Updated 3 stories on why protecting our borders remains important


100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to U.S.

In a 18 October 2018 Canada Free Press article, the CFP shows how we cannot trust our security to the nations to our South.

In a startling revelation, Guatemala’s president announced in the country’s largest newspaper that nearly 100 ISIS terrorists have been apprehended in the impoverished Central American nation. Why should Americans care about this?

A caravan of Central American migrants is making its way north. Let’s not forget that Guatemala is one of the countries that bombarded the U.S. with illegal immigrant minors under Barack Obama’s open border free-for-all. They came in droves from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala through the Mexican border and for years Uncle Sam rolled out the welcome mat offering housing, food, medical treatment and a free education

Guatemala has long been known as a major smuggling corridor

A terrorist could have easily slipped in considering the minors, coined Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), were not properly vetted and some turned out to be violent gangbangers who went on to commit heinous crimes in their adopted land of opportunity. In fact, the nation’s most violent street gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), was energized by the barrage of UACs.

The Texas Department of Public Safety even issued a report documenting how the MS-13 emerged as a top tier gang in the state thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that came with the UACs. At the time more than 60,000 UACs—many with criminal histories—had stormed into the U.S. in a matter of months. Tens of thousands more eventually made it north.

(Read more at the Canada Free Press)

As we know from years of experience, Muslim organizations (especially ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the like) would like to attack America. This Democrat-staged invasion seems like a big opportunity for an attack to occur. While many of the main stream media will claim that there is no Democrat support for the migrant march, many of us have a hard time believing that because we remember the People Without Borders that pushed migrants toward our borders in April 2018, September 2016, and other dates.

Guatamalans en route into Mexico

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Caravan of 3,000 Central American migrants crosses into Mexico

The Guardian reports in a 19 October 2018 article that the numbers of potential invaders has swollen to 3,000.

Thousands of Central American migrants have defied Donald Trump and streamed over the international bridge from Guatemala into Mexico, where some clashed with riot police in an attempt to continue their journey north.

Singing the Honduran national anthem and chanting “Yes we could!”, the crowd of about 3,000 people – including entire families pushing wheelchairs and strollers – walked across the bridge over the muddy Suchiate river on Friday afternoon.

Locals cheered and handed out bottles of water, while Guatemalan police officers stood to the side of the road and watched the migrants pass.

Ivys Osorio, 31, said he was trying to return to Houston, where he lived for 16 years before he was deported in 2016 – and where his wife still lives. “I thought they weren’t going to let us cross – but now I feel getting closer to her,” he said.

(Read more at The Guardian)

Considering that these people have marched singing the national anthem of their homeland, obviously they have no interest in becoming Americans. By the fact that they have presented demands on several occasions, they don’t seem to have an attitude of working with Americans.

According to some reports, many of these have joined this trek to escape violence. However, the problem with breaking the law to escape lawlessness is that the lawless escape brings its own lawlessness. So, as many across America have seen, with the escaping maid, there is MS-13.

The Secret Service stops an ISIS attack on Trump

How the Secret Service foiled an assassination plot against Trump by ISIS

The Daily Beast revealed the foiling of an ISIS plot against Trump in a 12 October 2018 article.

(T)here was a plot against President Trump’s life in Manila—a shocking fact revealed in United States Secret Service: On the Front Line, a two-hour special airing on the National Geographic Channel Sunday night that—for the first time—provides viewers with a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the workings of the Secret Service, and the complex measures they take to protect the president of the United States.

President Trump (codename: “Mogul”) was due to arrive in the bustling city to meet with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and other South Asian leaders at the ASEAN 50 summit in November 2017. Chad Ragan, a special agent in the Presidential Protective Division, was the Secret Service agent in charge for the trip; Audrey Gibson, a special agent in the Protective Intelligence & Assessment Division (aka “The Bubble”), served as his eyes and ears.

The Secret Service comprises four main teams: Protective Intelligence; Uniformed Division; Protective Operations; and Investigations. The Protective Operations team includes those in the “inner circle,” standing steps from POTUS, and special ops, such as countersnipers and the K-9 explosive detection unit. Protective Intelligence analyzes threats against the president, both on and offline. The Uniformed Division guards the White House or anywhere POTUS goes. And Investigations monitors the motives of people who make threats against the president.

