March 29th, 2017
By Barry Secrest
This story, written back in August of 2016, has taken on new life as Trump has recently sought to turn the tables on the Democrats and their mainstream media advocates by spotlighting the following smoking gun of a story.
Trump was highlighting how and why Hillary, as Sec State, finagled the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia while at the same time having received massive amounts of cash to Bill Clinton, for a speech to Russian oligarchs.
The mainstream media has been feigning outrage over Trump jokingly urging the Russians to find Hillary Clinton's 33,000 deleted emails which allegedly concern weddings, Yoga, recipes, and messaging from Bill Clinton, who doesn't even use email.
But now, the whole storyline has changed in that the Dems are going full-bore against Trump on his non-existent ties to Russia.
But, they are apparently forgetting about Obama's hot mic exchange with Putin apparatchik Medvedev, in a meeting in Korea, as featured at the beginning of this article.
Obama and Medvedev were discussing the de-armament of America in a highly conspiratorial tone, and yet the media, at the time, didn't seem to have a problem with it.
So, why would they have a problem now over Hillary's lawyer-deleted emails which concerned recipes, Yoga, and weddings?
And then, there's the reset button Where Hillary reset the Cold War with the Russians.
But, that's not important, it was funny maybe even a joke, and yet, despite Obama continually striking a conciliatory aspect with the Russians, they still invaded the Crimea in Ukraine.
But, most folks don't actually know the full story behind that.
Obama, as a slightly younger Senator, actually enabled the later Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2005, when he led the operation in actually disarming Ukraine, making the Russian invasion possible.
Obama inspecting his handiwork in 2005
According to the UK Daily Mail, Obama's enablement of Russia's invasion went this way:
"As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.
In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.
The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.
After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition."
Could the Russian invasion have gotten any more convenient without the August actions of Senator Obama?
And finally, there's that little fact about Hillary Clinton, via the US State Department, who acted on behalf of the Russians to lay claim to a substantial amount of America's uranium, used for making nuclear bombs.
According to the New York Times, it was Hillary Clinton, after receiving massive cash donations from Russia, who enabled the ownership of a company, controlled by Russia, which handled a substantial portion of America's uranium deposits:
"The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show."
The irony wrapped within an enigma, in all of this, is the fact that the US media seems to have forgotten all of these Manchurian candidate moments when it comes to Obama and his protege', Hillary Clinton, who are attacking Trump While trying to characterize the GOP nominee as a lesser Manchurian candidate.
It would appear that someone's forgetting an awful lot of history....
March 22nd, 2017
By Barry Secrest
While the feds have been unable to uncover any ties, whatsoever, between Trump and his associates and Russia, the FBI has, apparently, completely ignored clear collusive ties between top members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Russian officials.
The question, naturally, becomes one of questioning why federal investigators are completely ignoring publicized news accounts of ties between the Russians and Clinton’s top campaign associates, while pursuing phantom relationships, regarding Trump’s staff, that appear to be non-existent?
The first story, from the Daily Caller, highlights John Podesta’s ties to a Russian state-run company called Rusnano.
“Rep. Louie Gohmert, an outspoken House Republican from Texas, is calling for a congressional investigation of John Podesta’s role with Rusnano, a state-run company founded by Russian President Vladimir Putin, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.
Podesta — best known as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman and former President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff — first made contact with the Russian firm in 2011, when he joined the boards and executive committees of three related entities: Boston-based Joule Unlimited; Rotterdam-based Joule Global Holdings; Joule Global Stichting, the company’s controlling interest. All are high-tech renewable energy enterprises.
Three months after Podesta’s arrival, Joule Unlimited accepted a 1 billion ruble investment from Rusnano, amounting to $35 million in U.S. currency. The firm also awarded a Joule board seat in February 2012 to Anatoly Chubais, Rusnano’s CEO, who has been depicted as a corrupt figure.
Podesta has attempted to downplay his relationship with Joule and Rusnano, but it could come to haunt him.Rusnano was a special company formed by decree at the direction of Putin. A small group of Putin cronies called the “Kooperative Ozero” masterminded the takeover of big swaths of the Russian economy.
Moreover, there is at least one other publicized relationship between Podesta and another state-run Russian technology company, where the fallout should be implicit.
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, a relationship Podesta failed to fully disclose on his federal financial disclosures as required by law.”
That’s one of the many revelations from a 56-page report released late Sunday titled “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism” by the non-partisan government watchdog group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Breitbart Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon holds the same title in GAI and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer serves as GAI’s president.
As part of her duties during the so-called Russian reset, then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton led the way on U.S. involvement in a Russian government technology initiative that was intended to be the Russian equivalent of America’s Silicon Valley known as Skolkovo. The “innovation city,” located outside Moscow, has some 30,000 workers in state-of-the-art facilities under strict government control. As Slate described it in 2013, “In some ways, Skolkovo is eerily reminiscent of Soviet utopian city-building projects.”
According to the GAI report, Clinton’s State Dept. recruited U.S. tech giants like Google, Cisco, Intel. Indeed, out of 28 U.S., European, and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors or paid for speeches by Bill Clinton.
However, as involvement in Skolkovo by Clinton cronies increased, so, too, did the danger for the technology coming out of the Russian tech mecca to be used for Russian military purposes.
In 2014, the FBI issued what it called “an extraordinary warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo"….
Why are the feds completely ignoring these obvious Russian ties, which shows a certain duplicity, while pursuing heretofore non-existent Trump ties? It appears that the question of the politicization of US investigative bureaus has gone well beyond the realm of conspiracy.
But, the next question must obviously be, how would the feds and the media react if Podesta were a member of Trump’s campaign staff, rather than Hillary Clinton, who also possesses multiple Russian connections?
