Saturday, March 11, 2017

Virginia City Nevada...St Patty's Day events 3/11-3/12


Rocky Mountain Oyster Festival and St. Patrick's Day Parade

Holy Molly...our little town is packed today...last years event was busy but this years event is spectacular {hard to find parking spots they be a parking everywhere}....tis good to see patriots and all celebrating a time honer'd event...the beer is cold the food is good...and music plays as the parade rocked...y'all come on up....!  The hard life and good times of the Comstock are remembered throughout town in its saloons. No other type of business dominates the landscape of this historic mining town, where there once were as many as 115 bars and saloons. Many saloons have maintained their 19th century appearance and stepping in their doors is like stepping back in time. A visitor today can get much more than their favorite cocktail at any one of the town's ten bars; they'll get a history lesson and an experience to last a lifetime.


Have a ball, or two, in historic Virginia City this St. Patrick’s Day. Each year, more than 3,000 daring connoisseurs sample tasty testes from cooks competing for the title of Best Rocky Mountain Oyster Cook in the West! Cooks from around the west fry, smoke or grill these delectable concoctions in a way that will make you forget what you’re really eating. Go balls out and try them all. Dress in your most outlandish St. Patty’s Day garb, walk in the parade, join the costume contest and get in on the Ballbreaker Saloon Crawl. This full-on Irish testicle festival is the place to be for St. Patrick’s Day, complete with a beer garden, music and the lively atmosphere found only in Virginia City.

Last years event....busy but this year is even busier:

Reba Talks about Mountain Oysters...ha

BREAKING: Obama's Silent Coup Exposed

Since Barrack Hussein Obama left office on January 20th, he's been very busy working behind the scenes. In fact, the Obama team has never stopped working. They left the White House and moved to the D.C. suburbs to continue advancing their Marxist agenda. But Obama and his loyalists are not just passing out socialist pamphlets. They are using their allies in the Intelligence Community to create a police state to stop Trump and thwart the will of the American people.

The research team at Liberty Alliance, headed by Onan Coca, has collected intel that indicates Obama is the new head of a shadow government and is planning a silent coup against President Trump. In an email to his supporters on his last day in office, Obama encouraged them to stay engaged, promising "I'll be right there with you every step of the way."

Think about it. He started his political career as a community organizer and made it all the way to the Oval Office. Would he really relinquish his absolute power so quickly only to hand it all over to a capitalist? Will he stand by and watch Trump dismantle his extremist leftwing legacy while he retires quietly to play more golf? Only the naïve would think in such a foolish way. Obama's Deep State is in full operation. 

Organizing for Action, the political group that grew out of Obama's first campaign, recently hired 14 field organizers in key states, adding to a growing infrastructure that boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and more than 32,000 volunteers. They've amassed over $40 million in contributions to date.

Obama has converted his new D.C. mansion into his Anti-Trump command center.

Liberty Alliance is now in our tenth year of service. During that time, we've never asked you for financial support. We've depended on advertising revenue and product sales alone to accomplish our mission. That is until now. With advertisers bowing to pressure from Obama's Shadow Government, we are humbly asking you to make a contribution to help us continue holding our leaders accountable. The mainstream media may have sold out decades ago, but our standard is the US Constitution. Republican or Democrat, all leaders are required to uphold the Rule of Law. The truth is our objective. Will you join us in the fight to preserve America through your generous donation? 

Also, we've launched a new website,, to keep you informed.


Friday, March 10, 2017

Joe Biden’s son Hunter blew money on drugs, alcohol, prostitutes?

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and his estranged wife are seeking an amicable split and are asking a judge to halt a contested divorce case in which she accused Hunter Biden of squandering the couple’s money on drugs, alcohol and prostitutes.
In a joint filing in D.C. Superior Court this week, lawyers for Biden and Kathleen Buhle Biden said they are seeking to end their marriage without continued litigation and recognize the benefit in finalizing their divorce “amicably and privately.”
The filing comes two weeks after Kathleen Biden asked for a court order directing Hunter Biden to stop squandering the couple’s remaining assets.

“Throughout the parties’ separation, Mr. Biden has created financial concerns for the family by spending extravagantly on his own interests (including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations) while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills,” wrote Rebekah Sullivan, a lawyer for Kathleen.
Sullivan also described the couple’s outstanding debts as “shocking and overwhelming,” with maxed-out credit cards, double mortgages on two homes, and tax debt of more than $313,000.
In Wednesday’s filing, attorneys asked that Kathleen’s motion seeking to halt the dissipation of assets be held in abeyance while the litigation is stayed.
They also asked that a scheduled March 30 hearing in the case be canceled.

Court records indicate that Kathleen Biden asked her husband to leave the couple’s Washington, D.C., home on July 5, 2015, prompted by his actions on the night of July Fourth. The filing doesn’t offer details. The couple agreed to separate three months later because of what Kathleen Biden describes as irreconcilable differences, including drug use and infidelity.
Kathleen Biden filed for divorce in December, seeking sole custody of the couple’s 16-year-old daughter, the youngest of their three children.
According to media reports, Hunter Biden, 47, is dating Hallie Biden, 43, the widow of his older brother, former Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in May 2015.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Obama gets BAD NEWS from Jeff Sessions (wow!)

Donald Trump's attorney general has announced he's considering something HUGE for Barack Obama pals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. See what Sessions said that has Obama SHAKING in fear. Hint: Yes, it could mean JAIL! 

