The Front Page Cover
Featruring:
Did liar-nObama Spy on Trump?
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
.
. Trump's Budget Axe Falls on Discretionary Spending
By Michael Swartz: Beltway bureaucrats can't say they weren't warned about the number of cars that would be uncoupled from their taxpayer-funded gravy train. As President Donald Trump alluded to in his campaign and promised prior to his address to a joint session of Congress, there are a number of federal agencies that will be subjected to large-scale cuts and 19 that will be shuttered entirely if Trump has his way with the budget.
On the chopping block: The favorite conservative targets of the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As the Washington Post screamed, this budget is the "worst-case scenario for arts groups."
Instead, the Trump proposal is a budget that's heavy on certain core government issues — you know, constitutionally enumerated powers such as defense and immigration. As previously noted, Trump calls for a $54 billion increase earmarked for defense spending and billions set aside for border security and combating illegal immigration. Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney was tasked with producing a budget "that emphasizes national security and public safety," and the OMB head has delivered.
It goes without saying that major media outlets, which still buy ink by the barrel, have gone off the rails with angst regarding the Trump budget blueprint — in particular, the aforementioned Washington Post, which caters to the bureaucrats who may soon find themselves in the position of seeking an honest living in the private sector.
But the Post and other media outlets aren't writing to deliver the facts about the budget; they're writing to warn Congress about derailing the gravy train that's in place. Why else would these relatively modest cuts in the grand scheme of a $4 trillion budget be compared to the plans Ronald Reagan had when he first took office? (All we're missing is Tip O'Neill and his fellow Democrats vowing the budget will be "dead on arrival" in Congress.)
But when a candidate runs on a platform that puts America first, it should surprise no one that defense wins out over foreign aid. Thus, the State Department is subject to a 28% cut. Trump wants to put $1.5 billion into a down payment on a border wall as well, along with funding additional judges to deal with deportations. While the Department of Education as a whole will be leaner to the tune of $9 billion, Trump allocates an extra $1.4 billion to school choice programs.
These are all things the voters who supported Trump demanded. As is the call to bring the Environmental Protection Agency to heel with a cut of almost one-third of its current budget. Addressing so-called "climate change" won't be a priority item for the Trump administration, and EPA apologists are already claiming Trump's reductions will make it "easier for polluters to get away with breaking the rules."
Lefty columnist Eugene Robinson laments, "Trump budgets for a dumber, dirtier America." Trump probably even hates puppies.
Yet since much of Congress will face the voters before President Trump does, members seem to have a cool reception to the budget proposal. "The administration's budget isn't going to be the budget," noted Senator Marco Rubio, adding that all any president can do is give a suggested blueprint to Congress.
Rubio's reminder is made evident by the fact that over the last six years Republicans in Congress routinely ignored Barack liar-nObama's budget proposals. His 2012 offering won exactly zero congressional votes. That gridlock led to government by continuing resolution, with attempts to control spending such as the sequester eventually falling by the wayside along with the debt ceiling. A compromise continuing budget resolution passed last December spared us the prospect of a government shutdown just before Christmas, but that temporary fix will expire at the end of April. So this Trump budget proposal may simply be the opening point of negotiations to deal with that as well as an increase in the debt ceiling.
The overarching question in all this talk about the budget, though, is similar to the one bedeviling congressional Republicans who campaigned for the last eight years on their opposition to liar-nObamaCare only to punt on full repeal after voters put the GOP fully in charge of government. Now that they have a president who's willing to eliminate many of the agencies the GOP vowed to dismantle if they were put back in power, will they stand up to the media and lobbyists to do so? The answer to that question may dictate whether Trump's presidency will be a difference-maker or simply the latest in our nation's drift from freedom and prosperity toward a European-style mediocrity. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Trump Budget Eliminates
19 Federal Agencies...
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ In the past presidents and Congress would routinely expand government and rubber stamp financial expenditures year after year. That’s not how President Trump does things... That’s not how you drain a swamp. In addition to major cuts to the EPA, which routinely operates outside of its charter and in violation of its Congressional authority, the wasteful and sometimes opulent State Department, and other large money wasting bureaucracies, President Trump’s first budget proposal calls for the complete elimination of 19 federal agencies, totaling $3 billion in additional cuts. They’re all liberal favorites, including liberal political enabling and recruitment organizations and some that are arguably anti-American...
