful this community is. Just think how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.”    PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA 


Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division



Left-wing pundits have accused President Donald Trump of using his tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election campaign.

David Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party. It’s a cold, hard strategy.”
That is debatable — but if so, Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.
By 2011, Obama knew that re-election would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the Republicans to a historic victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the House and nearly taking the Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly, and Obama’s stimulus had failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as projected. Moreover, the passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against Obama’s state-centered model of American society.
Facing a similar situation in the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,” moving back toward the middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues, such as welfare reform.
But Obama rejected that approach. Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold Washington, settle for an incremental approach when faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a sudden heart attack before fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of hard-left policy — and divide-and-rule politics.
The first hint of his strategy emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of August 2011. As Bob Woodward recounted in his book about the crisis, The Price of Politics, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the president on long-term spending cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by demanding $400 billion in new taxes, to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an opponent, not a deal. (Last week, Boehner told Breitbart News Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst disappointment in 35 years of politics.)
In the fall of 2011, a new left-wing movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix of communists, anarchists, and digital pranksters, the Occupy movement cast American society as a struggle between the “99 percent” and the “one percent.”
Obama and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) embraced the movement — and failed to distance themselves from it even as it collapsed into violence, sexual assault, and confrontations with police.
Instead, Obama picked up on Occupy’s themes and used them to shape his campaign.
In December 2011, Obama gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas — a place steeped in radical symbolism — at which he doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on the issue of economic inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market could lift the middle class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare,” he insisted.
Then, in the spring of 2012, Obama made a controversial play on race. When a black teen, Trayvon Martin, was killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal adviser to Obama at the time — made the local crime story into a national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.
Poll numbers suggest that race relations, which had been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to Obama, it was worth it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority voters. (Vice President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)
Trump is pushing a non-racial, nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide America for political gain, he could learn from the master.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Heading for civil war

Donald Trump’s opponents are completely unhinged. The hate and slander directed towards the president and his supporters is off the charts. The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the media, and the world of entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion of the federal bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.  
The media coordinates this campaign and amplifies the hate at every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it big or small, into a criticism of the president. The goal is always to present Trump in not just an unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for polite society. And Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is directed at his supporters, too. 
Where will all this lead? No less than Angelo M. Codevilla fears it could ultimately result in a bloody civil war. And if it comes to that, there's no doubt where he places the blame.  
The story of the contemporary American Left's sponsorship of hate and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats chose to abandon the Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since the time of Jefferson and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found itself increasingly dependent on gaining super-majorities among blacks, upscale liberals, and constituencies of resentment in general -- and hence on stoking their hate. 
For the past half century, America's political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort  to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America.
Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their followers "to think and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."
It’s not surprising that many ordinary followers have concluded that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports, and public functions is "not just permissible but praiseworthy, and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."
This is the toxic environment that the Democrats, in conjunction with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been opened? Are we beyond the point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal soulmates too obtuse not to expect that hate and violence will someday be answered in kind? These questions are up in the air. Right now, one thing is clear. As Yeats wrote: "The best lack all conviction while the worse are full of passionate intensity."
Codevilla's worry about a civil war dovetails with The Fourth Turning,: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About American's Next Rendezvous with Destiny (1997)  by William Strauss and Neil Howe. To my reading, these authors predict a Fourth Turning Crisis period around the years 2020-2022. Then, many things that Americans have always taken for granted will unravel. 
Just to touch on a few of the changes that Strauss and Howe see: today's soft criminal justice system will become swift and rough. Vagrants will be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted. Criminal appeals shortened and executions hastened. Pension funds will go bust and Social Security checks become iffy. The full spectrum of society will be under distress. All the problems will be combined into one -- the survival of society.  
Aren't the seeds already planted for a crisis? Trust in Washington and in government institutions is at an all-time low. Political violence is tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal immigration. The mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform. The American flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never be repaid.
Someday there has to be a reckoning for all this dysfunction. Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time frame of 2020-2022 sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It would be prudent to be ready. 

University of California President Janet Napolitano Resigns


University of California (UC) President Janet Napolitano announced her resignation on Wednesday. During her rocky tenure over the UC system, Napolitano championed sanctuary campuses and was accused of interfering in a state investigation into the system’s budget.

Napolitano made her announcement at the UC regents meeting at UCLA, according to a report by Los Angeles Times, which added that the university president’s management of the UC system has sparked criticism.
While a president of UC, Napolitano championed sanctuary for illegal aliens, and defended “safe space” and “trigger warning” culture on college campuses, among other issues.
Prior to her role as UC president, Napolitano served as Arizona governor from 2003 to 2009, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary under President Barack Obama, from 2009 to 2013.
During her time as DHS secretary, Napolitano played a key role in providing sanctuary to illegal aliens by helping the Obama Administration bypass congress to grant de facto amnesty to young illegal aliens by enacting key parts of DACA with a memo — calling for law enforcement officials to ignore immigration law — without any Congressional vote.

As UC president, Napolitano spearheaded a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration’s actions regarding the DACA program, which in turn, resulted in more than 500,000 DACA recipients renewing their authorizations to remain in the United States, notes to Los Angeles Times.
In 2017, a state audit revealed that Napolitano’s office hid $175 million, even as it raised tuition for students in the UC system.
“The audit found that Napolitano’s office ‘used misleading budgeting practices, provided its employees with generous salaries and atypical benefits, and failed to satisfactorily justify its spending on systemwide initiatives,'” noted Breitbart News reporter Chriss Street.
Moreover, the auditor testified that Napolitano and her office had attempted to interfere with — and to smear publicly — the investigation, in an effort to prevent revelations of the hidden money.
“Napolitano approved a plan instructing UC campuses to submit responses to confidential questionnaires for review by each college’s chancellor and her aides before returning them to the state auditor,” noted Los Angeles Times. “Those steps and others ‘constituted interference,’ the investigation said.”
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo and on Instagram.


More sneaky-pete from Obama: Huge trove of DHS speeches erased from White House record just before Trump took office

If there's one thing that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, it's got to be their habit of illegally erasing records of their times in office. It wasn't just Sandy Bergler getting off scot-free after stealing archives to destroy, stuffing them down his pants. It wasn't just the bleachbit and hammers to destroy email records from an illegal unsecured private server from President Obama's Secretary of State.
The Obama administration deleted hundreds of speeches and statements on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website just hours before President Donald Trump officially entered office, according to research released Tuesday.
A collection of 190 transcripts of speeches on ICE’s website was deleted on Jan. 18 and late in the evening on Jan. 19, 2017, according to research conducted by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for government transparency. Statements made by high-ranking ICE officials regarding controversial immigration topics such as sanctuary cities, E-Verify, treatment of detainees, and other issues were included in the reported deletions.
That stands in striking contrast to the carefully preserved Twitter accounts of White House officials such as Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes. Or look at this well preserved archive of flattering Obama pictures from his days in the White House. They know how to be meticulous about saving records when they want to be. And rest assured if there was anything that needed to be gone to avoid embarrassment, well, let's just say they have connections at Twitter.
This document destruction of archived public statements, done just a day or before Trump entered office in 2017, raises the question about just what the Obama White House wanted to hide from both Trump and the American public.
I don't have access to these public statements any more than anyone else does, but I do recall writing editorials about some of them. I recall that many did pay lip service to the growing border crisis. Many did cite the crisis as a crisis. Many did condemn the damage to rule of law that illegal immigration could do. Some may have criticized sanctuary cities. 
It would take a long time to reconstruct the archive, based on the news trail, but it might be the only way. Because what it undoubtedly shows is that the Obama administration knew there was a crisis and took similar steps, perhaps even harsher steps (remember: They were the ones who caged children, not President Trump) to attempt to stop the great migration wave. Leftist open-borders advocates often yelled that he was "the deporter in chief," a title Obama did not like, but which certainly meant there was some kind of law enforcement effort going on.
And with Obama a soft socialist more than a little obssessed with winning the Latino vote, it's obvious his presidential deeds didn't quite match his political claims. There was a crisis, law enforcement tried to stop some of it, and some officials tried to give warning. That was so important for Obama to hide from the public some of his minions actually erased records. No history for you.
It's illegal. It's unfair to the public. It's clearly a bid to give another kick to the Trump adminstration, enabling Democrats to paint any effort from Trump to enforce U.S. immigration law as the work of a heartless scoundrel, something Obama would never dream of being, as the narrative goes.
It ought to be prosecuted. If the public is ever to retain any right to know, a failed presidency trying to cover up its record is a good place to start. Let Trump's lawmen create some new records in the wake of this destruction of old ones.

Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times





“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

BARACK OBAMA: Was he America’s first Communist president in the closet?

Obama choose Communists and Marxists for the highest, most powerful positions in our land, including his closest political advisors, and his head of the CIA.  These facts are not in dispute.  Most are openly admitted by the people in question, as necessary damage control.  Our press chooses not to report them.

Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.