Jeff Sessions has big plans for these Obama pals
After eight years of scandal and lawlessness, it looks like the beginning of the end may finally be coming for former President Barack Obama’s cronies.
Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the conservative talk show host that a special prosecutor may be appropriate — and soon be needed — to investigate Obama-loyalists Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
Sessions was asked about the IRS targeting scandal, the “Fast and Furious” case, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email servers, and other Obama-era scandals that were swept under the rug by the former administration, and Hewitt suggested some kind of outside counsel could be appropriate because they’d have the “authority to bring charges if underlying crimes were uncovered.”
Sessions seemed open to the idea, promising he was “going to do everything I possibly can to restore the independence and professionalism of the Department of Justice.”

“So we would have to consider whether or not some outside special counsel is needed,” Sessions said. “Generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made.”
There remains lingering anger among American voters, who have expressed outrage over the Obama administration’s decision to not file charges in either the Clinton email investigation nor the probe into how the IRS processed requests for tax-exempt applications.

Sessions went on to say the outcome of the IRS case remained “of real concern” after the entity was accused of unfairly targeting conservative groups.
During the campaign, President Donald Trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton, though he has since failed to follow up on the promise.
— The Horn editorial team

Was FBI Director James Comey Blackmailed by Hillary Clinton regarding the Alleged Wiretapping of Donald Trump?
by: MIchael DePinto 

The Deep State and their puppets in the media are going all out to discredit President Trump’s wiretapping allegations. It’s easy to see why; Obamagate could potentially be the largest political scandal in all our history, and this is only scratching the surface. No matter how hard they try to spin it, however, they can’t erase their own public statements from the record – statements that indicate they knew about the wiretapping months ago!
In the following video, Right Wing News examines the latest evidence linking Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Obama’s Department of Injustice, and Loretta Lynch to the now infamous “Obamagate” wiretapping of Trump Tower.

Right Wing News looks at evidence that Hillary Clinton was tipped off about the wiretap from her husband, Bill Clinton, who himself was likely the catalyst of the first wiretapping request after an informal meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It is quite poetic that most of the evidence comes from their very own mouths; perhaps they thought that if it torpedoed Trump’s chances at the presidency, it wouldn’t come back to haunt them? Well, it looks like it has, and as the saying goes “What a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.” reports:
Some day a thriller of a book will be written about Donald Trump’s election, and the widespread efforts to undermine and delegitimize his presidency. To paraphrase the ancient (Chinese?)curse, we are certainly living in “interesting times.”
It’s safe to say not a single one of you reading this has ever seen anything like this in your lifetime — and we’re all on this ride together. The problem is, it doesn’t look like we can get off either. 

Many were disappointed a few months ago when FBI Director James Comey held a press conference to reveal what he’d learned about Hillary Clinton’s private email server and her handling of classified information. As he laid out the various transgressions Clinton had committed, it seemed a slam dunk that he would conclude she should be prosecuted. But then…after all that, he folded.
Now as smoking gun after smoking gun appears regarding the possibility of illegal wire taps and surveillance on members of the Trump team and even the president himself, a new theory is emerging as to why Comey caved.  

Per the Gateway Pundit:
Blackmail is one of the most effective tools to control people in power, especially politicians. Is this why Comey didn’t recommend charges for Hillary Clinton on the email investigation? If Hillary was aware of the FBI wiretapping, she could use that as blackmail against Comey. 
Yesterday, TGP reported that FBI Director Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s wiretapping claim. Did he order the wiretap?
Don’t forget, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in June of 2016 right around the same time as the first FISA request. Did Bill Clinton mention the wiretapping plan to his lovely wife? Were they all in cahoots?
The Gateway Pundit speculates, If Hillary Clinton had knowledge of Comey’s involvement in the wiretapping, perhaps he let her off the hook to save himself from Clinton blackmail tactics.
We are not only living in interesting times, but very dangerous ones as well. Looks like a tinfoil hat is not going to be protection enough from what we have yet to learn.  

Gateway Pundit Reports:
FBI Director Comey came under heavy fire after he announced that he was re-opening Hillary Clinton’s email investigation just days before the Presidential election. Senate Minority leader, Harry Reid sent him a blistering open letter, accusing the FBI of withholding ‘explosive information’ linking Trump and his advisors to the Russian government.
In Harry Reid’s open letter to Comey he accused Comey of possessing explosive information. He even stated that he’s been asking Comey to release the information to the public…
“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community,it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” he said. “I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public…and yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.”

Harry Reid sent this letter to Comey a day before Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet about the wiretap.
The Gateway Pundit also reports:
Hillary Was Tipped Off On Trump Wiretap – Tweeted About it One Week Prior to Election
TGP reported earlier that the first FISA request came right after AG Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in June of 2016.
The second FISA request was submitted in October of 2016 just before the election. Hillary Clinton sent out a tweet on October 31st stating that ‘computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based server’.
It appears she was tipped off to the wiretapping prior to the election.
Here is Hillary Clinton’s tweet from October 31st… Computer scientists?… Connect the dots, folks. This was a well coordinated attack on a Presidential candidate. AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton just before the first FISA request. 

After they were successful with the second FISA request in October, it appears Bill Clinton passed on the information to his wife to help her win the election. This scandal is about to blow wide open; it’s not going away any time soon. Stay tuned…

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the entire Deep State was aware that Trump was under surveillance. The Deep State was desperately trying to stop Trump and failed at every turn.

(Extraction of Comey letter taken from CBS News)
In the following video, former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook was a guest on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday discussing what the campaign knew and didn't know concerning President Donald Trump's allegations of wiretapping by the Obama administration.
Trump and his Cabinet have denied any contacts with Russia during the campaign, but Mook said the facts in this case paint a different picture.
"Trump aides were caught talking to Russian agents, and those conversations were captured because the intelligence community regularly taps the phone lines of those Russian agents," Mook said.   

In the following video (from the post titled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions Breaks Silence on Russian Issue), prior to blatantly lying about Attorney General Sessions, Senator Coons talks in circles referring to “transcripts that exist” that prove the collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. 
QUESTION: How can there be transcripts “Senator,” if there was no bugging or wiretapping? Which is it? Do tell…  

Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand.

No! The Supreme Court is NOT the Final Arbiter of what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional

Justice Scalia KIA by Obama Admin!

by:Matthew Trewhella
A false belief that almost all Americans hold to in our day is the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or unconstitutional. The adherents of this belief – and there is a sea of lawyers in this country who have a vested interest in furthering this odious fiction – actually have the hubris to point to the Constitution itself and say that the Constitution declares the judiciary to be the final arbiter.
They proffer Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – the ‘supremacy clause’ – for their notion of judicial supremacy. But when you read Article 6, paragraph 2, you realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned, nor are federal courts of any kind mentioned. Article 6, paragraph 2 – known as the supremacy clause actually gives supremacy to the Constitution! 

Wholly opposite of this view of ‘judicial supremacy’ was the view held by America’s founders. They viewed the judiciary as being the weakest branch of the government.
In a letter penned in 1823, Thomas Jefferson stated: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous.”
Alexander Hamilton who was the most favorable to the judiciary – wanting to allay the fears that other of the founders had of the judiciary – stated: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in the capacity to annoy or injure them.”
James Madison – known as the architect of the Constitution – stated: The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” He said, In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”  The legislature does not bow down to the judiciary – rather it predominates.

The judiciary is not the strongest – it does not write laws – it is not the final arbiter. Rather, as the founders stated – they are supposed to be the most helpless, the most harmless, the weakest, and the least dangerous to the Constitution. All that has been turned on its head. Now all other branches bow down to the judiciary – as though they can do no other than obey. America has replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy.

We now have social transformation without representation.
Jefferson warned of this 200 years ago. He wrote in a letter in 1820 to an early judicial supremacist:“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” He went on to write: “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” 

And that is what the Supreme Court is in our day – despots.
And they are not the final arbiters – as Jefferson states, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
Jefferson stated in another letter in 1821 – a year later: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
And the judiciary has been doing exactly that for 200 years now. Rewriting the Constitution – giving themselves powers never granted them in the Constitution. Usurping all other government jurisdictions.
Men will forbear and so we should – but there comes a point where forbearance becomes sin. There comes a point where forbearance becomes cowardice. There comes a point when men realize they no longer have the convenience of acting indifferent towards the unjust and immoral actions of their government. And I submit to you that the lawlessness of the judiciary should not be forborne.

I submit to you that the murder of the preborn should not be forborne. The perverting of marriage, the rewriting of the First Amendment, and a host of other evils by the federal judiciary should not be forborne.
Senator Oliver Ellsworth, the primary drafter of Article 3 of the Constitution which delineates the function of the judiciary, promised the people of his state before the Constitution was ratified that the judiciary was “not to intermeddle with your internal policy.”
Now every governor in America bows down and bends over to the judiciary. They accommodate murder – they accommodate perversion of marriage – they’ll accommodate boys in the girl’s shower rooms too.
Alexander Hamilton – the founding father with the biggest love affair with the judiciary while trying to calm concerns of other founders stated that the judiciary “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
In other words, Hamilton expected the executive branch to check the judiciary if they made immoral/unjust or constitutionally-repugnant rulings. But now, the judiciary not only has the compliance of the President (not to mention Congress), but they also have the compliance of every governor in America. None interpose.

Their duty is not to accommodate or bow down – but to interpose.
The judiciary is the tyrant. They are lawless. We are under the despotism of an oligarchy. And this lawless authoritarianism of the federal courts must be broken – it will only be broken by the interposition of the lesser magistrates.
No where does the Constitution bind us to a suicide pact with SCOTUS.
As legal historian Alpheus Thomas Mason wrote not too long ago: “Implicit in the system of government the Framers designed is the basic premise that unchecked power in any hands whatsoever is intolerable.” The Supreme Court must be checked – and it must be checked by the state magistrates. Congress is not going to do it – Congress is a weakling. The state magistrates need to do their God-given duty and check the lawlessness of the judiciary.
Article posted with permission from Matt Trewhella

Montana Man Fined $85,000 by FDA for Making Natural Products that Harmed No One


oped: Indeed see:
See more FDA Files:

by:Tim Brown
A Livingston, Montana man has been faced with fines of $85,000 by the Food and Drug Administration for developing and selling topical bloodroot and graviola products, even though no one was injured in the process of either the manufacture or sale of the products.
Toby McAdam, owner of Risingsun Health, whose website is, manufactured black salves, oils and capsules as a treatment for diseases, including skin cancer.  In 2010, the US Justice Department brought a case against him and his company on behalf of the FDA.

McAdam did claim that some of his products did treat breast cancer, asthma and epilepsy, according to the FDA.  Understand there is a significant difference in claiming to "treat" a disease, and claiming a product "cures."
Understand, as I've pointed out before, that our Constitution does not allow the central government to be involved in approving drugs or food.  Second, there was no crime committed here because there is no victim.  The central government is acting as both victim and prosecutor, which is a serious conflict of interest, something that Ammon Bundy attempted to demonstrate during the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon in 2016.

The Montana Pioneer reports on what took place:
The case was resolved when McAdam signed a consent decree on Nov. 4, 2010, that barred him from manufacturing and selling unapproved new drugs and products with unsubstantiated medical claims. The consent decree also required McAdam to hire an independent expert to review the claims made for future products and to certify that all claims violating FDA regulations have been omitted. McAdam further agreed to provide for monetary damages if he continued to violate the court order.
Although manufacturers of dietary supplements and topical therapies are not required to obtain FDA approval, products with unsubstantiated medical claims are considered new drugs and therefore require considerable proof of safety and effectiveness prior to sale and distribution. The FDA contends that the “new drugs” sold by Risingsun Health are unsafe and ineffective in treating the diseases they claim to treat.

“The FDA is committed to ensuring that consumers do not become victims of false cures,” said Deborah M. Autor, director of the Office of Compliance in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in an Oct. 13, 2010, press release.

“I’ve done everything the FDA wanted me to do in the consent decree,” said McAdam in an interview with the Montana Pioneer, “including obtaining an outside expert to review the labels.” He said he sent the new labels to the FDA for review, but that he never heard from them.
McAdam said he was forced to sign the consent decree and disagrees with portions of it, particularly a section that indicates the FDA would issue approval for his products if he provided accurate labels that did not make unsubstantiated medical claims. “They are supposed to put it in writing,” said McAdam.

But, according to the FDA, McAdam has never been in compliance with the court order, nor does the FDA issue approval for dietary supplements. The FDA states that McAdam failed to cease operations per the orders of the consent decree despite several warnings and that they never received any certification by an outside labeling expert. Furthermore, the FDA found McAdam in violation of several new claims and statements made on his website

McAdam claims that the black salve significantly reduced tumors on his mother who had lung cancer, reduced a tumor on his dog to a quarter of the original size and that his products were used by a doctor in treating actress Suzanne Somers when she had cancer.
Mr. McAdam claims that the FDA began targeting him in 2006because of the 2004 conviction of Greg Caton, who owned Alpha Omega Labs, which manufactured products, including black salves, that actually injured people, leaving them severely burned.
“And now,” says McAdam, “the FDA wants to ban all black salve sales, “but,” he says, “my products are a different formula and only cause tingling of the skin” rather than the severe burns Caton’s products caused.
McAdam requested to be compensated $8,000 per month since Nov. 5, 2010, for lost revenues and to be reimbursed for his expenses in hiring an outside labeling expert for $3,600, according to the FDA.
He said he would not pay the fine, and had hoped to expand his company to employ 2-300 people and boost the local economy.  Sadly, that did not take place.

In March 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the 2013 ruling that McAdam was guilty of civil contempt by selling his products online via Amazon and Facebook, issuing nearly $85,000 in damages and attorney's fees.

In July 2015, the DOJ stated it was pursuing criminal contempt sanctions against him for "selling dietary supplements and drugs in violation of two court orders."  Think of the irony of that!  An Attorney General, who was himself in contempt of Congress, was pursuing a man for making a natural product that had harmed no one and was claiming criminal contempt.  Eric Holder would resign his position just two months later.
In December 2015, McAdam plead guilty to one count of criminal contempt of court, sentenced to four months in prison, ordered to pay $80,000 in liquidated damages and $4,936.48 in attorney's fees.
What damages?  Who was harmed by his product?
All of this sounds strangely family to that of Samuel Girod, the Amish farmer who is now facing 68 years in prison for producing a natural product that harmed no one.
As for the FDA's hypocritial claim that they made claims about helping others without proof that the FDA claims is valid, remember, this is the same FDA that approved this $7,800-a-month alleged lung cancer drug, which caused rashes and rarely worked.
The FDA has a history of approving drugs that have no only not worked, but made people sick, even kill tens of thousands of people every single year.  That's according to the FDA's own website

fda approved drug deaths

Where is the criminal prosecution against every member of the FDA?  Where is the complete elimination of the unconstitutional agency?  I hear crickets!  Yet, men who have actually harmed no one are imprisoned and fined beyond comprehension.  This is a travesty and outrage.
McAdam's site seems to be in standby mode for the time being.  Mr. McAdams was contacted by email to be interviewed for this article, but as of the time of this writing, I have received no response.
For more on the corruption and hypocrisy of the FDA regarding this matter, I recommend taking a look at the following:
For all your essential oil needs, click here.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Private Detective Claims Trump has Evidence of Paper Trail to Obama Wiretap

by:MIchael DePinto

What happens when Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, two of the most corrupt politicians in modern history, join forces with the goal of their unholy alliance being their party’s retention of the most powerful office on earth? You get the potential for what was once “unthinkable,” to become “ordinary.” Nowhere is that more evident, than the “TrumpGate” scandal currently unfolding.
Now, according to Douglas J. Hagmann, President Trump now has evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation. Douglas J. Hagmann has been a licensed investigator in the private sector for the last 30 years. He’s also an author, has four websites, and a talk radio show host.

As a private detective, Hagmann has worked well over 5,000 cases and is recognized as a surveillance specialist. He has also worked as an informational and operational asset for various federal and state law enforcement agencies.  So, if law enforcement can trust his investigative ability, you might want to do the same before putting your faith in the mainstream media's investigative ability.
In the following video, Right Wing News reviews what is known about the Hagmann bombshell, and how it relates to a bizarre scenario that was predicted back in the mid-1990s by President Clinton’s Department of Injustice, and then recently explained in an article written by National Review's Andrew McCarthy. Right Wing News also points out how everything Hagmann and McCarthy suggest, fits the known timeline of “TrumpGate” like a glove.
Do good things really come to those who wait? 

Canada Free Press Reports:

There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office. 

The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media. 

At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.
The first warrant application was made in June 2016, according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.
When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump. 

It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in the article below…
Andrew McCarthy writes: 

The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.

Remember the great debate over “the Wall” following the 9/11 attacks? “The Wall” was a set of internal guidelines that had been issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house. Those of us who were critics of the Wall — and I was a strenuous one, beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor who personally experienced its suicidal applications — made several arguments against it.
My favorite argument, which I have repeated countless times, centered on how preposterous were the underlying assumptions of the Wall. This was far easier for prosecutors than journalists, academics, and the public to grasp, because we dealt with the Justice Department’s different chains of command for criminal and national-security investigations.

Alas, after 20 years, I may have to revise my thinking.
The theory of the Clinton DOJ brass in imposing the Wall was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.)
The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge. FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the process, which is taken over by Main Justice’s National Security Division and the FBI’s national-security agents. In other words, if we assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA wiretap. No rational rogue would do it. 

But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post— that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton — consternation echoed by Senate Democrats during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for attorney-general nominee Jeff Sessions.
From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes.Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.
According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that theTrump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”

Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power.
The Heat Street report continues:
The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.
(A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA, which — to repeat — allows such investigative tactics if there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power.)

Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security investigation.
In June, an initial FISA affidavit (obviously prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division) was submitted to the FISA court. It is said to have “named Trump” — but we don’t know whether that means (a) his name merely came up somewhere in the text of the affidavit or (b) he was an actual target whom the government wanted to investigate under FISA (meaning eavesdrop, read e-mail, and the like).
Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), the FISA court rejected the application that “named Trump.” 

Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second, more “narrowly” drawn affidavit to the FISA court. The way the Heat Street report is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak: Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server “possibly related” to the Trump campaign and its “alleged links” to two Russian banks.
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably, based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Article posted with permission from The Last Great Stand

Judge's Doublespeak: It's Unconstitutional, but Lawful, for President to Order Wiretap without Warrant

The Daily Show" (1996) {Andrew Napolitano (#17.12)} TV Season
oped: *eyeroll* I'm seriously thinking Judge Nap has been taking mini-vacations in Colorado...a lil on the Puff the Magic Dragon logic here...being that the US Constitution/Bill of Rights is the law of the land for the United States of America...sorry Judge Nap ya be a nice guy and all, however this was one oxymoron of a statement!

by:Tim Brown 
I'm not really surprised by what was said by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox and Friends on Tuesday.  He claims that a president can order a wiretap, like the one Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah is being accused of doing to Donald Trump and his advisers prior to the election in 2016.  He claims it is unconstitutional, but lawful because Congress said it was.
In commenting on the allegations against Obama by Trump, Judge Napolitano said, "The president of the United States on his own may conduct surveillance or order surveillance of any person in the United States upon the filing of a certification with the attorney general."

"So, the idea that it was illegal for Barack Obama to listen to the phone calls and in person conversations of Donald Trump is wrong, in my view," he added.  "It was immoral and profoundly unconstitutional and utterly wrong, but it's lawful because Congress has said it is lawful."

"This is power that was given to every president from Jimmy Carter up to and including Donald Trump," he concluded.
Now look, I like Judge Napolitano for a lot of things he has taken a stand on, but this is just doublespeak.  How can this action be "lawful" and at the same time "immoral and profoundly unconstitutional and utterly wrong"?  Because Congress said so?  Pffft!  You must be joking!
This is like saying that the Nazis were "lawful" because they made laws to enforce severe gun control and the punishment for having a weapon found on you in the street was immediate execution!  It's the same thing!

Judge Napolitano knows it's unconstitutional and says so.  Therefore, since the Constitution states clearly in Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
And what are Congress and the president violating?  The Fourth Amendment, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No, Judge Napolitano.  It is neither constitutional nor lawful for the president to engage in this behavior nor for Congress to write legislation that violates the Constitution.  It is criminal, period!
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) is unconstitutional.  Congress is not allowed to write law that undermines the Constitution.  They must have a constitutional amendment for that.
Sadly, too many people have elevated the central government to the status of God and believe just because words are put on a piece of paper they are law.  They are failing to realize they are creating a beast and bowing down and serving that beast.  Any pretended law that does not comport with the law of God is to be utterly rejected and so are those "laws" Congress comes up with by usurping their constitutional authority that undermine the restraints the people place on them in the Constitution.

FISA was continued under Obama.  I previously reported on January 1, 2013:
Congress had only up until the end of 2012 to either reauthorize FISA and the FAA, or let the bill expire. Despite a large grassroots campaign from privacy advocates and civil liberties organization to ensure the acts would fade from history, though, the Senate approved a five-year extension of the legislation on Friday. Just two days later, Pres. Obama signed his name to the act, opening up the inboxes and phone records of US citizens to the federal government until at least 2018.
FISA, like Obamacare, should be repealed or at minimum, ignored as being lawful since it is at odds with the law. 


Clinton BUSTED with illegal info!?

While former President Barack Obama vehemently denies any allegations of wiretapping President Donald Trump’s phone, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager Robby Mook may have just admitted he did.
In an interview Tuesday on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Mook admitted that the Clinton campaign had been informed by intelligence officials of wiretaps involving then nominee Donald Trump.
“There was a wiretap of Russian agents,” Mook said. “Those agents were communicating with Trump staff. That is why they were picked up.”

But why was the Clinton campaign informed about it?
When asked how he had that information, Mook replied, “That’s what the intelligence community has told us.”
This is a major slip-up, because if it’s true it means big trouble for both Clinton and Obama.
If the Obama administration was leaking wiretapped information to a political campaign, that is a serious felony offense.
And, if proven, it could mean jail time — all because of Mook’s accidental confession.
You can see former Clinton campaign manager’s mistake below:

— The Horn News editorial team

Revealed! Secret gov’t slush fund could send Obama to jail

During the Obama administration, justice was the last thing the Justice Department was interested in.
Instead, the DOJ cut a special deal to take money away from people screwed over by big banks and screw them over again — giving taxpayer money to left-wing radicals who supported the Obama administration’s policies on welfare and illegal immigration.
And if critics have their way, it could land Obama in jail.

The Obama Justice Department sued several huge banksters and corporations for conspiring to hurt the little guy. For instance, in 2016 JPMorgan, CitiGroup, Bank of America, and other major international banks agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars after the government said they worked together to set interest rates for maximum profit — and maximum pain to borrowers.
But investigations have revealed that the federal government gave them a sweetheart deal: They could either pay the full amount to their actual victims, or they could pay half as much money to left-wing organizations who are cozy with the Obama administration.
Want to make half your judgment go away? Just take some money away from your victims and give some money to the president’s friends instead.

Republicans say that’s not only unjust; it’s illegal.
Under federal law, settlements from federal lawsuits are supposed to help victims, who are defined as those “directly and proximately harmed” by the alleged crime. Anything beyond that is supposed to go to the U.S. Treasury, and Congress decides how to spend that money.
Instead, the Obama administration sued their enemies and used the settlements as a slush fund to pay off their far-left allies — and pay them off big league.
More than a million dollars went to National Council of La Raza, the racist Hispanic group that believes in amnesty and Open Borders. The group — whose name means “the race” — lobbies politicians to give welfare, drivers licenses, and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

Another million went to the National Urban League, a liberal group that supports Obama’s big spending welfare agenda.
“Somebody ought to go to jail for this,” Gov. Mike Huckabee told Fox News. “They’ve stolen from the government and given it to their pals.”
Just the Bank of America settlement alone gave $412 million to legal groups that sue to get, or keep, poor people on welfare. That’s more than Congress voted to give those groups through the Legal Services Corporation.

An ongoing House Judiciary and Financial Services Committees investigation has found that, over the last two years, the DOJ gave $3 billion to “non-victim entities” – including at least a billion dollars to its left-wing friends.
Obama not only used the DOJ to hurt his enemies and fund his friends, but the money broke down the Constitution’s system of checks-and-balances.
“In some cases, these mandatory donation provisions reinstated funding Congress specifically cut,” said Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte.
In other words, former President Obama used this money like a king. So when Republicans in Congress refused to fund his green agenda for a zero-emission electric car — which consumers haven’t wanted — Obama forced Volkswagen to spend $2 billion of its settlement on the program instead.

Obama always got his way, right to the very end. That’s dangerous for democracy. And not just Republicans think so.
A former deputy Assistant Attorney in the Clinton administration said eight years ago that federal settlements can “circumvent the appropriations authority of Congress.” That is, it’s a way for the president — any president — to steal the authority of Congress and act like an unelected dictator.

Now, Congress is hoping President Donald Trump will do something to stop this Obama-era miscarriage of justice. The “Stop Settlement Slush Fund Act of 2017,” introduced by Goodlatte and Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, would put an end to third-party, non-victim payments.
The bill passed the House last year and has been reintroduced this year.
Ending this illegal slush fund is one more chance for President Trump to drain the swamp created by his predecessor.
We hope he’ll take it.
— The Horn editorial team

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop

Y'all are probably scratching your head wondering what the hell is this all about..."Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop"  
Well hell all this election corruption/investigations/lying and a crying starts to wear on one...ya start thinking should I take a break from Internet/Twitter and hit the cable channels ?... search out the "Walking Dead" and "ZNation" so I can get some relief watching the Progressive "Walking Dead" get their just reward...or hit the SYFY channel hoping for some funny SharkNado stuff to take my mind off of all the chaos going on! 

Well I was sitting on the edge of my bed on my zebra pattern bed cover looking up at my fake palm tree of which my grandaughter gave me for a Christmas present so I could relax before sleep takes over... imagining I am on a desolate beach! 

Then it hit me Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop" a old song from my High School always cheered me up when things were getting chaotic! So I hit youtube found the old song, played it, and it cheered me I am sharing with y'all to cheer ya up also..... 😊 


Press coverage of Trump ...Not Fair, Not Balanced

President Trump has a long history of negative press coverage, and it continues after he won the 2016 election a new study finds.  (Associated Press)

Press coverage of Trump in first month of office: 88 percent ‘hostile,’ says new study

There was no press honeymoon for President Trump during his first month in office. A meticulous new study by the Media Research Center finds that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of Mr. Trump and his team was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office.
The coverage was intense and plentiful. The study, which analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS, found that the “Big Three” networks produced 16 hours of coverage on the new president and his staff. That is over half — 54 percent — of their total coverage for the month.

“Our measure of media tone excludes soundbites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” write Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog, and fellow analyst Mike Ciandella.
“In their coverage of Trump’s first month, the networks crowded their stories with quotes from citizens angry about many of his policies, while providing relatively little airtime to Trump supporters.” the pair noted. “And the networks’ anchors and reporters often injected their own anti-Trump editorial tone into the coverage. ‘It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality,’ CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley snidely began his February 6 broadcast.

“A new American president is always a big story, but TV news is obsessed with the Trump administration — and not in a good way,” they observed.
The study found that Mr. Trump’s call for a temporary ban on travel from seven specific Middle Eastern nations drew the most negative coverage — over three hours. Other favorite showcases for negative coverage of Mr. Trump included the border war between the U.S. and Mexico, battle over his cabinet confirmation picks and the president’s “complicated relationship” with Russia.

“Further highlighting the hostile tone of these newscasts, nearly an hour of coverage (56 minutes) was given over to anti-Trump protests on various topics, with nearly one-fifth (82 out of 442) of the Trump stories or briefs aired during these 30 days including at least some discussion of an anti-Trump protest,” the study reported.
Mr. Trump may be accustomed to the treatment by now, however. A previous Media Research Center report found that 91 percent of the broadcast coverage about his campaign was also negative — deemed “twelve weeks of Trump bashing” by Mr. Noyes and his team.


UH OH: Obama's Wiretap Story Falling Apart At the Seems

After Donald Trump’s bombshell tweet this weekend, accusing the Obama Administration of bugging Trump Tower, former Obama officials have been quick to downplay the story. But now, their story seems to be unraveling.

So far, three Obama Administration have refused to outright deny that Trump was wiretapped—instead answering allegations with ultra-specific, legally-sanitized language.

Kevin Lewis, Obama’s spokesman, released a statement over the weekend saying that "neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.” But he refused to confirm or deny whether the Department of Justice—which reports to the President, and would be responsible for conducting wiretaps—did.

Similarly, Obama’s former press secretary, Josh Earnest, refused to deny that Trump was wiretapped.

In an interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, Earnest repeated Lewis’s statement: that the White House had not ordered a wiretap on Trump, “categorically” denying that "the White House was at all involved in directing or interfering or influencing an FBI investigation of any sort.”

But Raddatz continued to push, telling Earnest: “That’s not what I’m asking. What I’m asking is, can you deny that the Obama Justice Department did not seek and obtain a FISA court-ordered wiretap of the Trump campaign?”

Apparently unwilling to lie on national TV, Earnest was backed into a corner—admitting to Raddatz: "Here’s the simple answer to that question, is, Martha, I don’t know."

The Obama Administration’s deflection and half-truths didn’t go unnoticed. Even Obama’s former speechwriter, Jon Favreau, pointed out to the media on Twitter: "I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the [White House] ordered it.”

Jim Hanson, a national security expert on Fox News, said the evidence that wiretapping did occur was overwhelming—due to the Obama Administration’s legal maneuvering before the election.

“[The Obama Administration] asked for that warrant [to bug Trump Tower] and were denied, went back again [and] got the warrant, found out nothing was happening and went ahead and continued monitoring it,” he said.
"They did get a FISA warrant, so [Trump] doesn’t have to prove that they wiretapped him. They did wiretap him.” 

Source: American Action News

Obama has Trump MELTDOWN

Former President Barack Obama reportedly threw a temper tantrum in reaction to President Donald Trump’s tweets accusing him of wire tapping the phones in Trump Tower during the presidential election.

A former Obama aide told the Wall Street Journal that he was “furious” and “livid” about the accusations made by Trump, as they questioned his true character and the integrity of his presidency.
On Saturday, Trump went on a tweet storm, tweeting:
Apparently, Obama couldn’t handle it.

Even CNN — which Trump has labeled as the “Clinton News Network” — reported on his meltdown, calling him, “irked and exasperated.”
Devin Nunes, an executive committee member of Trump’s transition team, said whether the Obama administration had secret warrants to listen to Trump or his associates during the campaign would have been part of his committee’s investigation regardless. He said the first public hearing of its investigation would be held March 20. And the initial invite list includes the directors of the FBI and National Security Agency as well as former top Obama administration intelligence officials and two cyber security experts.
The committee has the power to subpoena officials to testify, but Nunes did not indicate that the committee had plans to do so and said he hoped they would come freely.

The House intelligence committee is one of three congressional committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The Senate intelligence committee is conducting a separate investigation, and most of its hearings are expected to be closed to the public to discuss classified information. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing related to its investigation on Tuesday.
Hopefully Obama can make it through all of the accusations to come throughout the investigation without totally losing his cool.
The Horn News and The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Melania Trump DESTROYS liberals on Women’s Day

First Lady Melania Trump just destroyed liberal women protesters with a simple act — she hosted a luncheon. 

