Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘richard nixon’

Trump Campaign Spy’s Past Exposed: Worked to Flip Past Pres. Election Too as CIA Spook


disclaimerReported By Benjamin Arie | May 20, 2018 at 2:35pm

URL pf the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/anti-trump-campaign-spy-exposed/

The political scandal of the decade is brewing in Washington, D.C., and it may leave President Donald Trump in a very different position than his enemies wish: Not destroyed, but largely vindicated.

Details have finally started to emerge about an establishment-led effort to plant a “mole” within the Trump campaign, and evidence is beginning to mount that its goal was to undermine and derail his run for office.

The facts are suggesting something chillingly sinister: A government operative directed by the Obama-run FBI purposely infiltrated the campaign of a candidate with the training and background needed to destabilize elections.like i said

In a detailed piece published by The Intercept, investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized the scandal and gave a blow-by-blow account of how its beginning to unravel.

“Over the past several weeks, House Republicans have been claiming that the FBI, during the 2016 election, used an operative to spy on the Trump campaign, and they triggered outrage within the FBI by trying to learn his identity,” he explained.

“The controversy escalated when President Trump joined the fray on Friday morning. ‘Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,’ Trump tweeted.’”

Amazingly, FBI and Department of Justice sources did not deny this claim. It’s worth remembering that while the media and DOJ insiders were laughing and dismissing Trump’s accusations a year ago — especially regarding wiretapping and the Steele dossier — he has been proven right on almost every point.

Nobody is laughing now. Instead, they’re scrambling to cover their tracks. 

“On May 8, the Washington Post described the informant as ‘a top-secret intelligence source’ and cited DOJ officials as arguing that disclosure of his name ‘could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI,’” Greenwald reported.

That was almost certainly a last-ditch effort to protect the mole and save face. Then came the threats.

“The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner … actually threatened his own colleagues in Congress with criminal prosecution if they tried to obtain the identity of the informant,” Greenwald reported.

Journalists, including Greenwald and veteran gumshoes at several major media outlets, didn’t stop. After a few rounds of newspaper one-upmanship, the mole’s name has been revealed.

“As a result of some very odd choices by the nation’s largest media outlets, everyone knows the name of the FBI’s informant: Stefan Halper,” Greenwald wrote.

RELATED: Devastating 2016 Strzok Text Found: Obama’s WH is Running Trump Investigation

Here’s the truly important and shocking part: Halper is no run-of-the-mill FBI operative. He has a history of being involved in shady CIA operations to infiltrate and derail U.S. elections.

“To begin with, it’s obviously notable that the person the FBI used to monitor the Trump campaign is the same person who worked as a CIA operative running that 1980 Presidential election spying campaign,” Greenwale wrote.

Yes, it was Halper, a former Nixon insider and the same man at the center of the anti-Trump scandal today.

Nearly 40 years ago, a largely buried scandal was playing out in Washington. In involved some famous Republicans, including old names that even today are firmly in the “Never Trump” camp.

“Halper was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign — using CIA officials managed by Halper, reportedly under the direction of former CIA Director and then-Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush — got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration,” the Intercept explained.

In other words, there may be a structure within the foreign policy and intelligence communities that goes back to at least the time when George H.W. Bush ran the CIA.

That behind-the-scenes power structure — “Deep State,” to borrow the term — was on the side of Hillary Clinton and believed that Trump needed to be stopped at any cost.

One look at the now-public text messages from FBI officials in the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 election definitely seems to support this. And it’s worth pointing out that the now 93-year-old George H.W. Bush admitted to supporting Hillary Clinton.

By any measure, the Bush dynasty has not been friendly to Trump.

Whatever else is true, the CIA operative and FBI informant used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election,” explained Greenwald.

“For that reason, it’s easy to understand why many people in Washington were so desperate to conceal his identity, but that desperation had nothing to do with the lofty and noble concerns for national security they claimed were motivating them,” he added.

Watergate x 10

Deep operatives. Election interference. Moles and spies deployed against a candidate by our own government agencies. It’s a chilling picture, but one that all of the evidence so far supports. There’s a power struggle of shadows within the swamp in Washington, and it is at odds with the American people and their sovereign voice.

like i saidplease likeand share and leave a comment

Trump Poised to Use Trick Reagan Loved to Gut Parts of Omnibus Bill


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 11, 2018 at 10:59am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/trump-trick-gut-parts-omnibus-bill/

When Congress recently passed — without having read — a $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that was more than 2,200 pages, fiscal conservatives were outraged by the gluttonous and wasteful spending it contained. President Donald Trump, who reluctantly signed the bill despite an initial threat to veto, expressed a similar sentiment when he made clear he would never sign another bloated spending bill like that again. And now it looks like he may be taking steps to undo some of that terrible bill.

