Where is the outrage that  should be becoming from the American Jewish community (but apparently is not)?

Examination of these  legal proceedings clearly indicate  anti-semitic  bias and legal finagling. Had this been a Muslim organization the mainstream media would be hysterical and every Jewish group would be out  loudly protesting.

 I am distributing this story as an individual Christian supporter of  a robust American Jewish community and  a supporter of Israel in the hope that justice and  sanity will  finally prevail.

U.S. court orders a place of Jewish life to be demolished 

   November 27, 2018

https://israelunwired.com/u-s-court-orders-a-place-of-jewish-life-to-be-demolished/

Watch video on you tube    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=50bEWHkdP4A

Towson University in Maryland is like so many other Universities.  In addition to the regular dormitories, in Towson, there is a Center for Jewish Life.  This amazing couple managed to somehow build a million dollar building in order to continue Jewish life in this University.  However, a court order came down that doesn’t just penalize them, but actually will bring them to their knees.

There are a few options.  On the Towson crisis website, there are a few options drawn up.

1. Pay for a settlement with the neighbors
2. Donate to move the house (if permitted by the court)
3. Contribute to the exorbitant costs the court is imposing on Chabad of Towson to destroy its own building, and the cost to rebuild.

In all scenarios, these funds will ensure there is a home away from home for the Jewish students of Towson University and Goucher College.

Rabbi Rivkin claims that this kind of a drastic order has never been done before.  A religious hospitality center has never been been demolished.

A Few Ways to Help

If you would like to save the Chabad House, there are a few options.

1.  Help defray the legal costs and stop the destruction.  They have raised a bit more than $100,000.  Now they need another $400,000.  Click to Donate.
2. Write a Note to an influential councilman

Where is the outrage that  should be becoming from the American Jewish community (but apparently is not)?

Examination of these  legal proceedings clearly indicate  anti-semitic  bias and legal finagling. Had this been a Muslim organization the mainstream media would be hysterical and every Jewish group would be out  loudly protesting.

 I am distributing this story as an individual Christian supporter of  a robust American Jewish community and  a supporter of Israel in the hope that justice and  sanity will  finally prevail.

U.S. court orders a place of Jewish life to be demolished 

   November 27, 2018

https://israelunwired.com/u-s-court-orders-a-place-of-jewish-life-to-be-demolished/

Watch video on you tube    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=50bEWHkdP4A

Towson University in Maryland is like so many other Universities.  In addition to the regular dormitories, in Towson, there is a Center for Jewish Life.  This amazing couple managed to somehow build a million dollar building in order to continue Jewish life in this University.  However, a court order came down that doesn’t just penalize them, but actually will bring them to their knees.

There are a few options.  On the Towson crisis website, there are a few options drawn up.

1. Pay for a settlement with the neighbors
2. Donate to move the house (if permitted by the court)
3. Contribute to the exorbitant costs the court is imposing on Chabad of Towson to destroy its own building, and the cost to rebuild.

In all scenarios, these funds will ensure there is a home away from home for the Jewish students of Towson University and Goucher College.

Rabbi Rivkin claims that this kind of a drastic order has never been done before.  A religious hospitality center has never been been demolished.

A Few Ways to Help

If you would like to save the Chabad House, there are a few options.

1.  Help defray the legal costs and stop the destruction.  They have raised a bit more than $100,000.  Now they need another $400,000.  Click to Donate.
2. Write a Note to an influential councilman

TRUMP’S CRITICS ARE WRONG. 

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

https://spectator.org/american-nationalism-is-a-good-thing/

Over the last month, President Trump has been assailed by shrieking critics within the U.S. and overseas by French President Macron regarding Mr. Trump’s enthusiastic endorsement of the concept of American Nationalism. Many NeverTrumpers and neocons are charging that nationalism in America equals white supremacy, a forerunner to Nazism. Nothing is further from the truth. Their hysterical assertion is extremely misguided or a deliberate attempt to once again besmirch Mr. Trump, in the same way as when they blamed him for anti-Semitism and the massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue despite the fact that the shooter was anti-Trump and the President has been the most pro-Israel and genuinely Jewish-friendly president we have ever witnessed.

