VIDEO New Book – Secret On The Tarmac – FOX NEWS INTERVIEW
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GUB8ALTpH0
Socialist Bernie Sanders’s emergence as a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination is puzzling to many of us who have experienced socialism. We thought it dead—good riddance—when the Soviet empire collapsed 30 years ago. Our mistake.
One can only assume that the hardships endured by many millions of Russians, Chinese, Africans and Europeans have been forgotten, or never learned, by a new generation of Democratic voters. Mr. Sanders says he is a “democratic socialist,” whereas those unfortunates of the past were ruled by “communists.” He’s right that there are wide differences in degree. But although the postwar British Labour Party was freely elected, it brought Brits a more limited degree of the economic stagnation that afflicted the people of the undemocratic Soviet Union and its satellites.
171K subscribers
, and I’m Jan Jekielek. In this episode, we’ll sit down with Diana West, a journalist and author of “The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”
A FISA Court order declassified Thursday confirmed that the government had found two of the four FISA applications authorized for the FBI to surveil 2016 Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page to be “not valid,” and will further investigate the validity of the other two.
The order revealed that the government found two of the surveillance application renewals to be “not valid” based on “the material misstatements and omission” used by the FBI, which was found by the Justice Department to have “insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
Based on the ordering of the applications, it appears the review found the second and third renewal applications used against Page to be invalid, while the original application and the first renewal remain under investigation. The third renewal was personally signed by James Comey, while the fourth was signed by Andrew McCabe.
The court also said it was still waiting on the Bureau after it “agreed ‘to sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations’” against Page, but so far has not provided an update.
This article by Karl Rove lists the numerous times Obama’s dubious tactics as president were never criticized by Democrats. One way to stop the Democrats at the senate trial, is to compare all the questionable tactics that Obama did as president to what they are alleging Trump has done. Nancy
Hypocrisy is common in Washington, but impeachment is bringing out more than its fair share. That’s true of some Republicans, and the mainstream media devotes countless hours to it. What gets much less attention is the hypocrisy of the party that to which most journalists are sympathetic: the Democrats.
Take Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. On Tuesday he demanded the Senate call witnesses, claiming they’re required for a “fair trial” and slamming Republican opposition as a “coverup.” But the GOP position is exactly what Mr. Schumer’s was during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999. Back then he said it “doesn’t make sense” for the Senate to call witnesses.
More important than hypocrisy about the process of impeachment is hypocrisy about the substance. Removing a president is the most draconian act Congress can take. It ill serves America if the party opposed to the president uses impeachment as a political weapon to tarnish his standing and weaken him for the next election.
When considering the Democrats’ high-minded arguments, ask yourself: What if Hillary Clinton won in 2016? After she took office, it would have been revealed that her campaign hired the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which assigned Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence official, to reach out to Russian counterparts to solicit dirt on Donald Trump. Recall that the since-discredited dossier Mr. Steele peddled to the media in the fall of 2016 was made up of unsubstantiated rumors from former Russian agents.
It’s naive to believe the Kremlin was unaware that Mr. Steele asked Moscow pals for dirt on Mr. Trump. Those spies are retired, but they rely on Vladimir Putin for their pension checks. Who among congressional Democrats would now be calling for Mrs. Clinton’s removal if she were in the Oval Office? I doubt any. I’ve searched in vain for Democratic criticism for her soliciting foreign involvement in the 2016 election—the principal charge of their impeachment case against President Trump.
Furthermore, while Democrats say Mr. Trump should be removed for seeking a quid pro quo—a Ukrainian investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden in return for U.S. military aid—what about President Barack Obama’s March 2012 open-mic moment? At a summit in Seoul, he asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to tell his boss, then-Prime Minister Putin, that “on all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” In other words, if Mr. Putin didn’t create problems during Mr. Obama’s re-election fight with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama would show “flexibility” on missile defense and other important issues of national security and foreign policy after the election. Again, crickets when it comes to Democratic criticism.