Perhaps feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse or simply heat from their base, Trump and congressional Republican leaders recently held talks to find a way to trim some of the fat from the omnibus bill, according to Politico. The most likely way to do that would be through a process known as rescission, and Trump’s White House is reportedly working closely with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to put a package together that could cut billions of dollars from the recently passed spending bill, if approved by a simple majority in Congress.

In analysis for The Washington Times, Trump campaign economic adviser Steven Moore and Trump transition tax policy adviser James Carter explained some of the history and process behind the rescission budgetary maneuver, a rarely-used anti-spending tool that last saw favor under President Ronald Reagan.

Up until former President Richard Nixon, presidents had the power to “impound” and refuse to spend federal funds for projects they viewed as wasteful or unnecessary, something Nixon reportedly did with roughly 20 percent of the funds appropriated by Congress each year of his presidency until 1974.

That is when Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which blocked a president’s sole authority to impound funds and offered up the congressionally-approved rescission tool to stop funding for wasteful programs in its place. The process works by a president submitting a rescission proposal to the House of Representatives, which must then be approved by simple majorities in both chambers of Congress within 45 days. If the proposal is ignored or fails to achieve majorities, the spending remains unchanged.

Reagan proposed some 596 rescissions totaling $43 billion during his two terms, though Congress only approved 213 of those rescissions totaling only $16 billion in saved funds. Unfortunately, only about $6 billion in rescission proposals have been approved since Reagan left office, the last of which occurred in 1999.

It is worth noting that the Democrats’ chief obstructionist to Trump, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, can do little to stop a rescission proposal from receiving a vote as debate on such measures are limited to only 10 hours and can’t be filibustered. However, given the slim majority held by Republicans in the Senate and the tendency of the more moderate establishment members to break away from their party and join the opposition to Trump, nothing is guaranteed.

That said, while some Republicans may not want to risk the wrath of the liberal media by revisiting and cutting some of the bloated budget deal, such a vote would really make the handful of Democrats running for reelection in red states — who are trying to convince voters they’re actually fiscal conservatives — particularly nervous, as where they come down on the issue would certainly be a hot topic during the campaign season.

Hopefully, Trump and his team of budget and economic advisers, working in conjunction with Congressional Republicans, can find a way to make use of the rescission tool to get rid of at least some of the wasteful spending that was stuffed into the omnibus bill to garner bipartisan support. If so, and if it is to be a worthwhile effort, they will need to do more than merely tinker around the edges with modest proposals and actually put forward some significant cuts. It would then be interesting to see how various members of Congress either accede to the cuts or defend the wasteful projects they have agreed to appropriate taxpayer funds.

One Nation Tries To Tackle Its Welfare Problem


waving flagMarch 18, 2016By

Every developed nation on Earth, at least so called Western Nations, has something in common and that something is what to do about the poor. Countries wrestle with the social and economic impact – we/they struggle with the ever-increasing cost of caring for our/their poor. Those on the left insist it is our duty as a grand collective to redistribute the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Those on the right agree that some care should be provided to the working poor, the homeless and truly indigent. This debate has been raging for multiple decades with no end in sight – the left advocating for ever more entitlements and the right insisting on some accountability.

Instead of just endlessly debating the issue the Island nation of New Zealand years ago decided to try something new. In 2013 they overhauled their welfare system to make those who receive payments somewhat more accountable. Some of the changes included discouraging families on welfare from having more children, requiring recipients to reapply for benefits at set intervals, cutting benefits if certain obligations are not met and guiding recipients into work. They also instituted a penalty for abusers of the system where a spouse must repay any benefit his or her spouse received under false pretenses. Try that in America.

Although the system has helped, the government of New Zealand is still not satisfied. So, it’s on to something new and even more radical. They call it a “Universal Basic Income” (UBI) and it “involves a basic, unconditional, fixed payment made to every person in the country by the state in lieu of benefits.”

