CAN WE HOPE TO KEEP OUR REPUBLIC WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES SUPPORTS TYRANNY?

Capture

Democrat party filled with hard left authoritarians

By Kurt Schlichter

Think about this – a significant portion of our country, including a majority of its elite, thinks that it’s A-OK for a Democrat administration to spy on a Republican candidate. Think hard about that. And think about whether or not we can ever put the pieces of our shattered republic back together again if we can’t even agree that using government power against our political enemies is a bad thing.

But the terrifying truth is that liberals and their Never Trump enablers actually think this kind of tyranny is a good thing. You see, they think Normal Americans are so transcendently awful (and, even more importantly, that the elite’s power so precious) that all is fair in order to stifle their opponents’ collective voice.

Yeah, I know they have reasons and excuses and elaborate theories about why it was absolutely necessary for a Democrat administration to spy on its designated replacement’s Republican opponent. And it was also totally cool for the IRS to suppress uppity Tea Party groups because they were getting to successful.

Excuses are always garbage, and theirs are garbage on fire in a dumpster. They know it. Offering them is just going through the motions. They are willing to embrace these tactics because they can.

The question all boils down to this – is it acceptable for the party in power to use the intelligence and law enforcement communities against its rivals? Are these convoluted and often delusional explanations – RUSSIANS TREASON OK NO RUSSIANS THEN UH

Of course not. Even if Trump’s people sought to get the Russians to release the contents of the emails Hillary Clinton should never have had on her literally “password“ password-protected illegal server – and after two years, there’s zero evidence they did –was that enough to send spies into the campaign, to tap its phones, and leverage the power of FBI et ceterea to surveil them? Does the liberal elite have any concern that maybe, just maybe, it has to be about as serious a situation as you can get to do that? Is a coordinated campaign by the FBI backed up by the NSA and probably the CIA the proper remedy for the unauthorized release of Hillary’s yoga dates and wedding plans, because that’s all Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit said was on the 33K emails she deleted, right?

Who is the liberal who is shocked and appalled by all this? Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley seem upset, and former Clinton functionary Mark Penn, but that’s all. That’s it. Who is the single Democrat politician who stood up and said, “Hey, wait a second, we just can’t have one party’s administration spy on another party’s campaign?” And that doesn’t even address the deep state whitewash of Clinton’s email crimes that would have put any of us in jail.

No one objected. The Democrat Party is committed to the New Rules. And the New Rules are tyranny.

It can’t be a surprise. After all, the Democrat Party has bulldozed every norm, custom, and tradition out there in its quest for undisputed power. It spews hatred at its opponents – hey, everyone reading this is racist, sexist, and a denier of #science and so forth. The Democrats will happily deny you your free exercise of religion – put on your aprons people, because you can bake a cake or be bankrupted. They seek to suppress speech by encouraging fascism both in academia and by online tech companies, and if you think they won’t pass laws to limit speech given the chance, you’re fooling yourself. Hell, they tried to amend the First Amendment to overturn Citizens United, a case where the government tried to ban a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Let’s say that again, because it’s madness. The position of the left-of-center party in the United States is that the government should be allowed to arrest and imprison people for making a film critical of a politician.

As always, they have their excuses – “Let’s take the money out of politics (so that the only voices are the mainstream media which eagerly and slavishly suckles at our heaving liberal bosom)” – but in the end, they desire the consequences of the policies they support. They want to be able to arrest and imprison you for daring to make a film criticizing one of their icons.

Do you note the underlying premise, that they assume it is they who will be wielding the power to oppress?Good luck with that. We cannot have a functioning republic where about half of the population actively supports the trappings of tyranny. We can’t. No nation, especially one full of citizens who zealously guard their freedom, can tolerate a double standard for political behavior. It won’t be double for long. The New Rules, should they become ingrained in our systems, will inevitably go both ways.

They are going to hate the New Rules.

We need to return to the Old Rules, starting with the rule of law. It’s that or split our country in two, one free and one Democrat. Or it could be something even worse.

