FBI sting creates chilling effect on free speech

Jamie White | Infowars.com – MARCH 24, 2017

Undercover FBI agents disguised as documentary filmmakers went to Nevada in 2014 to interview supporters of Cliven Bundy during their armed standoff with the government, says FBI Special Agent Charles Johnson.

Testifying on the government’s behalf in its case against two supporters, Johnson told jurors Wednesday how the bureau used a fake film crew to gather statements during the standoff, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The videos were then played in court during Johnson’s testimony, showing jurors the defendant’s mindset during the standoff.

Scott Drexler, one of Bundy’s supporters standing trial, told the bogus filmmakers that he traveled from Idaho to Bunkerville ranch when he learned about protests being waged against the Bureau of Land Management after its agents tried to seize cattle from Mr. Bundy following a legal land dispute.

“What I was looking for was just a show of support…it seems as if when there are armed people around a situation, then the authorities have to be a little more civil, have to treat you like a person,” Drexler said on camera. “If nobody is facing any kind of consequences for their actions, they can just do whatever they want.”

When asked by prosecutors what the protesters’ objective was, Drexler replied that “it was just a show of force.”

Eric Parker, the other Bundy supporter on trial who traveled with Drexler to the ranch, made similar comments in the bogus FBI sting “documentary.”

“I want to stand for the Constitution…I don’t think you have to be in a militia for that,” Parker said. “The goal was peaceful end.”

The government is expected to call one more witness before resting its case against these two defendants.

The situation began in April 2014 when the BLM began impounding rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle following a government order that Bundy pay $1 million in withheld grazing fees for use of federal lands near his Nevada ranch.

An armed standoff between Bundy and his supporters and the BLM followed, ending with the BLM finally releasing Bundy’s cattle.

Historic! Feds Forced to Surrender to American Citizens

The Video The Feds Don’t Want You To See

Supports Abolishing Second Amendment – DNC Deputy Ellison Caught Lying



By Rick Wells

The automatic default for black racists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Rep Keith Ellison (D-MN) when they’re caught in a lie is to first deny and then claim that they were taken out of context. That’s the technique that was utilized by Ellison, now the DNC deputy chairman, in their Wednesday night debate.

Ellison is asked by a friendly CNN moderator, Dana Bash, about comments he made on the topic of gun control. She reads, “In 2014 you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democrat Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you don’t support the Second Amendment?” For some unknown reason Ellison gets a goofy grin on his face before she even completes the question and attempts to start his false answer early.

He says, “First of all let me tell you, and I remember that show very well and that is not what I said at all.” Pay attention folks, this is what Ellison looks like when he’s telling a bald-faced lie. He continues, “What I talked about is my grandfather’s shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didn’t say that. That was not an accurate statement.”

He then switches to a dissertation on how bad the employment picture is following 8 years of Democrat rule and some backtracking under the guise of a claim that “guns do need” the background checks that are already required and that nobody cares about murders. He’s no Hillary Clinton or Hussein Obama when it comes to lying and slipping free, Dana Bash proceeds to read the transcript from the Maher program, apparently expecting the lying Democrat might deny having said what he did.

Bill Maher said, “Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.” Ellison responded, “I sure wish they would, I sure wish they would.” He then goes on to tell her he’s for the right to bear arms but is taking the politically risky position of being against the mass murders that happen every day, citing two examples that hardly qualifies as every day. He proclaims that he’s for “common sense” gun safety laws and he’ll decide who confiscates what from whom and who isn’t allowed to own what.

When one of the other panelists challenges him on that claim being based upon his not using the right words, he claims a right to not be taken out of context.

As the short clip below shows, nothing was taken out of context. He said he wishes that Democrats would attack the Second Amendment because he does, it’s how they take over the country. They need to disarm the people to enslave us. Ellison is lying about that as well.

Above the lie is proven by video tape of the statement on the Bill Maher program.

Below is the full exchange from the debate.

Exclusive – Regnery: Anti-Trump Democrats’ Best Allies Are Senate Republicans

By Alfred S. Regnery

So far, the Senate has confirmed 14 of the 549 senior federal positions that President Trump needs to run the government and who need Senate confirmation—Cabinet secretaries and people who run the departments, bureaus, agencies and the rest of the government. The rest of the government is being run by career bureaucrats and a few Obama holdovers.

There are another 120 vacant federal judgeships and, of course, the Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court. Each requires Senate approval.

White House staff is busily choosing and vetting candidates for the rest of the positions, and there undoubtedly will be many nominations sent to the Senate for confirmation in the next several weeks.

And where is the Senate now? On vacation.