In other words, instead of poor citizens receiving a rash of benefits from various authorities, they would instead receive, in effect, a welfare salary. They would scrap the entire welfare system and replace it with this UBI.

New Zealand’s opposition leader, Andrew Little justified the “salary” saying: “The question is whether you have an income support system that means every time you stop work you have to go through the palaver of stand-down periods, more bureaucracy, more form filling at the same time as you’re trying to get into your next job.”

rtr1eq5mBeing that welfare is basically here to stay, this actually doesn’t sound half bad. I’m not keen on the idea of paying someone a salary not to work, but is that not what we are essentially doing now? Yet with a system like this, think of all the government bureaucracy that could be cut. Think of all the hundreds of departments that could be closed by simply making direct payments to recipients, not to mention the waste, fraud and abuse that would vanish by doing away with layer upon layer of said bureaucracy.

Many might say, wow – considering our sad reality, this does sound better. Why has no one suggested this before? Actually, both Finland and the Netherlands are due to launch similar programs sometime this year.

But this has been suggested before, right here in the good old U.S. of A., 47 years ago, by President Richard Nixon. In 1969, Nixon made a speech suggesting the scrapping and replacement of the “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” (AFDC – 1935-1996).

Nixon said his proposal would benefit “the working poor, as well as the nonworking; to families with dependent children headed by a father, as well as those headed by a mother. What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.”

It was coined it as a “Guaranteed Annual Income,” (GAI) and it was the centerpiece of Nixon’s proposed “Family Assistance Plan” (FAP). Yet Nixon bristled over the term GAI and stated that “a guaranteed income establishes a right [income] without any responsibilities [work] …There is no reason why one person should be taxed so another can choose to live idly.” Conservatives in his party disagreed by stating that is exactly what Nixon’s proposal set up. The proposal did pass the House by a comfortable margin of 243-155, but the Senate killed it.

Of course the welfare system then wasn’t anything like the hammock we have today, so all things considered, maybe the New Zealand direct payment model would be preferable to our hopelessly broken, purposely complex and corrupt system.

Die Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Know this guy?


waving flagYou’ve probably seen this one before

He is someone you definitely should know about, if not remember well. Read on to learn why.

!cid_welKhi5PigYuJgaT7Qb9

 

 

 

 

 

 

He is Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937. Then you’ll probably say, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” 

  • Well, he is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. 
  • He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon. 
  • He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.
  • He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined  for many years. 

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him. In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

 In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraudEd Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams. 

  • He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.
  • After serving less than five years in federal prison, he was released in   April 2008 and remains on federal probation. 

To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky. !cid_p9XkharxkXOLD4tLcMqd

That’s right; Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.

Now Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion). Has anyone heard mention of any of this in any of the media?

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in- law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.

And yet say there are no double standards in political reporting. And people are already talking about Hillary as our next President! And then there is possibly Chelsea for president in our future! 

The cycle never ends! Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular. Clinton Democrat Party

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

~ Thomas Jefferson ~

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

~ Abraham Lincoln ~

PS:  SNOPES SAYS THE ABOVE IS “TRUE”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp

freedom combo 2

When Blacks Riot, Whites Go Conservative


 

waving flagPosted On27 May 2015, By :

Picture2A new study conducted by a Princeton professor shows that when blacks riot, conservatives vote. Omar Wasow looked at the destructive black rioting of the 1960s and how it affected public policy. Critics are examining the study – “Nonviolence, Violence and Voting: Effects of the 1960s Black Protests on White Attitude and Voting Behavior” – to see what lessons it might hold for the Black Lives Matter movement today.

Wasow found that Richard Nixon was carried into the White House in 1968 by a “social backlash” that followed the urban rioting of the civil rights era. By analyzing the votes county by county, he discovered that “black protests in which some violence occurs are associated with a statistically significant decline in Democratic vote-share.” By contrast, Wasow says, black-led protests where there was no violence had the opposite effect on subsequent voting patterns. Whites were more willing to vote for liberal candidates when they had not recently been exposed to racial rioting. He goes as far as to conclude that, in the absence of violent protests, Hubert Humprhey would have likely defeated Nixon.

In writing about the study, the Washington Post said, “There are obviously many, many differences between the 1960s protests and those in 2014-2015 … To pick just one, the 1960s protests were larger and more numerous.”

