This is now, quite apparently, what we’ve come down to in the United States.
We all know about Fake News courtesy of Leftist “journalistas.” There is now, courtesy of Leftist judges and attorneys, Fake Law.
I can’t believe I’m reading the article correctly but, sadly, I am indeed. From Breitbart.com:
Neal Katyal at 9th Circuit: If Trump Says ‘Islam Is Peace’ He Can Have a Travel Ban
by Ian Mason
Neal Katyal made oral arguments for maintaining the injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning migrants from certain Muslim-majority countries Monday before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“He could say, like President Bush did right after September 11th, ‘The face of Terror is not the true face of Islam, that’s not what Islam is about, Islam is Peace.’ Instead, we get ‘Islam hates us’,” Katyal told the bench, answering Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Paez’s question on what, if anything, Trump could do to make the executive order acceptable.
Really? All President Trump has to do, according to Katyal, is cry “uncle” and all is forgiven? Really?
Katyal, former President Barack Obama’s one-time acting Solicitor General, has taken on the representation of the plaintiffs who stopped the executive order’s implementation in March when a federal court in Hawaii ruled in their favor. The Justice Department has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, seeking to vacate that injunction.
Do you believe Katyal will actually relent and back off the lawsuit if President Trump but says the “magic words”?
The most controversial element of Obama-appointed district court Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling was its justification of the injunction based not on the text or effect of the executive order, but on statements President Trump made during the 2016 campaign.
Precisely. Fake Law. Predicated not upon the documents in front of the court, but on mostly everything but.
According to that ruling, speaking about a “Muslim ban” and speaking negatively about the religion’s relationship with the West meant that the plaintiffs had a high enough likelihood of proving a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to block the order. This is true even though the actual order does not take any action based on people being Muslim because, “[A] reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion[.]”
Meaning, again, that the issue was not what was immured on paper but what was said in the ether and not supported by paper. A logical question was then asked.
The argumentation led naturally to the question of what, if anything, could be done to save such a facially neutral order. “Does that mean that the President is forever barred from issuing an executive order along these lines?” Judge Paez asked Katyal. “What does he have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?”
What indeed? Twenty-three Hail Marys? Genuflect towards Mecca? Tap a wrist? Provide evidence of stigmata?
Trump might gain more power to issue executive order if he “disavows,” Katyal argued. “One example would be what Judge Hawkins said about disavowing formally the stuff before.”
You can’t make this stuff up. But wait, there’s more. Let’s just excise whatever unappetizing elements actually exist within Islam, shall we?
In addition to suggesting Trump could save his order by telling the country “Islam is peace,” Katyal also recommended removing references, in the text of the order, to the unsavory elements of Islamic society. “It could eliminate the text which refers to honor killings,” he told the court.
Of course. Let’s just eliminate those niggling little female genital mutilation issues, the misogynist issues, the beheading issues, the Borg issues, the bacha bazi issues, the pedophilia of Islam, the internal combustion of Islam.
By the way, who is Neal Katyal? He’s the man who said this about Neil Gorsuch at Gorsuch’s hearing:
He’s also the man with the god-like endless CV. Superbly humble.
Katyal is the recipient of the very highest award given to a civilian by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Edmund Randolph Award, which the Attorney General presented to him in 2011. The Chief Justice of the United States appointed him in 2011 to the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules, and again in 2014. Additionally, he was named as One of the 40 Most Influential Lawyers of the Last Decade Nationwide by National Law Journal (2010); One of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers Over the Last 30 Years by Legal Times (2008); Lawyer of the Year by Lawyers USA (2006); Runner-Up for Lawyer of the Year by National Law Journal (2006); One of the Top 50 Litigators Nationwide 45 Years Old or Younger by American Lawyer (2007); and one of the top 500 lawyers in the country by LawDragon Magazine for each of the last ten years. He also won the National Law Journal’s pro bono award.
