OBAMA'S MEDDLING IN AMERICA'S ELECTION SHOULD BE THE REAL TARGET!

OBAMA'S MEDDLING IN AMERICA'S ELECTION SHOULD BE THE REAL TARGET!

You can scream and yell about what you believe, and what you believe the connection between Trump and the Russians might be, but when the truth hits you square in the face I would think it would be time to reevaluate your position, and reformat your bloviating based solely on the facts leading to that truth!

We just made it through 8 years of an attempted robbery of our Constitutional Republic way of life, and now, without our knowledge, being subjected to a continued version of the same by our elected Officials who decided to hijack, because of outside globalism interests, the once law abiding and respected Democratic Party of old. This new ‘Socialist Party’ a.k.a. Democratic Party, cheer for the continuation of a unconstitutional healthcare law that only hurts America’s law abiding taxpayers who are loyal to the rule of law and Constitution, but rewards the majority of noncontributing and illegal immigrants that don’t pay taxes, but live off Obama’s free stuff, while intentionally stifling the economy! Obama eased the work requirements to receive those entitlements’ which by the way is one of the eight Alinsky rules outlined in the transformation of America to Socialism, and by so, raising the National Debt, raising the poverty level, raising the number of people on Welfare, and getting one step closer to undermine our Constitutional Republic! 

I saw the following on the news over the last day or so, but now after flipping around the news networks I see nothing but the continuation of the Russian Influence Committee countdown to the hearings! My Question would be why, after reading and seeing the following information, would they continue with what they already know is a farce? If you look at this closely you will see the accusation of Russia influencing the election was known way before Trump was even elected President! There is no truth in the Trump administration involvement in the Russian meddling, and it seems as if the hidden intel retrieved by the Obama agencies before Trump took office was held as a backup plan in advance! Trump won the election, and now these intel Obamaites are trying to piece together and leaking facts, while laying out a false narrative to come up with a ‘Fake’ generated scenario, that fits a specific charge using interpretation, intent, and innuendos to cast a shadow over the Trump Administration! The real crime here is that it was the Obama Administration, and Obama's 17 Intel agencies, who were actually the ones who allowed this hacking by the Russians to interfere with the election, and warned way in advance of the 2016 Presidential election!

As I watch the opening statement of the committee on the Intel hearing on the Russian election meddling, I see that the juxtapositioning and time frame just happens to coincide with the Trump inauguration is just to convenient, and obviously targeted specifically at Trump and the will of the American people, and that’s my 6^th sense opinion.

My question to these elected hack ideologues would be, “Where is the investigation into the Meddling of America’s Constitutional Republic by Obama,” and his attempt to transform our Constitutional Republic to Socialism by bypassing the rule of law and our constitution, and using outside interests, like George Soros, supplying masked protestors, rioters, and anarchists, and bribing our Media to back their Alinsky and Cloward and Piven agenda to destroy America from within, and disrupt our political process and election, right here at home on America soil? 

Obama, Brennan, Clapper, already knew about the Russian meddling way before outsider nonpolitician Trump threw his hat in the ring, but used the opportunity and information, like J. Edgar Hoover did back in the 50’s, to undermine Trumps Presidency! The nation’s largest law enforcement agency rivals the NSA in resources, technology, intelligence, and power. Yet while the NSA has repeatedly come under fire for its domestic spying programs, the FBI has continued to operate its subversive and clearly unconstitutional programs with little significant oversight or push-back from the public, Congress or the courts. Just recently, for example, a secret court gave the agency the green light to quietly change its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans’ international communications.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BLOCKED COMEY FROM REVEALING “RUSSIAN TAMPERING” BEFORE ELECTION!

The narrative of the "Russian hacking" of the US elections has been thrown for a loop following a report the Obama administration blocked FBI Director James Comey’s attempts to go public as early as the summer of 2016 with information on Russia’s alleged campaign to influence the U.S. presidential election, Newsweek reports citing two unidentified sources with knowledge of the matter. 

According to Newsweek, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about a Russian "interference" campaign during a meeting in the White House’s situation room in June or July 2016, well before the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, the same day as Wikileaks started released the hacked Podesta emails, and the same day that the Trump's "grab her by the pussy" recording emerged.

“He had a draft of it or an outline. He held up a piece of paper in a meeting and said, ‘I want to go forward, what do people think of this?’” said a Newsweek source with knowledge of the meeting, which included Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of Homeland Security’s director and the national security adviser.

However, the other national security leaders didn’t like the idea, and White House officials thought the announcement should be a coordinated message backed by multiple agencies. “An op-ed doesn’t have the same stature, it comes from one person.”