March 20th, 2017
"Let me be clear: We know there was not a wiretap on Trump Tower. However, it's still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates" ~ Rep. Devin Nunes, House Intelligence Committee Chairman
By Barry Secrest
Ultimately, while no real news came out, today, regarding Trump and the whole Russian collusion story, it was the questions that weren't answered that should be focused on.
While FBI Director Comey & others insisted that there were no known wiretaps into Trump tower directly, the simple fact remains that the government did indeed eavesdrop on a wiretapped call to a Trump cabinet member, and then illegally leaked the information to the media.
This fact is irrefutable.
Therefore, in this instance, Trump's assertions by Twitter were correct that the Obama administration did spy on Trump's campaign and then performed an illegal act in an effort to disparage the Trump administration.
Next, there remains absolutely no evidence, at all, that Trump, or any member within his campaign, colluded with Russia and this fact was stated repeatedly by every congressional witness.
But, one of Trey Gowdy's initial questions, might be the one that bears fruit, if it is pursued.
When Gowdy questioned Director Comey on whether or not Comey had briefed Obama on the intercepted call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, under oath, Comey refused to answer the question and side danced around the query on the basis that it pertained to an ongoing investigation.
Now, if what Comey stated is correct, then why was he so easily able to answer all of the other questions surrounding Trump, the intercepted calls, and Russian collusion?
Are all conversations with a former president sacrosanct? If so, a lot of people throughout US history have a great deal of explaining to do.
Were not all the other questions answered today, by Comey and others, also directed towards an ongoing FBI investigation?
It was Devin Nunes, who stated "Let me be clear: We know there was not a wiretap on Trump Tower. However, it's still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates" ~ Rep. Devin Nunes, House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Gowdy then suggested that the only motive for the leak was for nefarious purposes and went on to highlight the fact that the word "transcript" had been used.
So, what was Gowdy angling for?
Here's the thing; the only person who has the authority to obtain a call intercept "transcript" on any US citizen, at anytime and anywhere, and without any warrant, is the president of the United States via certification from the DOJ.
The other thing is the fact that through government spying programs like PRISM, every American's key stroke, text messsage, phone call, and email, is intercepted and stored in vast government databases, retrievable at any moment by any authorized user of the secure data systems.
Even better, the dirty little-known secret that none of these expert government witnesses wishes to talk about is the fact that the entire question as to whether or not Trump was targeted & spied upon, is a ridiculously moot point; of course, he was.
We all were.
March 17th, 2017
Tomi’s admission comes at about 6:30 into her wide-ranging interview at “The View”
By Barry Secrest
Bright and articulate and particularly fearless when asserting her political views, beautiful Conservative pundit Tomi Lahren has burst onto the political scene of late, becoming more and more popular, while starring on Glenn Beck’s show “The Blaze” as well as appearing on other popular conservative & otherwise, political shows.
However, there may be a new problem, and that’s Lahren’s recent admission on the left-leaning ladies’ show, “The View,” in which Lahren admitted to being pro-abortion rather than pro-life.
Typically, in the conservative world, this admission would be tantamount to being a deal breaker for a large section of the non-liberal Republican world and most especially, among grass-roots conservatives.
In espousing her views on the lack of a right to life in the womb, Lahren asserted that her approach fell on the constitutional side of the argument and individual choice, however, Lahren has apparently not completely considered the absence of constitutional rights for little ones, within their mothers’ wombs, who deserve a right to the pursuit of Life, in addition to Liberty and Happiness.
The other aspect that clashes with Lahren’s reasoning might be the fact that the liberal world of the Democrats, in particular, cling rabidly to the idea of sacrificing infant life as if it were their unholy duty; to surrender the lives of the innocent towards whatever demonic deity, if often seems, that they may be recreationally worshipping.
Lahren, it appears, is not even remotely in line with at least one primary aspect of defining conservatism, that being the sanctity of life while her other various viewpoints seem to fall mostly in line.
So, is this a deal breaker for Tomi Lahren? Or, is this now a fact of life among young millennial conservatives?
Please let us know what you think on our Facebook page.
March 8th, 2017
By Barry Secrest
In an interview with Bill O’Reilly on March 7th, 2017, Senate Intelligence member Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), identified the FBI, and part of the DOJ, as run by Obama political Appointees and, more specifically, Obama’s National Security Council, which is also manned by Obama appointees, as the general source of the criminal leaks.
Cotton would not divulge any more specific information as to the source’s identity.
However, this means that the Senate Intelligence Committee has zeroed in on the source of at least some of the leaks as being former political appointees from the Obama administration.
Sen Cotton referenced the Obama move to free up intelligence materials to share with all 16 agencies only 13 days before leaving office, as a subversive move engineered only to encourage leaks against the Trump administration.
From PJ Media:
Sen. Cotton further suggested that Trump, with an immediate public release of the information, could verbally declassify the source of the leaks, under his authority, but pointed out that the President may be reticent to do so, in the current political atmosphere.
According to Wikipedia, the leaks could have, then, come from any one or more of the following positions within the Obama NSC:
|Structure of the United States National Security Council|
|Chair||President of the United States|
|Statutory Attendees||Vice President of the United States
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Energy
|Military Adviser||Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(Removed of permanent status on the Principals Committee on January 28, 2017.)
|Intelligence Adviser||Director of National Intelligence
(Removed of permanent status on the Principals Committee as of January 28, 2017.)
|Drug Policy Adviser||Director of National Drug Control Policy|
|Regular Attendees||National Security Advisor
Deputy National Security Adviser
White House Chief of Staff
White House Chief Strategist (Added on January 28, 2017.)
|Additional Participants||Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Homeland Security
White House Counsel
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
Ambassador to the United Nations
Director of Office of Management and Budget
Homeland Security Adviser
The Leaking of sensitive or classified information is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison for each count.