Greyparrot

Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come.

Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors.

These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran.

President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world.

Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. ... Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”

As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani —  to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists.

The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged.

We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy.

In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.

While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.

Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.”

Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. ... The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.”

Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran. Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes.

Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point.For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.

Another gem from our nation’s crime fighting bureaucracy:

“In a handful of criminal cases around the country, local police officers have testified in recent months that non-disclosure agreements with the FBI forbid them from acknowledging the use of secret cellphone-tracking devices. In some, prosecutors have settled cases rather than risk revealing, during court proceedings, sensitive details about the use of the devices.”

I want to clarify one thing- I’m pro law enforcement, period. But I am also a patriotic American citizen who cherishes our Constitution.

I understand fully that today in Obama’s America, cops have one of the worst, most thankless jobs possible. Being a cop is always a tough job due to the nature of the beast. Locking people up isn’t the best way to win friends and influence people.

Under Obama’s Justice Department things have gotten completely out of control. Murders of Police Officers have sky rocketed and the ensuing mayhem caused by groups like Black Lives Matter have made many urban centers resemble third world war zones.

The polarization and politicization of today’s law enforcement can be blamed directly on the Justice Department and the current and previous Attorney Generals- Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder.

The administration’s contempt for the Constitution and rule of law combined with their attitude of being exempt from our laws is clearly on display here.

The FBI is using electronic devices that gather private cell phone information on random American citizens during investigations of criminals. This is total bs.

Further, the Feds are making local officers sign non-disclosure agreements in the process, swearing them to secrecy. Most transparent administration ever? Hardly. This activity has been litigated ad-nauseam and clearly violates the 4th Amendment.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear: They were subjected to all sorts of legal fishing expeditions by the British authorities during the Revolutionary War era.

They knew very well that the “authorities” could always manage to “find” something, some “evidence” against a citizen if they raided their house and property.

This “evidence” could then be used to manufacture a case against the accused and gain a conviction. It’s a very convenient way to silence or jail troublemakers… and Patriots.

The FBI is no different. They know they should be getting warrants to use these devices just like when they would wiretap someone (back when we used wires):

The FBI also stated that it requires officers to obtain a search warrant to use the device, unless the case involves an emergency such as a kidnapping, missing child or crime that could lead to imminent death. The updated warrant policy was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

The bureau had previously said it obtains court orders — which require a lesser standard than the probable cause required for a warrant — to use the devices. Judges, however, typically are not informed by the law enforcement agencies that they are planning to use a cell-site simulator.

Instead, orders are often granted for the purpose of obtaining cell-tower information from a phone company.

Again- I don’t have a problem with law enforcement using every tool at their disposal to arrest criminals. But this power needs to be monitored and checked:

“The clarification sheds new light on the bureau’s policy on the controversial technology following months of reports about the growing use of the devices by state and local police without the express approval of judges. It also comes as the Justice Department is finalizing a review of federal law enforcement agencies’ use of the devices.”

While they have no compunction about violating the privacy rights of literally millions of American citizens through warrantless surveillance, they practically melt down at the suggestion we do the same to the local Mosque where the next terror bombing is potentially being planned.

It’s an absolute disgrace that this is going on. The DOJ’s conduct is so egregious that some states are taking action on their own to limit further abuse:

In Washington State on Monday, Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed into law a measure that requires a warrant for the use of cell-site simulators, accompanied by an application describing the type of device to be used, the target phone number and the geographic area to be covered. The law also orders the police to delete any information collected from any bystander who is not a target.

I remember when President Bush signed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9-11. The government said at the time that they would be too busy tracking down terrorists to look at the private communications of the average American citizen.

As with most anything the government says anymore, you just can’t believe it.

You obviously think we should lift sanctions on Iran, so that's clearly a retarded position knowing what Iran would purchase with the money.

You probably think we should let felons own guns and vote too.

Devin Archer traveled to Kiev to pitch investors on a real-estate fund he managed, Rosemont Realty. There, he met Mykola Zlochevsky, the co-founder of Burisma, one of Ukraine’s largest natural-gas producers. Zlochevsky had served as ecology minister under the pro-Russian government of Yanukovych. After public protests in 2013 and early 2014, the Ukrainian parliament had voted to remove Yanukovych and called for his arrest. Under the new Ukrainian government, authorities in Kiev, with the encouragement of the Obama Administration, launched an investigation into whether Zlochevsky had used his cabinet position to grant exploration licenses that benefitted Burisma. (The status of the inquiry is unclear, but no proof of criminal activity has been publicly disclosed. Zlochevsky could not be reached for comment, and Burisma did not respond to queries.) In a related investigation, which was ultimately closed owing to a lack of evidence, British authorities temporarily froze U.K. bank accounts tied to Zlochevsky.

In early 2014, Zlochevsky sought to assemble a high-profile international board to oversee Burisma, telling prospective members that he wanted the company to adopt Western standards of transparency. Among the board members, he recruited was a former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, who had a reputation as a dedicated reformer. In early 2014, at Zlochevsky’s suggestion, Kwaśniewski met with Archer in Warsaw and encouraged him to join Burisma’s board, arguing that the company was critical to Ukraine’s independence from Russia. Archer agreed.

When Archer told Hunter that the board needed advice on how to improve the company’s corporate governance, Hunter recommended the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, where he was “of counsel.” The firm brought in the investigative agency Nardello & Co. to assess Burisma’s history of corruption. Hunter joined Archer on the Burisma board in April, 2014. Three months later, in a draft report to Boies Schiller, Nardello said that it was “unable to identify any information to date regarding any current government investigation into Zlochevsky or Burisma,” but cited unnamed sources saying that Zlochevsky could be “vulnerable to investigation for financial crimes” and for “perceived abuse of power.”

Vice-President Biden was playing a central role in overseeing U.S. policy in Ukraine and took the lead in calling on Kiev to fight rampant corruption. On May 13, 2014, after Hunter’s role on the Burisma board was reported in the news, Jen Psaki, a State Department spokesperson, said that the State Department was not concerned about perceived conflicts of interest, because Hunter was a “private citizen.” Hunter told Burisma’s management and other board members that he would not be involved in any matters that were connected to the U.S. government or to his father. Kwaśniewski told me, “We never discussed how the Vice-President can help us. Frankly speaking, we didn’t need such help.”

Several former officials in the Obama Administration and at the State Department insisted that Hunter’s role at Burisma had no effect on his father’s policies in Ukraine, but said that, nevertheless, Hunter should not have taken the board seat. As the former senior White House aide put it, there was a perception that “Hunter was on the loose, potentially undermining his father’s message.” The same aide said that Hunter should have recognized that at least some of his foreign business partners were motivated to work with him because they wanted “to be able to say that they are affiliated with Biden.” A former business associate said, “The appearance of a conflict of interest is good enough, at this level of politics, to keep you from doing things like that.”

In December 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden but did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board. As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’ ”