Newsweek notes that the op-ed would not have mentioned whether the FBI was investigating Donald Trump’s campaign workers or others close to him for links to the Russians’ interference in the election, perhaps because such an investigation did not start until later.

Comey would likely have tried to publish the op-ed in The New York Times, and it would have included much of the same information as the bombshell declassified intelligence report released January 6, which said Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to influence the presidential election, the source said.

What to make of this latest revelation: according to Newsweek, "for supporters of Hillary Clinton, news of the op-ed adds to the frustration over Comey’s public disclosure of details about the investigation into her emails, including at a July press conference, but not about the probe involving Russia and Trump, which began that same month."

Of course, it remains unclear how and if the election outcome would have changed had Comey published the report: recent reports have suggested that despite allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, nothing has been found. In other words, the best that Comey could reveal is that someone may have been trying to hack the DNC, and eventually, John Podesta. And yet, those hacks did nothing to change the actual voting process, they merely shed light on the illicit dealings within the Clinton campaign and the infighting within the DNC, which - as we now know - colluded both internally, with the press and with the Clinton campaign to prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the Democratic presidential candidate.

In any event, the ball will now be in the Democrats' court, with fingers pointing right at the White House. That would be the Obama White House, for those who have lost track of the timeline.

"This raises a lot of questions,” says Jarad Geldner, a senior adviser for the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which filed a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility over Comey’s disclosures about the Clinton investigation. “That raises the question of why Comey or [the Department of Justice] or the White House felt that it was OK to hold that [July] press conference on Hillary Clinton’s emails but not to go public with this.”

Worse, as Newsweek adds, it was a sluggish White House that denied Comey and delayed the announcement. “The White House shut it down,” that source says. “They did their usual—nothing.”

Of course, the biggest question raised is why did Obama block Comey in the first place. Or rather, make that rhetorical question.

While we doubt that Obama will suffer the Democrats' wrath as a result of this latest story, it will be sure to keep the "Russian hacking" narrative topical for at least a few more days, before yet another "Russia story" emerges, and then another, and so on, until hopefully one day the bipartisan Senate probe into alleged Russian meddling "gets to the bottom of this." ~~by Tyler Durden, a Friend of America!

FORMER OBAMA DEPUTY ASST. SEC DEF EVELYN FARKAS OUTS OBAMA'S ROLE IN THE RUSSIAN MEDDLING!

Former Obama Deputy Asst. Sec Def Evelyn Farkas made some stunning admissions during an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski back on Mar 3. While they were discussing the mad scramble by the Obama administration to collect and preserve intelligence on alleged Russian election-hacking before Obama left office, it appears that Evelyn Farkas accidentally implicated the Obama White House in the surveillance of Trump’s campaign staff, saying:

Click here to hear it>   STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH! 

The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.

Farkas effectively corroborated a NYT article from the same day which cited “former Pindo boxtops” as its anonymous source regarding efforts to leak this surveillance on the Trump team to Demagogs across Faschingstein DC. She says:

"I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. By then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew they were also trying to get information to the Hill. That’s why you have the leaking."

In other words, the Obama administration was concerned about spoliation of evidence gathered through various “sources and methods” of surveillance, so a plan was hatched to leak this information to congress, aka “the Hill.” On a related note, Evelyn Farkas is also a senior fellow at the vehemently anti-Russia Atlantic Council, along with Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch. The Atlantic Council is funded by the State Dept., NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukrainian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.

Click here>   WHAT'S WHAT AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE 'WORDS THAT MATTER'

Agenda journalist and the 'Paid to Report' Media is still producing facts that hurt Americans, but seem not to care when they come up with 'Fake news' that claims entire Supreme Court bench opposes Neil Gorsuch's nomination!

A recent fake news story claimed each of the eight current Supreme Court justices signed a letter addressed to President Trump shaming his pick of Neil Gorsuch to the bench.

The claim from the Bipartisan Report -- which Snopes describes as "unreliable" -- came after the Supreme Court dissented in majority rule against a previously held court decision in which Gorsuch was involved.

An excerpt from the Bipartisan Report's article read as follows:

"In a move, no one saw coming, all eight Supreme Court Justices have turned their backs on Trump, rejecting his nominee to fill Antonin Scalia's empty seat. Until now, it was believed that Obama's pick, Merrick Garland, didn't stand a chance as Republicans held out on voting for the Justice until Obama was out of office."