U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base Over Chemical Weapons Attack
by Kourtney Kube, Alex Johnson, Hallie Jackson, Alexander Smith
The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria overnight in response to what it believes was a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 100 people.
At least six people were killed, Syria claimed, but the Pentagon said civilians were not targeted and the strike was aimed at a military airfield in Homs.
All but one of the missiles hit their intended target, one U.S. military official told NBC News. The other missile failed.
The strike completed a policy reversal for President Donald Trump — who once warned America to stay out of the conflict — and drew angry responses from Damascus and its main ally, Russia.
Half truth. Again the American Media Maggots are either purposely misleading you, or are ignorant, or both. Syria has two very important allies: Iran and Russia.
The missiles were launched from the USS Ross and the USS Porter in the Mediterranean Sea toward Shayrat Airfield. American officials believe it was used by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad to carry out a strike on Tuesday involving chemical weapons that resulted in the deaths of more than 100 people.
“We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas,” Tillerson said.
This is not an uncomplicated situation and the players are many and ever-changing.
The truth is this: we didn’t necessarily target the airfield; we instead targeted aircraft, their hardened shelters and fueling stations. A point. One Tomahawk malfunctioned and spent itself into the sea. Funny thing: the US Navy wants to stop buying Tomahawks in the next few years (to the tune of $1.4 million dollars each). The USN, by the way, has 4,000 Tomahawk missiles, built by Raytheon.
The confusing aspect of President Trump’s action is its reaction from the Republicans, the Demorats, Trump voters and military analysts. It’s all over the map. Many reactions are not what one would nominally expect.
Some people feel betrayal because President Trump has said he is not the “president of the world.” On the heels of that statement he has intervened in Syria; his first military response.
Not anticipated by me was the response by the American Media Maggots. Many outlets praised the attack.
But wait. Aren’t these the same American Media Maggots who have been screeching from the tallest towers that President Trump was a stooge for Russia and Vladimir Putin? It doesn’t seem to me that Moscow would be pleased with the attack and, of course, it wasn’t. Wait; doesn’t Moscow = Putin?
The AMM said this about those who opposed it:
Politico.com called those opposed to the attack “Trump’s troll army” and “racists” and “conspiracy mongers”;
The New York Times called oppo members a “small but influential white nationalist movement”;
The Washington Post said the attack’s critics hold “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views;
Again, I can sum up those articles best by quoting Monty Python: “you’re a loon.”
Speaking of which, as I mentioned, there were those who continued to insist on making the linkage between President Trump and Russia despite the total lack of evidence and subsequent denial from US intelligence agencies. Our good “you’re a loon” buddy Lawrence O’Donnell weighs in with a Moonbat Theory: what if Vladimir Putin planned the Syrian gas attack in order to assist his great friend, President Donald Trump?
Fear not, for we not only have a civilian Trump/Russia conspiracist, but an elected government official as a Trump/Russia conspiracist, Representative Seth Moulton (6th District, Massachusetts) spoke with Tucker Carlson Monday night.
An elected representative saying something like this is akin to Rep Hank Johnson saying that Guam could capsize because of extra weight.
There are those, however, who believe the attack was illegal as no declaration of war was made by Congress. This is patently false. I remind folks of the fact that Obama operated that way for, literally, all eight years of his regime and was never told he required Congressional approval for the drone and missile strikes he ordered. Even Left-leaning PolitiFact stated that Trump had the authority to conduct his strike under Article 2 of the US Constitution.
Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that po
Some said President Trump should have come before Congress and made his case in public. One thing we do know about Trump is this: he doesn’t much care to advertise coming actions. Logically so, in terms of military strategy.
These are the same people, interestingly enough, who said President Bush’s movement into Iraq was fallacious and that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMD materials despite the fact that an article in the New York Times indicated the opposite. An article in PowerLine also supported the conclusion of the Times.
Further, some said that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD materials prior to the invasion and had them transported to Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz believed so in 2003. Somehow I think people now more clearly understand that nexus.
But wait; wasn’t it Susan Rice and John Kerry who unequivocally declared that because of the tireless work they did to eliminate all chemical weapons from Syria under Barack Hussein Obama, “the entirety of the declared stockpile was removed.”
Hmm. It would appear Susan Rice lied about Benghazi. She lied about Bowe Bergdahl, that he had served with “honor and distinction.” She lied about the unmasking of names. And apparently she lied about the chemical stockpile in Syria. Here she is in an NPR interview, January 16th.
I’m of the mindset that if Susan Rice stated the sun would rise in the east tomorrow morning, I’d be suspicious.
Many people consistently bleat that political solutions and diplomatic negotiations must occur when potential conflicts arise. Like the prior administration and its occupants and sycophants. The problem with that theory is that none of it can exist absent military credibility.
The US needed to re-establish military credibility in the Middle East, lost as it was under the previous eight years under Barack Hussein Obama, and Trump demonstrated that credibility with that Syrian strike. He also set forth the doctrine that the words of a US president now have consequences.
John Kerry and Susan Rice under Obama became absolutely convinced that Assad had surrendered all of his chemical weapons which, clearly, he hadn’t. Even PolitiFact has revised and retracted its insistence that the US removed “100%” of Syria’s chemical weapons. The meme then was:
“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” then-Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in July 2014. Kerry was referring to a deal the U.S. and Russia struck in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help confiscate and then destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons stockpile.
Some people are insisting it was a false flag event. Like VA Senator Richard Black.
Will President Bashar Al-Assad gas his people again? We know he could, as he clearly has access to chemical agents despite the claim that more than 1,300 to 1,400 tons of it had been eliminated. We also know that Al-Assad’s Syrian military is hurting. He hasn’t much of an air force remaining to speak of, his army pretty much doesn’t exist, and that accounts for his need for mercenaries and conscripts from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq — primarily because Syrians won’t fight for him.
Let’s not forget, however, that Al-Assad does have Iran working for him. He has the support of the Quds force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards corps, Hezbollah and Russia, who stepped into Syria two years ago under the guise of fighting ISIS.
Concurrently, a contrasting article from The Atlantic by Tom Malinowski stated:
America Should Have Hit Assad Four Years Ago
When dealing with mass killing, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.
Donald Trump is president; he now bears full responsibility for addressing the tragedy in Syria, and for the consequences of the response he has chosen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reflect on America’s response to the Assad regime’s previous chemical weapons attacks—for how we interpret the difficult and debatable choice the Obama administration (in which I served) made not to use military force when Assad last used nerve gas against his people will shape our thinking about this and similar crises for a long time to come. The lesson I would draw from that experience is that when dealing with mass killing by unconventional or conventional means, deterrence is more effective than disarmament.
An earth-shaking conclusion from a Leftist.
Now let’s get into the weeds. The weeds that need to be examined, and the weeds that western media and the American Media Maggots refuse to appraise.
That of the involvement of the Middle Eastern version of Islam itself. You cannot understand Islam until you understand the two most fundamental divisions in Islam. And why this Islamic quote is accurate:
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my brother and my cousin against the tribe. Me and my brother and my cousin and my tribe against the outsider.
Let’s state the obvious:
Islam breaks itself down into two distinct camps: Sunni vs Shite.
What are the fundamental yet apparently unrecoverable differences between the two camps?
As clearly explained as I could make. Yet it’s all worth dying for.
Books I continue to highly recommend regarding the Middle Eastern version of Islam, are
Why Tehran hates Isis: how religious rifts are fueling conflict
The alliance between Iran and Syria might seem an unlikely one. As Iran is an Islamic republic, one might not expect its closest ally to be a dictatorship that grew out of the political doctrine of Baathism, a secular Arab nationalist movement that originated in the 1930s and 1940s. But politics – and perhaps especially the politics of relations between states – develops its own logic, which often has little to do with ideology. Baathism advocated Arab unity but two of its founding fathers, Michel Aflaq and Zaki al-Arsuzi, both Syrians, disliked each other and would not be members of the same party.
Projects to fuse Syria and Egypt and, later, Syria and Iraq foundered, creating in the latter case a personal bitterness between Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez, and Saddam Hussein, though both were Baathists, at least nominally. That led to the two states breaking off diplomatic relations with each other at the end of 1979. When Iraq invaded Iran the following year, Syria and Iran became allies against Iraq. Syria cut off an oil pipeline that had allowed Iraq to export its oil from a Mediterranean port and Iran supplied Syria with cheap oil.
Stop. Do you see some things more clearly?
The Middle Eastern version of Islam, as practiced, is founded in barbarity, cruelty, nomads, bedouins. They do not recognize the lines as ascribed to their countries by western civilizations. Iranians are Persians. They are not Arabs. Never confuse a Persian with an Arab. Both will slit your carotid for doing so.
Then there is another distinguishing element to be revealed.
Even within Syria there are divisions within divisions, wheels within wheels. From the ThoughtCo.com:
The Difference Between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria
by Primoz Manfreda
Why is there Sunni-Alawite tension in Syria?
The differences between Alawites and Sunnis in Syria have sharpened dangerously since the beginning of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, whose family is Alawite. The reason for tension is primarily political, rather than religious: top position in Assad’s army are held by Alawite officers, while most of the rebels from the Free Syrian Army come from Syria’s Sunni majority.
Sufficiently confused yet?
Geographical Presence: Alawites are a Muslim minority group that accounts for around 12% of Syria’s population, with a few small pockets in Lebanon and Turkey (though not to be confused with Alevis, a Turkish Muslim minority). Around 70% of Syrians belongs to Sunni Islam, as does almost 90% of all Muslims in the world).
Historical Alawite heartlands lie in the mountainous hinterland of Syria’s Mediterranean coast in the country’s west, next to the coastal city of Latakia. Alawites form the majority in Latakia province, although the city itself is mixed between Sunnis, Alawites and Christians. Alawites also have a sizeable presence in the central province of Homs and in the capital Damascus.
Doctrinal Differences: Alawites practice a unique but little known form of Islam that dates back to the 9th and 10th century. Its secretive nature is an outcome of centuries of isolation from the mainstream society and periodical persecution by the Sunni majority.
BAGHDAD — Whether a person is a Shiite or a Sunni Muslim in Iraq can now be, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
As the militant group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has seized vast territories in western and northern Iraq, there have been frequent accounts of fighters’ capturing groups of people and releasing the Sunnis while the Shiites are singled out for execution.
ISIS believes that the Shiites are apostates and must die in order to forge a pure form of Islam. The two main branches of Islam diverge in their beliefs over who is the true inheritor of the mantle of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shiites believe that Islam was transmitted through the household of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis believe that it comes down through followers of the Prophet Muhammad who, they say, are his chosen people.
This isn’t a matter of the “big picture” like the previous administration. Things now get down to very specific details.
But how can ISIS tell whether a person is a Sunni or a Shiite? From accounts of people who survived encounters with the militants, it seems they often ask a list of questions. Here are some of them:
What is your name?
Where do you live?
How do you pray?
What kind of music do you listen to?
Back to reality. During President Trump’s first outright military action, let’s be honest. Not much occurred. Thousands didn’t perish. Hundreds didn’t perish. Dozens didn’t perish.
However, there occurred the customary posturing anticipated.
How about we try to do this: keep American boots from smacking Syrian dirt. Strike as necessary. Attempt to build a global consensus to give Syria back to Syrians. And then provide an incentive for Syrians in Europe to 1) go back home, and 2) not leave in the first place. That would include safe zones in Syria. Because the fewer Muslims in western countries, the easier it becomes to identify ISIS and its corruptive elements. And, well, because true Islam and Sharia is completely incongruent with western values.
But have we been duped into fighting a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, of Sunni vs Shiite?
This is President Trump’s first test, militarily. He has both pleased and displeased. Overall, to this point, I submit that he has not been found wanting.
All of that said, delineated and extrapolated, here is what I believe occurred with regard to President Trump and the Syrian missile attack. His daughter Ivanka pressed for this and, once Trump saw the photos and video of dead and injured civilians, women and children, he reacted. Emotionally.
What I also believe is that his generals and advisers were in congruence with this thinking because it didn’t remove President Trump from the mainstream of a limited and coordinated response. It served everyone’s purpose.
This is both assuring and disturbing, simultaneously.
Fear not good people, TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome — is alive and well and, if drinking a carbonated beverage, will still make you spew it out your nose in laughter.
First, let’s look at the story from an — ahem — MSM viewpoint, as Philly.com writes:
CNN host Fareed Zakaria gets profane in uncensored Trump discussion
by Rob Tornoe
Late Friday night, CNN host Fareed Zakaria had some complaints about President Trump that revolved around one word in particular.
My. What might that be?
Appearing beside host Don Lemon on CNN Tonight in a discussion about the president’s unsubstantiated claims that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the election, a frustrated Zakaria said Trump is “indifferent” to the truth before launching into a profanity-laced comment about the commander-in-chief.
Ah, the buttery goodness of the informed, cogent, rational, level-headed, sensitive, well-grounded cadre of Leftists.
After all, everyone knows emesis of that nature advances the argument of mainstream media outlets.
The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign.
The House Intelligence Committee said it would give the Justice Department until March 20 to comply.
Current and former administration officials have been unable to provide any evidence of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump Tower, yet the president’s aides have been reluctant to publicly contradict their boss.
Continuing, there are additional sources tending to lend credence to the wiretapping, as revealed by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”
One video I was told to watch was this, wherein Mark Levin sets an argument for the wiretapping of Trump.
Senator Rand Paul also happens to think it would have been relatively easy to wiretap Donald Trump.
I’d like to make this point obvious for those who may not know. The days of trying to access some kind of big closet or room with lots of copper connectors are over. You no longer have to physically access that room covertly and then attach any number of alligator clips and check your buttset. Most phone systems in business and agencies run VOIP, which is Voice Over Internet Protocol. Right. The internet. Go figure.
What about Mr Obama attempting to undermine and influence the elections in Israel, because he didn’t want to see Benjamin Netanyahu elected? It seems to me the Obama administration was playing politics with a presidential election.
What about Jason Chaffetz who, during the Obama administration, had Secret Service agents combing through his personal records in a politically-driven revenge attack?
What about James Rosen, an American journalist, who had his emails and calls on roughly 20 phones exposed as a result of Obama’s minion, Eric Holder? Obama claimed he never ordered surveillance on any American citizen — but Holder wouldn’t have conducted something of this import without keeping his melanin-related BFF updated.
We know, via Wikileaks, that Obama did in fact surveil and violate the rights and privacy of American journalists. Here is a copy of a search warrant indicating so.
In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:
* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked. * Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.” *Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.
Hell, the CIA spied on the United States SENATE under Barack Hussein Obama:
All Obama’s oppressive actions seem to be forgiven. Yet, now all the Demorats and American Media Maggots require to elevate an allegation to a fact, if it concerns President Trump, conservatives or the GOP is. . .
“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”
What Lewis doesn’t do, however, is offer that same level of denial regarding the FBI or the DOJ. What Lewis specifically didn’t do is unequivocally state that Obama did not have Donald Trump tapped. It’s a proverbial non-denial denial. Gorgeous. Further, do you think Obama was so laissez-faire about his administration that he was unaware of what was occurring around him at all times? I do not.
On Sunday during Meet The Press, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI, a position above the CIA Director) James Clapper stated no agency operating under him — including the FBI — wiretapped the Trump concerns. Clapper added: “to my knowledge.” Equivocation.
