OBAMA'S FAKE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION FORM

PROOF POSITIVE that Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of 2008

Check this out.....as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. 

A retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it see below.
 

But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.

See this exposed by DebbieSchlussel.com


The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.
But the Selective Service System registration (“SSS Form 1”) and accompanying computer print-out (“SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:
* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008
First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.
Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80” instead of the current “08”. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.
And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:

When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.
Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.

The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08” in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!
* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form
On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B“. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80” or “90”. The retired federal agent investigated further:

Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80” or a “90”.

But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)–meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980”.
Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.
The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C“. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.
* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1’s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D“. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E“. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)
* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970
Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E“–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.
Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?
* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID
The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F“. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.
The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:

Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Sincerely,
Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?
On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page
Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?
And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled “G“], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled “H“]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.
Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled “I“].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?
A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).
Which is it?
It’s incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.
The documents indicate it’s one or the other. *** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:

My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A“) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8” was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.

**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.
His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.
He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.
He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.

UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):


You might also like

How to remove a Activist Federal Judge!

 (y) How To Remove a Federal Judge (y)

Donald J. Trump should get his team to look at this...



Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution's grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom. Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual. Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure. Anything that might be held--land, licenses, employment, etc.--could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals. Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions. In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior. Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law. Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either. To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly. Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment. More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did not render impeachment the only possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure. Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts, Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law.

READ MORE HERE.. EXCELLENT ARTICLE!! WRITTEN BY YALE SCHOLARS!!

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-to-remove-a-federal-judge

The Judges’ obligation is to obey the Constitution

Precedent or The Constitution - which is higher?SO STOP THE KANGAROO COURTS FILLED WITH KANGAROO JUDGES PERVERTING THE CONSTITUTION!

 

 

The Judges’ obligation is to obey the Constitution – not other federal judges. Precedent is FINE when it’s correct. But when it’s incorrect, it should be overturned.

 

Now let me see if I can briefly explain Precedent. It is a very valuable tool for lawyers and their clients. Say you come to me with a civil dispute and you are thinking of asking me to file a lawsuit for you. And you ask me, “do I have a good case?” Well, the only way I can advise you on whether you have a good case is by seeing how courts have ruled in other cases similar to yours. So I am able to predict pretty well how they are likely to rule in your case. This is REALLY important to you because you don’t want to file a lawsuit unless we are pretty sure you will win. So in most of the civil disputes people have (torts, negligence cases, breach of contract, defamation, construction defects, etc.) the lawyers LIVE & DIE BY PRECEDENT.

 

The same goes for criminal cases. If you are being prosecuted for possession of this or that, my FIRST inquiry is, “was the search legal”? So I read the cases – the precedent – to see how the Courts have ruled in search & seizure cases like yours. This is extremely valuable information for us – and it guides us in deciding whether your best bet is to fight it or whether I should seek a good deal (with the prosecution) for you.

 

Now – you will note that I have been talking about litigation (civil or criminal) which affects individual people in their personal lives.

 

What about “constitutional issues”? 

 

The Supreme Court has perverted Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Those opinions where they used Section 1 to overturn state statutes criminalizing abortion and sodomy – and legalizing homosexual “marriage” – are absurd & silly and are usurpations of powers not delegated to the federal courts. Any Judge who honors his Oath [which is to obey the Constitution, not other judges] would see that the decisions in those cases need to be overturned. These are issues reserved by the States or The People. THEY are the ones who decide how their State will handle these issues.

 

So the correct answer is: I will honor my Oath to obey the Constitution. When the precedent is right, I will follow it. But when there is a conflict between precedent and the Constitution, I will decide in favor of the Constitution.

SO STOP THE KANGAROO COURTS FILLED WITH KANGAROO JUDGES PERVERTING THE CONSTITUTION!

GOD'S HAND IN AMERICA: THE AMAZING MIRACLE OF DONALD TRUMP AND SQUANTO!

IS THIS A CONCIDENCE?
Once you read these two stories you will at least wonder if God touches America in time of need.

❤️❤️❤️❤️💫

So was it a Coincidences or Providence..
YOU TELL ME!
 
Please take the time to read this
Read and then Share!