The United States of America cannot function where one of the two parties effectively recognizes no limits on the use of government power to impose its will upon the other half. We Normal Americans are woke, and we Normals are getting militant. We see what’s happening. But do the liberals and their Never Trump lackies? Do they really want to go down this road?

ECONOMIC SABOTAGE: FED RESERVE LOVED OBAMA, NOW PURPOSELY HURTING TRUMP

Capture

Privately owned financial cabal jams stick in Trump’s spokes

Infowars.com – MAY 24, 2018

Rep. Louie Gohmert called out the Federal Reserve Thursday, pointing out how they kept interest rates low for Obama and have been raising the rates on President Trump.

Appearing on Fox Business, Gohmert said, “The Fed loved the Obama administration, loved Obama, they kept the rates just so low and lower than that was appropriate for one reason, to keep Obama from looking like the worst president in history.”

“Trump comes in, the economy turns around because of the things that he’s doing and so what does the Fed do as Obama’s best friend and not being a friend of Trump? They immediately start raising rates as things start going well,” he continued.

The Federal Reserve’s Janet Yellen announced a Fed Fund rate increase in December 2017, which was the fourth increase since Trump’s election.

In contrast, the Fed only raised interest rates on Obama one time in eight years.

While Trump continues delivering on campaign promises, the globalists are attempting to economically sabotage his administration at the expense of the American people.

‘MI6 – secretly we’re just like you’: Creepy spy TV ad aimed at ethnic minority mums

UK’s international intelligence service, MI6, has launched their first ever TV ad to attract mothers from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, in a bid to create a more diverse and emotionally intelligent spy workforce.

Speaking at the launch of the new TV and online advertising campaign, the agency’s chief, Alex Younger, said “We want, oxymoronically, people who never thought of joining MI6 – to join MI6,” Bloomberg reports.

The TV and online ad depicts what appears to be a black mother observing her child staring up at an aquarium full of circling sharks, as the narrator says: “It’s not keeping your cool in a shark tank, it’s picking up on the silent cues that matter.

“Understanding others, help them see things differently. It’s exploring the world beyond your own. And if that sounds familiar it’s because you do it every day. MI6 – secretly we are just like you.”

The new MI6 appeal comes on the back of a surge in applications for the spy agency, following the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, according to the Evening Standard.

MI6’s head of recruitment, known only as ‘Emily,’ said MI6 were concerned that ethnic minorities were under-represented in its ranks. Just eight percent of the spy agency’s workforce are said to be from black and ethnic minority backgrounds – all in junior roles, Bloomberg reports.

Emily said that the roles on offer require skills including emotional intelligence, mental sharpness, and integrity, and that newcomers from diverse backgrounds who are able to “challenge group think” were a prerequisite.

MI6 intelligence officers say the agency provides flexible work patterns to accommodate busy parents, as it aims to recruit 800 more staff by 2021.

In turn, Younger insists that any preconceptions of what a British spy should look like need to be re-evaluated, saying: “There is no standard MI6 officer; if you have what it takes then apply to join us. Our work is exciting, intellectually challenging, and it matters.

“Regardless of background, if you have the skills we need and share our values, I want you to consider a career in intelligence, in a service that reflects today’s society.”

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Mr. Sessions, Your ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’ Are Here

By Roger L Simon

In March, Attorney General Sessions wrote to three Republican congressman, declining to appoint a special counsel in the matter of the FBI, CIA, Obama administration and… and…  frankly, I don’t know what to call it, since there is so much from the Clinton Foundation to the emails to the FISA court to who knows what…. because, the AG said, a special counsel necessitated “extraordinary circumstances.”

I sympathized somewhat with Sessions at the time.  Special counsels do not have the best track records. Often they are appointed for dubious politicized reasons. In the Valerie Plame case, a special counsel put Scooter Libby in jail for outing the insignificant Plame as a CIA agent when she was already easily identified in Who’s Who (not to mention that the never-indicted Richard Armitage, not Libby, did the initial public outing anyway).