We hear a lot of talk that Harry Reid gave away the store when he exercised the nuclear option, and that Republicans have the 51 votes needed to get the Trump team confirmed. That may be, but with the way Majority Leader Mitch McConnell runs the Senate, Democrats can—and probably will—make it impossible to confirm more than a handful of nominees.

The problem isn’t the votes. Republicans have those. The problem is time—floor time.

As a senior Senate staffer told me this week: “Regardless of how many votes it takes to confirm or approve anything in the Senate, if Democrats want to force the issue, they can require a minimum of 30 hours to debate any nomination or any bill.  Let that sink in.  549 vacancies, at 30 hours each, equals 686 days.  If you subtract weekends, and add a nice vacation every few months, you are looking at never finishing this job throughout the entirety of Donald Trump’s first term.  And this assumes they are in session around the clock and do no other legislative business, which is also impossible.”

Under Senate rules, when debate is cut off, senators are entitled to another 30 hours of debate. Since the Senate is rarely in session for more than 25 to 30 hours a week, Democrats can tie things up indefinitely.

So you would think the Senate would be working long hours, forcing Democrats to talk until exhausted, so the President’s team gets confirmed, right?

Wrong. After doing virtually no work during most of January, and working at a leisurely pace in February, the Senate just left town for a 10-day recess. That means they went home to campaign—after being on the job for about six weeks. As my friend said: “The Democrats are shutting down the Senate’s business, and Mitch McConnell’s answer is to give everyone a big vacation.  The message to Democrats is: keep up the great work, we have no intention of fighting back.”

The result? The government will be run by bureaucrats, Obama holdovers and temporary “acting” trump appointees. Neil Gorsuch won’t get confirmed for weeks and weeks, and other judicial vacancies will remain vacant. Not to mention letting President Trump’s program simply die on the vine—the crucial business of repealing Obamacare, tax reform, passing budgets and appropriations, and the rest of the things Donald Trump and taxpayers so badly need.

So what is to be done?

I spoke with a long-time staff member from the Senate Judiciary Committee (who must remain anonymous if he wants to keep his job), who told me that Republicans’ only remedy is to force Democrats to debate until they wear themselves out. Schedule Senate floor debates to go all day and night, on weekends and holidays until Democrats cry uncle.

“Is McConnell likely to do that?” I asked. Not a chance, said my friend.

“Are any Republican Senators demanding that they fight back?” I asked.

Not a one, I was told.

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington told the New York Times this week that [Democrats] “have to resist [Trump] every way and everywhere, every time we can… By undermining Mr. Trump across the board, Democrats hope to split Republicans away from a president of their own party.”

Unless Mitch McConnell gets down to business and gets the Senate back to work, he may help Democrats do exactly that.

Alfred S. Regnery serves as the Chairman of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

Deep Cover Democrats | SUPERcuts! #420

Published on Jan 13, 2017


One-eyed Reid “Give him fake briefings.” If that isn’t grounds for censure and removal from alll committee positions, if not removal from office, I don’t know what is.
tammy leibelt

Dismantle these Pieces of Shit President Trump!!!!
Smiley Gladhands

Our congress could surely take punitive measures with these people. I’m so tired of this sort of behavior.
Stephen Mortimer

Pay the Mossad to TAKE OUT Pelosi !!

& no mention of Pizzagate, the CIA’s sickest way to profit of them all.
michael mon

420 blaze it

Harry Reid Claims WikiLeaks & Trump Coordinated To Damage Hillary Clinton

Published on Dec 13, 2016

Video Transcript:

With the Trump Inauguration just weeks away, the Senate Minority Leader is accusing the Trump campaign of collusion.


Time to put this old fart in a retirement home.

holy shit this guy is nuts

One bad dude. Good riddance rat.
Jordon Rains

“The press is all they have left?” LOL, sorry Harry, the press is finished!
Sergio Fernandes

So hillary is a saint… wow
Pat MaGroin

All they have left is their precious Lügenpresse! Hahaha This old nutter needs a pasture stat.
Papa Neil

my favourite little turd
K Black

Harry has been punched in the head too many times by his brother! How many black eyes has he been given now? During their drunken brawls?
Philip Stonor

Oh sure – here is a reliable person straight out of the swamp…..what a disgrace.

Happy ass retirement hosebag.

Blame everything but the poor performance of their candidate and the Democrats complacency about their ability to beat Trump


There are several ways that this could work, and we’ll take it one step at a time

Michael Snyder | Economic CollapseDECEMBER 12, 2016

It has been said that nothing happens by accident in politics, and it is certainly no accident that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, members of the U.S. Senate and the mainstream media are all suddenly buzzing about “Russian hacking” and “Russian interference” in our elections. 