Ya'll know the story of how the Pilgrims arrived at our shores on the Mayflower—and how a friendly Patuxet native named Squanto showed them how to plant corn, using fish as fertilizer—is well-known. His story is astonishing, even raising profound questions about God’s role in American history.

Every Thanksgiving we remember that, to escape religious persecution, the Pilgrims sailed to the New World, landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620. But numerous trading ships had visited the area earlier. Around 1608 an English ship dropped anchor off the coast of what is today Plymouth, Mass., ostensibly to trade metal goods for the natives’ beads and pelts. The friendly Patuxets received the crew but soon discovered their dark intentions. A number of the braves were brutally captured, taken to Spain and sold into slavery.

One of them, a young man named Tisquantum, or Squanto, was bought by a group of Catholic friars, who evidently treated him well and freed him, even allowing him to dream of somehow returning to the New World, an almost unimaginable thought at the time. Around 1612, Squanto made his way to London, where he stayed with a man named John Slany and learned his ways and language. In 1618, a ship was found, and in return for serving as an interpreter, Squanto would be given one-way passage back to the New World.
After spending a winter in Newfoundland, the ship made its way down the coast of Maine and Cape Cod, where Squanto at last reached his own shore. After 10 years, Squanto returned to the village where he had been born. But when he arrived, to his unfathomable disappointment, there was no one to greet him. What had happened?

It seems that since he had been away, nearly every member of the Patuxets had perished from disease, perhaps smallpox, brought by European ships. Had Squanto not been kidnapped, he would almost surely have died. But perhaps he didn’t feel lucky to have been spared. Surely, he must have wondered how his extraordinary efforts could amount to this. At first he wandered to another Wampanoag tribe, but they weren’t his people. He was a man without a family or tribe, and eventually lived alone in the woods.

But his story didn’t end there. In the bleak November of 1620, the Mayflower passengers, unable to navigate south to the warmer land of Virginia, decided to settle at Plymouth, the very spot where Squanto had grown up. They had come in search of religious freedom, hoping to found a colony based on Christian principles.
Their journey was very difficult, and their celebrated landing on the frigid shores of Plymouth proved even more so. Forced to sleep in miserably wet and cold conditions, many of them fell gravely ill. Half of them died during that terrible winter. One can imagine how they must have wept and wondered how the God they trusted and followed could lead them to this agonizing pass. They seriously considered returning to Europe.

But one day during that spring of 1621, a Wampanoag walked out of the woods to greet them. Somehow he spoke perfect English. In fact, he had lived in London more recently than they had. And if that weren’t strange enough, he had grown up on the exact land where they had settled.

Because of this, he knew everything about how to survive there; not only how to plant corn and squash, but how to find fish and lobsters and eels and much else. The lone Patuxet survivor had nowhere to go, so the Pilgrims adopted him as one of their own and he lived with them on the land of his childhood.

No one disputes that Squanto’s advent among the Pilgrims changed everything, making it possible for them to stay and thrive. Squanto even helped broker a peace with the local tribes, one that lasted 50 years, a staggering accomplishment considering the troubles settlers would face later.

So the question is: Can all of this have been sheer happenstance, as most versions of the story would have us believe? The Pilgrims hardly thought so. To them, Squanto was a living answer to their tearful prayers, an outrageous miracle of God. Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford declared in his journal that Squanto “became a special instrument sent of God” who didn’t leave them “till he died.”

Indeed, when Squanto died from a mysterious disease in 1622, Bradford wrote that he wanted “the Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishmen’s God in heaven.” And Squanto bequeathed his possessions to the Pilgrims “as remembrances of his love.”


These are historical facts. 


NOW Take another Miracle that happened in 2016:
For over 20 years America had been spiraling downward into a cesspool of Corruption and Evil and was on the verge of being taken over by a Socialist Oligarchy hell bent on FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA! 