[UPDATE: As several commenters have correctly noted, Libby was indicted for the ever-popular “lying to the FBI,” not for outing Plame.  I knew this and apologize for being so sloppy.  But it’s worth noting that is even worse, virtually, as someone said, a “set up.”]

Now we have the interminable Mueller “Russia Probe,” so named because it was supposed to be looking into Russian involvement in the 2016 election but seems to be investigating everything but.  Democrat pollster Mark Penn isn’t the only one of his party to realize this has been one elongated farce and actually damaging to the Dems with FBI officials dropping like flies either through quasi-firings or potential indictment. The public is somewhere between bored and nauseated.  That Republicans are suddenly leading in the generic polls is almost certainly related.

Still…

Now we have a situation that qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance” if anything does.  It is becoming increasingly clear that there was and is a plot at the highest levels of our government involving the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and the Obama administration to block and then undermine the administration of Donald Trump.

On top of that, we now learn there were spies — plural.  Spies! (I don’t mean to “trigger” the children at the New York Times who chose to call them “informants.”)  Not just this Halper dude (aka “The Walrus” — how Le Carré is that!) in Cambridge, whose identity everyone is pretending to hide, but now former Trump advisor Michael Caputo reports he was approached by multiple individuals.

Think about that again. Spies — in action long before James Comey said the investigation began —  paid (large amounts in at least one case) to spy on the political opposition.  Are we a Banana Republic or the very Russia we are supposedly probing? I can’t imagine how my liberal and progressive friends justify this.  Hold their ears, I guess, but this is a loud explosion. (I’ve already seen how James Clapper does.  He lies.)

The reaction to Watergate proved the strength of our democratic republic.  Thus far this does exactly the opposite. It threatens it as never before since WWII.

So, as much as I do dislike the method, I think we really do need a special counsel this time. Immediately.  It’s certainly going to slow things down and maybe, just maybe, Atty. John Huber, whose presence working on the case in Utah was announced by Sessions in that same March letter, will do the necessary job.  (And to do that he would have to be ruthless, willing to put a number of our highest officials, perhaps friends, in orange suits. Otherwise this will be much ado about nada.)

But you’ll excuse me if I’m a Doubting Thomas.  Perhaps I’ve seen too many films like the Italian Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion or seen too many plays like Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle with its rascally judge Azdak to be sanguine about police and intelligence agencies investigating themselves.  These are bureaucracies whose overwhelming interest is almost always self-preservation.

The confused, ambushed look on Christopher Wray’s — the relatively new FBI new director — face through all this is an illustration of this.  The man doesn’t seem to know what to do, although most of on the outside would say “get rid of them!”  Clean the place out.  What’re you waiting for?  But just by being there he has become one of them.

Well, Jeff, your turn. You said you wanted “extraordinary circumstances.”  Voilá.

 

ROD ROSENSTEIN TO FACE OFF WITH GOP LAWMAKERS AMID QUESTIONS ABOUT FBI INFORMANT

By Kristina Wong

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will face a high-stakes test on Thursday afternoon when he meets with Republican lawmakers seeking information on the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

Rosenstein will meet with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) at noon at the Justice Department to discuss their requests for thousands of documents and information they have sought from the DOJ and FBI for months.

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly will also participate, as will FBI Director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and additional FBI and DOJ briefers and staff, according to the DOJ.

At the request of Democrats, Rosenstein will host another meeting two hours later with the “Gang of Eight” — the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, as well as  the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Gowdy.

The meetings were arranged by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, after reports last week revealed the FBI used “at least one” informant to spy on the Trump campaign weeks before it said it began its investigation.

President Trump on Sunday blasted off a tweet demanding that the Justice Department investigate whether the DOJ or the FBI infiltrated or surveilled his campaign for political purposes.

This will not be Rosenstein and Congress’s first stand-off. Nunes and other members of Congress have previously threatened Rosenstein with being held in contempt of Congress and articles of impeachment for refusing to hand over requested documents.

However, those stiff measures have been avoided by promises to produce more information, or steps that have provided lawmakers with more — but not full — access to the requested information.

But there are signs that Nunes and lawmakers are getting fed up – particularly as anonymous current and former law enforcement officials have leaked to media outlets what they have refused to provide members of Congress.

“Members will not be happy if the documents aren’t turned over,” an aide to Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Breitbart News on Tuesday. “We’re reaching a key moment in time here.”

And unlike in previous standoffs, Nunes and GOP lawmakers have the president clearly on their side. President Trump praised the California Republican as “courageous” when he spoke at CIA Director Gina Haspel’s swearing-in earlier this week.

Allies of the president are also urging him to fire Rosenstein — and some predict that if he does not comply with lawmakers’ requests, he could be finished.

Former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon told the BBC’s Newsnight on Wednesday that the deputy attorney general “either … is going to take the direct order of the President of the United States or I think Rosenstein will be fired.”

Bannon and other Trump loyalists have been pressing the president to adopt a more aggressive approach towards the special counsel investigation.

GOP lawmakers are also criticizing Rosenstein’s decision to have the DOJ inspector general investigate the FBI for any potential wrongdoing.

“I think that it’s a mistake to have the Department of Justice investigating themselves, I think there needs to be an independent special prosecutor on this question,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said Wednesday on Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Daily.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) also suggested Rosenstein should not be overseeing the special counsel investigation, which includes the question of whether Trump obstructed the investigation by firing FBI Director James Comey.

“Can Rod Rosenstein oversee an investigation of potential obstruction of justice in the firing of James Comey, when he’s the one who wrote the memo for firing James Comey? That’s where we’re at,” Jordan told CNN’s New Day on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, more than two dozen lawmakers introduced a resolution calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the DOJ and the FBI’s actions during the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.

“I’m not a big fan of special prosecutors, but you’ve had Trey Gowdy, Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, you’ve had the majority leader, the majority whip of the House all call for a second special counsel,” said Gaetz, a co-sponsor of the legislation and member of the Judiciary Committee.

“And now we need Speaker Ryan to join that call and to put our legislation on the floor that was introduced yesterday calling for a special counsel, and ultimately I think that that’s the way to demonstrate to the president we’re serious about cleaning this up, and we think he was treated unfairly,” he said.

France: Macron Buries Plan to Rehabilitate ‘No-Go Zones’

By Gatestone Institute

President Emmanuel Macron has substantially scaled back plans to rehabilitate France’s banlieues — poverty-ridden and crime-infested neighborhoods with large Muslim populations — and has instead called on local mayors and civil society groups to find solutions at the grassroots level.

The policy reversal follows weeks of internal debate about whether a top-down or bottom-up approach is the best way to improve life in the troubled banlieues, which are breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism and are often referred to as no-go zones because of the dangerous conditions there for police and other representatives of state authority.

In a much-anticipated speech at the Élysée Palace on May 22, Macron announced only modest, non-budgeted, initiatives for the banlieues, including a plan to hire more police officers, a crackdown on drug trafficking and a corporate internship program for underprivileged youths.

Addressing 600 guests, including lawmakers, entrepreneurs, community leaders and residents, Macron said that he would not be announcing yet another “Marshall Plan for the suburbs,” as a 2008 plan for urban renewal was called, because at least ten previous such strategies all have failed:

“I will not announce a city plan or a suburban plan because this strategy is as old as me. The first plan was presented by [former French prime minister] Raymond Barre about the time I was born… we are at the end of what this method is able to produce.”

Macron called for “a general mobilization” to lay the foundations for “a policy of emancipation and dignity” based on “a philosophy of action” and “a change of method” to get residents of poor neighborhoods out of “house arrest.” In terms of security, Macron called for “a vigilance society” built with prefects, elected officials and residents where “everyone is an actor of collective security.”

Macron also called on the top 120 companies in France to “do their part” in the fight against discrimination against Africans, Arabs and Muslims: “We are going to expand testing to check behaviors and make sure that there is no discrimination in hiring practices.”

Macron’s proposals are a far cry from an ambitious plan announced less than a month ago by former cabinet minister Jean-Louis Borloo, who had been tasked by Macron to devise a grand strategy for the banlieues.

The 164-page report — “Living Together, Living Well: Toward a National Reconciliation” (“Vivre ensemble, vivre en grand: Pour une réconciliation nationale”) — unveiled on April 26 after nine months of work, listed 19 proposals aimed at bringing about “radical change.” They included a focus on education, employment and renovation of decaying buildings and infrastructure. The plan would cost €38 billion ($45 billion) to implement.

“I want the face of our neighborhoods changed by the end of my five-year term, not because we have invested a certain amount of money, but because we will have changed our methods,” Macron said. “It makes no sense that two white males who do not live in these districts exchanged one report. That no longer works.”

Initial reaction to Macron’s speech was one of nearly unanimous disappointment over a missed opportunity. “We were expecting concrete policies,” said the mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois, Bruno Beschizza. “For now, there is nothing practical. I came out empty-handed.”

Stéphanie Daumin, mayor of Chevilly-Larue, a commune in the southern suburbs of Paris, tweeted:

“We expected strong acts and commitments and we were only treated to words. Cold shower for those who worked on #RapportBorloo and who want to rebalance the territories and the return of Republican equality.”

The leader of the center-right Republicans, Laurent Wauquiez, described Macron’s speech a “talk-and-do-nothing political show” and a “photo opportunity.”

Éric Coquerel, MP for the far-left party La France Insoumise, accused Macron of “burying” the Borloo report and “humiliating” those who worked on it. He added that Macron had “proposed a series of measures without funding, investment or novelty.”

Stéphane Le Foll, a former spokesman for the Socialist government of President François Hollande, tweeted: “We are witnessing the liquidation of the Borloo plan.”

Marine Le Pen, President of the National Front, noted that Macron had failed to address the issues of immigration and Islamism:

“Barely a word on immigration, barely a word on Islamic fundamentalism. We know perfectly well that these problems are partly the source of the difficulties in the suburbs. Refusing to see the reality is to condemn oneself to failure.”

An estimated six million people — around one-tenth of France’s population — live in 1,500 neighborhoods classified by the government as Sensitive Urban Zones (zones urbaines sensibles, ZUS), priority targets for urban renewal.

In October 2011, a landmark 2,200-page report, “Suburbs of the Republic” (“Banlieue de la République”) found that many French suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state, and where Islamic law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report said that Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and instead are immersing themselves in radical Islam.

The report, commissioned by the influential French think tank, L’Institut Montaigne, was directed by Gilles Kepel, a respected political scientist and specialist in Islam, together with five other French researchers.

The authors of the report showed that France — which now has 6.5 million Muslims (the largest Muslim population in European Union) — is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

The research was primarily carried out in the Seine-Saint-Denis townships of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two suburbs that were ground zero for Muslim riots in the fall of 2005, when Muslim mobs torched more than 9,000 cars.

The report described Seine-Saint-Denis as a “wasteland of de-industrialization” and said that in some areas, “a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity.”

Another township of Seine-Saint-Denis is Aubervilliers. Sometimes referred to as one of the “lost territories of the French Republic,” it’s population is more than 70% Muslim. Three quarters of young people under 18 in the township are foreign or French of foreign origin, mainly from the Maghreb or sub-Saharan Africa. French police are said to rarely venture into some of the most dangerous parts of the township.

A day before Macron’s speech, French television channels broadcast images of masked gunmen opening fire in broad daylight in the southern port city of Marseille. The assailants, dressed in black and carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles, kidnapped one individual, placed him in a car and drove away while police helplessly stood by. The gangsters, who are thought to be involved in a turf war for control of the drug trade in the city, “fear neither the police nor justice,” according to an officer, who said that the police “had no chance” because they were outgunned and outmaneuvered.

Back in Paris, Macron admitted that France has “lost the battle over drug trafficking in many cities.” He promised to announce a new plan to combat drug trafficking “by July.”

You can read this article as it originally appeared at Gatestone Institute here.