Think the fog of partisan Trump investigations will lift once the President leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025? Not if Elizabeth Warren has anything to say about it. With the Iowa caucuses approaching and her campaign fortunes flagging, Senator Warren now says that as President she’d launch an open-ended criminal investigation into her predecessor and anyone who worked for him.
Ms. Warren’s latest “anti-corruption” plan says she would create “a Justice Department Task Force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” She would order Justice to look for violations of “federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws” as well as immigration-enforcement offenses.
“This will be no ordinary transition between administrations,” the document says ominously. Team Warren won’t be satisfied with taking control of the executive branch in an election. They also want scalps of choice ex-officials. The plan links to news articles about Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser KellyanneCon way and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.
If there is evidence of a crime by a former Administration official, it should be investigated through the normal channels. Ms. Warren is proposing something different: A law-enforcement task force dedicated to searching for wrongdoing only by political opponents. This would be familiar in Latin American dictatorships where the party that loses an election may be jailed as retribution.
Pundits said Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign threat to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email mismanagement was a chilling breach of democratic norms. We opposed such an investigation but at least the alleged misconduct was limited to specific conduct by one official, whereas Ms. Warren wants investigations of all Republican officials for any political offenses.
Despite all the apocalyptic think-pieces and high-minded books, America has not become an “autocracy” three years into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The opposition party won the House in the midterms, proceeded to impeach the President, and its leading candidates are ahead in the head-to-head 2020 presidential election polls.
Yet in polarized times the temptation to criminalize political differences is stronger than ever. It will be especially strong for Democrats once they are back in control of the Justice Department. Down Senator Warren’s road lies a real threat to liberty.
Brandon Tatum doesn’t forgive you for your white privilege. How can he forgive you for something that doesn’t even exist? So, where did the notion of white privilege come from? Who does it benefit? And who does it hurt? The answers might surprise you.
The forthcoming bombshell investigative book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite contains 1,126 endnotes totaling 83 pages of source material, Breitbart News has learned.
In addition, the book contains no unnamed sources. Instead, it is based on hard evidence and documents, including: foreign and domestic corporate and legal records, tax liens, lobbyist disclosures, property records, White House visitor logs, federal bankruptcies, and federal criminal trial records.
Publishing giant HarperCollins has kept Profiles in Corruption under a strict embargo. The book will reportedly expose how five members of Joe Biden’s family—the “Biden Five”—scored “tens of millions of dollars” in taxpayer money and guaranteed loans. In addition, the book is said to contain never-before-reported bombshell revelations about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, and Eric Garcetti.
Last week Amazon named the book its “most anticipated” nonfiction book based on pre-sale volume. Ten days before the book’s January 21 release, it had already hit #1 on Amazon across all book genres.
The book’s writer, Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News senior contributor Peter Schweizer, is a five-time New York Times bestseller author who penned Clinton Cash and Secret Empires. According to Axios, Schweizer and his GAI team of investigators spent a year and a half researching Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite.
Sean Hannity will kick off the book’s official launch on Monday.
nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/
Political figures have long used their families to route power and benefits for their own self-enrichment. In my new book, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,” one particular politician — Joe Biden — emerges as the king of the sweetheart deal, with no less than five family members benefiting from his largesse, favorable access and powerful position for commercial gain. In Biden’s case, these deals include foreign partners and, in some cases, even US taxpayer dollars.
The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie.
When this subject came up in 2019, Biden declared, “I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”
As we will see, this is far from the case …
The hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to protecting Obama or Biden is simply amazing that they get away with it. It is up to the conservative media to expose them. Nancy
The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party over this impeachment nonsense knows no bounds. Last week I noted five examples of Barack Obama obstructing justice that they had no problem with. Sadly, there’s plenty more hypocrisy to point out.