This claim was disproved by Snopes, who states "The eight sitting SCOTUS justices didn't 'turn their backs on Trump,' they didn't 'reject his nominee,' they didn't 'agree that President Trump is completely wrong in choosing Neil Gorsuch,' nor did they write a 'letter' to that effect."

In reality, the Supreme Court ruled against a 2008 decision in the case Endrew F. vs. Douglas County School District. In the decision, Gorsuch ruled that a bare minimum standard of education was sufficient in order to meet Congress' mandate that U.S. students be given a "free appropriate public education."

Progressives could care less about anything or anyone,  and that's including their own constituency, and only care about their agenda of overthrowing our Republic! they are only concerned with how the end result justifies the means, and no matter what they'll lie, cheat, and use deception to make what they believe in is the only 'right' thing to believe in, and will do whatever it takes to get across the finish line! Why do all of these Progressive believe that it’s the government that is responsible for the expense to the taxpayer for illegal immigrants when it comes to room and board healthcare, education and spending money? Why aren’t the taxpayers, who live in these sanctuary cities, get a chance to vote before their Progressive leaders declare their community a Sanctuary City? Why doesn’t Federal Law apply to these progressive leaders in these communities, and why shouldn’t they receive the 5 years in prison for every illegal immigrant they harbor, like it would be for one their constituents? Why should the law abiding pro-constitutional citizens of these Sanctuary Cities have the Federal funds withheld because of their elected officials don’t believe in following the law, and as a result, possibly lose funds that could affect the safety and wellbeing of the citizenry of those same Sanctuary Cities? I have to believe that with all of the above in play, and if the people had a chance to vote, these self-imposed Sanctuary City status declared by Progressive leadership would be rejected!

PROGRESSIVE COMPASSION IS NOT ON AMERICA’S SIDE!

I debated a liberal commentator who complained that the problem with President Donald Trump's budget blueprint is that it lacks "compassion" for the poor, for children and for the disabled. This woman went on to ask me how I could defend a budget that would cut Meals on Wheels, after-school programs and special-education funding, because without the federal dollars, these vital services would go away.

This ideology -- that the government action is a sign of compassion -- is upside-down and contrary to the Christian notion of charity.

We all, as individuals, can and should act compassionately and charitably. We can volunteer our time, energy and dollars to help the underprivileged. We can feed the hungry, house the homeless. Most of us feel a moral and ethical responsibility to do so -- to "do unto others."

And we do fulfill that obligation more than the citizens of almost any other nation. International statistics show that Americans are the most charitable people in the world and the most likely to engage in volunteerism. Whenever there is an international crisis -- an earthquake, a flood, a war -- Americans provide more assistance than the people of any other nation.

But government, by its nature, is not compassionate. It can't be. It is nothing other than a force. Government can only spend a dollar to help someone when it forcibly takes a dollar from someone else. At its core, government welfare is predicated on a false compassion. This isn't to say that government should never take collective action to help people. But these actions are based on compulsion, not compassion.

If every so-called "patriotic millionaire" would simply donate half of their wealth to serving others we could solve so many of the social problems in this country without a penny of new debt or taxes. My friend Arthur Brooks, the president of American Enterprise Institute, has noted in his fabulous book "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" that conservatives donate more than the self-proclaimed compassionate liberals.

The liberal creed seems to be: "We care so much about poor people, climate change, income inequality and protecting the environment (or whatever the cause of the day) that there is no limit to how much money should be taken out of other people's wallets to solve these problems."

Let's take Meals on Wheels. Is this a valuable program to get a nutritious lunch or dinner to infirmed senior citizens? Of course, yes. Do we need the government to fund it? Of course, not, I have participated in Meals on Wheels and other such programs, making sandwiches or delivering hot lunches. And many tens of thousands of others donate their time and money every day for this worthy cause.

Why is there any need for government here? The program works fine on its own. Turning this sort of charitable task over to government only makes people act less charitably on their own. It leads to an "I gave at the office" mentality, which leads to less generosity. It also subjects these programs to federal rules and regulations that could cripple the programs. Why must the federal government be funding after-school programs -- or any school programs, for that matter?

One of my favorite stories of American history dates back to the 19th century when Col. Davy Crockett, who fought at the Alamo, served in Congress. In a famous incident, Congress wanted to appropriate $100,000 to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Crockett took to the House floor and delivered his famous speech, relevant as ever: "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. ... I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Crockett was the only member of Congress who donated personally to the widow, while the members of Congress who pretended to be so caring and compassionate closed their wallets.

It all goes to show that liberal do-gooders were as hypocritical then as they are today. ~~ By Stephen Moore, a Friend of America!

 Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!