Day: July 27, 2016

WIKILEAKS PUBLISHES 23,035 CLINTON E-MAILS MARKED CLASSIFIED WHEN SHE RECEIVED THEM~MASS WALKOUT OF SANDERS’ DELEGATES FROM DNC DUE TO HAVING NO VOICE

Mass Walkout At DNC, Bernie Sanders Delegate Statement

Published on Jul 27, 2016


On Day 2 of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the “No Voice No Unity” protest walked out and did a peaceful occupation of the media tent. Jordan Chariton of TYT Politics reports from inside the DNC and speaks with Shyla Nelson (National Vermont Delegate) at the protest. http://www.youtube.com/tytpolitics


THE WALK OUT

WIKILEAKS PUBLISHES 23,035 CLINTON E-MAILS MARKED CLASSIFIED WHEN SHE RECEIVED THEM 

BY C. MITCHELL SHAW
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/23724-wikileaks-publishes-23-035-clinton-e-mails-marked-classified-when-she-received-them; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

After spending more than a year denying — and avoiding indictment for — sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured, private e-mail server, Hillary Clinton still can’t shake the truth. Besides the DNC e-mails that are making waves in the news because they show that the Democratic National Committee violated its own rules to help Clinton win the Democrat presidential nomination, WikiLeaks also released a trove of leaked e-mails from Clinton’s server. Those e-mails prove irrefutably that Clinton sent and received information that was classified at the time.
After announcing last month that the next leak published by his organization would almost certainly lead to a Clinton indictment, Julian Assange has made good on his word. The leaked Clinton e-mails were released before the DNC e-mails, but got pushed aside in the news cycle when police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge were murdered as part of the war on police. With the news of the DNC leaks and Clinton’s assured nomination, the Clinton leaks need to be examined and considered.
The e-mails published by WikiLeaks — 23,035 in all — are all from her first year as secretary of state and are all marked “(C)” for “confidential” — a designation for classified information. Clinton held that office for another three years. Assuming her carelessness — and recalcitrance — continued throughout her tenure, she may well have sent and/or received almost 100,000 classified e-mails over her server during her time in office. It is difficult to imagine a greater threat to national security.
FBI Director James Comey may have attempted to sell the line that Clinton did not intend to break the law, but considering the size and scope of her mishandling of sensitive intelligence, it is more than a little hard to swallow what Comey was dishing out. Considering that the Justice Department has prosecuted people for far smaller infractions, it will be interesting to see if — now that the magnitude of Clinton’s crimes is known — Comey will continue to oppose her indictment.
Assange — with an obvious nod toward the irony involved — pointed out in an interview with ITV last month that the Obama administration has prosecuted a number of whistle blowers in recent years. WikiLeaks — which Assange started and continues to run while in exile — relies on whistle blowers, so his bias is easily understood.
While testifying before a House Oversight Committee, Comey was questioned about his assertion that Clinton did not know she was breaking the law because she did not know what a classified marking was. As The Hill reported, Comey answered:
“No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be,” Comey responded. “It’s an interesting question whether she … was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in [parentheses] means.”
“You asked me if I would assume someone would know,” he added. “Probably before this investigation, I would have. I am not so sure of that any longer. I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t know what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”
While the too-stupid-to-know-it-was-criminal defense is not exactly new, it is hardly something one would expect on the resumé of a presidential candidate. Besides that, Comey was addressing 113 e-mails he says were classified. Now that it is known that at least 23,035 were marked as classified, perhaps Comey will offer the defense that he isn’t qualified for his post either.
Setting aside Comey’s asinine defense of Clinton’s criminal actions based on her supposed ignorance, the fact is that she was not ignorant. Clinton signed two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as part of her appointment as secretary of state. Those NDAs spelled out — in language clear enough to be understood even by someone who is not “sophisticated” — her responsibilities and obligations under the law. As this writer reported when the first of those two NDAs came to light:
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton on her second day as secretary of state spells out — in language so clear that the meaning of the word “is” is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part reads, “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be SCI,” the NDA says.
These 23,035 e-mails were marked “(C),” and it was Clinton’s legal responsibility to recognize that. She is, after all, a graduate of law school and was licensed to practice law until 2002. If she truly is that ignorant of the law, should she be running for president?
Here, for example, are the first few paragraphs of one of the documents Clinton received via her unsecured, private e-mail server:
1. (U) This is a PRT Anbar cable.
2. (C) SUMMARY: Tension between the Iraqi Police and the judiciary was on display at the weekly Anbar Operations Command meeting covering security issues. Similar feelings were present at PRToffs meeting with Provincial Chief Judge Mohammed Al-Kubaisi. END SUMMARY.
3. (C) On February 22, PRToff attended the Anbar Operations Command (AOC) weekly security meeting at the Blue Diamond Iraqi Army facility. Staff Major General (sMG) Aziz, appearing vigorous and healthy, chaired the meeting for the first time since his medical treatment in Turkey. Provincial Chief of Police (PCOP) sMG Baha Al-Karkhi, Deputy Governor Hikmat Jasim Zaidan and Investigative Judge (IJ) Ghanim Al-Azawi were also present.
4. (C) The initial interchange at the meeting was characterized by the usual Iraqi Police (IP) complaints of judicial shortcomings and focused on the IP’s inability to find an investigative judge over the weekend to approve warrants. Investigative Judge Ghanim responded that an IJ was always available and that police should “just knock on my door.” He explained that CPA Administrator Paul Bremer had issued an order years earlier requiring a lawyer to be present at the initial appearance of a suspect and said the absence of a lawyer was the real impediment to prosecuting cases. sMG Aziz countered that this law was enacted a long time ago and that terrorist suspects should be treated differently from other criminals since theirs was a special crime against society. He asked that the laws be changed in order to allow detention of terror suspects without a warrant via a streamlined process. IJ Ghanim responded that the existing judicial process was sound and provided a good example of the rule of law to the citizenry.
This writer will admit to not being “sophisticated enough to understand” what much of this document discusses, but then this writer is not secretary of state and has not signed legal forms agreeing that “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be” classified. Even with my lack of sophistication, though, a couple of things stand out to me. That “(C)” could only mean a handful of things: (1) It could denote the ordering of paragraphs. But since almost all of the paragraphs are labeled “(C),” that is probably not correct. (2) It could mean that that paragraph is protected by a copyright. Again, since the product of government can’t be copyrighted, that too, is probably not the right answer. (3) I should go ask one of the “appropriate management authorities in the Department” — preferably one who is sufficiently “sophisticated” — what it means just “to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be” classified.
What secretary Clinton did, though was ignore that designation at least 23,035 times in her first year in office alone. And now, she’s running for president.
If Assange is correct and this leak leads to her indictment, it may be that Judge Napolitano’s prediction from earlier this year will come true. At the end of a video about Clinton’s e-mail scandal, he asked, “Don’t you want to know before your nominating process is complete if your likely nominee will be a criminal defendant in the Fall?”

LISTEN THIS TIME, OR GRANT MONEY FROM H.U.D. WILL DESTROY YOUR CITY

middle-class suburbia
LISTEN THIS TIME, OR GRANT MONEY FROM H.U.D. WILL DESTROY YOUR CITY
BY TOM DEWEESE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
by Tom DeWeese
June 27, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
Trading control of local development to the federal government for grant money
America’s homeowners should be shaking in their shoes. The federal government has decided that people who have worked, saved and planned so they can buy homes in nice, safe neighborhoods of their own choosing, are racists. They charge that it is a “social injustice.” The government now claims that it’s unfair unless everyone can have the same, whether they earn it or not. And it doesn’t matter whether they can afford such a home. We’re told that it’s racist to deny someone an equal home, just because they don’t have the money for it. White privilege, don’t you know.
You may be watching the “Black Lives Matter” protests taking place on city streets around the country. You may be alarmed that such violence can happen in your downtown. And you may wonder what is behind such activity. Well, get ready for the same kind of threats and violence to possibly come directly into your own neighborhood simply because you have a nice house.
Does that sound far fetched? Well you need the details on how the federal Housing and Urban Development agency (HUD) is working to enforce its new rule called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).
Social Justice is the name of the game under AFFH. That means the rule of law is dismissed in favor of “fairness.” Social Justice is enforced on us using pure emotion, basically operating on the level of a twelve year old girl in a pet shop who doesn’t like seeing the puppies with their sad eyes looking out from a cage. “Let the poor little doggies out,” she cries. Social Justice is purely based on redistribution of wealth. Your wealth. That’s money you worked for, saved, invested, and protected for YOUR needs; YOUR dreams; YOUR future.
“SELFISH,” cries the social justice mongers. Why should you have so much when others have so little? Never mind that you had to save your money while forced to pay 50% of it in taxes that theoretically went to those less fortunate. The fact is, there is no “justice” in such a policy. Envy, desire, jealousy and theft are much closer to the truth.
Do you think that sounds harsh. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Property Owner, tell me how harsh this sounds! As reported by John Anthony of Sustainable Freedom Lab:
• First HUD is forcing every community which is applying for its grants to complete an “Assessment of Fair Housing” to identify all “contributing factors” to discrimination. These include a complete break down of race, income levels, religion and national origin of every single person living there. They use this information to determine if the neighborhood meets a preset “balance,” determined by HUD.
• Second, HUD demands a detailed plan showing how the community intends to eliminate the “contributing factors” to this “imbalance.”
• To produce the community’s plan for compliance, HUD rules demand that a wide array of “interested parties” participate in its creation, just to assure community input and to keep things fair, of course. These include civil rights groups, affordable housing developers and civic activist organizations. They call this “civil society.” All have a specific, left-of center agenda and a definite interest in the outcome.
• Once the plan is prepared, then the community is required to sign an agreement to take no actions that are “materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”
• Once the community provides answers as to how they will implement the grant under these guidelines to HUD’s satisfaction, then they will receive the grant.
These are the rules your locally elected representatives are forced to agree to in order to get that “free” grant money. And nearly every city council and county commission in the nation has already taken such grants.
Now ask yourselves, just why HUD would be so insistent in demanding that the community tie itself to the so-called civil rights groups in order to get the grant. The answer to that question is diabolical.
You see, if the community hesitates to comply in any way; perhaps local voters decide to turn down a program, or there aren’t enough local funds to fully comply, then HUD has a secret weapon waiting for them. Lack of compliance, in HUD’s eyes, results in law suits over civil rights violations.
The civil rights groups them become a useful tool. They start protests and demand “fairness.” They get on television. They pressure city hall. And to the rescue comes HUD with its own law suits.
Baltimore, Maryland became one of the first cities to feel such pressure and threats as the NAACP sued Baltimore over alleged housing segregation. The NAACP argument was that Section 8 subsidized housing programs “bunch people together, and that only fuels more crime and other problems.”
The solution, says the NAACP is to “integrate the poor among wealthier families.” Outrageous as it sounds, such social justice mongers actually accuse those living in affluent neighborhoods of “self segregation for white privilege.”
The pressure from these groups, along with the massive force of HUD backing them, has resulted in Baltimore being forced to agree to spending $30 million of tax-payer dollars over the next ten years to build 1,000 low income homes in affluent neighborhoods. The result will be a destruction of property values and the loss of equity for the homeowners. In short, destruction of earned wealth, leading to destruction of the middle class. That’s what socialism does. It creates more poor.
On top of that, Baltimore has moved to destroy the property rights of landlords by denying them the ability to not rent to people who can’t afford their properties. Of course the government doesn’t say it that way, preferring to pretend that denying people who can’t pay for your property as “discrimination.” And who will pay the landlord when he is stuck with the bill? The only result will be fewer landlords and fewer choices for housing.
In Portland, Oregon, the infamous “poster child” of federal Smart Growth development policies, the city council has now unanimously approved a new tax to raise $12 million per year to pay for “affordable housing.” “The lack of affordable housing is the greatest crisis facing our city right now,” says Commissioner Dan Saltsman. Perhaps he should take a long look at the twenty year Smart Growth history of Portland in which massive amounts of land were locked away to limit the “sprawl” of the city. This lead to land shortages, which led to bans on single family homes, which led to the need for massive high rise apartment buildings, all of which led to higher costs and shortages of homes. Now, they have a “crisis “of low income housings. Their solution now is another tax on construction, driving up housing costs even more.
Do they ever learn? Government control over every aspect of our lives, as demanded by socialism never works. High costs, shortages and sacrifice are the only result. It has never been different wherever it has been enforced.
Now HUD is rushing to enforce AFFH with a vengeance. HUD has raced to make Westchester County, New York the example for more suits. Right out of the new HUD playbook, a private civil rights group called the Anti-Discrimination Center sued the county under the Federal False Claims Act, claiming Westchester County lied when they filled out the HUD compliance form for their grant. Since there is no official definition of “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” the definition is whatever HUD declares it to be. There is no way for the local government to win such a suit. The result of the suit against Westchester County was $62.5 million – a sum greater than all of the community development and related funding received by the county from HUD.
More suits are being filed against communities across the nation as HUD steps up its enforcement and local officials are scared, wondering what they can do to fight back, if anything. Some have tried to stand up to HUD, refusing to comply. But once the law suits are filed, and the “community organizers” start their pressure, most have quickly backed down.
Let’s make one thing clear. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s made it illegal to bar people from neighborhoods based on their color or ethnic background. It guaranteed them the opportunity. But it said nothing about forcing people into neighborhoods to live beyond their means. No one, no matter their color or ethnic background, has a right to force their way in to a neighborhood they can’t afford. Instead, they must do the same thing those who already live there did; work, save, invest and prepare. Then no one can stop them. It has noting to do with race or some perceived special “privilege.”
For twenty years we opponents of Agenda 21 and Smart Growth have warned of the dangers of taking these HUD grants. We were ignored and called conspiracy nuts. The result now is that HUD has taken the gloves off. There is no longer a pretense that any kind of local control over spending the grant money exists. HUD now controls your community. Property rights are dead, property values are dying, and the local officials you elected to guide your community have been rendered irrelevant by HUD mobsters who have come back to collect.
So what do local community representatives do? First and foremost STOP TAKING THE GRANTS!!!!! Second, stand up to these thugs who intend to rule our communities. Stand up to the law suits and stand up to the pressure of the special interest groups. In short, represent your community as you were elected to do. And finally, you might try listening to those of us who have studied these policies for decades instead of the slithering snakes of the American Planning Association and their ilk who fill their own pockets with those grants.
Our American liberties are counting on local and state officials to start standing on your own two feet and represent US, instead of cowering in a corner because you sold us down the river.
The American Policy Center is now working with officials who want to understand and fight back to save their communities. Recently we held a conference call for such officials. Here is a link to it so you can hear first hand of the dangers you are facing and some solutions for you to fight back. Perhaps this time you’ll listen.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report
For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911
_______________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS:

BANK MORTGAGE CLERKS HYPER SCRUTINIZE FIVE YEARS OF YOUR DEPOSITS & WITHDRAWALS BEFORE MAKING COMMITMENTS~HUD WANTS TO REGULATE “INEQUALITY” IN WEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS


OBAMA’S NEW VERSION OF DESEGREGATION: BATTLE RAGES AS ESTABLISHMENT GOP SAVES OBAMA PLOT TO DIVERSIFY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE TOO WHITE, TOO WEALTHY, NOT “DIVERSE” ENOUGH


DNC WOULD FORCE ALL TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS IN PLATFORM

PP Credit All Nite Images-compressed
Democrats Adopt Platform Proposing to Force Americans to Pay for Others’ Abortions
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/07/27/democrats-adopt-platform-proposing-to-force-americans-to-pay-for-others-abortions/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
PHILADELPHIA — Democrats adopted on Monday a party platform that calls for forcing Americans to pay for the abortions of others by repealing the federal Hyde Amendment.
As previously reported, the platform, which was released on July 1 and covers a variety of issues from social security to gun violence prevention to terrorism, also expresses the party’s support for repealing the Global Gag Rule and the Helms Amendment, which ban U.S. capital from being used to fund overseas abortions.
“Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured,” it reads.
In addition to expressing support for Planned Parenthood, the platform also calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from being used for abortions.
“We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment,” it says.
“No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion,” the 1976 law reads.
Some had expressed concern over the wording of the party platform, including Kristen Day of Democrats for Life, who said that the text is not representative of Democrats who oppose abortion.
“This platform’s language just says [to us] you are no longer welcome,” she told USA Today. “This has been the general message pro-life Democrats are receiving across the country.”
“They are pro-choice because they don’t want to be infringing their opinion on others,” retired school teacher Carol Crossed also told the outlet. “Now their platform says if you don’t like abortions, too bad. You are going to pay for it anyway.”
On Tuesday, spokespersons for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton stated that running mate Tim Kaine, a Roman Catholic who personally opposes abortion but believes women should have the “right to choose,” has advised that he will support the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.
“It aligns the Virginia senator with Clinton and other reproductive-rights advocates, who argue that the decades-old Hyde Amendment, which primarily affects Medicaid, is an impediment for low-income women seeking abortions,” Bloomberg reported.
Just last month, Kaine told the Weekly Standard when asked about the wording, “I have traditionally been a supporter of the Hyde amendment, but I’ll check it out.”

LEAKED DNC EMAILS PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG~THE FIX WAS IN FOR HILLARY FROM THE BEGINNING

WikiLeaks Publishes 23,035 Clinton E-mails Marked Classified When She Received Them

BY C. MITCHELL SHAW
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/23724-wikileaks-publishes-23-035-clinton-e-mails-marked-classified-when-she-received-them; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
After spending more than a year denying — and avoiding indictment for — sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured, private e-mail server, Hillary Clinton still can’t shake the truth. Besides the DNC e-mails that are making waves in the news because they show that the Democratic National Committee violated its own rules to help Clinton win the Democrat presidential nomination, WikiLeaks also released a trove of leaked e-mails from Clinton’s server. Those e-mails prove irrefutably that Clinton sent and received information that was classified at the time.
After announcing last month that the next leak published by his organization would almost certainly lead to a Clinton indictment, Julian Assange has made good on his word. The leaked Clinton e-mails were released before the DNC e-mails, but got pushed aside in the news cycle when police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge were murdered as part of the war on police. With the news of the DNC leaks and Clinton’s assured nomination, the Clinton leaks need to be examined and considered.
The e-mails published by WikiLeaks — 23,035 in all — are all from her first year as secretary of state and areall marked “(C)” for “confidential” — a designation for classified information. Clinton held that office for another three years. Assuming her carelessness — and recalcitrance — continued throughout her tenure, she may well have sent and/or received almost 100,000 classified e-mails over her server during her time in office. It is difficult to imagine a greater threat to national security.
FBI Director James Comey may have attempted to sell the line that Clinton did not intend to break the law, but considering the size and scope of her mishandling of sensitive intelligence, it is more than a little hard to swallow what Comey was dishing out. Considering that the Justice Department has prosecuted people for far smaller infractions, it will be interesting to see if — now that the magnitude of Clinton’s crimes is known — Comey will continue to oppose her indictment.
Assange — with an obvious nod toward the irony involved — pointed out in an interview with ITV last month that the Obama administration has prosecuted a number of whistle blowers in recent years. WikiLeaks — which Assange started and continues to run while in exile — relies on whistle blowers, so his bias is easily understood.
While testifying before a House Oversight Committee, Comey was questioned about his assertion that Clinton did not know she was breaking the law because she did not know what a classified marking was. As The Hill reported, Comey answered:
“No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be,” Comey responded. “It’s an interesting question whether she … was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in [parentheses] means.”
“You asked me if I would assume someone would know,” he added. “Probably before this investigation, I would have. I am not so sure of that any longer. I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t know what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”
While the too-stupid-to-know-it-was-criminal defense is not exactly new, it is hardly something one would expect on the resumé of a presidential candidate. Besides that, Comey was addressing 113 e-mails he says were classified. Now that it is known that at least 23,035 were marked as classified, perhaps Comey will offer the defense that he isn’t qualified for his post either.
Setting aside Comey’s asinine defense of Clinton’s criminal actions based on her supposed ignorance, the fact is that she was not ignorant. Clinton signed two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as part of her appointment as secretary of state. Those NDAs spelled out — in language clear enough to be understood even by someone who is not “sophisticated” — her responsibilities and obligations under the law. As this writer reported when the first of those two NDAs came to light:
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton on her second day as secretary of state spells out — in language so clear that the meaning of the word “is” is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part reads, “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be SCI,” the NDA says.
These 23,035 e-mails were marked “(C),” and it was Clinton’s legal responsibility to recognize that. She is, after all, a graduate of law school and was licensed to practice law until 2002. If she truly is that ignorant of the law, should she be running for president?
Here, for example, are the first few paragraphs of one of the documents Clinton received via her unsecured, private e-mail server:
1. (U) This is a PRT Anbar cable.
2. (C) SUMMARY: Tension between the Iraqi Police and the judiciary was on display at the weekly Anbar Operations Command meeting covering security issues. Similar feelings were present at PRToffs meeting with Provincial Chief Judge Mohammed Al-Kubaisi. END SUMMARY.
3. (C) On February 22, PRToff attended the Anbar Operations Command (AOC) weekly security meeting at the Blue Diamond Iraqi Army facility. Staff Major General (sMG) Aziz, appearing vigorous and healthy, chaired the meeting for the first time since his medical treatment in Turkey. Provincial Chief of Police (PCOP) sMG Baha Al-Karkhi, Deputy Governor Hikmat Jasim Zaidan and Investigative Judge (IJ) Ghanim Al-Azawi were also present.
4. (C) The initial interchange at the meeting was characterized by the usual Iraqi Police (IP) complaints of judicial shortcomings and focused on the IP’s inability to find an investigative judge over the weekend to approve warrants. Investigative Judge Ghanim responded that an IJ was always available and that police should “just knock on my door.” He explained that CPA Administrator Paul Bremer had issued an order years earlier requiring a lawyer to be present at the initial appearance of a suspect and said the absence of a lawyer was the real impediment to prosecuting cases. sMG Aziz countered that this law was enacted a long time ago and that terrorist suspects should be treated differently from other criminals since theirs was a special crime against society. He asked that the laws be changed in order to allow detention of terror suspects without a warrant via a streamlined process. IJ Ghanim responded that the existing judicial process was sound and provided a good example of the rule of law to the citizenry.
This writer will admit to not being “sophisticated enough to understand” what much of this document discusses, but then this writer is not secretary of state and has not signed legal forms agreeing that “I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be” classified. Even with my lack of sophistication, though, a couple of things stand out to me. That “(C)” could only mean a handful of things: (1) It could denote the ordering of paragraphs. But since almost all of the paragraphs are labeled “(C),” that is probably not correct. (2) It could mean that that paragraph is protected by a copyright. Again, since the product of government can’t be copyrighted, that too, is probably not the right answer. (3) I should go ask one of the “appropriate management authorities in the Department” — preferably one who is sufficiently “sophisticated” — what it means just “to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control … might be” classified.
What secretary Clinton did, though was ignore that designation at least 23,035 times in her first year in office alone. And now, she’s running for president.
If Assange is correct and this leak leads to her indictment, it may be that Judge Napolitano’s prediction from earlier this year will come true. At the end of a video about Clinton’s e-mail scandal, he asked, “Don’t you want to know before your nominating process is complete if your likely nominee will be a criminal defendant in the Fall?”
_______________________________________________________

Wikileaks Crashes The DNC

Published on Jul 26, 2016



The Clinton campaign is pointing its crooked finger at the Russians as the culprits responsible for hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee going all the way back to last summer. John Podesta, the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Presidential campaign claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is aiding Donald Trump’s campaign because there is as AP reports “a kind of bromance going on”. As if one more fabrication of reality could sway the narrative back to the Democrat’s camp. And whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails or if it was the Romanian hacker claiming responsibility known as Guccifer 2.0 really doesn’t matter.


What matters is that now the American people know how riddled with deception the DNC truly is. The political machinery propping up Hillary’s campaign is quickly coming apart at the moment she should be dominating. The released 19,252 wiki leaks internal emails that were hacked from seven officials at the DNC have served as a batterring ram, exposing a organization laden with deceptive practices on a monumental scale.


Aside from the DNC’s obvious favorability of Clinton over Sanders because of her gender and the jabs taken at Sanders religion. The emails detail a manipulation of the media of grotesque proportions. Relegating mainstream media to nothing less than a propaganda machine.


In this email the DNC’s National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach says of a Politico reporter Ken Vogel “ Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it. Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”



LEAKED DNC EMAILS PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG 
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/leaked-dnc-emails-prove-conspiracy-theorists-right-along/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
(NaturalNews) To anyone who has ever been called a “conspiracy theorist,” the world owes you a massive apology. As the leaked DNC emails now exhaustively prove, Hillary Clinton and the DNC actually did conspire to destroy Bernie Sanders. It was a genuine conspiracy involving a multitude of people who acted in coordinated secrecy to deceive the public, destroy a candidate and coronate their chosen evil globalist (Hillary Clinton) as President.
The only thing that makes this conspiracy any different than all the other true conspiracies happening right now is that they got caught.
And now, the entire leftist media — which is also part of the very same conspiracy to thrust Clinton into office — is trying to distract you from all this by invoking their own hilarious conspiracy theory: The Russians did it!
Yep, suddenly now the same leftist media skeptics who ridiculed anyone even hinting that the DNC was running a conspiracy to destroy Sanders is floating its own tin foil hat theories in a desperate bid to hope you won’t read any of the emails that actually leaked. Those emails, it turns out, expose the DNC and Hillary Clinton as a cabal of corrupt political mafia bosses who deeply hate voters, democracy and a free press.
The DNC even rewarded top donors with political appointments to the boards of federal organizations. If you give them enough money, they’ll make sure Hillary lands you a spot in your favorite federal bureaucracy (the United States Postal Service is apparently in need of several BORED members… ha ha).
Check out some of these email findings for yourself:
All the dirt (so far) from the 19,000 leaked emails:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/deta…
DNC staffers revealed as total bigots who tried to destroy Bernie Sanders by attacking his religion:
http://www.govtslaves.info/leaked-emails-rev…
Obedient MSNBC morons report “cheers” when the audience is BOOING Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the stage: (see the text along bottom of the video)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-25/bed…

It was the Russians!

But you’re not supposed to pay any attention to all the admissions of crime and corruption found in these emails. Never mind the fact that all these DNC members need to be arrested, indicted and put behind bars for 20 years to life. They’re all corrupt criminals who despise democracy and use the power of their positions to rig elections and place sleazebag politicians into public office. The voters be damned!
No, you’re supposed to think to yourself, “It was the Russians!” And right on cue, the leftist media is now floating the ludicrous idea that Putin loves Trump and wants Trump to win the presidency. Why is this idea so ludicrous? Because Hillary Clinton is the sellout who approve the selling of America’s uranium reserves to Russian mining companies, sacrificing a strategic national resource so she and her husband Bill could collect a few more million dollars in “speaking fees.” (Source: CLINTON CASH book and documentary.)
In other words, the Russians get everything they want when democrats are in power, because democrats are corrupt criminals who are willing to sell anything to the Russians (as long as the donation fee is high enough to the Clinton Foundation). Thus, the idea that Putin wouldn’t want Clinton in the White House is absurd.
But this is all best said by none other than Patrick Buchanan in this WND.com editorial which I offer here as a partial reprint:
Waving off the clerics who had come to administer last rites, Voltaire said: “All my life I have ever made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
The tale of the thieved emails at the Democratic National Committee is just too good to be true.
For a year, 74-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders has been saying that, under DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the party has been undercutting his campaign and hauling water for Hillary Clinton.
From the 19,200 emails dumped the weekend before Clinton’s coronation, it appears the old boy is not barking mad. The deck was stacked; the referees were in the tank; the game was rigged.
For four decades, some of us have wondered what Jim McCord, security man at CREEP, and his four Cubans were looking for in DNC Chair Larry O’Brien’s office at the Watergate. Now it makes sense.
Among the lovely schemes the DNC leaders worked up to gut Sanders in Christian communities of West Virginia and Kentucky, was to tell these good folks that Sanders doesn’t even believe that there is a God. He’s not even an agnostic; he’s an atheist.
The idea was broached by DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall in an email to DNC chief executive officer Amy Dacey:
“Does [Bernie] believe in a God. He has skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and atheist.”
Dacey emailed back, “Amen.”
In 1960, John F. Kennedy went before the Houston ministers to assert the right of a Catholic to be president of the United States. Is the “Marshall Plan,” to quietly spread word Bernie Sanders is a godless atheist, now acceptable politics in the party of Barack Obama?
If Marshall and Dacey are still around at week’s end, we will know.
The WikiLeaks dump came Friday night. By Sunday, Clinton’s crowd had unleashed the mechanical rabbit, and the press hounds were dutifully chasing it. The new party line: The Russians did it!
Clinton campaign chief Robert Mook told ABC, “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke in to the DNC, took all these emails, and now they are leaking them out through the Web sites. … some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”
Monday, Clinton chairman John Podesta said there is a “kind of (b)romance going on” between Trump and Vladimir Putin. Campaign flack Brian Fallon told CNN, “There is a consensus among experts that it is indeed Russia that is behind this hack of the DNC.”

Purpose: Change the subject. Redirect the media away from the DNC conspiracy to sabotage Sanders’ campaign.
________________________________________________________

Leaked DNC E-mails Show the Fix Was In for Hillary

________________________________________________________________

Assange Counters Media Propaganda on DNC Email

ASSANGE COUNTERS MEDIA PROPAGANDA 

ON DNC EMAIL

Blaming Russia for hack is “a diversion being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign”

JIHADIST MURDERS NORMANDY CATHOLIC PRIEST; SEVERELY INJURES NUNS~HILLARY TO FLOOD THE U.S. WITH ISIS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/france-muslims-screaming-islamic-state-behead-priest-authorities-search-for-motive

Religion Of Peace Strikes Again In France

Hillary To Flood The U.S. With ISIS
Published on Jul 26, 2016
What does the Disgusting DNC and a French Priest killed by ISIS have in common? Plenty.

While performing Morning Mass Jacques Hamel, A Catholic Priest and two nuns were held hostage for roughly an hour and viciously attacked in a Church in Normandy, France. The two attackers, one of them followed by police for over a year and a half, brutally slit the Priest’s throat and seriously injured the nun. As the Telegraph reports, both of the attackers shouted “ Daesh”, which is the actual name for ISIS, ISIL, IS or whatever it is the mind controlling politicians would have us call it.

And right on schedule, French President Hollande offered more vague statements about declaring war on terrorism saying as the Daily Mail reports “Today we must be aware that the terrorists will not give up as long as we don’t stop them. That’s our will and that’s what we are doing tirelessly.” While Marine Le Pen, President of The far-right National Party of France observed “The responsibility of all those who have governed us for 30 years is immense. To watch them talking is revolting!”

This attack follows the Bastille Day horror in Nice, France. Clearly France is under attack as is Germany after a recent wave of jihad attacks in Bavaria.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hear none of that as Bloomberg reported “…Government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer told reporters on Monday. The four assaults don’t offer a “clear picture” about motives, Demmer said.”There is a rising nervousness among our public,” Mayer, who sits on parliament’s internal affairs committee, told BBC Radio on Monday. “You have to differentiate — the events of Friday have nothing to do with our refugee policy. It is completely wrong to blame Angela Merkel and her refugee policy for this incident.”

But there wasn’t one mention of Radical Jihadist Terrorism during the first day of the DNC. In fact, Hillary’s running mate TPP supporting Tim Kaine declared in Spanish in an interview with Telemundo that illegal immigrants would be legalized within the first 100 days of Hillary’s reign. While, as Breitbart reported, Hillary plans on admitting 420,000 Syrian refugees during her first term, expanding Unconstitutional Executive Amnesty, dissolving the U.S. borders, freezing deportations, closing detention centers and giving a full path to citizenship and obamacare to illegal immigrants. Far surpassing the chaos Obama has already introduced to the United States. Hillary wants to one up Angela Merkel to impress her globalist masters, screw the American people.

Anyone can see that it is the immigration policy of Merkel that has brought the recent horror down on Europe. And the only solution is to immediately stop the flow of migration and begin the monumental process of mass deportation. This is a jihad by immigration or Al-Hijra, as it is known by Muslims. Who in their right mind would allow a hostile enemy to move their soldiers and their families into their country? Now is it crystal clear why there was NO mention of ISIS at the first night of the Democratic National Convention?
______________________________________________________

FRENCH TERRORIST SUSPECTED OF BEHEADING PRIEST ALLOWED TO ROAM “UNSUPERVISED”

State of Emergency law stops activists, but not terrorists

EXCERPT:
“The as-of-yet unnamed terrorist was ordered to live with his parents and wear an electronic tag to monitor his movements. He was allowed out unsupervised between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm. The murder of Father Jacques Hamel occurred between 9:45 and 11 am. The suspect was arrested after he left for Syria in 2015 to join the jihadists trying to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.”
________________________________________________________

France: Church where priest was beheaded was on jihadi hit list of Catholic churches

STUDY: LIBERAL CHURCH POLITICAL PARTICIPATION GROWING, CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES DECREASING

Study: Liberal Church Political Participation Growing, Conservative Church Political Involvement Decreasing
BY PETER LABARBERA
SEE: http://americansfortruth.com/2016/07/20/study-liberal-church-political-participation-growing-conservative-church-political-involvement-decreasing/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Evil prevails when good churches do nothing.”
Godless Morality Adovcates...are filling the void left by biblical pastors who refuse to get involved in the Culture War over morality in America.
Godless ‘Morality’ Advocates…like “gay Christian” activist Matthew Vines are filling the void left by biblical pastors who refuse to get involved in the Culture War over morality in America. In what might be termed a form of “Satanic evangelism,” Vines’ Reformation Project trains people to go into evangelical churches with appealing, homosexuality-affirming and “gay theology” messages–“to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.” In other words, to infiltrate churches to get them to accommodate a sexual sin that the Word of God calls an abomination. For some actual truth on the subject, see Prof. Rob Gagnon’s paper, “How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture?”

Dear Readers,
This piece by my friend Micah Clark, who ably runs the Indiana Family Association, confirms what many of us already knew: pastors are copping out of the Culture War over moral values. As it turns out, liberal (apostate) churches–usually pro-abortion “rights,” pro-LGBTQ and socialist-leaning–are filling the Public Square void. In other words, an organized onslaught of secular and religious liberals is working to radically change transform this nation. And remember: leftist “change agents”–the same fellows who used to scream: “Don’t impose your morality on us!”–do all their destructive modernist work in the name of “morality.”
The Left marches lockstep to aggressively push its humanist, anti-God “morality.” What has happened to the real people of faith who should be today’s moral leaders? —@PeterLaBarbera, AFTAH
________________________________

How to Lose Freedom in One Easy Step

By Micah Clark
Millions of Americans may be watching the Republican national convention this week.  Some data is finding that this in an election year in which record numbers of voters seem to be interested in deciding who will be our next president.   For example, the Republican primary has seen a 62% increase in voter turnout this year over 2012, from 19.2 million votes four years ago to 31 million this year.
This may be why a new study of church engagement has caught pollsters by surprise. The new study from the American Culture and Faith Institute is being described as “nothing less than astounding.”
At a time when religious hostility is on the rise and recognized as a problem among a majority of all Americans, the very institutions targeted by such bigotry are in full retreating from the battle.
The study of 600 theologically conservative evangelical pastors finds that they are “unlikely to call their congregations to participate in any meaningful way” in the 2016 election.
Each pastor was asked about eight specific types of actions that churches could take in the months leading up to Election Day.  For a benchmark, the pastors were first asked if they had done any of these things during the 2014 mid-term elections.  There was not a single activity in which more pastors planned to engage during this major election compared to the less substantial 2014 mid-term elections.
For example, even the easiest, most obvious, and minimal of actions may see a large decline.  In 2014 more than three quarters of pastors (78%) encouraged their congregations to vote.   This year, less than two-thirds, just 62%, plan to do so.
Two years ago, 37% of conservative pastors attempted to educate their congregation with a sermon that taught Biblical principles on one or more issues relevant to that year’s campaign.  Now, only 21% say that they plan to teach a Biblical foundation for positions on issues relevant to this year’s election cycle.
The numbers for conservative churches planning on voter registration or voter guides distribution are even worse.  In 2014, only 21% did voter registration efforts in their church. This year, a mere 12% can be expected to do so.  The percent of conservative churches likely to pass out or point their members to online voter guides is expected to drop by nine points to just 36%.    (Other polls have placed the number of churches using voter guides to be less than 15%.)
In response to this study, religious pollster George Barna noted:

“In an election year in which nothing has been normal so far, the apparent choices of conservative pastors may be the most abnormal thing of all.   The fact that tens of thousands of conservative pastors – even more than during the mid-term election cycle – are planning to ignore this crucial election and have followers of Christ play little-to-no role in the electoral process is shocking.
“This is clearly a time when Christian and conservative voters need spiritual leaders to help them make sense of what is happening and how to respond Biblically to the chaos and uncertainty . . . The message that conservative pastors are sending to their congregants is their Christian faith should have no influence on this election . . .while people with opposing worldviews and values make critical governance choices for Christians . . . with all due respect, that is a startlingly bold example of poor citizenship.”

One minister who is defying this mold in calling for church involvement in a time when our religious freedoms seem to hanging by a thread is evangelist Franklin Graham.  He has observed, “It seems that many pastors do not want to be judged for supporting a candidate who is morally imperfect.  But the truth is that none of us – these pastors included – are morally perfect which is why we need Jesus . . . all candidates have always been morally flawed – they’re human.  In the meantime we need to work together to elect leaders who will allow the Church to follow Christ with as much freedom and as little government interference as possible.”
Over the last 30 years the liberal media has done a very good job of indoctrinating the nation with a false narrative that serves their goal of marginalizing the church.  That falsehood is a picture of Christ following churches as regular gatherings to rail against abortion, homosexuals, and to train member on how to elect candidate who can moralize a nation.
The National Congregations Study conducted between 1998 and 2012 tells a totally different story.  This research looked at what churches really do in terms of social action.  The results may surprise many readers. Between 1998 and 2012, the percentage of churches participating in at least one type of service-related activityincreased from 71 percent to 78 percent.  Yet, the percentage of churches participating in at least one type of political activity decreased from 43 percent to 35 percent.
The Congregations Study finds that among all types of churches participation in service activities is substantial and rising, while political participation is small and shrinking.  Political action is decreasing most among white evangelical churches with only between 7 and 11% doing anything in terms of elections or civic action.
However, the political participation rate among liberal churches has been substantial and increasing. In 2012, 80% of liberal churches participated in at least one type of political activity, making them three times more likely than conservative churches to be politically engaged.
I witnessed this disparity during the battle over marriage when Bible believing churches were noticeably absent in the Indiana State House.  Many times I had legislators ask me with great frustration, “Where are the churches? Why aren’t they here defending marriage?”  Yet, the liberal pastors and churches supporting the unraveling of God’s design were there in droves pushing the gay agenda.
When it comes to the churches embracing good works that society approves, such as food pantries, neighborhood clean ups, or intermural sports clubs, compared to the more difficult and less popular task of being “a watchman on the wall,” one often works against the other. A decline in political participation limits the role churches can play in seriously addressing social needs. Meeting immediate needs without also pursuing long-term solutions through political participation can make actually fixing the problem creating personal needs and harms impossible.
The issue at hand remains.  A surefire way to ensure the loss of religious freedom in America today is for the church to hide its light under a basket when it comes to our civic duties and the privileges of being Americans.  Our ability to choose leaders and impact public policies is a blessing that few nations in the world have ever enjoyed.
I sense that many in the church are motionlessly waiting for God “to do something” in the face of our cultural decline, when He may be waiting for us to act.  To modify Edmund Burke’s famous adage, “evil prevails when good churches do nothing.”   Sadly, according to this research, “nothing” is exactly what most may be doing this election cycle.