They Destroyed Our Country
“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”

These people were engaged in a massive political conspiracy. The Democrats made a decision from the outset—beginning with the election campaign of the favored candidate of Wall Street and the CIA, Hillary Clinton—that they would not oppose Trump on his anti-working-class social policy or his authoritarian hostility to democratic rights and promotion of anti-immigrant racism, but on issues of imperialist foreign policy.

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”

Former President Barack Obama (L) listens to Eliseo Medina and other people taking part in the Fast for Families on the National Mall in Washington on Nov. 29, 2013. Obama offered support for those fasting for immigration reform. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration



 “Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members,” said then-Sen. Barack Obamaaddressing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.
Eliseo Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated 22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a one-party state.
As a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009, Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.

Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal aliens, focusing instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for Democrats.

Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008 election, Medina said:

“When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.
“So, I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future.
“Number two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same ratio—two out of three?
“If we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s “governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”

Who Is Eliseo Medina?

Medina‘s road to power began in 1965 when, as a 19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm Workers’ strike in Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked alongside labor leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually surpassing his mentor as a skilled union organizer and political strategist. Medina met his future wife Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW) banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s voice.’”
In 2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from People’s Weekly World).

Medina’s Wife and Flexible Socialist Ethics

Medina’s wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early 1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school, she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist ethics can be very flexible.

Changing the Democrat Position to Pro-Amnesty


Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.

The SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized left and in the Democratic Party.
In the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994, several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and ultimately for the Democrats.

Claiming U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that criminalized hiring them.

According to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was “widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty coalition.
According to the SEIU:

“Working to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary political capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access to health care.”
In August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet members, and Medina.
After the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance appeared to concern no one.

Eventually, Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.

Fortunately, Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation. They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.

‘Fast for Families’

In November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea), started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.

The staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of Congress dropped by to offer support, along with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden.
Still, House Republicans did not budge.
On May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the team as senior advisers in California.
“Huerta and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’ said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
Clinton promised to introduce a “pathway to 

full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant 

voting rights to every illegal alien in the country

“within 100 days of taking office” if she were to 

be elected president.

Had President Donald Trump not won his shocking victory on Nov. 6, 2016, Medina’s dream of a permanent, unbeatable progressive “governing coalition” would today be a reality, making it virtually impossible to elect another Republican president.
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG

Senate Hearing: Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration

Sen. Ron Johnson
 23 May 201918

The illegal migration of “family units” and “unaccompanied alien children” spiked after former President Barack Obama signed off on the “DACA” amnesty and the Flores court order, according to a graphic used by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Defense Committee.

Committee chairman Rep. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., touted the jarring graphic by printing it on paper cups used by the committee members. The graphic contradicts claims by Democrats that the huge wave of Central American economic migrants are really refugees from a humanitarian disaster caused by crime and crop failures in Central America. 
Officials expect almost one million Central American migrants in the 12 months prior to October 2019. The migrant wave includes hundreds of thousands of people in “family units.” These units consist of adults who bring youths and children to help trigger the border catch-and-release loophole.
The primary catch-and-release loophole is the Flores court order, because it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Once released, the migrant adults take jobs in American workplaces and their children are sent to the schools used by the children of blue-collar Americans.
The Flores decision “has been the essential driver, frankly, for the increase in family units,” said Kevin McAleenan, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in a May 23 committee hearing. He continued:
That certainty, that knowledge, that they will be allowed to stay in the US. indefinitely, pending a court [asylum] proceeding that could be years away … is a huge draw. Smugglers have capitalized on that. They’re advertising that fact. We hear that routinely from our interviews with families.
The 2015 extension of the 1993 Flores judgment was accepted by the Obama administration, even though it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Obama’s legal team could have fought the decision by filing appeals with higher courts, but it instead signed an agreement to implement the decision.
Under policies set by judges, the 2015 agreement by Obama, ACLU activists, and the judge binds President Donald Trump, even though he did not approve it, and even though the Supreme Court did approve the extension.
Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty offered a sanctuary from deportation, plus work permits and Social Security Numbers, to roughly 800,000 migrants who had been smuggled over the border by their parents. The giveaway is legally shaky, but it prompted many other illegal migrants to get their children delivered from Central America by smugglers to U.S. border agencies, which then passed the children to the parents.
This government-enabled smuggling operation helped bring tens of thousands of carefuly smuggled Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) into the United States. Very few migrants have been sent home, according to federal data.
Democratic legislators have refused to reform the border rules, ensuring that 100,000 migrants — including 40,000 children — walked over the border in April 2019, into the nation’s job sites and schools.
However, Trump’s deputies are preparing a regulation that would allow them to detain migrants with children for more than 20 days.
But Obama holdovers in the agencies have slowed the regulation. The Flores requirement that state officials set up a health and safety inspection process for family detention centers has also delayed the regulatory fix.
Democrats say the migration is a humanitarian crisis but deny their role in creating the disaster, which is now emptying parts of Guatemala.