The forces of Evil had been steadily stealing the Country. The Courts, The schools, the Media, the Entertainment Industry, the Political power. All of it had been usurped. Hussein Obama had started the Fundamental transformation of America. He was to pass the baton on to Hillary Clinton. They used every tool at their disposal to ensure the outcome. the Courts, The Media, The Money the Trojan horses the FBI, The IRS THE DOJ and others.
She was assured a win, The DOJ, The FBI, THE IRS, DHS all had been corrupted to assure that Hillary had a clear path to Victory.
That would be the End of the Republic. She would choose 2 -3 Supreme Court Justices who would rip up the Constitution and America as the Founders had made it would all but vanish.
The Promise of a New Country encapsulated in the story of Squanto being on the shore to make sure the Pilgrims on the Mayflower would survive, would have been dashed. AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT WOULD HAVE ENDED!

But the Almighty works miracles when we so need them.
He delivered to us a Brave, Bold, Brash, imperfect Man in DONALD TRUMP who believed in the PROMISE of America and what it stood for and AGAINST ALL ODDS, WON THE PRESIDENCY and re-pointed America in the right direction again. He was loud and proud and kept his promises and is working to RESTORE AMERICA.

WAS THIS IS THE SECOND MIRACLE PATRIOTS?
LET US THANK GOD AND RAISE OUR BATTLE FLAG AND JOIN THE FIGHT AND LET US NOT LET A MIRACLE GO TO WASTE.

Your thoughts? Agree then share and let your neighbors know that GOD is on our side!

MAKE SURE YOU VOTE IN THE MID TERMS OF 2018 AND SAVE THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS...

GOD HAS WORKED THUS FAR ON OUR BEHALF...  IT IS UP TO YOU TO DO THE REST.. AND BRING IT HOME AND SAVE AMERICA

Robert Mueller & James Comey Colluded to Defraud the Treasury!

‘Contracts Flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’ at Lockheed Martin
Seamus Bruner, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) researcher and author of Compromised: How Money and Politics Drive FBI Corruption, explains how former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller leveraged their government contacts to enrich themselves.

 They created a cozy  “revolving door” of “cronyism” within the federal government’s national security and intelligence apparatuses, focusing on the monetization of security clearances held by former administration officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper.

Bruner noted the growth of Comey’s net worth between 2003 and 2009, after Comey left the Department of Justice to join Lockheed Martin as senior vice president and lead counsel.

“It doesn’t really make much sense why [Lockheed Martin] would pay [James Comey] upwards of six million dollars in a single year,” assessed Bruner. “But one reason — aside from his security clearance — is that his buddy Robert Mueller is running the FBI. They begin passing 100-million-dollar-plus contracts to Lockheed Martin.”

“One of these contracts was actually worth a billion dollars, and it was protested formally by the other bidder: IBM. … The contracts flowed from Robert Mueller’s FBI to James Comey’s private sector employer, Lockheed Martin, and James Comey made many millions over a short period of time.”

Bruner described Comey as “one of the prime examples of this kind of cashing in on government contacts.”

“We followed the money and realized that James Comey made well over ten million dollars from when he left the public sector in 2005 and by the time he returned to serve as FBI director [in 2009],” said Bruner. “He even made over six million dollars in a single year at the top government contracting corporation, Lockheed Martin; they get over $50 billion a year in government contracts.”

Bruner affirmed CNN’s Paris Dennard’s analysis of security clearance commodification among ex-government officials.

Bruner said, “[Paris Dennard] was absolutely right, and everybody knows that top-level intelligence folks leave the public sector and go cash in on their knowledge, experience, [and] security clearances. That’s one of the main reasons Brennan is crying so loudly–because he can’t work at a lot of these contractors without a security clearance.”

Schweizer also explained the value of security clearances held by former government officials: “In the exchange [between Paris Dennard and Phil Mudd], Mr. Mudd is being wholly disingenuous–because what he essentially said was, ‘I, personally, don’t have contracts.’ He may or may not. He may be entirely honest about that, but he knows darn well that his colleagues are neck-deep in these kinds of consulting arrangements.”

Schweizer added, “Consulting firms … all have large amounts of projects in management positions and subcontracting that they engage in, and if you want any of those … you have to have a security clearance.”

Governmental domains of national security and intelligence are vulnerable to “cronyism,” said Schweizer: “[They are] not immune to the exact same forces of cronyism and self-enrichment that we see anywhere else in government. It’s like the executive at Health and Human Services who does favors for the pharmaceutical industry and then goes and works for big pharma. The same thing happens in this space.”