Loving America is a good thing inasmuch as America is a good country. As with any institution, including marriage and family, nothing is perfect; but America was founded on highly moral and workable principles and has consistently provided more fair pay, opportunity, and decency than any country in the history of the world. America is the first choice for those around the world seeking a haven or place to find work and dignity, and deserves to be loved. It is a badge of honor to identify with America as a nation.

Loving this nation and its people is highly proper and commendable inasmuch as the American people themselves are a good people. For over a half century I have traveled across America and, precisely because of my yarmulke, I have been greeted with enthusiasm and warmth by strangers due to their sense of spiritual and civic kinship with a member of the Jewish faith, whose biblical Testament had so much to do with the founding of this country and whose ancestral nation of Israel is so deeply ingrained within their outlook. Contrary to what liberal Northeasterners often accuse, I have been treated with utmost respect and sincere friendship by those in the Deep South. News Flash to NeverTrumpers and neocons: America is not Nazi Germany. Being a super-patriot or putting America first, is what we should do.

In the Pledge of Allegiance, we Americans refer to ourselves as one nation under God. Nationhood and nationalism are normal, natural instincts. On the contrary, to equate American nationalism with something evil is very strange and purposely inflammatory. It reveals the accuser’s deep insecurity and discomfort with America itself. Worse, to imply that those who are nationalists or very patriotic are somehow white supremacists, Nazis inchoate, or racist is itself bigotry, a racism, against millions of white Americans who harbor in their heart no animosity or malevolence, rather the simple and laudable feeling of loving their country above other countries.

Who implanted within the psyche of those maligning American nationalism such disdain for fellow Americans? Where did this pre-disposition to impugn the motives of unabashedly patriotic Americans come from? It is hateful. Are “good” people only those who are against American nationalism or criticize America?

When candidate Trump spoke of America-First an entire array of critics, such as Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Mona Charen, Max Boot, and David Frum, arose to accuse Trump of being a follower of the anti-Semite Charles Lindbergh, who used that phrase almost a century ago when asking that America not get involved in a far-off European War. But, just as American nationalism does not mean white supremacy or Nazism, America-First is, similarly, not a call to anti-Semitism.

Those who may wish to politically tarnish President Trump may try to convince us to read it that way. Those who feel insecure and lack confidence in the inherent goodness of the majority of the American people may feel threatened by such phrases. 

But, the preponderant meaning of nationalism is patriotism and love of country and the basic reading of America-First is exactly what President Trump has in mind: placing American job workers first; placing America’s military and American lives first; putting America’s security and the protections of its citizens first. 

And, that is how it should be! When asked to choose, we should always place our family and country first. The opposite of that is globalism or trans-nationalism. Those who purposely conjure up Nazi phraseology of “blood and soil” to describe American nationalism are propagandists. The Left, and neocons, should stop hijacking and re-defining the American language.

In contrast, Macron and Germany’s Merkel are globalists, European socialists. They are strong advocates for a European Union that erases borders between European countries; so that when a jihadist enters one country he is blithely free to enter another country. 

The leaders of these countries willingly forfeit their economic autonomy to bureaucrats in Belgium who decide everything, from business regulations, weights, measures and slogans. 

This is a total loss of national sovereignty. It has resulted in a severe diminution of those cultural and traditional values and rituals that determine a country’s identity and end up erasing its history. President Trump, as most Americans, doesn’t want this for America. We are not trans-nationalists, rather nationalists who love our history and identity and are proud of who we were and who we are. Those on the Left are not proud of our history and identity. As anti-nationalists, they want us to transform and become like Europe, the vision of Merkel and Macron. They are universalists.

Macron’s turn against nationalism is part of a surrender and appeasement. Due to decades of vast, unfettered immigration into France from Islamic countries, Macron sees how Islamic culture and shariah outlook is overwhelming and overriding what was the French culture. Like Merkel, he is unwilling to undertake the non-politically correct fight to reverse this awful trend. In an act of appeasement, masquerading as a lofty call against nationalism, Macron is announcing that France (he) will not make the immigrant community conform to French values. 