Indeed. The other main difference is that the civil rights movement of the 1960s was actually based around legitimate issues. The current movement is based around complete fiction. One can surmise that in this atmosphere, even nonviolent protests may encourage people to vote more conservatively in the next election. Considering the Black Lives Matter movement has inspired plenty of violence, the backlash may be even more significant once the next election rolls around. If so, it might spell doom for Hillary Clinton.core belief

Journalists will doubtlessly make hay from the racial component of the study, condemning whites for judging all blacks by the actions of a few. But there are plenty of reasons for conservative blowback following these riots and protests, and none of them have a thing to do with race. Americans crave law and order when they sense their communities are out of control. At a time when Democrats are pushing hard to slash black incarceration rates, riots like the ones seen in Ferguson and Baltimore are the worst things that could possibly happen. Violence aside, it’s easy to see how liberal Democrat policies have led us to the inner city problems we see today. When New York City was under Giuliani’s rule, things got clean. When the city went back to the Democrats, the crime returned. Under de Blasio, there’s no telling how dangerous the city will eventually become.cause of death

If Democrats suffer in 2016, they might want to consider how this backwards approach to crime and race contributed to their defeat.freedom combo 2

TIME Magazine’s Tyrants of the Year


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/time-magazines-tyrants-year/#X1CxXLRH2GVRqd7q.99

Reported by

It has been in every age that it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter, who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both, to deceive and overawe the People.”

– Unknown (See also 2 Corinthians 11:14)

Evil men have been, since day one, attempting to deceive the masses into believing that they are good and upright, when the fruit they produce through their works are nothing short of evil and destructive. I want you to see that this method of deceiving the people is still alive and well among those who have not learned from the past – and Time magazine is just the propaganda resource to prove my point.

Time has labeled the following people “Man of the Year”:

  • Adolf Hitler was declared Time’s Man of the Year in 1938. Hitler was a fascist dictator whose dangerous political power-grab cost the lives of over 50 million people during World War II, 405,399 of whom were American soldiers and 11 million of whom were exterminated through the Holocaust.
  • Josef Stalin was declared Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942. Stalin was the cruel tyrant of the Soviet Union who was responsible for killing 20 million of his own citizens. President Franklin Roosevelt referred to Stalin as kind “Uncle Joe” back in the 1930s.
  • Nikita Khrushchev was declared Man of the Year in 1957. Nikita Khrushchev was a Russian Communist who seized power as dictator over the Soviet Union when Stalin died in 1953. He liked to threaten and bully his opposition, and his leadership of the Communist Bloc in the Cold War was so dangerous he had to be removed by his subordinates. Khrushchev said: “We do not have to destroy America with missiles; America will destroy itself from within.”
  • Richard Nixon was declared Time’s Man of the Year in 1971. We all know Nixon was due to be impeached because of his abuse of power and obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal.
  • Ayatollah Khomeini was declared Man of the Year in 1979. The Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini was a Shiite Muslim who became the dictator of Iran in 1979. The ayatollah came to power as part of Jimmy Carter’s “human rights” policy. Using the youth, he headed a mass campaign of torture, rape and execution against political opponents as well as their families, close friends and anyone who was accused of insufficient Islamic behavior. President Reagan criticized Khomeini as “a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions.”
  • Mikhail Gorbachev was declared Man of the Year in 1987 and 1989. Gorbachev was an active member of the Communist Party during his college years and eventually became the head of the Soviet Union until its dissolution in 1991. He is a self-proclaimed atheist and a globalist.

Now we come to Barack Hussein Obama, declared Person of the Year by Time in 2008 and 2012. (Time changed the title from Man of the Year to Person of the Year in 1999.) Obama has been the most destructive president in American history. He is known as the most biblically hostile president. He has incessantly attacked the foundations of America. He has attempted to tear down the Constitution and recreate it in his own image. He has been labeled America’s first sodomite president, is a shameless supporter of the murder of children in the womb (even attempting to force private institutions to fund it, Proverbs 6:16-19) and has abused his power in an attempt to strip American citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Obama without question is following in pursuit of the dictators honored by Time magazine.

And he (Jesus) said unto them, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15)

Video: Barack Obama’s master: Saul Alinsky

tyrant

 Video: Study the Past

truman Listen to Bradlee Dean on the radio six days a week here! (Sons Of Liberty Radio

About Bradlee Dean

Bradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses in churches, and headlines for patriot events across the country. Bradlee Dean’s ministry is You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International.
ConfusedPI 20
Article collective closing

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: