Brig. Gen.: Trump’s Right, Ex-Communist Brennan Is Threat, Needed to Be Stripped


There was a great outcry among Democrats and their liberal media allies on Wednesday when it was announced that President Donald Trump had revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan, who now works as a paid analyst for NBC and MSNBC, has been a harsh critic of the president and has even accused him of committing “treason” against America. That’s an ironic accusation, given the strong suspicion that Brennan was thoroughly involved in what appears to be a “treasonous” scheme by the Obama administration to spy on, undermine and ultimately overthrow the Trump campaign-turned-presidency.

Nevertheless, while the left wails about Brennan’s loss of a security clearance — which has absolutely nothing to do with his “freedom of speech,” and only affects his freedom to leak classified materials — there are plenty who support the move that strips Brennan of his access to sensitive information.

The Independent Journal Review noted that one individual who supported the move was author and retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, who explained why Brennan was a “clear and present danger” who never should have been granted a security clearance to begin with.

“I think it’s the right move by the president. Communist John Brennan never should’ve had a security clearance,” Tata stated on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.

Co-host Brian Kilmeade interjected that Brennan had admitted in the past that he voted for a Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election.

“And he supported that way of life,” Tata stated. “And the president made the right decision in revoking his security clearance.”

But Tata wasn’t just talking about Brennan’s politics from decades ago.

“You look at what he did in his official capacity … he oversaw the Iran deal and all of the intelligence, he manipulated (Islamic State group) intelligence for President Obama, he was part of the Russian hacking, he was standing down the cyber team to allow the Russia hacking in 2016,” Tata said.

“He had a secret meeting in March of 2016 with Russia. He flew to Moscow, and so there is a lot of evidence here. He met with Harry Reid and gave him parts of the unverified, Clinton paid-for dossier,” he continued.

Kilmeade interjected again to point out that Reid had stated the impression he received along with the dossier was “go and announce this,” implying that Brennan had utilized Reid to get the unverified dossier out into the public domain.

“And then he spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying. And question 29 on the security clearance form says ‘have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government’ — all you gotta do is look at Brennan’s tweets and he supports the removal of this president, and right there that’s enough evidence to get rid of his clearance,” Tata declared.

IJR reported that Tata added, “I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation.”

The general made a rather compelling case for why Brennan should have been stripped of his security clearance, a case echoed by the official White House statement read by press secretary Sarah Sanders about the matter, in which she stated that Brennan “has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

While Brennan’s loss of security clearance may indeed be “unprecdented,” as the media made abundantly clear in their lamentations, that is true only insofar as he appears to be the first former CIA director to have involved himself in an equally “unprecedented” conspiracy to undermine and overthrow a duly elected president.

As was also made clear by the White House on Wednesday, Brennan may be the first high-level former Obama official to be stripped of his security clearance, but he likely won’t be the last.

Sanders included a list of other Obama administration officials who still retain security clearances, but whose credentials are “under review.”

That means they’re also at risk of being stripped of their clearances soon. And good riddance, truth be told. It’s about time.


Senate Intel Chair Reprimands Brennan, Provides Cover for Trump Stripping Sec. Clearance

by Randy DeSoto


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., sharply rebuked former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday for his allegation in an Op-Ed this week that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential race.

Burr further contended that if Brennan’s claim is purely political with no facts to support it, President Donald Trump was completely justified in pulling his security clearance.

On Wednesday, the White House announced it was revoking the former Obama administration official’s clearance explaining, “Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Brennan responded in an Op-Ed in The New York Times the following day titled, “President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash.”

The piece is subtitled, “That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him.”

Brennan pointed to Trump’s public call in the summer of 2016 for Russia to find his rival Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails as an indication collusion occurred between the GOP candidate’s campaign and Moscow. The former CIA head further contended that if Trump was willing to make such a public call, the question is what was happening privately.
“While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services,” Brennan wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash,” he then proclaimed.

Brennan concluded his piece with an accusation that Trump’s decision to pull his security clearance was “politically motivated” to protect himself.

“Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else,” he argued, “so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve.” [Or to continue his assault on windmills in the finest tradition of Don Quixote - Ed]

Burr issued a statement in response to Brennan’s Op-Ed noting that the former CIA director included no firm evidence of collusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in early 2017.
“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power,” Burr said. “If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017?”

Burr observed that if Brennan’s assertion is based on information he has received since leaving office, publicizing it constitutes a breach of intelligence.  Further, “If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.”

The North Carolina senator then turned to the other alternative: Brennan’s allegation is purely a political attack.

“If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch.”




Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."

Amazon.com Abusive and Invasive Customer service

by Allen Williams


Recently, I was in the market for some new R-12 hoses to refurbish an older AC gauge set when I happened on an advertisement from Amazon featuring all three replacement hoses for about $17+ bucks.  It seemed like a good deal except for the long delay in shipping the goods but I wasn’t in any hurry so I thought I’d sign up.