Rather, he is allowing the destiny of France to be determined by the most contrary and aggressive, the North African immigrants. France will be what it will be forced to become. He is saying that what was is no longer important. Nationalism, according to Macron, is no longer vital. The “new” France will be unrecognizable; it will morph into what the non-nationalists and shariahists decide how France should look. France’s destiny, its future, will not be tied to its past. Macron, the anti-nationalist, the universalist, has thrown in the towel… and with it, French patriots.

The job of a courageous leader is to stifle those on the extreme who, but a sliver, would hijack the necessity and majesty of nationalism for a racist cause. But though keeping an open eye to quash it, the much larger focus and intent should be to put one’s country first and inspire a nationalism that ushers in a great era. President Trump is on track doing that.

Rabbi Spero’s articles and Op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Jerusalem Post, National Review, Townhall, The Federalist, Breitbart, The American Spectator, New York Sun, Newsmax, American Thinker, Judaism, Tradition, Policy Review (Heritage Foundation), and he was a weekly columnist for Human Events.  He has been a frequent analyst on FoxNews programs such as The O’Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Neil Cavuto, and Fox and Friends, and has been interviewed by Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, Bill Cunningham, and American Morning News, among many others.

Rabbi Spero has served congregations in Ohio, New York City, and Long Island and  is author of Push Back: Reclaiming Our American Judeo-Christian Spirit (Evergreen 2012) and Why Israel Matters to You (Evergreen, 2015). Rabbi Spero was the first rabbi in 1979 to publicly endorse Ronald Reagan in newspaper ads around the country.

Dinesh D'Souza's Death of a Nation: Rectifying revisionist history

You may not agree with McCarthy’s review of “death of a nation”, but she unlike Washington Post and New York Times critics has viewed the  movie film. She and D’Souza . are 100% correct when it comes to Woodrow Wilson. Also, given our examination of Margaret Sanger’s  writings, I would say that  the views expressed about Margaret  Sanger  are essentially correct

Dinesh D'Souza's Death of a Nation: Rectifying revisionist history
By Patricia McCarthy August 8, 2018

All written history is revisionist.  With each successive generation, history is rewritten by people with new access to classified information, memoirs of those who were present, and the ever changing political landscape that colors everything we read about history and current events, political and cultural.  Often, the revisions of important events of the past are welcome and truthful, corrections of past misperceptions.  But just as often, revisionist history is slanted toward the politics of the era, the decade, or the current climate.

Since the 1960s and the takeover of higher education by tenured radicals that followed, American history has indeed been revised to favor the progressive left and to indoctrinate Americans with a distorted view, if not outright misrepresentation, of the facts of American history.  The 1960s were characterized by the anti-Americanism of the new left, and these leftists set out to drastically alter how Americans learned the history of their country.  Academia, in short, lied.  Its books lied.

Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary,  Death of a Nation, attempts to correct the record and to inform viewers about the various -isms that are generally conflated by academics and the media, most all of whom are anti-American leftists: Nazism, socialism, communism, Marxism, fascism, and progressivism.  They are all of a piece, and the left admires and endorses them all in one form or another.  All are anti-capitalist, anti-American.  All are characterized by totalitarianism to one degree or another. 

To present this truth of the distortion of our nation's history is a dangerous act of courage.  D'Souza is a brave man.  He is also a grateful man, grateful to be an American.  He was born in Mumbai. 

The truth of the film's premise is undeniable.  It is the Democratic Party that promulgated the Civil War, so fervent were Democrats to preserve the institution of slavery.  Thanks to Abraham Lincoln, the Republic was saved.  Then came the Jim Crow laws, segregation, and all policies of the Southern Democrats.  Then the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a card-carrying racist in every sense of the word, cemented the fact that the Democrats were the party of racism. 

It was Wilson who screened D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation at the White House in 1915.  The film revived the Ku Klux Klan with Wilson's blessing.  It is that film from which D'Souza takes his title and turns it upside-down.  Wilson's presidency reified the Progressive movement that has escalated with every passing decade.  It was Wilson who promoted white supremacy. 