Schweizer continued, “What makes [a top-level security clearance] so valuable for a guy like Brennan is he can be read into all of it, and he has access to all of it. Mark my words … if he was not doing contracting right now, he would be looking to do contracting. That’s no longer available to him [because] he has had his security clearance lost [and] cannot have access to any of that material now.”

Schweizer expanded, “John Brennan can now not get a call from, let’s say, a senior FBI official who wants to ask him a question on counterterrorism. They cannot now call and have a conversation involving anything that includes classified material. It’s going to be a big change in John Brennan’s life, and it also affects him commercially because … he cannot get consulting arrangements with these big intelligence contractors.”

Schweizer went on, “‘Compromised’ follows the money and rips the veil off of the sorts of things that go on at the highest levels of the FBI and the intelligence community.”

Bruner speculated about motivations for news media and political recalcitrance towards removal of security clearances from former government officials: “In theory, they retain their security clearances so they can advise some think tank on matters of nationals security, but I don’t think that’s the reason John Brennan and James Clapper and others are throwing temper tantrums, especially Phil Mudd. … It’s the lure of large dollars.”

Pollak asked about conflicts of interest arising from the employment of former top-level intelligence officials at cable news media outlets.

Schweizer replied, “It does create a really murky [and] conflicted arrangement that is never really discussed or disclosed while they’re on these cable news programs.”

Bruner considered Brennan and Clapper’s leveraging of security clearances to obtain positions with CNN and MSNBC: “This Clapper-CNN relationship is really new territory, where you have the former director of national intelligence sharing information about a dossier which has now been debunked using this kind of politicized piece of opposition research and then sharing it with a news network. Who knows what amount of it was classified at the time? This is beyond your run-of-the-mill cronyism; this is really into uncharted territory and really alarming.”

Schweizer framed Comey’s “veneer” of selfless “public service” as “ridiculous.”

“The American people are very thankful to people that are out on the battlefield fighting terrorist organizations or rank and file FBI who are tracking down terror cells in the United States,” said Schweizer. “There are people that make a lot of sacrifices that never cash in the way that Jim Comey has, but Jim Comey wants to be treated as the rank and file FBI agent who just diligently did his job and performed a public service.”

Schweizer continued, “The research that Seamus has done in this book shows that that’s just simply not the case. It’s a revolving door, and they ought to be seen and recognized as such. The veneer of, ‘I’ve always done things that are just in the national interest’ is ridiculous. What you find in this national security and intelligence space is the same thing you find elsewhere in government, which is, a lot of times, individuals, when they’re in government, they create opportunities for their own services within the private sector so when they leave and go into the private sector, they’re set up very well. It seems pretty clear that some of that has happened with Comey-Mueller.”

Schweizer offered recommendations for curbing corrupt exploitation of security clearances by ex-government employees.

“You’re not entitled to this,” stated Schweizer. “We appreciate their service to the country, but a guy who has been in the U.S. Marine Corps for 20 years [gets] a retirement pension, but they don’t get some special access to government information whenever they want and for as long as they want because of public service. I think the notion of need-to-know is clear.”

Schweizer concluded, “If you are not involved in some important government oversight program, some review board, some internal classified think tank effort [like] war-gaming — if you’re not doing something like that — you don’t have an entitled right to have access to this information. You just don’t. The number of people with top-secret security clearances in the United States is astronomically high. It’s way too high. It numbers into the millions.”

LANNY DAVIS MADE HIS LAZY EYED CLIENT MICHAEL COHEN COP A BOGUS PLEA DEAL!!

Lanny Davis is a Hillary Clinton Hack!


Former FEC Chairman: Trump Paying Stormy Daniels With Own Money is Not Illegal.