Unfortunately, I quickly discovered that Amazon.com doesn’t allow ‘guest purchases’ as does EBAY, its ‘members only’ at Amazon and your order is conditional upon membership acceptance.  I received the following confirmation memo Jan 16, sent to me at our sites email address.

 Amazon

Order Confirmation

Hello Allen Williams,


Thank you for shopping with us. You ordered "Atoplee 3pcs (2500~500)PSI...". We’ll send a confirmation when your item ships.

Details Order #105-5734003-9497812

Arriving:
Monday, February 6 -
Tuesday, February 28

Amazon.com

 



 


 


This was the typical automated response however, the next day I received a follow-up email which I expected to be an actual ship date but instead my ‘account’ was frozen!

Subject: Re: Your Amazon.com order cannot be shipped
On 1/16/  12:24 PM, address-verification@amazon.com wrote:

There was a problem processing your order. You will not be able to access your account or place orders with us until we confirm your information.

You can help us resolve this issue by replying to this message with the billing name, address, and phone number registered to your card. Please reply from the email address registered to your Amazon.com account.

If needed, update your information with the card issuer.

For your security, we restrict access to your billing details to a team of account specialists. Our Customer Service team cannot access these details or provide you with more information on this issue. They can only verify that we sent this request.

We ask that you not open new accounts as any order you place may be delayed.

Amazon.com


This makes no sense unless the real purpose of being an Amazon member is to open all of your transactions to government phishers. All the personal 'verification' needed was to PING the card in amount of $1.00 to confirm its validity otherwise the card would be rejected outright. What Amazon is really saying here is that we don't trust you to be who you claim to be without outside confirmation. That's not membership, it's abuse.

Apparently Amazon no longer limits abuse to its employees but is now including customers as Salon reports: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon’s sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers“You might find your Prime membership morally indefensible after reading these stories about worker mistreatment.“ Don’t be overly shocked, this is simply globalism and its New World Order business practices. It’s the future of American business. Oh that’s just sour grapes. Really? Well how about Amazon used ‘neo-Nazi’ guards to control workers in German factory? Oh, too harsh, still? How about the Orwellian work environment at Amazon as in Forbes’ assessment, “What Amazon's Work Culture Tells Us About Employee Disengagement

But what disturbs me most is the Huff Post Blog reporting a $600 million dollar deal Amazon struck with the CIA for cloud services which likely means the CIA has access to all purchases made by Amazon customers. The Blog further reports: ”.. a signer in Cincinnati wrote: "If Amazon chooses to sell out their customers to the CIA, I will never visit their site again. Betrayal shouldn't be the price of convenience.” This certainly goes a long way towards explaining why Amazon would be so interested in ‘confirming’ mine and others customer information.

On Jan 17th, I called the company and spoke to a representative who was to ‘look into the problem.’  I told them what had happened and the lady I spoke with indicated that I had to respond with the email address that I opened the account with.  Well, duh.. I DID that and they acknowledged it by responding to the ORIGINAL email address that I opened the account with!!.  (Actually, I responded with both my email addresses and still received the same mind numbing response.)

So, now we know what they’re saying here is NOT the real issue.  Note that I DIDN’T GIVE permission by FAX or in my telephone conversation with the AMAZON rep to verify anything with my card issuer for ANY REASON.  They simply took it upon themselves to contact the bank anyway.  That’s uncalled for as Amazon already had the information and acknowledged it with their reply but here’s their moronic response.

Hello,
We encountered an issue with your account, and have removed your access to this account because 
the card issuer has refused to confirm your name and billing address for your Visa ending in 56.

You will not be able to access your account or place orders with us until we verify your information.
To resolve this issue, please allow the card issuer to grant our request, or send the information 
below to our secure fax line:
-- A copy of your statement for the payment card used, including the billing address
-- The last two digits of the payment card
-- Your name, phone number, and email address  
You can find our fax number on the Amazon.com Help page:
https://www.amazon.com/help/addressverification
We will convert your fax to a secure electronic image. To protect your information, 
we restrict access to your billing details to a team of account specialists.
Our Customer Service team can confirm that we sent this email, but they cannot view 
your fax or share more information about this issue.
You can expect a response from us within 24 hours of sending your fax.
If you would like us to confirm your information with the card issuer, reply to this email 
after you have arranged for them to grant our request.
In the meantime, please do not open new accounts because any new order that you place may be 
delayed. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
 
Amazon.com
 
Yes, secure like YAHOO and FACEBOOK which had millions of their ‘secure’ customer records 
hacked. And might they also be passing my business information along to the NSA or FBI as
BEST BUY technical people are currently doing for the FBI? 