The film exposes the venal racism that motivated Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  She was as genocidal in theory as Hitler.  Her foundation has been a smashing success: over 15M African-American babies have been aborted since 1973.  If not for all these abortions, African-Americans would outnumber Hispanics in the US. 

The left has become increasingly intolerant of opposing views, has become more dismissive of the Constitution, and successively has embraced one or another of the far-left -isms.  So convinced of the supremacy of their own views, they think nothing of calling for the banning of free speech if in opposition to their own, and ever more government control over how the American people live their lives.  As the film points out, the Nazi platform is remarkably similar to the current Democratic Party platform, including state control of nearly every aspect of life: health care, banks, industry, religious expression, education, and the media.  Are not all these things the left seeks to control today?

The Obama administration put D'Souza in prison for funneling a mere $20K to a college friend running for office.  His conviction was in effect punishment for his documentary, Obama's America, in 2012.  That film, too, was an attempt at educating the public about Obama's nefarious intentions for the "transformation of America."  D'Souza's imprisonment was political revenge, plain and simple.  This is how the Clinton-Obama left plays the game. 

Obama weaponized every government agency over which he presided; FBI, CIA, DOJ, EPA, IRS, NSA.  He turned America into a police state with two unequal systems of justice.  The crimes of the Clintons are legion.  The crimes of the Obama administration are still being unearthed, slowly but surely.  The illegal, unconstitutional attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign and then his presidency began under Obama, most likely at his behest.  He meant for Hillary to carry on his transformation of the country.  D'Souza does not delve into what is the most serious political scandal in U.S. history.  He only draws the obvious comparisons to the other corrupt regimes of the West.

D'Souza does explore the comparison between Lincoln and Trump.  Lincoln was equally, if not even more so, loathed by half the country, especially the half that did not want an end to slavery, the Democrats.  Those who hated him successfully assassinated him.  Skipping ahead, we learn in the film that FDR admired Hitler.  True.  Both men saw themselves as progressives.  Both sought to make and succeeded in making citizens more dependent on the government.  FDR admired Mussolini as well, and yet he remains a hero of the left. 

This is not surprising once one realizes that fascism, Nazism, and communism are all ideologies of the left.  All are aligned against President Trump today as they were against Lincoln in 1860.  This fact should be a wake-up call for all Americans.  Do we value the liberty that was the principal gift of the Founders, or are we going to willingly give it up out of apathy?

There is no apathy among the Trump-supporters.  They very much want to preserve the nation of our founding and the freedoms promised in it.  That is why Trump won the election and why the left has been in a meltdown ever since.  The left is like a spoiled child who has a tantrum when he does not get what he wants when he wants it.  But leftists are often sadly uninformed as to the reality of America's profound success in making lives better for everyone.

Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-ICE activists – are all products of the left.  Their champions in Congress are well known: Pelosi, Schumer, Ellison, Swalwell, Warren, Harris, Booker, Schiff...it is a long list.  They want open borders, unrestricted illegal immigration, and the dependency of as many people as possible on the government.  They abhor a strong America and favor submission to terrorist states like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. 

Death of a Nation is not only a needed corrective to the revisionist history of the left, but a warning to all Americans.  Wake up.  Walk away from the Democrats if you value the freedoms older citizens grew up taking for granted.  We can take them for granted no more.  They are at risk with each election.  D'Souza's film is a must-see for every American who reveres the Constitution and the liberty it guaranteed every citizen of America.

DINESH D'SOUZA'S DEATH OF A NATION: RECTIFYING REVISIONIST HISTORY

You may not agree with McCarthy’s review of “death of a nation”, but she unlike Washington Post and New York Times critics has viewed the  movie film. She and D’Souza . are 100% correct when it comes to Woodrow Wilson. Also, given our examination of Margaret Sanger’s  writings, I would say that  the views expressed about Margaret  Sanger  are essentially correct

Dinesh D'Souza's Death of a Nation: Rectifying revisionist history
By Patricia McCarthy August 8, 2018

All written history is revisionist.  With each successive generation, history is rewritten by people with new access to classified information, memoirs of those who were present, and the ever changing political landscape that colors everything we read about history and current events, political and cultural.  Often, the revisions of important events of the past are welcome and truthful, corrections of past misperceptions.  But just as often, revisionist history is slanted toward the politics of the era, the decade, or the current climate.