Anti-Trump liberals are thrilled that President Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen has turned on his former boss and struck a plea deal with prosecutors, which includes prison time. In this case, the prosecutors are claiming that President Trump and Cohen violated campaign finance laws for the large payment to infamous porn star Stormy Daniels.
But there’s one big problem!
On conservative legend Mark Levin’s radio show, he interviewed Clinton-appointed former Federal Elections Commission chairman Bradley Smith. Smith made it absolutely clear that Trump’s payment to Stormy wasn’t illegal, and details just how difficult this case will be for prosecutors, despite the hopes of the biased mainstream media.
Cohen’s charges are one false statement to a financial institution, five counts of tax evasion, and two counts of campaign finance violations. The left is focused on the campaign finance charges, even though Cohen only pleaded guilty to avoid more charges and likely more prison time.
As Levin opined, “It’s not a precedent… They obviously had more on Michael Cohen, or Michael Cohen wouldn’t have cut a deal.” Levin added that a plea deal doesn’t mean there was an actual violation of the law.
In the interview with Smith, the former FEC chairman repeatedly noted that just because a private expense happens to also help a candidate’s public image or improves the chances of winning an election, does not make every dollar spent by a candidate – as a private citizen – is a violation of the law.
Levin asks, “The argument seems to be and it hasn’t changed is that if I spend money to make myself look better or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life, and use my own money, that somehow that is a campaign contribution, correct?”
Smith agrees, “Right.”
Levin confirms, “Which it is not.”
And Smith agrees again, “That’s right, it’s not.”
Listen to his interview (below) on Mark Levin’s popular radio show:

Smith also published an op-ed in The Washington Post, where he notes that while the payments are unseemly, they are not illegal.
This is an important distinction to make. It would be one thing if Trump used campaign funds for personal matters. But an individual running for public office doesn’t suddenly lose his right to buy and spend money as he sees fit. And Trump, a high-profile billionaire, has faced down accusations his entire career, long before he entered politics. Sometimes, it’s cheaper to pay off accusers than fight them in court.

John Brennan: exposed as the pro Stalinist and Pro Sharia Ideologue who is now the George Soros Anti-Trump attack dog

John Brennan's past exposes his present!

UNDERSTAND THE MAN AND HIS MOTIVES YOU UNDERSTAND HIS ACTIONS!

Five years before the October, 1917 Bolshevik Revolution would begin to impose Communist totalitarianism on Russia, Henry C. Vedder, observed in his 1912 study of Socialism, that the Marxist Social Labor Federation of Britain had adopted Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” [Capital] as their infallible authority, “an article of faith from which they will permit no dissent, on pain of excommunication.” Vedder, a Professor of Church History at the Upland, Pennsylvania Crozer Theological Seminary, added that this British Marxist organization rejected the orthodoxy of its own votaries unless they professed as their creed, “There is no God, and Karl Marx is his prophet” — mirroring the Islamic declaration of faith, or “shahada”. The late doyen of Islamic studies, Bernard Lewis, underscored how this summation of the Communist creed captured the “real affinity” between totalitarian Communism, and Islam, in a 1954 essay.

Both groups [i.e., adherents of Islam or Communism] profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. 
Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith—a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy…

No one dominating our immediate attention deficit disordered news cycle better epitomizes this totalitarian ideological convergence of Communism and Islam than George Soros who uses his ill gotten wealth to sow discord in Western Sociatey using other Ideological compatriots to do the bidding of his doctrine..

Obama and Hillary and Eric Holder are true believers. So is ex-CIA director, John Brennan. Yes read up!
John Brennan has admitted casting his 1976 POTUS vote for Communist Party (CP) of the USA leader Gus Hall. An ardent, unrepentant Stalin acolyte, who maintained the CPUSA as  “a bastion of Stalinist orthodoxy for four decades,” Gus Hall, circa 1976, was virulently anti-American, and an overt champion of the “liberating” hegemonic Soviet Communist terror state under Communist dictator (and Hall’s “Comrade”) Brezhnev. Hall articulated these views in a 1975 “Report to the 21^st Convention of the Communist Party”:
Détente is not an agreement to accept, or to turn one’s head from oppression by [US] imperialism anywhere. Comrade Leonid Brezhnev made this clear in a public statement here when he stated: ‘The Soviet Union’s support for all national liberation struggles and movements is non-negotiable.’