The customer rep never addressed my reply or indicated why my bank had to confirm my identity.
A few days later I got another email asking why I discontinued my account. Interestingly enough,
Amazon’s BEZOS owns the Washington Post and since I have been a written critic of that
intellectual rag, the Amazon episode begins to make a bit more sense. 
Trump may be on to something in Donald Trump's war on Jeff Bezos, Amazon and the Washington Post  Looks like Amazon.com has been getting a pretty cushy tax break in their rise to economic fame.

And of course, we all know the ‘journalistic integrity’ of WAPO as in After the WaPost’s Latest Shot, It’s Time to Call ‘Fake News’ By Its Real Name ‘Weaponized Journalism My observation to the WAPO editor on instructions from Jeff Bezos for their news coverage is that company policy (written or otherwise) dictates news coverage just as it would with any other firm subsidiary.  Don’t think for a moment that WAPO isn’t looking out for the Amazon billionaire’s interests.

Amazon’s request for my credit card statement is clearly ‘over the top’ and BS pure and simple.  
If you can't believe I who I say I am; we can not have any meaningful business relationship. I've
purchased many things online from EBAY and other suppliers and have never experienced such a request.
There is another possibility, the company is advertising the sale of an item they don't have and won't 
have available unless a sufficient number of people express interest before they order from their
China supplier. In that case you might want a verifiable customer base to motivate the Chinese.

If you’re an Amazon customer get prepared for more invasive scrutiny of your account information, and if you’re not, don’t JOIN!.









WSJ Reporter: We’ve Confirmed the Worst – US Intel Truly Was Spying on Trump Camp

by Cillian Zeal

 

A Wednesday piece by The New York Times which details the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign may have revealed more than intended, at least if a Wall Street Journal reporter who has covered the surveillance previously is correct. 

The Journal’s Kimberley Strassel has written about the investigation in the past. In a piece last week, she posited that the FBI may have used a mole in the Trump campaign, particularly given the Department of Justice’s reluctance to turn over information about the informant to congressional investigators.

The Times piece revealed more details about the Trump campaign surveillance operation — called “Crossfire Hurricane” in reference to the Rolling Stones song “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” — and just how extensive it was. While the tenor of the article, which was written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos, is overwhelmingly favorable to the FBI and dismisses any claims that the surveillance was politically motivated ,(“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” one DOJ official is quoted as saying) there were a few things buried deep in there that specifically caught Strassel’s attention.

In a tweetstorm Wednesday evening, Strassel noted key problems in The Times’ narrative, particularly when the story appeared and significant facts that they glossed over. 

Strassel first argued that the article was a calculated leak of sorts in an effort to get out ahead of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and the information that he’s gathering and releasing regarding the FBI’s sources on the Trump investigation. 

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

However, she says it proves what Trump was claiming all along: namely, that his campaign was being spied upon. 

Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) May 17, 2018

The story briefly mentions that “one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.”  However, if that informant met several times with two low-level Trump campaign officials, one wonders just what his role — if any — in the Trump campaign might have been. It seems somewhat unlikely that a random individual outside the campaign would have had the opportunity to meet with both George Papadopoulos and Carter Page without some suspicion being aroused if the informant didn’t have extremely close ties to the campaign.


This Is Not A Mosquito! Look closely.

by Staff

 

Small airborne drones modeled after birds, mosquitos and other insect types are in the planning stage, a new age of surveillance devices that can hide in plain sight for crowd control, tracking criminal suspects and surveilling political protests.  As early as 2008 military engineers were already experimenting with the design of insect size drones which can fly and spy on enemies without human risk. 

The military wants smarter UAVs capable of navigating interior spaces autonomously, i.e. without GPS or remote control.  There is strong interest in developing small drones capable of spying virtually anywhere.  "The picture shown in the story is not a real robot mosquito drone, but simply one such proposed ‘prototype’ that may become reality in future, and perhaps they will also be able to take photographs and DNA samples of people. But as of now, these are only speculations, and not facts in practical."

Is this a mosquito? No. It's a proposed insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It is planned for remote controll and  equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home. Given their propensity to request macro-sized drones for surveillance, one is left with little doubt that police and military may look into these gadgets next.  (And to think we were worried about West Nile virus!)
 
And now you know why our government has requested the law be changed to allow drone surveillance in the United States.


The National Defense Authrization Act (NDAA) permits the President to authorize the killing of a citizen anywhere in the world.  There is little oversight or laws governing the use of drones, how much less protection would there be for drones you can't readily see?. The ithreat to individual liberty is significant if such devices ever enter into mass production.

If histtory is any indication,, the term 'enemies' will ultimately be defined to include unwarranted surveiilance of all who resist the totatlitarian reach of the state.