Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people. (Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump)

Hannity: Susan Rice has a lot of explaining to do

Edit 3:30: Judge Napolitano on if Susan Rice did anything illegal. His take on what she did is it might be espionage.

___________________

This scandal can and should be compared to Watergate, though it is vastly worse.

Watergate was a break-in of one office to get info on the campaign. This scandal is about undermining the incoming president of the USA through the use of America’s intelligence agencies.

If the unmasking of American names was done by Rice, that action is not in itself technically illegal as far as I understand. If Rice unmasked for any reason other than “national security,” it is illegal. Similarly, Obama’s lowering the secrecy status of that unmasked information so that more eyes within the intelligence community would be on it is not in itself illegal as far as I understand.

Leaking those names to the press is illegal. Since both Rice and Obama were responsible for setting up the conditions to make those leaks possible, it does seem that there is very significant moral culpability on both of their parts.

Here is a reasonable back-and-forth on this issue: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means.

An important point missed by Carlson in this discussion is: Not only is there no evidence of Russian hacking but the DNC refused multiple times to allow the FBI to examine the hacked server.

Fake news: Ignoring immigrant crime

“Fake news” means knowingly publishing something that is not true or knowingly not publishing something that is true.

News media non-coverage of the recent Maryland high school rape case is a glaring example of fake news. Good analysis in the link below of this crime and how it is not being reported due to political bias.

Bill O’Reilly: Media’s treatment of Maryland high school rape ‘beyond anything I have ever seen’

A great deal of fake news involves what is not reported. Controlling what stories the public sees to support a political agenda is propaganda, not news.

Neocons as a Figment of Imagination: Criticizing their thuggery is anti-Semitism?

Philip Giraldi

…Significant policies like those relating to war and peace, healthcare and immigration were rarely seriously challenged prior to Trump because there is a broad agreement regarding what the Establishment will allow to take place. That is how the Deep State operates.

When it comes to foreign and national security policy the neocons are most definitely an integral part of the Deep State, using money and access to politicians to influence what is taking place without anyone seriously challenging their role. They are an essential cog in a system that is completely corrupt: it exists to sell out the public interest, and includes both major political parties as well as government officials. (Source)

IMO, Giraldi is right. Well-worth reading. ABN

Christian universal love is a dubious concept

As practiced today by many, I don’t think it works.

An example I know in detail is the story of a woman whose second husband was a closet alcoholic. After she discovered his problem and divorced him for other reasons, which were profoundly complicated by the booze, she continued to believe that he just needed more Christian love. Long story short, eventually she came to understand that you cannot love someone away from alcoholism. That tactic only enables them in too many cases.

A second example appears in the video below, Wilders’ opponent uses many abstractions, including Christian love, to defend his position. His defense reminds me of the woman in the story above. It is an a priori defense, an application of a rule that obviously cannot be right every time.

Why is wisdom thought to run counter to universal love in Christianity? Why can’t loving your neighbor be tempered with a wise understanding of your neighbor?

Here is the vid, which is interesting in and of itself.

By the way, I favor love and kindness as much as reasonably possible. I also favor erring on the side of mercy and kindness as much as reasonably possible. But there is a line there that I believe it is stupid to cross.

Most of the arguments about immigration in the US and Europe today are arguments about degree. Often those arguments get mixed in with “universals” like constitutional law, Christian love, fairness, rights, and so on.

Reasonable minds may differ, but all factors need to be considered, including the factors of the traditional culture of the region and the needs and desires of the citizens who are of that traditional culture.

In my view, some new people is good. Too many new people is not good.

______________

Edit 3/18/17: I am a distant foreign observer, but my guess is Wilders lost at least partly because he says things about Islam that there is no need to say. A simple cultural-demographic argument is all that is needed.