Let us not forget this is the same James Clapper who lied nakedly to all of America when he testified under oath that the NSA never collected phone data on millions of Americans — when in fact the NSA Hoovered personal data like a baleen whale with krill. Clapper massages his pate and says “not wittingly.” Edward Snowden proved that Clapper was lying his political ass off.
But are these mere suppositions of wiretapping?
NO. THEY ARE NOT.
Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke to a left-leaning journalist named Cathy Areu on Saturday the 4th, who told Guilfoyle that a source inside the White House said, about the tap:
There were concerns that Trump and his surrogates may have been colluding with the Russians as a possible bargaining chip to influence the election. Therefore a wiretap was conducted.
Areu’s female source said she was unsure who secured the warrant, but that it was granted. Areu said her female Obama administration source stated:
“The intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence. The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”
Meaning two critically important thingies:
1. The wiretap occurred, and
2. The president had to know.
Let me repeat that at the risk of becoming a member of the Department of Redundancy Dept:
Because, after all, we don’t need anything more to substantiate an allegation of corruption or abuse against President Trump other than an “unnamed source,” do we? Of course not. Turnabout is fair play.
Also: there was in fact a FISA request by the Obama Administration in June of 2016 and then in October of 2016, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump, not yet president-elect.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton remarks to Fox’s Eric Shawn that James Comey should have been removed as FBI Director. I stated that myself back on February 17th: Trump should have ripped James Comey out of the FBI by his roots because Comey would do nothing but provide heartache. James Comey is a prevaricating hack whose opinions fluctuate with the prevailing political prairie winds. Let’s listen.
Who to replace the bereft-of-courage James Comey? Might I suggest John Bolton? Rudy Giuliani? Perhaps even Sheriff David Clarke? One does not have to be an attorney to be director. One must only have a keen managerial skill, fortitude and reverence for the law as opposed to naked politics.
Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals an important aspect of Obama’s presidential power.
“Because of the unique interpretation of a Ronald Reagan executive order, 13222, and because of the language in the USA Freedom Act, the successor to much of the FISA law, NSA now has the ability to capture in real time the digital copies of everybody’s phone calls. Everybody, cell and landline, everybody’s keystroke, mobile device and desktop.”
“All digital information going over fiber optics, into the US, out of the US or within the US. NSA works for the President. If the President asks for a transcribed copy of any of that, they’ll give it to him. As well, the FISA statute says in it, ‘not withstanding all of the rules above and below.’ The President of the United States can order surveillance on any person in the United States in conjunction with a certificate or a certification filed by the Attorney General.”
Napolitano admits that it’s legal but not constitutional from his point of view, describing it as “profoundly unconstitutional but it is legal because the statute says it. So think about this, if you’re Barack Obama and you have the ability by making a phone call to hear what Donald Trump is saying, are you going to bother with trying to get a warrant? Why would you get the warrant?”
Asked whether he believes the NSA is tapping Trump, Binney replied: “Absolutely. How did they get the phone call between the president and the president of Australia? Or the one that he made with Mexico? Those are not targeted foreigners.”
Please consider: how did anyone know the context of Michael Flynn’s phone calls from the Trump tower absent a wiretap? How did anyone know the context of President Trump’s phone calls to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull absent a wiretap?
The shoe is now on the other foot with regard to the Demorats, Leftists, American Media Maggots and, more pointedly, on Barack Hussein Obama.
All of this is occurring predominantly because President Trump fundamentally threatens the sinecure of all the DC bureaucrats making bank on jobs that produce nothing but yield financial splendor and fiscal independence for life. Mel Brooks, from the film Blazing Saddles, sums it up best.
In the midst of an incredibly-serious election, to wiretap the communications of the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States?
Remember, Captain Kirk’s last words on film were: “Oh my.”
Who says the actors responsible for the wiretapping went through a FISA court anyway?