The US govt's appetite for more cheap labor is distorting Central America's economy by encouraging & subsidizing migration instead of boosting local investment & job-growth via trade. http://bit.ly/2VHmkPG 

Central American Towns Empty as Migrants Rush to U.S. Border Loopholes

Trump’s deputies are also developing other programs to stop the flow, such as the “Remain in Mexico” program, which prevents migrants from getting jobs while they wait for court hearings. If denied jobs, the migrants would not be able to pay the travel costs owed to the Mexican cartels and will not make the trip.

Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' program is helping ensure that pregnant migrants cannot cheat the legal asylum process by birthing a child in the U.S. Pro-migration groups are aghast. http://bit.ly/2X3qNhr 

Los Angeles Times: Border Agencies Return Pregnant Migrants to Mexico

This year’s inflow of one million illegal migrants from Central American is only a small slice of the immigration economy.
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including roughly one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.
The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.
This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.
This policy of flooding the market with cheap foreign white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor shifts also enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized  Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the heartland to the coastal citiesexplodes rents and housing costsshrivels real estate values in the Midwest and rewards investors for creating low tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

Nancy Pelosi is promising to raise wages via gov't socialism, but Trump's "Hire American" immigration/labor-supply policy is nudging wages up by 3-4 percent a year. Yes, politicians competing over rival wage-raising policies would be a great thing. http://bit.ly/2Vgymzk 

Wage Raises: Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi Tout Rival Plans

DACA Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B

Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
11 Dec 20181,846

A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.

As Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
Such a plan, most recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
Additionally, about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Trump ‘immigration reform’ ignores real problem

President Donald Trump participates in a roundtable on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station in Calexico, Calif., Friday April 5, 2019. Trump headed to the border with Mexico to make a renewed push for border security as a central campaign issue for his 2020 re-election. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By HOWIE CARR | howard.carr@medianewsgroup.com | Boston Herald

Trump ‘immigration reform’ ignores real problem

President Donald Trump participates in a roundtable on immigration and border security at the U.S. Border Patrol Calexico Station in Calexico, Calif., Friday April 5, 2019. Trump headed to the border with Mexico to make a renewed push for border security as a central campaign issue for his 2020 re-election. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

By HOWIE CARR | howard.carr@medianewsgroup.com | Boston Herald

OK, so President Trump’s “immigration reform plan” is nothing more than a campaign document, a talking point, to impress the likes of the Wall Street Journal (which gave him a big wet kiss of an editorial Saturday) and the Chambers of Commerce.

But as everyone knows, the problem isn’t so much who we are keeping out of the country – educated, English-speaking people with a work ethic – as opposed to the shiftless, lawless hordes we are allowing to swarm across the southern border in untold numbers.

The problem is most of these undocumented Democrats are future recipients of at least one welfare handout, and even worse, they include a sizable contingent of future MS-13 gangbangers, drive-by shooters, identity thieves and fentanyl dealers.

On Thursday, at the White House, the president halfheartedly raised the specter of these marvelously educated foreign college grads being forced to return home. But c’mon, how many MIT and CalTech grads really get the heave-ho?

When he announced for president in 2015, Trump famously said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.”

Now it’s worse, much worse, because it’s not only Mexico flushing its criminal underclass into the U.S., it’s Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and every other country where they’ve been running TV ads telling their unwed mothers, winos and freelance criminals that all they need to do is tell the gringos that they’re seeking “asylum,” and then it’s off to the welfare free-stuff office.

As the old song goes, “Everything free in America.”

The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released its 2018 report on federal sentencing statistics: 42.7 percent of offenders were illegal aliens. Sixty-three percent of all non-citizens charged with drug trafficking last year were living in the country illegally.

Look what happened at the Quincy District Court Friday. ICE was staking it out, looking to grab a Dominican heroin/cocaine dealer with a phony Puerto Rican identity. He didn’t show.

On Thursday, in Texas, a “Dallas man,” as the Associated Press described him, was charged with the murders of 11 elderly American women between the ages of 76 and 94, as he stole their jewelry and other valuables. In the third paragraph, the AP copped to the truth – the serial killer was “a Kenyan citizen who was living in the U.S. illegally.”

Here’s another recent headline: “ICE arrests Salvadoran murder suspect, gang associate in South Dakota.”

Question: Since when is South Dakota a border state? Answer: Since Barack Obama was president, maybe even before then.

As George W. Bush used to say, they’re only doing the jobs Americans won’t do. Jobs that apparently include fentanyl and meth dealing, not to mention dismemberment of their underworld rivals and too many instances of domestic abuse and drunken driving to even recount? In case you missed it, ICE has picked up 141 illegal immigrant drunken drivers in recent weeks, just in New England.

Here’s a recent headline from the Worcester Telegram: “Three men arrested in Millbury in alleged scheme to defraud banks.”

“Three men” – that’s the dead-giveaway phrase. The only remaining question is, in what paragraph will the paper mention the perps’ immigration status?

In this story, the answer was, the 17th: “The detective said the three suspects each had passports from Ghana. She said she was unsure of their citizenship status.”

I’m not unsure at all. Are you?

Next, a few recent press releases from the feds in New England. First, from the eastern district of Massachusetts:

“Dominican National Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft/Defendant stole identity of US Army Specialist … Dominican National Sentenced for Social Security Fraud … Dominican National Pleads Guilty to Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft … Brazilian National Sentenced for ATM Skimming.”

Here are a few from Connecticut:

“Third Nigerian National Admits Role in Business E-Mail Compromise Scheme Targeting CFO’s and Controllers … Mexican National Convicted of Illegal Reentry for a Third Time … Citizen of Peru Charged with Illegally Reentering US.”

That Peruvian illegal immigrant was a drug dealer and warrant defaulter.

Let’s not slight Rhode Island: “15 Individuals Convicted, Sentenced in Heroin and Cocaine Trafficking Conspiracy.”

Unfortunately, the R.I. U.S. Attorney’s Office buried the lede about the drug outfit headed by one Juan Valdez: “Eleven of the ‘Operation Triple Play’ defendants, many of whom had been living in the United States with stolen identities, including the three brothers who led the drug trafficking organizations, have or will face deportation proceedings … Juan Valdez was previously deported from the United States on four occasions.”

Look, I understand, every resort, restaurant and hotel owner in New England needs H2B visa workers to get through the resort season. That’s a problem, granted. But the bigger disaster is this: Illegal immigrant criminals are destroying the United States, and one of the nation’s major political parties think it’s in its interest to continue the “fundamental transformation” of America … into a Third World hellhole.

Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “The Race”

by Michelle Malkin
Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."
Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":

15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.
12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.
11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.
10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."
7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."
5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."
4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."
3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain … ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."
2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza. 
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
Yes, it is by invitation of the Democrat and Republican parties on behalf of their rich paymasters!
However, the dominant force in American politics for the last two decades has been economic warfare against American citizens.
This economic warfare has two primary components; the use of government to economically favor one group over another; and the collusion of immigrant groups to economically inhibit Americans who oppose replacement migration.
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

The “mother of all caravans” is forming in Central America, and our border-enforcement system is at “the breaking point” — all because Democrats in Congress rejects any effort to plug the legal loopholes that drive the accelerating flood at the border. In effect, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are doing just what Cesar Chavez complained about 40 years ago: placating employers by allowing the unhindered importation of cheap labor to undermine the efforts of American workers to negotiate higher wages. MARK KRIKORIAN


THE OBAMA-BIDEN HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting booths!

 How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag


"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY

“One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to k ill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.”   BETH BAUMANN



The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are d ying. They are s hitting in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the g ringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to k  ill him!"

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

The Democrat Party’s Legacy of the 'Hispanicazation' of America

By: James Walsh
Casting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.

While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”


A county by county chart:       


They’re already signed up to vote LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEM!

“According to Immigration and Customers Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70 percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”



Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans advocated safe, secure borders and an immigration policy of admitting immigrants who benefit, not burden, Americans. Que pasó? ….. LARRY ELDER – FRONT PAGE MAG

Mecha's  (M.E.Ch.A.) own slogan reads, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing."

LA RAZA: The Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “THE RACE” and the Reconquista and surrender of America to NARCOMEX.

The comparison to the Nazi Party is well deserved. La Raza openly supports pushing all but Latino Americans out of a portion of the United States (ethnic cleansing), they call for 'Reconquista' or the re-conquest of the American Southwest by Mexico (the re-occupation of the Sudetanland), and the establishment of 'Atzlan' which is the utopian all-Latino version of the American Southwestern states (Adolf Hitler planned to called his utopia Germania).
Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
"Remember 187 -- the Proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens --- was the last gasp of white America in California." --- Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."  --- Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico


Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are shitting in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to ki ll him!"