It was the guest list of 50 women that sent a devastating message that slammed the media narrative.
Because at this luncheon, a celebration of International Women’s Day and Melania’s first solo White House event as first lady, was a collection of the most powerful, successful (and conservative) women in America.
50 self-made, successful women from across the country gathered in the White House to commemorate women’s rights — and there wasn’t a liberal among them.
At the White House, the first lady welcomed the women seated at tables adorned with floral centerpieces of pharaoh tulips and sweet pea flowers in shades of purple.
Attendees included Ivanka Trump; Vice President Mike Pence’s wife, Karen; White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway; Education Secretary Betsy DeVos; Dina Powell, a top White House advisor whose portfolio includes women’s issues; and Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon.

Ivanka tweeted the following ahead of the luncheon —

The Associated Press contributed to this article

Nancy Pelosi says Trump’s Decision to Defend Himself is “Authoritarian”!

oped: There she goes again... trying to transfer the actions of the looney left onto Donald Trump...I am totally convinced now that Nancy Pelosi as well as the entire district of the electorate that keeps sending her to DC are in fact escapees from the Insane Asylum...this is a prime example of the inmates running the Asylum! 
Yes indeed pathological liars one and all...they actually believe their own lies!

by:Onan Coca
Nancy Pelosi appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper on Sunday to spin her yarns and tell her tales about President Donald Trump.
She called the President the “deflector in chief” before choosing to deflect herself when Tapper began asking her about her sit-downs with the Russian ambassador. She also deigned to imply that President Trump was acting as an authoritarian when he chose to defend himself from the liberals’ scurrilous attacks that he was somehow an agent of the Russian government. Apparently, in Nancy Pelosi’s world, whenever liberals attack your character, say you’re unfit for office, or imply that you may be a criminal usurper… you should just sit quietly and take it.
You can read/hear her commentary below:  

"Well, the president, you know, is the deflector in chief, anything to change the subject from where the heat is.
And, as one who has been engaged in intelligence, a member of the Gang of Eight, for a long time, I can tell that it’s just ridiculous for the president, President Trump, to say that President Obama would ever order any wiretap of an American citizen, any president.
That’s just not — we don’t do that. And, so, this is — it’s called a wrap-up smear. You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge. 
It’s a tool of an authoritarian, to just have you always be talking about what you want them to be talking about. Rather than Russia, we’re talking about, did President Obama do thus and so? 

He certainly did not. And then to take it to the Congress and say, now you investigate this, when he’s been in — not in favor of Congress investigating anything, including what does the — what do the Russians have on Donald Trump politically, financially or personally, that — that’s the truth we want to know.   "

You can see the entire interview here:

Article reposted with permission from

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

President Donald Trump (left) has every reason to believe that Bill & Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (right) conspired to illegally spy on him.

President Donald Trump’s allegations that the Obama administration initiated an illegal wiretapping of Trump Tower is true, and now, there’s clear evidence that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who ordered Barack Obama to do it. The damning events started when Bill met with Loretta Lynch on that tarmac in Phoenix during the 2016 campaign, and you’ll be shocked at the hardcore evidence we’ve uncovered.
The pieces are starting to fit together in the Trump Tower wiretapping case, and it all started when Bill Clinton made that visit with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. It was highly suspicious that Bill just happened to be on the tarmac at the same time as the then-Attorney General when Hillary’s whole campaign was on the line over her email scandal.
But, there’s another tidbit of information that fits with that timeline: The Obama administration’s application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) to wiretap Trump Tower.

On June 27th of 2016, Bill Clinton met secretly with Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. A week later, FBI Director James Comey laid out in a press conference the many scandalous activities taken by Hillary Clinton while she was Obama’s Secretary of State, but then, he said the infamous words: “Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Now, we know that this also happened at the same time Loretta Lynch applied to the FISA Court to secretly wiretap Trump, right after she met with Bill Clinton. As Tea reports, “We now know that the meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch occurred at about the same time that the Obama administration [Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch] filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers.” 

But, that’s not all. That initial June 2016 application by AG Lynch was turned down by the court for probable cause. Not to be deterred from doing their illegal spying on Trump, who was a private citizen, Obama and his henchmen re-grouped and rewrote the application to make sure they came up with a bogus but passable reason to wiretap Trump Tower.
That reason was a bank in Trump Tower that was doing business with a Russian bank, and that application was granted the go-ahead for wiretapping in October 2016. It should be noted here that absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoings was going on with those banks; it was just a ruse to get the wiretap.
So, here’s the kicker: in October of 2016, Hillary Clinton, with full knowledge that Trump was being illegally wiretapped, tweeted a cryptic message in her desperate attempt to win the presidency. On October 31st, 2016, Hillary tweeted, “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” 

How did Hillary know about a FISA Court action that is highly classified? This is just the tip of the iceberg. Who are these “computer scientists”? We all know there were no random computer scientists running around hacking into covert servers. So, now, only one question remains: How much damning evidence do we need to lock these criminals up?
The web of deceit just keeps growing. We know the only reason they had for spying on Trump was to win the election. In June, when the first attempt was made to get the FISA Court to order the wiretap, Trump had just secured the GOP nomination, thus Hillary knew who her final opponent would be. In June, when Bill met with Loretta Lynch, there’s little doubt that he told her to tell Obama to get that FISA Court order since the power of running the free world was at stake.
Sure, this is called circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone of murder and also get the death penalty. Unless we get some whistleblower, willing to risk their life to go on the record, we Americans are left with knowing full well this happened, but will we get justice? Exposing this in an investigation, as Trump has called for, is what we need to demand, so spread this information to as many patriots as you know.