Consistent with this 1976 vote for American Stalinist Gus Hall as POTUS, John Brennan, in his 1980 University of Texas MS thesis, adopted the moral relativism one associates with the Communist movement. Brennan declared“absolute human rights do not exist,” rendering “[human rights] analysis subject to innumerable conditional criticisms,” rejecting free speech and Western liberty as universal values,  and rationalizing both Soviet Communist, and Egyptian Muslim authoritarian-theocratic totalitarianism. He proffered this unsettling apologetic for the appalling human rights record of the Brezhnev era Soviet Union (although Brennan refrained from labeling the Soviet dictator “Comrade Leonid Brezhnev”):
Can human rights violations in the Soviet Union be as easily justified in terms of the preservation of the communist ideology? Unfortunately (looking at events from a democratic perspective), yes. Since the absolute status of human rights has been denied, the justification for the violation of any of those rights has to be pursued from a particular ideological perspective. Leonid Brezhnev could justify human rights violations in the Soviet Union as a necessary part of the preservation of the communist ideological system.
Regarding Egypt, during the Anwar Sadat era, Brennan asked rhetorically,
[W]ould the ability to demonstrate effectively increase human rights and democracy in Egypt?
He responded to his own query,
In the light of the political environment, probably not. At the present stage of political development in Egypt widespread open opposition to the administration would be beyond the capacity of the system to handle.
Brennan then provided what was tantamount to a mealy mouthed apologetic for Egyptian human rights abuses:
Can the human rights violations in Egypt be justified from a democratic perspective? There can be no objective answer to this question because it depends on what one considers to be a threat to democracy in Egypt. Whether or not public demonstrations in Egypt actually threaten the existence of democracy in Egypt is uncertain.
Ignoring Islam’s antithetical concept of freedom as hurriyya—perfect slavery to Allah’s Sharia—Brennan’s thesis also argued that freedom “cannot be labeled as a Western idea,” and “is very much a part of Islamic culture.”  Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it—“perfect slavery.” This conception, moreover, is not merely confined to the Sufis’ perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the “master” and his human “slaves.” Following Islamic law (Sharia) slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya, “freedom.” This earlier more concrete characterization of hurriyya’s metaphysical meaning, whose essence Ibn Arabi reiterated, was pronounced by the Sufi scholar al-Qushayri (d. 1072/74).

Let it be known to you that the real meaning of freedom lies in the perfection of slavery. If the slavery of a human being in relation to Allah is a true one, his freedom is relieved from the yoke of changes. Anyone who imagines that it may be granted to a human being to give up his slavery for a moment and disregard the commands and prohibitions of the religious law while possessing discretion and responsibility, has divested himself of Islam. Allah said to his Prophet: “Worship until certainty comes to you.” (Koran 15:99). As agreed upon by the [Koranic] commentators, “certainty” here means the end (of life).
 This is John Brennan. The dangerous absurdity —of  his 1980 MS thesis, three decades long tenacity—of Brennan’s uninformed Islamophilia. While then serving as the Obama administration’s chief counterterrorism adviser,  remember how Mr. Brennan,
vociferously advocates an exclusive, bowdlerized definition of jihad in the public discourse as “to purify oneself or one’s community,” lest the tender sensibilities of Muslims be offended. He further claims that, somehow, self-described jihadists “have truly just distorted the whole concept” of jihad.

But it is Mr. Brennan who, irrespective of whatever flimsy, ahistorical rationale he provides, thoroughly misrepresents jihad – a living, bellicose Islamic institution that dates from the advent of the Muslim creed almost 14 centuries ago. The dangerous absurdity of Mr. Brennan’s jihad denial is self-evident…Alexis de Tocqueville, upon returning from America, where he famously analyzed and celebrated America’s nascent democracy, studied Islamic doctrine, which included an 1838 assessment of the Koran, in preparation for his visits to Algeria (in 1841 and 1846) while serving as a French parliamentarian. Tocqueville concluded: “Jihad, Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels … [T]hese doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran … The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.”
John Brennan’s IS NOT A USEFUL IDIOT for Stalinism and Sharia. He is a Driven paid Ideologue who is being protected in his position and ranting by confidant higher powers who have calculated that in teh long run the Trump and We the People Movement will come and go but their long struggle to Finadmentally Transform America will SUCCEED!.