'Israel will not hesitate
to destroy Syrian air defenses'
by Anna Ahronheim
{jpost.com} ~ Israel “will not hesitate” to destroy Syria’s air defense systems if that country ever again targets IAF jet fighters, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman threatened on Sunday... The air force’s Arrow anti-aircraft missile defense system intercepted a Syrian SA-5 missile fired at Israeli jets on Friday night. The jets had already returned to Israeli airspace when they were attacked, after striking targets in Syria. “You have to understand the context; if we strike there is a real reason for it,” the defense minister said during a visit to the Meitav IDF Induction Center at Tel Hashomer in Ramat Gan... http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-will-not-hesitate-to-destroy-Syrian-air-defenses-484583
.The Army Is About To Deploy One Of The Most
Powerful Laser Weapons In Existence
by Russ Read
{dailycaller.com} ~ The U.S. Army is about to make a technological leap as it prepares to field a small, yet ultra-powerful laser weapon system... Lockheed Martin announced it had completed the design, development and demonstration of the Army’s new laser in a press release Thursday. The 60-kilowatt laser is one of the most powerful of its kind, and could be delivered to the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command in Huntsville, Ala., in a matter of months. “Delivery of this laser represents an important milestone along the path to fielding a practical laser weapon system,” said Vice President Paula Hartley, head of Advanced Product Solutions within Lockheed’s cyber, ships, and advanced technologies line, in a statement. “This milestone could not have been achieved without close partnership between the U.S. Army and Lockheed Martin; we are pleased to be able to deliver this system for their further integration and evaluation.”... http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/19/the-army-is-about-to-deploy-one-of-the-most-powerful-laser-weapons-in-existence-video/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=TheDC%20Morning&utm_campaign=TheDC%20Weekend
.
Tomi Lahren Likely On Her Way Out At The Blaze
by Peter Hasson
{dailycaller.com} ~ Political commentator Tomi Lahren will likely be leaving The Blaze in September if not sooner, The Daily Caller has learned... Lahren hosts her own show for The Blaze and has garnered national attention for her aggressive rants on politically-charged topics like Black Lives Matter, which frequently went viral on Facebook. Lahren’s inflammatory, oftentimes angry style has placed her increasingly at odds with coworkers at The Blaze, The Daily Caller has learned, a situation that’s worsened after she called pro-life conservatives hypocrites...Hire her FoxNews! http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/tomi-lahren-likely-on-her-way-out-at-the-blaze/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=TheDC%20Morning&utm_campaign=TheDC%20Weekend
.
Deep State Rogue Judges, Truth May Come
Out On liar-nObama Spying
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs invited former Prosecutor and Assistant District Attorney, Fox host Kimberly Guilfoyle onto his program for a discussion of the federal judiciary gone rogue... He points out that the Justice Department will be appealing the decision of the libtard in Maryland and has asked for clarification for what the hell he’s doing from the political tool in Hawaii prior to making a decision on appeal in that instance. Upon what basis do you appeal something that has no connection to the law, common sense or sanity to begin with? Before they get into the rogue judiciary, Dobbs describes the events coming out of the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee as “a terrific development,” noting that “apparently Devin Nunes has had some significant response on surveillance.” Guilfoyle recalls when Nunes said, “The mainstream media only put forward some of the language that he initially discussed in terms of this investigation. But they didn’t talk about incidental collection, where there could be larger wiretaps going where this was then captured and people were, in fact, recorded and information gathered in that area.”...
.
.
Did liar-nObama Spy on Trump?
by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ The question of whether former President Barack liar-nObama actually spied on President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and transition has been tantalizing Washington since President Trump first made the allegation nearly two weeks ago. Since then, three investigations have been launched — one by the FBI, one by the House of Representatives and one by the Senate. Are the investigators chasing a phantom, or did this actually happen?
Here is the back story.
liar-nObama would not have needed a warrant to authorize surveillance on Trump. liar-nObama was the president and as such enjoyed authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to order surveillance on any person in America, without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant.
FISA contemplates that the surveillance it authorizes will be for national security purposes, but this is an amorphous phrase and an ambiguous standard that has been the favorite excuse of most modern presidents for extraconstitutional behavior. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon used national security as a pretext to deploying the FBI and CIA to spy on students and even to break in to the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, one of his tormentors.
FISA was enacted in the late 1970s to force the federal government to focus its surveillance activities — its domestic national security-based spying — on only those people who were more likely than not agents of a foreign government. Because FISA authorizes judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make rules and establish procedures for surveillance — essentially lawmaking — in secret, the public and the media have been largely kept in the dark about the nature and extent of the statute and the legal and moral rationale for the federal government's spying on everyone in the U.S.
The mass spying that these judges have ruled FISA authorizes is directly counter to the wording, meaning and purpose of FISA itself, which was enacted to prevent just what it has in fact now unleashed.
