Obama spying looks even worse than Trump claimed


WASHINGTON – The spying by the Obama administration on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump reportedly was even worse than what he has alleged.

And it had nothing to do with Russia but everything to do with politics.

Sources in the intelligence community claim the potentially illegal revealing of names, or unmasking, of people in the Trump camp who were under surveillance was done purely “for political purposes” to “hurt and embarrass (candidate) Trump and his team.”

The bombshell revelations are coming from rank and file members of the intelligence community who are fighting back against a stonewall by the leaders at the nation’s spy agencies, according to Fox News.

Reporter Adam Housely said the sources are “not Trump” people but are “frustrated with the politics that is taking place in these (intelligence) agencies.”

And what they have revealed is amazing. Here is what they told Fox:

1) Surveillance by intelligence agencies during the Obama administration began months ago, even before President Trump became the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials, but he said they were not the sources of any information.

Fox also reports that The Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into “whether the FBI wrongly included political opposition research from Trump’s opponents in its probe.”

And whether the FBI paid a former British spy who wrote a sensational and discredited report alleging wild improprieties by Trump and his aides.



Lawmakers have a plan to pay for Trump’s wall

President Donald Trump vowed to make Mexico pay for his promised wall along the nation’s southern border—but he has yet to explain exactly how it would work. A Republican lawmaker from Alabama, meanwhile, is offering up a plan of his own.

Rep. Mike Rogers recently introduced legislation that would implement a 2 percent tax on all wire transfers headed to countries south of the border.

And the amount of money being sent isn’t chump change. In 2014, more than $24 billion poured into Mexico by way of the transfers and a handful of Central and South American countries receive more than 15 percent of their GDP via remittances.

“This bill is simple – anyone who sends their money to countries that benefit from our porous borders and illegal immigration should be responsible for providing some of the funds needed to complete the wall. This bill keeps money in the American economy, and most importantly, it creates a funding stream to build the wall,” Rogers said.

Rogers’ measure, which has the backing of fellow Alabama conservative Rep. Mo Brooks, comes as House Speaker Paul Ryan warns voters that the funds for the wall Trump promised simply aren’t there at the moment.

“The big chunk of money for the wall, really, is…next fiscal year’s appropriations because they literally can’t start construction even this quickly,” he said, addressing a Trump funding request.

The White House requested $1.4 billion for the current fiscal year to begin the initial stages of the wall project as soon as possible.

The post Lawmakers have a plan to pay for Trump’s wall appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


What are they on? Lawmakers go after dealers selling ‘flavored drugs’

In every area of the United States it is 100 percent illegal to sell cocaine or methamphetamine. It’s also totally illegal to sell mind altering substances to children. But that isn’t stopping two senators from introducing some very stupid legislation.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) just introduced “The Protecting Kids from Candy-Flavored Drugs Act of 2017.”

Their legislation would:

Provide an enhanced penalty when a person manufactures, creates, distributes, dispenses, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or Schedule II that is:

Combined with a beverage or candy product,

Marketed or packaged to appear similar to a beverage or candy product, or

Modified by flavoring or coloring to appear similar to a candy or beverage product.

Selling drugs is bad. Selling drugs to children is worse. But, even without the aforementioned legislation, laws on the books in the U.S. already address these facts.

So why is Feinstein so fired up to add to them?

Well, she claims there’s a huge problem of fruity-flavored cocaine and methamphetamine being pushed on the nation’s school children. No joke.

She said via Twitter: “There are many instances of drug dealers altering flavor and packaging of cocaine or methamphetamines to appeal to children.

“There are many instances of drug dealers altering flavor and packaging of cocaine or methamphetamines to appeal to children.”

Again, those tools already exist. Dealers caught in the U.S. selling narcotics to minors, or in the vicinity of minors, are already subject to harsher sentencing.

What the Feinstein/Grassley bill really targets is another type of drug altogether: legal marijuana. In many states where medical and recreational marijuana is now legal, marijuana edibles—often baked goods, chewable candies, and even suckers— are marketed in shops as intake methods that can help provide users a more accurate dose than traditional methods of using the drug.

The dosing thing is majorly important for people who don’t particularly enjoy the psychoactive effects of marijuana, but who do find the drug useful in reducing physical pain.

These shops don’t sell to children and they don’t have a cocaine or methamphetamine selection. That, of course, would be illegal.

As for the dealers Feinstein is talking about… there simply isn’t any evidence to support her argument candied cocaine and meth is a thing.

So why the save the children from candy laced with cocaine legislation?

Maybe it has something to do with the $216,350 in Feinstein friendly campaign spending Big Pharma shelled out last year. Grassley benefited from a less impressive $230,564 in spending from the industry.

After all, convenient dosing for marijuana-using patients can’t be helping the pill pushers’ bottom lines. So creating a boogeyman make it dangerous for the shops to sell edible products could make sense.

Or maybe Grassley and Feinstein, both 83-years-old, simply enjoy a bit of good old fashioned moral panic.

The post What are they on? Lawmakers go after dealers selling ‘flavored drugs’ appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


The WIRE: Your week in review

From Manhattan to Malibu — and most points in between — it’s time for a look back at the week that was. Personal Liberty Digest® presents: The WIRE!

Snowflakes blasted Vice President Mike Pence this week, because he loves and respects his wife; behavior which clearly confuses the people who just loved, loved, loved these guys.

“He hasn’t raped or killed a single intern.”
“Ha! What a sap!”

While the Democrats continued throwing themselves against the wall over Pence not being a pig, Pence went and cast the tie-breaking vote to open the door to states’ defunding anti-life groups like Planned Parenthood.

“Sorry snowflakes. You say something?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attacked a woman during a night out at a ritzy Manhattan restaurant. Her offense? Voting for President Trump. Seems like that’s kinda why he’s minority leader, but you do you, Chuckie.

Tell me more about how Mike Pence being a gentleman is “misogynistic.”

United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May signed EU Article 50, serving notice to the European bureaucracy of Britain’s intent to “Brexit.”

You rule, Britannia!

With all the scratch the old crook skimmed from that One United Bank scam, you’d think Maxine Waters could score a more believable rug. Still, Bill O’Reilly should be ashamed of himself. His remark was disrespectful and crude.

James Brown deserves better.

The ghost of elections past rose this week as Hillary Clinton appeared at a left-wing rally. The old girl exhorted the mob to “resist, insist, persist and enlist!”

Delete. Defeat. Now beat it, freak.

Coming soon, from the man who invented the internet: An Inconvenient Truth 2 — ManBearPig Strikes Back!

It’s gonna make Sharknado look like an Attenborough documentary.

North Korea threatened war over people like Senator John McCain making fat jokes at the expense of their portly dictator Kim Jong Un.

“You’re not fat, Dear Leader! (That’s not food, Dear Leader.)”

At Florida’s Rollins College, a student is facing a failing grade, harassment, false police reports and even suspension for challenging a Muslim professor who claimed the crucifixion of the Savior is a “hoax.”

If this is what modern higher education has become, then maybe it should be free.

Remember Drexel University “professor” George Ciccariello-Maher? The educator who wished for a “white genocide” for Christmas is back! And this time, sharing a plane with a veteran makes him want to “vomit,” or shriek at the soldier.

Drexel University! Just $69,912 per year! Come for the racism, stay for the treason!

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra charged investigative journalists from the Center for Medical Progress with felonies for exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby parts racket. I’m sure the abortionists — who have donated heavily to his campaign coffers — are grateful.

I’m sure he’s grateful, too. The man does have kids, after all.

Check out Planned Parenthood’s new Washington headquarters, built for around $20 million. Remind me again — why do they need our tax dollars?

Enjoy the latest in comfort and style while “Doctor” Gosnell vacuums your child out of your uterus!

The millionaire’s playground of Malibu, Californistan, this week declared itself to be a criminal haven known as a “sanctuary city.” I guess being an illegal alien is a high-dollar racket. All illegals — vamos a Malibu, amirite?

“Besides, if we deport the illegals, who’s gonna trim my topiaries and skim my infinity pool?”

Pasty-faced liberals celebrated “Muslim Women’s Day” earlier this week. Women who remain enslaved by Islam seemed to enjoy it, too. At least, we think they enjoyed it.

Maybe they’ll be allowed to tell us by the next Muslim Women’s Day.

Democrats are urging President Trump to veto a House bill which would allow internet service providers to market your browsing history to advertisers. While the bill is problematic, they seemed particularly concerned.

What’s the rush? Oh, right…

Apparently, The Washington Post has its panties in a knot over the fact that President Donald Trump doesn’t have a pet. It’s not that he doesn’t like them, it’s just that Obama told him it can get tricky to leave them at home for long hours.

“Joe! The rug!”
“I tried to hold it.”

And that’s your week in review! For the Personal Liberty Digest®, I’m Ben Crystal saying “See you next week on the WIRE!”

The post The WIRE: Your week in review appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


White House warns Dems Gorsuch opposition ‘baseless’

Federal Judge Neil M. Gorsuch (Photo: University of Colorado Law School)

Federal Judge Neil M. Gorsuch (Photo: University of Colorado Law School)

The White House on Friday put Democrats in the U.S. Senate on notice that any opposition they express to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch when a vote is held, probably next week, will be viewed as “baseless.”

And, essentially, 100 percent partisan.

“The baseless Democratic opposition to Judge Gorsuch shows that they would have the same opposition to ANY judge a Republican president nominates,” the White House said in a statement.

Democrats have been miffed that first, their choice, through ex-President Obama, of Merrick Garland, was not given a vote by the GOP majority in the Senate last year when Justice Antonin Scalia died.

They also have been upset that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, in November became a twice-failed presidential hopeful, taking away any opportunity for Democrats to control the court’s nominees for at least the coming few years.

They have wanted to replace Scalia, a staunch conservative, with someone who is more accepting of their progressive agenda that believes the Constitution is a living and breathing document that can readily be reinterpreted based on the current social agenda.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

For example, that happened when the narrow 5-4 liberal majority in the court two years ago created same-sex “marriage” for the nation even though the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, and just months earlier, the same court had ruled that the regulation of marriage belonged strictly to the states.

The White House pointed out that President Trump selected Gorsuch after getting advice from 29 senators, “more than half of these were Democrats, including every Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

“Their consensus advice was to pick a respected mainstream judge,” the White House explained, and “Gorsuch is the very definition of a mainstream judge.”

“In the more than 2,700 cases he has participated in on the 10th Circuit, 97 percent of them have been unanimously decided. He was in the majority 99 percent of the time. He has the lowest rate of other judges dissenting from his opinions on the 10th Circuit. According to CRS, only 1.5 percent of Judge Gorsuch’s majority opinions were accompanied by a dissent—the lowest of any judge in the study.”

And the Supreme Court “has never overruled an opinion Judge Gorsuch authored, and only one time in the more than 2,700 cases he participated in, has the Supreme Court overruled an opinion where Judge Gorsuch sat on the panel.”

He was, of course, unanimously confirmed when he was elevated to the 10th Circuit a decade back, the White House pointed out.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s commentary that Democrats would be wrong to block a Gorsuch vote, carried on the left-leaning CNN, explained that “arguments peddled by the left against him are total straw men and non sequiturs.”

“If Democrats refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has threatened, then there’s no Republican nominee they won’t filibuster. Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. The question is whether Democrats will give him the up-or-down vote he deserves,” he wrote.

One other senator, commenting on the dispute, issued a terse statement that Gorsuch “will be confirmed.”

Democrats have been trying to get every single party member to line up against Gorsuch, as by tradition the GOP would need eight Democrats to join the 52-member GOP majority to approve Gorsuch.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been the loudest voice opposing Gorsuch, threatening that there will be terrible consequences if the GOP doesn’t get to 60, and simply changes Senate rules, as the Democrats did under Harry Reid several years ago for other nominees, and allow a vote on a simple majority.

The White House pointed out that since his nomination, Gorsuch has met with nearly 80 senators, has provided more than 70 pages of written answers, and more than 75,000 pages of speeches, case briefs, opinions and written works dating back decades have been made available.

“At the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and Ranking Member, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House Archives produced over 180,000 pages of email and paper records related to Judge Gorsuch’s time at the DOJ,” the White House said.

He sat for nearly 20 hours of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, answering nearly 1,200 questions.

The White House said, however, it’s appearing that Democrats decided to oppose Gorsuch “before he was even nominated.”

It is not Gorsuch’s position, however, that the Democrats really fear, analysts have confirmed, since he would be only replacing Scalia, whose adherence to the Constitution was legend.

It would be another nomination, especially if it was replace one of the far-left agenda driven justices already on the court.

For example, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg both advocated for same-sex “marriage” by performing ceremonies even as the court was considering whether to create that institution. Then they refused to recuse themselves, as asked by a legal organization, because of their public advocacy on an issue before the court.

WND columnist Armstrong Williams wrote, “Gorsuch’s detractors misconceive the role of the judge. They fault him for resisting the temptation to play Don Quixote to rescue damsels in distress by stretching the law to the breaking point. He recognizes, in the words of immortalized Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Missouri, Texas, and Kansas Ry v. May, that ‘it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.’”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, recently told WND that Gorsuch needs to be, and will be, affirmed.



“Without engaging in hypothetical speculation about exactly what mechanism will be deployed here, I will say this very confidently, we’re going to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed. One way or another, he will be confirmed,” vowed Lee.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.



Poll: 57% say Trump ‘too confrontational’

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) On a day when President Trump turned to Twitter to rip the New York Times and one of the most influential conservative caucuses in the House, a new poll found that a majority of Americans believe he is too fast to pick a fight.

Rasmussen Reports said that 57 percent view Trump as “too confrontational.” Just 6 percent think he is “too cooperative,” and 32 percent see his approach as “about right.”


Freedom Caucus leader: ‘Trump is conservative’

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) House Freedom Caucus leaders Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, praised Donald Trump on Thursday as a “conservative” president, even as Trump continues to criticize them for not supporting the GOP’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“I think that Donald Trump is a conservative based on the Cabinet members he’s picked, the Supreme Court nominee that he nominated, the budget he put forth,” Meadows said in an interview with the Washington Examiner.

“All the indications early on is that President Trump is a conservative based on the actions he’s taken,” Meadows said.