(Read more at the Daily Beast)

If ISIS made an attempt on President Trump’s life in 2017 and if the New Mexico Islamists plotted to use children to kill more American children (not to mention all of the Islamist attacks during the Obama years), what can we lose by protecting our borders?

4 things under-reported in the evening news regarding Pastor Brunson, Turkey, and Trump


Pastor Andrew Brunson and his wife pray for President Trump

US pastor freed from Turkey prays with Trump in Oval Office

A 14 October 2018 Associated Press article shares how Pastor Andrew Brunson prayed with President Trump in the White House after the pastor was released from his 2-year unjust incarceration in Turkey.

Freed American pastor Andrew Brunson fell to one knee in the Oval Office and placed his hand on President Donald Trump’s shoulder in prayer before asking God to provide Trump “supernatural wisdom to accomplish all the plans you have for this country and for him.”

Trump welcomed Brunson to the White House on Saturday to celebrate Brunson’s release from nearly two years of confinement in Turkey, which had sparked a diplomatic row with a key ally and outcry from U.S. evangelical groups. Brunson returned to the U.S. aboard a military jet shortly before meeting the president. He was detained in October 2016, formally arrested that December and placed under house arrest on July 25 for health reasons.

“From a Turkish prison to the White House in 24 hours, that’s not bad,” Trump said.

Brunson’s homecoming amounts to a diplomatic — and possibly political — win for Trump and his evangelical base. Coming on the heels of the confirmation of a conservative justice to the Supreme Court, Brunson’s return is likely to leave evangelical Christians feeling good about the president and motivated get to the polls in the Nov. 6 midterm elections.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Thank God that Pastor Brunson has returned to the USA. While the pastor was held in one of the most repressive Turkish prisons, there were questions as to whether he would ever come out alive. When he was moved to house arrest, there was question of how many years this might drag out. So, when he was released, the relief felt by many groups was great.

No matter what, we have to thank God for the release of Pastor Brunson, President Trump for his tireless efforts that worked toward the same end, and all of the people behind the scenes who helped it happen.

Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:15 NASB)


Trump's tariff plan

Trump’s tariffs against Turkey were instituted to help free Pastor Brunson

As shown by a 10 August 2018 CNBC article, the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration against Turkey were meant to cause enough pain for Turkish president that he might release Pastor Brunson.

President Donald Trump’s move Friday to double metals tariffs on Turkey is only his latest jab against the NATO ally that stems from disagreements over defense policy and the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.

Trump came into office seeking better relations with Turkey. But as Trump announced his plans to hike tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum to 50 percent and 20 percent, respectively, he acknowledged that “our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

In a tweet Friday, the president said he would levy tariffs as “their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar!” The already-reeling currency plunged even more Friday, dropping 20 percent after Trump’s tweet.

The White House later tried to clarify Trump’s tweet, saying in a statement that he “authorized the preparation of documents to raise tariffs” on metals imports from Turkey.

(Read more at CNBC)

Admittedly, some of the “disagreements over defense policy” centered on allegations that Turkey profited from ISIS oil deals. Still, a large factor in the decision to step up the isolation of Turkey was the unwarranted detention of Pastor Brunson.

The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (Proverbs 16:9 NASB)

Turkey's Lira collapses under Trump tariffs

Trump’s tariffs against Turkey had a major effect on the nation

As Politico pointed out in a 10 August 2018 article, Turkey suffered currency collapse and industry issues resulting from the tariffs imposed due to the unjust imprisonment of an American pastor, support supplied to ISIS, and warming relations with Russia.

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he is doubling tariffs on Turkey after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asked citizens to convert foreign currencies, including U.S. dollars, into local lira — leading to a dramatic drop in the Turkish currency.

“I have just authorized a doubling of Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum with respect to Turkey as their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar! Aluminum will now be 20% and Steel 50%. Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!” Trump tweeted.

The lira is at an all-time low against the dollar, according to CNBC. The lira has been dropping for the past several days, which Erdoğan has said is a “campaign” against Turkey, according to the Associated Press.

White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters said in a statement that the new actions are Section 232 tariffs, which are “imposed on imports from particular countries whose exports threaten to impair national security.”