Over the past 48 hours, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and just about every other major news source in America has been breathlessly telling us that the CIA has concluded that the Russians “intervened” in the presidential election with the specific goal of helping Donald Trump win.  The implication is that if the Russian interference was significant enough, it could have “unfairly” altered the outcome of the election and thus Donald Trump’s victory was not legitimate.  And if his victory was not legitimate, that opens up all sorts of possibilities for the Democrats.

For those that have been wondering if the establishment was going to attempt to steal the presidency away from Donald Trump before he can be inaugurated, we now appear to have our answer.

here are several ways that this could work, and we’ll take it one step at a time.

On Friday, we were suddenly assaulted with all sorts of headlines about how the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the Russians interfered in the election and that they did so with the intention of helping Trump win.  The following example comes from CNBC

The New York Times reported American intelligence agencies have “high confidence” that Russia intervened in the later stages of the 2016 election to help Trump win the presidency. Senior administration officials said the Russian government gave WikiLeaks emails from the Democratic National Committee, among others including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. The organizations also found evidence that Russia hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems, but did not release the information.

More specifically, we are being told that it is the CIA that is the primary source of this “intelligence”.  Of course the public is not being shown a shred of evidence that the Russians were behind any of this.  Instead, we are just being told to trust the “experts” at the CIA

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR.

“Before, there was confidence about the fact that Russia interfered,” the official says. “But there was low confidence on what the direction and intentionality of the interference was. Now they [the CIA] have come to the conclusion that Russia was trying to tip the election to Trump.”

On Sunday, four members of the U.S. Senate came forward to express their concerns about Russian interference.  Two of the four were Democrats, and the other two were Republicans that have been some of the most vocal critics of Donald Trump throughout the election season.  I don’t think that it is any accident that John McCain and Lindsey Graham have chosen to be part of this effort

“Congress’s national security committees have worked diligently to address the complex challenge of cybersecurity, but recent events show that more must be done,” said Sens. Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader, Sen. John McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Sen. Jack Reed, the top Armed Services Committee Democrat, in a Sunday morning statement.

“While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society. Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks.”

And of course this comes on the heels of Barack Obama ordering all of the intelligence agencies under his command to show him any evidence of Russian interference in the election before he leaves office.  According to NBC News, he is insisting that this evidence be delivered to him before January 20th…

President Barack Obama has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to deliver to him a dossier of the evidence that the Russian government used cyber attacks and other means to intervene in the 2016 election, possibly with the idea of making more information public, a senior intelligence official told NBC News.

White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco told reporters that the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20. Monaco used careful language, calling it a “full review of what happened during the 2016 election process.”

Incredibly, this review is actually going to be headed up by the infamous James Clapper

Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: “The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.” In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

“We are going to make public as much as we can,” the spokesman added. “This is a major priority for the president.”

So what is there such an urgency to this?

Couldn’t they just begin this review now and have it completed at some point under the Trump administration?

Or could it be possible that they need this information so urgently because they want to use it for political purposes?

Some are already suggesting that if there is “clear evidence” of unfair Russian intervention that the only reasonable outcome would be to hold another election.  In fact, former CIA agent Bob Baer just appeared on CNN and stated that if “the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again.

Could you imagine the uproar if that happened?

Personally, I think that is not likely to happen.

But this issue could be used to try to sway some Electoral College votes on December 19th.  We already know that one of Trump’s electoral voters has publicly pledged not to vote for him, and he claims that he has other Republican electoral voters that plan on joining him.

But even if Trump successfully gets through the Electoral College vote, he still has one more hurdle to get over.

On January 6th, a joint session of Congress will meet to count the electoral votes.  Most of the time this is a formality, but this time around that may not be the case.

If at least one member of the House and at least one member of the Senate submits an objection in writing, electoral votes can potentially be invalidated.  The following comes from the official House.gov website

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

So even if Donald Trump receives at least 270 Electoral College votes, he could still be denied the presidency by Congress.

And that may be what the establishment is shooting for.  If they can present “compelling evidence” that Russian interference “unfairly” altered the outcome of the election in November, perhaps enough members of Congress can be convinced to vote to invalidate Trump’s election victory.

I don’t think that is going to happen, but when it comes to Trump the normal rules don’t seem to apply.

However, what should be apparent to everyone is that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the members of Congress that are suddenly making this such a huge issue all have a reason for doing so.  They claim that they are doing it for the good of the country, but in politics there is almost always an ulterior motive for everything.

Do they actually intend to try to steal the presidency from Donald Trump?

If they do, we won’t have too long to wait before we find out.