That is why John Brennan does what he does with the confidence that he will not be eliminated! His central role in helping to orchestrate the manufactured “Trump-Russia collusion” faux narrative, which has evolved into a seditious, full-blown attempted over throw a Duly elected President.

This stick only if we let it!

Violence and Evil should be dealt with Better and Stronger violence and the decapitation of the evil doers!

Face it they have always wanted our Country.  If they get it it will be because we gave it to them.

I FOR ONE WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING BACK IN EVERY WAY I CAN

Silicon Valley Lefftist Oligarchs Facebook and Twitter Censors me again!

Yes Patriots..

TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED MY ACCOUNT COMPLETELY

FACEBOOK HAS BLOCKED ME FOR 30 DAYS!

John Gaultier!

In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words

DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY!
In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words and understand what the Left has done by infiltrating Establishments, filling them up with their people and then slowly changing the bye laws and the Recreating the Establishment with their won ideology behind the curtain of the Original Name.

We will take many of the Establishments one by one and you will see that the names are still the same but the Ideology and philosophy of all of them are remarkably the same.

Lets take some of them:

DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Anyone who actually believes that Today's Democrats are what the Democrat party Originally stood for is a Retard, an Indoctrinated Ideologue or a TRUE BELIEVER of the Leftists plan to takeover America.

It is clearly the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party to divide the nation into angry racialized groups who can be mobilized to the voting booths.  Democrats are betting their future on a loyal hispanic voting bloc, as stated in a recent "Center For American Progress" memo.  The memo called illegal aliens a "critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."

As part of this strategy, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer attacks those deplorable people who think our country should enforce its immigration laws.  He told Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that the "fundamental values" of the right are "anti-immigrant," "horrible ... [and] disgusting."  "That's who they are," he said.

It is instructive to note how recently Democrat leaders were themselves "horrible" and "disgusting."  The quotes below are from Democrat leaders not that long ago.  Between the time of these quotes and now, Democrats decided that open borders are the key to their future power.  The effect that open borders might have on our country is not a matter of concern to them.  It's all about power.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools, and social programs.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.  Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits, often without paying any taxes.  Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance.  These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.  Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

–Harry Reid, 1993.  Reid stressed that these positions "are not racist."

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service[s] they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. ... [W]e will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes[.] ... We are a nation of immigrants.  But we are also a nation of laws.  It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

–Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union address.

"The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration[.] ... A primary goal ... must be to curtail future illegal immigration."  

–Charles Schumer, 2009.

"I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants [sic] by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America and keeping them here; [and] requiring undocumented immigrants [sic] to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation].

–Charles Schumer, 2010.

These are sane comments, thoroughly unlike what we hear from Democrat leaders today.  We are now told that comments like these come from horrible and disgusting racist white supremacists.  

Chuck Schumer is correct that something horrible and disgusting is happening here.  He is just wrong about where those adjectives apply.

For example, just watch how the Left constantly redefines everything and then Conservatives, without fail, automatically assume the defensive position. The political-right falls into this trap EVERY SINGLE TIME. LISTEN FOLKS, you don't need to win intellectual debates to win the culture. You need to appeal to human emotion.

Conservatives are always reacting, they are never attacking. We make the mistake of letting the enemy set the narrative "frame" and then we suicidally walk into it.

That's why I've recommended weaponizing our own brand of unique words. Labeling the opposition "anti-White, "genocidal" and "evil" are all good starts. In fact, you could even go so far as to label mass migration into Western countries a "hate crime" against whites. You need to get creative, but at the same time keep it simple.

Discard saying things like "Democrats are the real racists." Why? Because it does absolutely nothing to shift the narrative -- you are still assuming a defensive posture. You're basically saying, "See, we are not the real racists, the Democrats are." You've already lost when you utter phrases like that. Plus, that specific phrase has been around forever and has done very little to shift minority votes in our favor.

Lastly, if you want to regain institutional power over America's cultural institutions (media, academia, Hollywood, etc), then you need to focus on specific people.

If you go around constantly complaining about "Hollyweird" or "Far-Left college campuses," you do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Institutions are made up of people. You remove the people, you change the institution.