Trump’s announcement of steeper tariffs is his administration’s latest hit against Turkey.

The president on Aug. 1 issued sanctions against the longtime NATO ally after Turkey continued to detain American pastor Andrew Brunson. Trump warned Erdoğan in July to release the pastor or they would suffer sanctions.

Brunson was arrested in October 2016 by Turkey’s government on charges of aiding a terrorist organization and for espionage. The U.S. and Turkish officials met this week to discuss Brunson’s release, but a resolution was not reached.

(Read more at Politico)

Since Politico and Trump currently stand at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, we can all assume that Politico published this to point out the suffering of Turkish people and not to help Trump. Nonetheless, since Trump secured the release of Pastor Brunson and President Erdoğan followed the release with hopes that “the United States and Turkey will continue their cooperation as the allies that they are, and fight together against terrorist groups,” we have to assume that not only has Trump’s goal of freeing a pastor (imprisoned during the Obama years) has succeeded, but also that Trump’s diplomacy efforts still advance.

Turkey's Christians find themselves under seige

Turkey has cracked down on Christians

The United Kingdom’s Express produced a 22 April 2016 article on Christian persecution in Turkey at about the same time that Pastor Brunson was first arrested. In that almost prescient 2016 article, the author notes how the government has run roughshod over Christians.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taken control of six churches in the war-torn southeastern city of Diyarbakir in his latest move to squash freedom of speech and religious movement. 

The state-sanctioned seizure is just the latest in a number of worrying developments to come out of increasingly hardline Turkey, which is in advanced talks with the EU over visa-free travel for its 80 million citizens.

Included in the seizures are Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches, one of which is over 1,700 years old.

They have now effectively become state property – meaning they are run by the government – in a country with a dire human rights record where about 98 percent of the population is Muslim.

The order to seize the churches was made on March 25 by Erdogan’s council of ministers, according to the website World Watch Monitor.

They claim it was made on the grounds that authorities intend to rebuild and restore the historical centre of the city, which has been partially destroyed by 10 months of urban conflict between government forces and militants from the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). 

(Read more at the Express)

Testimony disproving the IG claims of "lack of bias:" Cases 1 & 2 (Graham & Gowdy)


Senator Graham: “Eventually ‘very concerned’ gets to be ‘enough already.’ ”

In the following video, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pressed Inspector General Michael Horowitz about various various depictions of bias against then-candidate Donald Trump. (Emphasis is mine for key passages.)

Speaker Testimony
Sen. Graham: Would you say that this investigation was done by the book?
M. Horowitz: Um. Hard to say what “by the book” is.
Sen. Graham: Who wrote this book? If it was done by the book, who wrote the book?
M. Horowitz: There are reasons to raise questions.
Sen. Graham: I think you did a good job, but the whole idea that this is normal, folks: there’s nothing here normal. I don’t want you to think the FBI does this day in and day out. This is not normal. I think that’s what you tried to find.
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Do you believe it’s pretty clear to everybody in the country that July 5th that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party?
M. Horowitz: That’s my recollection, and from the …
Sen. Graham: The convention was on the 18th.
M. Horowitz: And the texts, I think, reflect that as well.
Sen. Graham: I’m going to read this text message from page to Strzok on August the 8th after he had gotten the nomination. She says, “Trump’s not ever going to become President, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No, no, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Now I don’t know how you feel about that. That’s pretty unnerving. Strzok, wasn’t he the lead investigator of the Clinton e-mail investigation?
M. Horowitz: He was in essence the lead guy.
Sen. Graham: The head guy looking at Clinton on august 8th says we’ve got to stop Trump. Now was that just idol talk? A week later here’s what they say. Strzok text message to Lisa Page.  “I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy and the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Now that’s a week later. Who’s Andy?
M. Horowitz: Our understanding it was Andy McCabe, the deputy director.
Sen. Graham: So, you have the deputy director meeting with the lead investigator of the Clinton e-mail investigation and Ms. Page, who’s involved somehow meeting in Andy’s office discussing taking out an insurance policy to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t become President? Is that what you’re telling us?
M. Horowitz: I’ll be clear, I can’t speak to whether McCabe — Mr. McCabe was there or not.
Sen. Graham: Did you ask Mr. McCabe?
M. Horowitz: We did. He said he did not recall.
Sen. Graham: So, one of them is lying. So, I want you to reopen this investigation and come back and tell us. Do you believe Strzok or do you believe McCabe? Because you just told me the deputy director of the FBI says he’s not the Andy.
M. Horowitz: He doesn’t — just to be clear, they’re talking about a conversation in his office?
Sen. Graham: Yes.
M. Horowitz: He’s claiming — he is saying he does not recall whether he was there or not and neither of those individuals are putting him in the middle of their conversation.
Sen. Graham: All I’m saying is that the Andy’s office where this occurred, he wasn’t there. What did Strzok — Strzok says he’s there. Somebody’s lying. Anyway, we’ll figure that out later. None of this is normal, folks. Let’s look at the actual interview itself. How many people were involved in the Clinton interview on July 2nd?
M. Horowitz: There were six or eight people present but two agents conducting the interview.
Sen. Graham: So, as I understand it, there were two agents and two prosecutors?
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: Now this was an e-mail sent in February 2016 from page to McCabe. “Hey, you surely already considered this, but in my view our best reason to hold the line at two and two (two agents and two prosecutors) is she might be our next President.” How did you feel about that?
M. Horowitz: We were concerned about it and we lay out here why we were concerned.
Sen. Graham: OK. Let’s keep talking about this interview. One of the FBI agents in the interview said on election day to another FBI agent, “You should know that I’m with her.” Now “her” was Clinton, right?
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: How do you feel about that?
M. Horowitz: Very concerned.
Sen. Graham: OK. Eventually “very concerned” gets to be “enough already.” I’m very concerned, you know — one, I’m glad I don’t text and e-mail, that’s one thing I’m glad I don’t do, but circumstances …  Have you ever proved a case by circumstantial evidence, Director Wray?
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Well, I’m going to write you a letter and talk to you about why you should reconsider your findings as to whether or not it affected the investigation. Here’s what Ms. Page — Mr. — Ms. Page said on March 4th, 2016. “God, Trump is a loathsome human.” How do you feel about that? I mean, she’s entitled to her opinion.
M. Horowitz: I think we’ve laid out here why we were so concerned about it.
Sen. Graham: Well, when you add it all up, as early as March these people hated Trump and this investigation was anything but by the book and at the end of the day what Comey did just blows me away as much as it does y’all, and I can’t believe that this happened to my FBI. I told you the story, Mr. Wray, Director Wray, about wanting to be part of the organization and y’all were smart enough not to take me. The bottom line is, if you’re on our side of the aisle, this really does hit you hard. And we can’t just write it off. I think there was a lot of bias that did affect an investigation that is to me almost impossible to explain using any standard that I grew up with as a prosecutor or even as a defense attorney.This is Strzok to Page on October 20th. “Trump is an f’ing idiot.” The bottom line is, I’m glad you found what you found, Mr. Horowitz.

I’m not buying that the Clinton e-mail investigation was on the up and up, and the reason I’m not buying it is because the two people intimately involved, one, the guy — the lead investigator clearly did not want to see Donald Trump become President of the United States. Finally, do you agree with me that finding her liable criminally would be inconsistent with stopping Donald Trump? If they found Hillary Clinton was criminally liable, that paves the way for Donald Trump. Can you put those two things together?

M. Horowitz: I guess it would depend when.
Sen. Graham: How about July? Before the convention.
M. Horowitz: It clearly could conceivably —
Sen. Graham: Well, not clearly conceivably, that’s exactly what’s happening here, folks. You cannot hold her criminally liable and stop him. As to the law, why did they change “gross negligence” in the original statement, Director Wray, to “reckless disregard?”
C. Wray: I think I would defer to the inspector general to look into that.
Sen. Graham: Why did they do that?
M. Horowitz: The explanation was that …
Sen. Graham: Can I suggest something.
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Sen. Graham: Gross negligence is a criminally liable standard.
M. Horowitz: Correct.
Sen. Graham: So, if they said it the way they originally wrote it, she’s guilty of a crime. And the reason they changed it is because she’s not guilty of a crime and if you want to stop him, it can’t be gross negligence. What is the difference between “reckless disregard” and “gross negligence?”
M. Horowitz: Not much.
Sen. Graham: It is a lot politically.
M. Horowitz: Right.