Since the 1960s and the takeover of higher education by tenured radicals that followed, American history has indeed been revised to favor the progressive left and to indoctrinate Americans with a distorted view, if not outright misrepresentation, of the facts of American history.  The 1960s were characterized by the anti-Americanism of the new left, and these leftists set out to drastically alter how Americans learned the history of their country.  Academia, in short, lied.  Its books lied.

Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary,  Death of a Nation, attempts to correct the record and to inform viewers about the various -isms that are generally conflated by academics and the media, most all of whom are anti-American leftists: Nazism, socialism, communism, Marxism, fascism, and progressivism.  They are all of a piece, and the left admires and endorses them all in one form or another.  All are anti-capitalist, anti-American.  All are characterized by totalitarianism to one degree or another. 

To present this truth of the distortion of our nation's history is a dangerous act of courage.  D'Souza is a brave man.  He is also a grateful man, grateful to be an American.  He was born in Mumbai. 

The truth of the film's premise is undeniable.  It is the Democratic Party that promulgated the Civil War, so fervent were Democrats to preserve the institution of slavery.  Thanks to Abraham Lincoln, the Republic was saved.  Then came the Jim Crow laws, segregation, and all policies of the Southern Democrats.  Then the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a card-carrying racist in every sense of the word, cemented the fact that the Democrats were the party of racism. 

It was Wilson who screened D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation at the White House in 1915.  The film revived the Ku Klux Klan with Wilson's blessing.  It is that film from which D'Souza takes his title and turns it upside-down.  Wilson's presidency reified the Progressive movement that has escalated with every passing decade.  It was Wilson who promoted white supremacy. 

The film exposes the venal racism that motivated Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  She was as genocidal in theory as Hitler.  Her foundation has been a smashing success: over 15M African-American babies have been aborted since 1973.  If not for all these abortions, African-Americans would outnumber Hispanics in the US. 

The left has become increasingly intolerant of opposing views, has become more dismissive of the Constitution, and successively has embraced one or another of the far-left -isms.  So convinced of the supremacy of their own views, they think nothing of calling for the banning of free speech if in opposition to their own, and ever more government control over how the American people live their lives.  As the film points out, the Nazi platform is remarkably similar to the current Democratic Party platform, including state control of nearly every aspect of life: health care, banks, industry, religious expression, education, and the media.  Are not all these things the left seeks to control today?

The Obama administration put D'Souza in prison for funneling a mere $20K to a college friend running for office.  His conviction was in effect punishment for his documentary, Obama's America, in 2012.  That film, too, was an attempt at educating the public about Obama's nefarious intentions for the "transformation of America."  D'Souza's imprisonment was political revenge, plain and simple.  This is how the Clinton-Obama left plays the game. 

Obama weaponized every government agency over which he presided; FBI, CIA, DOJ, EPA, IRS, NSA.  He turned America into a police state with two unequal systems of justice.  The crimes of the Clintons are legion.  The crimes of the Obama administration are still being unearthed, slowly but surely.  The illegal, unconstitutional attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign and then his presidency began under Obama, most likely at his behest.  He meant for Hillary to carry on his transformation of the country.  D'Souza does not delve into what is the most serious political scandal in U.S. history.  He only draws the obvious comparisons to the other corrupt regimes of the West.

D'Souza does explore the comparison between Lincoln and Trump.  Lincoln was equally, if not even more so, loathed by half the country, especially the half that did not want an end to slavery, the Democrats.  Those who hated him successfully assassinated him.  Skipping ahead, we learn in the film that FDR admired Hitler.  True.  Both men saw themselves as progressives.  Both sought to make and succeeded in making citizens more dependent on the government.  FDR admired Mussolini as well, and yet he remains a hero of the left. 

This is not surprising once one realizes that fascism, Nazism, and communism are all ideologies of the left.  All are aligned against President Trump today as they were against Lincoln in 1860.  This fact should be a wake-up call for all Americans.  Do we value the liberty that was the principal gift of the Founders, or are we going to willingly give it up out of apathy?

There is no apathy among the Trump-supporters.  They very much want to preserve the nation of our founding and the freedoms promised in it.  That is why Trump won the election and why the left has been in a meltdown ever since.  The left is like a spoiled child who has a tantrum when he does not get what he wants when he wants it.  But leftists are often sadly uninformed as to the reality of America's profound success in making lives better for everyone.

Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-ICE activists – are all products of the left.  Their champions in Congress are well known: Pelosi, Schumer, Ellison, Swalwell, Warren, Harris, Booker, Schiff...it is a long list.  They want open borders, unrestricted illegal immigration, and the dependency of as many people as possible on the government.  They abhor a strong America and favor submission to terrorist states like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. 

Death of a Nation is not only a needed corrective to the revisionist history of the left, but a warning to all Americans.  Wake up.  Walk away from the Democrats if you value the freedoms older citizens grew up taking for granted.  We can take them for granted no more.  They are at risk with each election.  D'Souza's film is a must-see for every American who reveres the Constitution and the liberty it guaranteed every citizen of America.

HOW HIGHLY PLACED MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MOBILISED THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES TO UNDERMINE THEIR SUCCESSORS.

A SHORT HISTORY OF DEMOCRAT-SPY COLLUSION

 Roger Kimball May 25,  2018

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/for-your-eyes-only-a-short-history-of-democrat-spy-collusion/

How highly placed members of the Obama administration mobilised the intelligence services to undermine their successors.

 

 

Who what where when why? The desiderata school teachers drill into their charges trying to master effective writing skills apply also in the effort to understand that byzantine drama known to the world as the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.

Let’s start with “when.” When did it start? We know that the FBI opened its official investigation on 31 July 2016. An obscure, low-level volunteer to the Trump campaign called Carter Page was front and centre then. He’d been the FBI’s radar for a long time. Years before, it was known, the Russians had made some overtures to him but 1) they concluded that he was an “idiot” not worth recruiting and 2) he had actually aided the FBI in prosecuting at least two Russian spies.

But we now know that the Trump-Russia investigation began before Carter Page. In December 2017, The New York Times excitedly reported in an article called “How the Russia Inquiry Began” that, contrary to their reporting during the previous year, it wasn’t Carter Page who precipitated the inquiry. It was someone called George Papadopoulous, an even more obscure and lower-level factotum than Carter Page. Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that “the Russians” had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times, the investigation was born.

There were, however, a couple of tiny details that the Times omitted. One was that Downer, an avid Clinton supporter, had arranged for a $25 million donation from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation. Twenty-five million of the crispest, Kemo Sabe. They also neglected say exactly how Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer.

As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud—who has since disappeared—who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that the Kremlin had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Then there is Stefan Halper, an American-born Cambridge prof and Hillary supporter. Out of the blue, Halper reached out to Papadopoulos in September 2016. He invited him to meet in London and then offered Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper on an unrelated topic. He also pumped him about “Russian hacking.” “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” Halper is said to have asked him. He also made sure Papadopoulos met for drinks with his assistant, a woman called Azra Turk, who flirted with him over the Chardonnay while pumping him about Russia.

Halper also contacted Carter Page and Sam Clovis, Trump’s campaign co-chair. Is Stefan Halper, the “spy” on the Trump campaign, at the origin of the Trump-Russia meme?

Not really. The real fons et origo is John Brennan, Director of the CIA under Obama. As Trump’s victories in the primaries piled up, Brennan convened a “working group” at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent, and James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence, in order to stymie Trump’s campaign.

So much of this story still dwells in the tenebrous realm of redaction. But little by little the truth is emerging, a mosaic whose story is gradually taking shape as one piece after the next completes now this face, now another.

There are details yet to come, but here is the bottom line, the irreducible minimum. A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence “community,” prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration, colluded to undermine Donald Trump’s campaign.

Like almost everyone else, they assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, so they were careless about covering their tracks. If Hillary had won, the department of Justice would have been her Department of Justice, John Brennan would still be head of the CIA, and the public would never have known about the spies, the set-ups, the skulduggery.

