How far would those involved in a Liberal Fascist Government go in order to secure the Presidency for their Political Party’s Presidential Candidate?
Adam Housely of Fox News reported yesterday that
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.
“What I know is this … If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.
“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.
When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.
Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”
Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.
At one time, Dr. Susan Rice was being considered to succeed Hillary Clinton as Obama’s Secretary of State. Fearing the intense scrutiny of her conduct during the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi,. Libya, in which four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens were slaughtered by Radical Islamists, that she would face if selected by Obama for that position, she withdrew from consideration, writing the following in a letter to President Obama…
When discussing Benghazi, I relied on fully cleared, unclassified points provided by the intelligence community, which encapsulated their best current assessment. These unclassified points were consistent with the classified assessments I received as a senior policymaker. It would have been irresponsible for me to substitute any personal judgment for our government’s and wrong to reveal classified material. I made clear in each interview that the information I was providing was preliminary and that ongoing investigations would give us definitive answers. I have tremendous appreciation for our intelligence professionals, who work hard to provide their best assessments based on the information available. Long experience shows that our first accounts of terrorist attacks and other tragedies often evolve over time. The intelligence community did its job in good faith. And so did I.
I have never sought in any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. To do so would run counter to my character and my life of public service. But in recent weeks, new lines of attack have been raised to malign my character and my career. Even before I was nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a wholly false picture of me. This has interfered increasingly with my work on behalf of the United States at the United Nations and with America’s agenda.
I grew up in Washington, D.C., and I’ve seen plenty of battles over politics and policy. But a national security appointment, much less a potential one, should never be turned into a political football. There are far bigger issues at stake. So I concluded this distraction has to stop.
Translation: “Not only were they going to make me tell the truth about Benghazi, they would also find out my history of being a Muslim sympathizer.”
While Dr. Rice was working at the Brookings Institute, she co-authored a paper published in 2005, titled Can “Freedom Only” Secure Our Future? In this paper, she wrote,
…Some scholars argue that the absence of political freedoms, rather than lack of educational opportunity, motivate young men to join terrorist networks.
…Others hold that poverty and under-development create breeding grounds for terrorist foot soldiers.
…More significant is poverty’s contribution to fueling civil conflict and state weakness that terrorist networks and other predators can exploit.
…Absent conflict, low levels of income and development, particularly in countries with significant, but not necessarily majority Muslim populations may also facilitate terrorist operations.
…Promoting both development and democracy in faraway countries is a 21st century security imperative. We need a dual strategy. We must combine effective formulas for fostering freedom through building civil society and transparent democratic institutions with a determination to “make poverty history”.
Please note the irony of a woman advocating for civility and transparency who has proven, through her actions after the Benghazi Massacre and now, in the wake of her involvement in spying on the Presidential Candidate and Campaign Staff of the opposite political party under the auspices of a sitting President, to be anything but “Civil” and “transparent”.
The thing is, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his program yesterday,
This story is not Trump and the Russians. I’m sorry to be so repetitive. The story is the surveillance that the Obama administration was engaging in of Trump and who knows who else. Now, you say, “Rush, this is awfully hard to believe.” No, it isn’t. This is my point about liberals and who they are. They weaponized the IRS against conservatives, didn’t they? They most certainly did.
They have done any number of things, take over police departments on the basis that they’re racist after things like what happened in Ferguson or in Baltimore. The idea that people who are closely associated with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn would not surveil their enemies. It’s much easier to believe that it would happen. This is why liberals want power. This is the kind of thing they want to be able to do with it.
Per usual, Rush is right.
For any American who has been paying attention, Obama’s surveillance of Trump and his Campaign Staff is not shocking at all.
It is simply a continuation of a pattern of behavior associated with the political ideology of the Former President and his Administration.
When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.
Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama tried to get passed, was designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.
Boys and Girls, it was not just “Chicago-style Politics” that motivated Obama to spy on the Trump Campaign. It was his predilection toward Government-sponsored FASCISM.
My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II, now known as D-Day.
World War II was in a war against Fascism.
What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America has been fighting a new War Against Fascism for some time now.
It has not been a war fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, Law Suits, Judicial Activism and Royal Edicts from the Far Left and their leaders like the Former King Barack The First.
It’s not our Brightest and Best who have been wounded on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which have been attacked, pierced by the arrows of Socialism and Political Correctness.
By now, there is someone out there among you saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”
No, Skippy, I’m not.
If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that all this garbage that happened during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama was “the will of the people”. In order to prove their claim, they will site Democratically-stacked push polls from those years or place Hollywood Liberals in front of a camera, so they can mindlessly pontificate and tell us “common folk” what we should do.
If there is “no Fascism”, what do you call Obama’s suggestions and actions to suppress the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech of Americans, who disagreed with the Liberal “Politically Correct” Point of View, up to and including the surveillance of and subsequent purposeful “unmasking ” of the Trump Campaign Staff?
Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible.
Until He Comes,