Representative Gowdy: “What is more textbook bias than prejudging this (Clinton) investigation before it’s over and this one (Trump’s) before it begins?

Speaker Testimony
Rep. Gowdy: Inspector General, there’s a text exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok from August 8th of 2016 and in that text exchange, Lisa Page wrote “Trump’s not ever going to become President, right?” with a question mark. And followed that with “Right” with a question mark and an exclamation point in case anyone reading it may have missed the point of her emphasis.

Peter Strzok responded, “No. No, he’s not. We will stop it.”

Do I have that text exchange right?

M. Horowitz: You do.
Rep. Gowdy: Now Lisa Page was an FBI lawyer who worked on the Clinton email investigation.
M. Horowitz: That’s correct.
Rep. Gowdy: Did she also work on the Russia investigation?
M. Horowitz: Uh, she did.
Rep. Gowdy: How about the Mueller special counsel team?
M. Horowitz: She did for a period of time.
Rep. Gowdy: All right. So we’re three for three on her working on the two most important bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond. Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to leak information to a news outlet?
M. Horowitz: She was a special counsel, and as we indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through whom he provided that information.
Rep. Gowdy: Wasn’t there also a text about an “insurance policy” in case Trump won and a meeting in “Andy’s office?” She was part of that text string, too, wasn’t she?
M. Horowitz: Correct. That was on August 15th.
Rep. Gowdy: All right, so this August 8 text was not the only time FBI lawyer Lisa Page was able to use the text feature on her phone. This is the same Lisa Page who admonished the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that interview “loaded for bear” because Clinton might be the next president, and it’s the same Lisa Page who said Trump was “loathsome,” “awful,” “the man cannot become president; Clinton just has to win,” and that Trump “should go F— himself.”

Now, most of those comments were made before the Clinton investigation was over and we are somehow supposed to believe that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I don’t know how you can win if you’re gonna wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.

I think we understand the first half of that text pretty well. She didn’t want Trump to win and wanted Clinton to win.

Now for the response: Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote, “No, he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Now I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on the Clinton email investigation. Do I have that right?

M. Horowitz: Uh, that’s correct.
Rep. Gowdy: The same Peter Strzok who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began, but was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have the right Peter Strzok?
M. Horowitz: That’s my understanding.
Rep. Gowdy: Now is it the same Peter Strzok who was put on the Mueller Special Counsel team?
M. Horowitz: Yes.
Rep. Gowdy: This is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said, “Trump is an idiot,” “Hillary should win 100 million to 0.” Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me because he’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016. He’s supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act and he can’t think of a single solitary American that wouldn’t vote for her for President. I mean, can you see our skepticism? This senior FBI not only has her running, he has her winning 100 million to nothing.

So what if they found evidence sufficient to indict her? What if they had indicted her? Is this the same Peter — he wasn’t part of the interview of Secretary Clinton, was he?

M. Horowitz: He was present for the interview.
Rep. Gowdy: Huh. So, four months before that interview, he has her winning 100 million to 0. He wrote the bigoted nonsense of “Trump, Trump is a disaster.” “I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be,” He wrote, “F Trump,” “Trump is an F*ing idiot,” “On the prospects of Trump winning, this is f*ing terrifying.”

In addition to liking to use the “F” word, I think we have the same FBI agent, Lisa Page, and the same FBI agent, Peter Strzok, working on the Clinton email investigation, the Russia probe, and on Mueller’s team. So we have the right texts and the right people and I want to make sure we have the chronology right. Comey announces no charges for Secretary Clinton, right?

M. Horowitz: Correct.
Rep. Gowdy: July 28th, 2016, the FBI initiates a counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign and Strzok is not only on that Russia investigation team — he’s actually leading it. That’s three weeks after Clinton is exonerated by Comey. Strzok is leading an investigation into Russia and possible connections with the Trump campaign. That’s on the 28th of July. On the 31st of July, three days after the Russia investigation began, Strzok wrote, “Damn, this feels momentous. The other one did too, but this was to ensure we didn’t ‘f’ things up. This one matters, because IT MATTERS.” And if you happen to not know how important it is, he went ahead and put matters in all caps, in case you happen to not focus on the importance of why this matters. Now her investigation was just to make sure they didn’t “f” things up. This one, we’re three days into it, Inspector General Horowitz, three days into an investigation, but this one really matters. I wonder what he meant by saying the purpose of the Clinton investigation was to make certain they didn’t “f” things up? But the Russia investigation? No, no, that’s different. That one really mattered.

It almost sounds, Inspector General Horowitz, like they were going through the motions with the Clinton investigation. But boy, they sure were excited about the Russia one.

Then we get to August 6th, less than 10 days after the Russia investigation begins and Page says, “You are meant to protect the country from that menace.” And then we get to August 8th, 2016, less than two weeks after the Russia investigation even began. The lead FBI agent says he will stop Trump from becoming President. This is two weeks into an investigation and he’s already prejudged the outcome and we’re somehow supposed to believe that that bias was not outcome determinative. I can’t think of anything more outcome determinative that my bias against this person I’m investigating. With only two weeks worth of investigating, I have already determined he should not be the President of the United States.

Then we get to August 15th, just over two weeks into the Russia investigation. Strzok says, “I want to believe the path you threw out, that there’s no way he gets elected, but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy.”

Mr. Inspector General, that is two weeks into an investigation and he is talking about taking out an insurance policy because he can’t fathom the target of his investigation possibly becoming the President. So I want to go back to “No, no. He’s not going to be President. We’ll stop it.” What do you think “it” is in the phrase “We’ll stop it.”

M. Horowitz: I think it’s clear from the context we’re going to stop him from becoming President.
Rep. Gowdy: That’s what I thought too. I wonder who the “we” is in the “We’ll stop it.” Who do you think the “we” is?
M. Horowitz: That’s subject to multiple interpretations.
Rep. Gowdy: See if we can go through a couple of them.
M. Horowitz: Them or a broader group beyond that.
Rep. Gowdy: It’s hard to fathom a definition of “we” that doesn’t include him. He’s part of “we.” You could assume that the person he’s talking with is the FBI attorney who happens to be working on the Russia investigation. She may be part of the “we,” but I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against President Trump?
M. Horowitz: We did.
Rep. Gowdy: How many?
M. Horowitz: We found three additional FBI agents, as we detail in the report.
Rep. Gowdy: And were any of them working on the Russia investigation?
M. Horowitz: I’m sorry, let me — two agents and one attorney …
Rep. Gowdy: Two other agents, one other attorney. Were they working on either the Russia investigation or the Mueller probe?
M. Horowitz: I believe two of the three were, but I would have to just double check on that.
Rep. Gowdy: Okay now Bob Mueller was named Special Counsel on May 17th, 2017. One day later, Mr. Horowitz, one day later, Peter Strzok is back on his phone texting some more, “For me and in this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with the Clinton email investigation. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” Fix what?
M. Horowitz: Well, there is outlined in the report what Mr. Strzok’s explanation for …
Rep. Gowdy: Oh, I know what he says. I’m asking for the …
M. Horowitz: Our view is …
Rep. Gowdy: I’m asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the southern district of New York and a distinguished career in the Department of Justice. Would you rather cross-examine Peter Strzok or direct the examination on that?
M. Horowitz: Probably cross-examine.
Rep. Gowdy: That’s what I thought. How about “Finish it” when he said, “I unleashed it and now I need to fix it and finish it.”
M. Horowitz: I think in the context of the emails that occurred in August and the prior August you outlined, I think a reasonable explanation of it or reasonable inference of that is that he believed that he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action.
Rep. Gowdy: But this is 24 hours into him being put onto the Mueller probe. There’s no way he possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation 24 … maybe he did. Maybe that’s the outcome-determinative bias my Democrat friends have such a hard time finding. Inspector General Horowitz, if one of your investigators talked about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok the way they talked about Donald Trump, would you have left them on the investigation?
M. Horowitz: Um. No.
Rep. Gowdy: Did you have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias?
M. Horowitz: You know, as I’ve laid out here, I thought that this was completely antithetical to the core values of the Department and extremely serious.
Rep. Madher: Speak up, please.
M. Horowitz: I’m sorry.
Rep. Gowdy: I heard you, but you can say it where Mr. Madher can hear you, too.
M. Horowitz: My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values and my personal view (having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents). I can’t imagine FBI agents suggesting even that they might use their powers to investigate frankly any candidate for any office.
Rep. Gowdy: I can’t either and let me ask you this in conclusion: I think you’ve already — you laid out in your opening that Peter Strzok’s obsession with Donald Trump and the Russia investigation may have led him to take his eyes off of the Weiner laptop and, in a notably ironic way, caused Jim Comey to be a little bit later in sending those letters to Congress. So that is one example of outcome-determinative bias. But I have to ask you: You used to be in a courtroom. You were on the side of the United States and you worked for the Department of Justice. If someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it’s over and this one before it begins? I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?
M. Horowitz: Well, I think certainly with regard to the Russia investigation you mentioned (as you know), we are looking at that in an ongoing way. With regard to the Clinton email investigation, I think as we lay out here and go through it, we looked at text messages, emails, and documents to try to assess whether the specific decisions that we were asked to look at and then the ultimate prosecutorial decision were impacted by Strzok, Page, and the others’ views and what we ended up finding particularly as to the prosecutor’s decision was, that that decision they made exercising their discretion on their view of the policy, the law, and the facts as it was found. We’ve laid that out and, in our view, we didn’t find or see evidence that the prosecutors were impacted by that bias. The idea was to but out the facts for the public, members of the Congress  to see, and so the folks that want to take a look at those issues can assess them themselves.
Rep. Gowdy: My time is up I hope one of my other colleagues will explore that, because the explanation I’ve heard is that the failure to prosecute was predicated upon their belief that there was not sufficient evidence of intent on her behalf and I don’t know where in the hell you would go to find better evidence of intent than interviewing the person who actually was doing the intending and when you make up your mind that you’re not going to charge someone and you make up your mind that you need to not go in “loaded for bear”  and then you read the 302 and there’s not a single damn question on intent it is really hard for those of us who used to do this for a living to not conclude they’d made up their mind on intent before they even bothered to talk to the best repository of intent evidence which would be her.

Things to Celebrate in Football-Observant Houston


The Houston Texans Stood During the National Anthem

In spite of the ever-leftist take of the Houston Chronicle, I interpreted the Houston Texans’ act of standing with locked arms during the anthem as being respectful of the flag and the anthem. If it was also their expression free-speech and defiance of President Trump, then that is their right as Americans.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsEven so, if these respectful numbnucks don’t figure out that most of the NFL audience leans conservative while all of the leaders in this crowd (the NFL owners, the BLM-sympathizing players, & ESPN) have tipped far, far left. If they don’t watch it, they all might end up with products nobody wants to buy. Still, since J. J. Watts raised $37 million for flood relief, I have a hard time believing the liberal lies from the press. So, I refuse to let the liberals steal my joy on this one.

This Coach had a Chance to Voice His Opinion, Now I have Mine

As Americans, we currently have the freedom of speech. I say “currently” due to the ongoing efforts of antifa and liberals across the nation (especially across the air waves), to silence dissenting speech. Nonetheless, until we surrender it, we have the right to speak differently.  However, it seems that Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin thinks that free speech should be abandoned for group think.

As shown in a 25 September 2017 Breitbart article, Tomlin expressed his firm belief in group think.

Many of them felt like something needed to be done. I asked those guys to discuss it and whatever they discussed that we have 100 percent participation or we do nothing. They discussed it for an appropriate length of time and they couldn’t come to an understanding, so they chose to remove themselves from it. They were not going to be disrespectful in the anthem so they chose not to participate, but at the same time many of them were not going to accept the words of the president.

Surprised? If you are, think of how many other liberal causes require group think and crumble when individuals become isolated.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsStill, I have more choices than accepting this aberrant behavior as normal, firing the coach, or just giving up football. As for myself, I will stick with the Houston Texans even if they lose games. Their scores off the field have given them a winning edge no matter what.

One Steeler Stood Alone

Although later reports have Villanueva unnecessarily providing an apology for the way he “made coach Tomlin look bad” (the coach did that himself), it was evident that the Steelers Alejandro Villanueva held patriotism and his brothers in arms in more esteem than he did in the spat the NFL currently indulges.

In my estimation, standing alone took some guts.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The real crimes in the Mike Flynn situation (Paft 2)


Seeming proof of Obama’s meddling: CIA does not want to share intelligence with President Trump

Why would intelligence operatives answerable to President Trump refuse to provide information to the President? As reported by the Wall Street Journal, that situation currently exists and the only reason I can determine for its existence is that these operatives must be beholden to the former officeholder.

“U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

A White House official said: ‘There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening.’

A spokesman for the Office of Director of National Intelligence said: ‘Any suggestion that the U.S. intelligence community is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true.’

Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade. At times, they have decided that secrecy is essential for protecting a source, and that all a president needs to know is what that source revealed and what the intelligence community thinks is important about it.

But in these previous cases in which information was withheld, the decision wasn’t motivated by a concern about a president’s trustworthiness or discretion, the current and former officials said.

It wasn’t clear Wednesday how many times officials have held back information from Mr. Trump.

The officials emphasized that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted. Still, the misgivings that have emerged among intelligence officials point to the fissures spreading between the White House and the U.S. spy agencies.

Mr. Trump, a Republican, asked Monday night for the resignation of Mike Flynn, his national security adviser, after the White House said the president lost trust in him, in part, because he misstated the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump castigated the intelligence agencies and the news media, blaming them for Mr. Flynn’s downfall.

‘The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by intelligence like candy. Very un-American!’ Mr. Trump tweeted.”

(Read more at Wall Street Journal)

We should consider that the events that resulted in Mr. Flynn’s ouster came as a result of spying on:

  • An American (which makes Flynn an illegal target for intelligence agencies)
  • A member of an incoming administration
  • A former member of the Obama administration who Obama forced out due to Flynn’s stance against our Islamic foes (which makes Flynn an enemy of a president who had no trouble with changing law without going though Congress)

Therefore, is it unreasonable to think that Obama might have ordered one more illegal act?

Former CIA analyst Schaffer provides names

Tony Shaffer, a former CIA analyst who openly stated his opinion on the events surrounding Michael Flynn spoke with The Washington Free Beacon.

“Former CIA analyst and retired U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer during a Wednesday appearance on Fox Business Network named several Obama administration officials he suspected were behind the leaks prompting former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s resignation.

‘Risk and Reward’ host Deirdre Bolton asked Shaffer whether he thought leaks from the Obama administration were ‘the problem.’

‘Absolutely,’ Shaffer answered, saying the Obama administration was ‘directly involved’ with the leak.

Shaffer said the blame lay ‘squarely at the feet of’ the former CIA director John Brennan, former director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, and former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes.

The Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday reported that Rhodes and others constructed a ‘behind-the-scenes effort’ to ‘plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.’

Shaffer cited NBC reporting it had received its information from six officials who saw the transcript of Flynn’s call with a Russian official.”

(Read more at The Washington Free Beacon)

What do we do now?


What do we do now?

Pray for the President … Love our neighbors … Hunger for God

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Do what we are called to do … Live out your faith … Be engaged with government

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Hold President Trump to his promises

In a 9 November 2016 Christian Headlines article, Veronica Neffinger points out the things that Christians must do.

“Pro-life advocates are calling on Christians to make sure President-elect Donald Trump upholds the pro-life promises he made during his campaign.

The Republican Trump was elected as the U.S.’s 45th president in an unprecedented election that went into the early hours of the morning on Nov. 9.

Trump ultimately won by taking the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Now that he is confirmed as the nation’s new president, pro-life groups are hoping that he will come through on the promises he made to ban late-term abortion, defund Planned Parenthood, and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

While the majority of evangelicals ultimately backed Trump, many had their reservations about the billionaire businessman, especially when it came to his stance on pro-life issues.

Although welcoming a longtime pro-life advocate to work on his campaign, and despite his promises to defund Planned Parenthood and sign legislation to prevent late-term abortions, some Christians still balked at his previous support for abortion.

LifeNews reporter Steven Ertelt wrote, “Today, pro-life America has a job to do. Regardless of whether you voted for Trump or not, we must hold President-elect Donald Trump’s feet to the fire when it comes to the various pro-life pledges he made.”

Ertelt further writes that Christians need to unite and be a pro-life voice saying, “Donald Trump you must defend the right to life.”