But Hillary did not win. For the last 16 months, we’ve watched as that exiled cabal shifted its efforts from stopping Trump from winning to a desperate effort to destroy his Presidency. Thanks to the patient work of Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a handful of GOP Senators, that effort is now disintegrating. What is being exposed is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States: the effort by highly placed—exactly how highly placed we still do not know—members of one administration to mobilise the intelligence services and police power of the state to spy upon and destroy first the candidacy and then, when that didn’t work, the administration of a political rival.

It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let’s hope that they are also held to account.

HOW HIGHLY PLACED MEMBERS OF ONE ADMINISTRATION MOBILISED THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES TO UNDERMINE THEIR SUCCESSORS.

 STILL  HIGHLY RELEVANT--A SHORT HISTORY OF DEMOCRAT-SPY COLLUSION

 Roger Kimball May 25,  2018

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/for-your-eyes-only-a-short-history-of-democrat-spy-collusion/

How highly placed members of one administration mobilised the intelligence services to undermine their successors.

 

 

Who what where when why? The desiderata school teachers drill into their charges trying to master effective writing skills apply also in the effort to understand that byzantine drama known to the world as the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.

Let’s start with “when.” When did it start? We know that the FBI opened its official investigation on 31 July 2016. An obscure, low-level volunteer to the Trump campaign called Carter Page was front and centre then. He’d been the FBI’s radar for a long time. Years before, it was known, the Russians had made some overtures to him but 1) they concluded that he was an “idiot” not worth recruiting and 2) he had actually aided the FBI in prosecuting at least two Russian spies.

But we now know that the Trump-Russia investigation began before Carter Page. In December 2017, The New York Times excitedly reported in an article called “How the Russia Inquiry Began” that, contrary to their reporting during the previous year, it wasn’t Carter Page who precipitated the inquiry. It was someone called George Papadopoulous, an even more obscure and lower-level factotum than Carter Page. Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that “the Russians” had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos was communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times, the investigation was born.

There were, however, a couple of tiny details that the Times omitted. One was that Downer, an avid Clinton supporter, had arranged for a $25 million donation from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation. Twenty-five million of the crispest, Kemo Sabe. They also neglected say exactly how Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer.

As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud—who has since disappeared—who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that the Kremlin had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Then there is Stefan Halper, an American-born Cambridge prof and Hillary supporter. Out of the blue, Halper reached out to Papadopoulos in September 2016. He invited him to meet in London and then offered Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper on an unrelated topic. He also pumped him about “Russian hacking.” “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?” Halper is said to have asked him. He also made sure Papadopoulos met for drinks with his assistant, a woman called Azra Turk, who flirted with him over the Chardonnay while pumping him about Russia.

Halper also contacted Carter Page and Sam Clovis, Trump’s campaign co-chair. Is Stefan Halper, the “spy” on the Trump campaign, at the origin of the Trump-Russia meme?

Not really. The real fons et origo is John Brennan, Director of the CIA under Obama. As Trump’s victories in the primaries piled up, Brennan convened a “working group” at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent, and James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence, in order to stymie Trump’s campaign.

So much of this story still dwells in the tenebrous realm of redaction. But little by little the truth is emerging, a mosaic whose story is gradually taking shape as one piece after the next completes now this face, now another.

There are details yet to come, but here is the bottom line, the irreducible minimum. A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence “community,” prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration, colluded to undermine Donald Trump’s campaign.

Like almost everyone else, they assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, so they were careless about covering their tracks. If Hillary had won, the department of Justice would have been her Department of Justice, John Brennan would still be head of the CIA, and the public would never have known about the spies, the set-ups, the skulduggery.

But Hillary did not win. For the last 16 months, we’ve watched as that exiled cabal shifted its efforts from stopping Trump from winning to a desperate effort to destroy his Presidency. Thanks to the patient work of Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a handful of GOP Senators, that effort is now disintegrating. What is being exposed is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States: the effort by highly placed—exactly how highly placed we still do not know—members of one administration to mobilise the intelligence services and police power of the state to spy upon and destroy first the candidacy and then, when that didn’t work, the administration of a political rival.

It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let’s hope that they are also held to account.