We now know indisputably that this secret FISA court — whose judges cannot keep records of their own work and have their pockets and briefcases checked by guards as they enter and leave the courthouse — has permitted all spying on everyone all the time.
The FISA court only hears lawyers for the government, and they have convinced it that it is more efficient to capture the digital versions of everyone's phone calls, texts, emails and other digital traffic than it is to force the government — as the Constitution requires — to focus on only those who there is reason to believe are more likely than not engaging in unlawful acts.
When FISA was written, telephone surveillance was a matter of wiretapping — installing a wire onto the target's telephone line, either inside or outside the home or business, and listening to or recording in real time the conversations that were audible on the tapped line.
Today the National Security Agency has 24/7 access to the mainframe computers of all telecom providers and all computer service providers and to all digital traffic carried by fiber optics in the U.S. The NSA has had this access pursuant to FISA court orders issued in 2005 and renewed every 90 days. The FISA court has based its rulings on its own essentially secret convoluted logic, never subjected to public scrutiny. That has resulted in the universal surveillance state in which we in America now live. The NSA has never denied this.
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, liar-nObama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump's telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President liar-nObama last year wanted transcripts of Trump's calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of liar-nObama's calls today if President Trump wanted them.
But if liar-nObama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump's conversations last fall under the pretext of national security — to find out whether Trump was communicating with the Russians would have been a good excuse — there would exist somewhere a record of such an order. For that reason, if liar-nObama did this, he no doubt used a source on which he'd leave no fingerprints.
Enter James Bond.
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided liar-nObama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ — a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms — has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, liar-nObama would have had access to what he wanted with no liar-nObama administration fingerprints.
Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump's inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family.
I hope the investigations of Trump's allegation discover and reveal the truth — whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn't exist.
For how much longer will we have freedom?
Here is the back story.
liar-nObama would not have needed a warrant to authorize surveillance on Trump. liar-nObama was the president and as such enjoyed authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to order surveillance on any person in America, without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant.
FISA contemplates that the surveillance it authorizes will be for national security purposes, but this is an amorphous phrase and an ambiguous standard that has been the favorite excuse of most modern presidents for extraconstitutional behavior. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon used national security as a pretext to deploying the FBI and CIA to spy on students and even to break in to the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, one of his tormentors.
FISA was enacted in the late 1970s to force the federal government to focus its surveillance activities — its domestic national security-based spying — on only those people who were more likely than not agents of a foreign government. Because FISA authorizes judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make rules and establish procedures for surveillance — essentially lawmaking — in secret, the public and the media have been largely kept in the dark about the nature and extent of the statute and the legal and moral rationale for the federal government's spying on everyone in the U.S.
The mass spying that these judges have ruled FISA authorizes is directly counter to the wording, meaning and purpose of FISA itself, which was enacted to prevent just what it has in fact now unleashed.
We now know indisputably that this secret FISA court — whose judges cannot keep records of their own work and have their pockets and briefcases checked by guards as they enter and leave the courthouse — has permitted all spying on everyone all the time.
The FISA court only hears lawyers for the government, and they have convinced it that it is more efficient to capture the digital versions of everyone's phone calls, texts, emails and other digital traffic than it is to force the government — as the Constitution requires — to focus on only those who there is reason to believe are more likely than not engaging in unlawful acts.
When FISA was written, telephone surveillance was a matter of wiretapping — installing a wire onto the target's telephone line, either inside or outside the home or business, and listening to or recording in real time the conversations that were audible on the tapped line.
Today the National Security Agency has 24/7 access to the mainframe computers of all telecom providers and all computer service providers and to all digital traffic carried by fiber optics in the U.S. The NSA has had this access pursuant to FISA court orders issued in 2005 and renewed every 90 days. The FISA court has based its rulings on its own essentially secret convoluted logic, never subjected to public scrutiny. That has resulted in the universal surveillance state in which we in America now live. The NSA has never denied this.
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, liar-nObama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump's telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President liar-nObama last year wanted transcripts of Trump's calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of liar-nObama's calls today if President Trump wanted them.
But if liar-nObama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump's conversations last fall under the pretext of national security — to find out whether Trump was communicating with the Russians would have been a good excuse — there would exist somewhere a record of such an order. For that reason, if liar-nObama did this, he no doubt used a source on which he'd leave no fingerprints.
Enter James Bond.
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided liar-nObama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ — a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms — has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, liar-nObama would have had access to what he wanted with no liar-nObama administration fingerprints.
Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump's inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family.
I hope the investigations of Trump's allegation discover and reveal the truth — whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn't exist.
For how much longer will we have freedom?
Comments