Don't like a particular far-left professor? Find negative things he's said and then slap the worst labels imaginable on him. And when the opposition accuses you of something, never respond. Just keep hammering away at them. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Eventually, they will break.

Today's Democrats are Anti America Socialists hiding inside the exoskeleton of the Name Democrat!

DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY!
In order to win the culture you need to win the war on words and understand what the Left has done by infiltrating Establishments, filling them up with their people and then slowly changing the bye laws and the Recreating the Establishment with their own ANTI AMERICAN ideology behind the curtain of the Original Name.

We will take many of the Establishments one by one and you will see that the names are still the same but the Ideology and philosophy of all of them are remarkably the same.

Lets take some of them:

DEMOCRAT PARTY:
Anyone who actually believes that Today's Democrats are what the Democrat party Originally stood for is a Retard, an Indoctrinated Ideologue or a TRUE BELIEVER of the Leftists plan to takeover America.

It is clearly the electoral strategy of the Democratic Party to divide the nation into angry racialized groups who can be mobilized to the voting booths.  Democrats are betting their future on a loyal hispanic voting bloc, as stated in a recent "Center For American Progress" memo.  The memo called illegal aliens a "critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."

As part of this strategy, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer attacks those deplorable people who think our country should enforce its immigration laws.  He told Rachel Maddow on Tuesday that the "fundamental values" of the right are "anti-immigrant," "horrible ... [and] disgusting."  "That's who they are," he said.

It is instructive to note how recently Democrat leaders were themselves "horrible" and "disgusting."  The quotes below are from Democrat leaders not that long ago.  Between the time of these quotes and now, Democrats decided that open borders are the key to their future power.  The effect that open borders might have on our country is not a matter of concern to them.  It's all about power.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants, placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools, and social programs.  The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.  Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits, often without paying any taxes.  Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance.  These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.  Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

–Harry Reid, 1993.  Reid stressed that these positions "are not racist."

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service[s] they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. ... [W]e will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes[.] ... We are a nation of immigrants.  But we are also a nation of laws.  It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

–Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union address.

"The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration[.] ... A primary goal ... must be to curtail future illegal immigration."  

–Charles Schumer, 2009.

"I support further securing our borders; prohibiting hiring of undocumented immigrants [sic] by requiring job applicants to present a secure Social Security card; creating jobs by attracting the world's best and brightest to America and keeping them here; [and] requiring undocumented immigrants [sic] to register with the government, pay taxes, and earn legal [status or face deportation].

–Charles Schumer, 2010.

These are sane comments, thoroughly unlike what we hear from Democrat leaders today.  We are now told that comments like these come from horrible and disgusting racist white supremacists.  

Chuck Schumer is correct that something horrible and disgusting is happening here.  He is just wrong about where those adjectives apply.

For example, just watch how the Left constantly redefines everything and then Conservatives, without fail, automatically assume the defensive position. The political-right falls into this trap EVERY SINGLE TIME.

LISTEN FOLKS, you don't need to win intellectual debates to win the culture. You need to appeal to human emotion.

Conservatives are always reacting, they are never attacking. We make the mistake of letting the enemy set the narrative "frame" and then we suicidally walk into it.

That's why I've recommended weaponizing our own brand of unique words. Labeling the opposition "anti-White, "genocidal" and "evil" are all good starts. In fact, you could even go so far as to label mass migration into Western countries a "hate crime" against whites. You need to get creative, but at the same time keep it simple.

Discard saying things like "Democrats are the real racists." Why? Because it does absolutely nothing to shift the narrative -- you are still assuming a defensive posture. You're basically saying, "See, we are not the real racists, the Democrats are." You've already lost when you utter phrases like that. Plus, that specific phrase has been around forever and has done very little to shift minority votes in our favor.

Lastly, if you want to regain institutional power over America's cultural institutions (media, academia, Hollywood, etc), then you need to focus on specific people.

If you go around constantly complaining about "Hollyweird" or "Far-Left college campuses," you do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Institutions are made up of people. You remove the people, you change the institution.

Don't like a particular far-left professor? Find negative things he's said and then slap the worst labels imaginable on him. And when the opposition accuses you of something, never respond. Just keep hammering away at them. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Eventually, they will break.

Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.