Democrats have been so desperate to paint Trump’s actions as unprecedented, they’ve even argued that any time conditions are put on foreign aid that’s tantamount to an illegal quid pro quo. When White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney noted that conditions are put on foreign aid “all the time,” the media and the Democrats blew up, claiming this was an admission of a corrupt quid pro quo because, obviously, any condition for aid can’t be anything but. Right?
Of course, everyone knows that Mick Mulvaney was substantively correct. Conditions are put on aid all the time. In fact, some 2020 Democrats are calling for conditions on aid to Israel. Where were the allegations of a quid pro quo? It has already been established that there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and even the Democrats’ own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised legitimate questions.
So, let’s get back to the issue of conditional aid. Quid pro quo or standard operating procedure? Well, if Democrats want to argue that conditional aid is a quid pro quoby default, then I guess Barack Obama should have been impeached. Here are five examples of Barack Obama placing conditions on foreign aid to align with his political agenda that Democrats didn’t have a problem with.
Despite years of giving Colombia military and economic aid, in 2016, Obama made that aid conditional on the Colombian government negotiating a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terror-group backed by former Cuban President Fidel Castro. FARC has “slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more.” Yet thanks to Obama’s pressure, nearly half a billion in American taxpayer dollars went toward putting FARC terrorists in the Colombian government without ever being held accountable for their crimes.
Obama threatened to cut off aid to Nigeria over anti-gay legislation in the country in 2011. At the time, Obama had yet to publicly declare support for gay marriage in the United States, and certainly, his attempts to strongarm Nigeria over anti-gay legislation had the potential for personal political gain back home, right? Interestingly enough, Obama again made conditions for aid with Nigeria in 2013 over corruption issues.
The Iran deal was never meant to stop Iran from building a bomb—it was supposed to delay it until disaster happened on someone else’s watch
By Lee Smith Lee Smith is the author of The Consequences of Syria
EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE:
JCPOA advocates claim Trump left the U.S. and the entire world vulnerable by leaving the Iran deal. The JCPOA, they say, was working. This is not true and hasn’t been true since the very beginning of the deal, at least not on the terms sold to Congress and the U.S. public. From the start, Iran was given secret loopholes that made it appear they were meeting the publicly stated terms of deal. Among other recent violations: The Iranians have exceeded the amount of uranium they’re allowed to enrich; they’ve exceeded the levels of purity of enriched uranium; they’ve violated the types of centrifuges they were allowed to spin; and injected uranium into centrifuges they were not allowed to use for enrichment.
Perhaps most tellingly, Iran’s nuclear archives, which Israel seized from a Tehran warehouse in January 2018 and made public months later, show that the regime never gave up its intentions to build a military nuclear program, despite promises in the JCPOA to never pursue nuclear weapons……
The most infamous payoff was the $1.7 billion in cash the administration shipped off to the IRGC on wooden pallets in exchange for U.S. citizens held hostage by the regime. The White House said that there was no “quid pro quo,” that it was Iran’s money to begin with—$400 million the pre-revolutionary government had deposited in 1979 to buy U.S. arms, plus interest. But the U.S. had already used the $400 million to compensate terror victims of the Islamic Republic. That was Iran’s money. The $400 million the Obama administration used to “pay back” the Iranians belonged to the U.S. taxpayer.
The administration argued that the U.S. had to pay the ransom in cash because Tehran had been cut off from the financial system and there was no other way to transfer the funds. That was not true. The Obama administration had wired payments to Iran before and after the wooden pallets episode. The Iranians wanted cash so it would be harder to track their terror financing…….
The Obama administration even paid the Iranians when they violated the deal. The Iranians overproduced reactor coolant, (heavy water, a key ingredient in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons) in violation of the JCPOA, and the administration offered to buy it for $10 millionto keep them in compliance. But that wasn’t enough for Tehran—or the White House. In exchange for giving up the nuclear-related material they had promised not to have in the first place—the heavy water—the regime then demanded more nuclear material in exchange. And the American administration agreed: In January 2017, Obama greenlighted the shipment of 130 tons of uranium to Iran.
BEGINNING OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE