• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower
  • Advertisements

My Days in Finland

My Days in Finland….by Glenn H. Ray:

I am a child of  World War II.   I was born male and dyslexic into a world which had not yet discovered dyslexia.   I was born into a world of old maid, Godfearing school teachers, learned, wise, discipline demanding, JudeoChristian Americans who during the WWII years, kept reminding me both privately in class  before my fellow students, with pointed finger in my face, “Remember, Glenn Ray, there are two reasons why you must learn knowledge:  It will make you closer to God, for God knows all matter, and by accumulating knowledge  you will  make better choices when you vote.”   (I can still see the size and shape of those fingers threatening me about two inches from my nose, first grade, second grade and third grade.)

I was the only student among 36 in each classroom who sustained such personal discipline.  I loved school learnings…..I simply couldn’t read books  beyond a page or two.  Yet, I loved maps!   It was big War time.   I could draw maps of the U.S. and Europe by heart.  I could read newspaper headlines such as “Battle Raging at  Midway”, and cut lines  attached to battle pictures at sea.  I had relatives in the Pacific Navy.

I loved Finland early in life….They had beaten back the invading Russians before the big War began.   My dad had told me Russia was a country run by gangsters.

I entered college, the University of Minnesota, fall of 1952, majoring in Geography,  minoring in Russian and European History.   This university at the time charged $35 per quarter of study.   This university at the time reminded incoming students that only 1/4th of them  would graduate with a Bachelor’s  degree, so don’t waste time.

I loved learning….I never paid much attention to grades.  I didn’t compete.  I loved Mother Earth, but  failed Geomorphology my Junior year.   Climatology was boring, but required.  I loved Astronomy….My God, What a Universe out there!!

Winston Churchill  was still alive…. He invented adages about as frequently as he smoked cigars.    His invention of language which haunted me most, ran thusly:


I was an alert child of that WWII.  We boys would play “bombing Nazis” weekly….more often in winter when we’d build installations to assault with snow, a  season  which   was so much more fun  to bomb with snowballs.   I often wondered what I’d really do in a war under pressure of  being  shot at or lying  in a “fox hole” awaiting assault as I had seen in movies….so after my first bout with college, I entered the army through the Enlisted Reserves.

I returned from duty without being battle tested and returned to the University to earn an Education degree, for I was already married and had to qualify for a profession I loved, sharing knowledge, as  my beloved old maid school teachers had instructed me.

I  visited Finland, Minnesota in 1956 pre-military time….a four day retreat required by the then University’s Geography department…I already knew that Finns, although then very Lutheran in religion as were Scandinavian Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, were not at all Scandinavians.   Finns were refugees from Asia as were (Huns) Hungarians of the Danube fleeing from the Tatars of Mongol invasions centuries earlier.   At the edges of the Gulf of Bothnia, Finns could find escape  land no further West.   They found  safety  in the thick  Northern Forests.

While studying  Minnesota’s forest  Finns of the 1950s I learned the culture was matriarchal.  I’d guess that no longer exists today.

While teaching Russian at the University of Minnesota High School, I became curious to  learn more about languages in general…so I began my studies in German, Spanish,  Chinese……and then  FINNISH….again each quarter at  $35 per quarter.

Dennis Prager, my guru of choice over the past twenty years,  was programming from Nashville, Tennessee this AM, Minnesota time.   During second hour he lassoed some guy from Finland for a chat, and was joking about the scarcity of Finns being interviewed on American radio, they are so remote from the active world.    Dennis is aware of languages….  Finnish is an Urgic not a Scandinavian language…..one of the toughest foreign languages a nonFinn could ever learn!   (Learning Chinese is kids play  compared to Finn talk!”)

As I remember 60 plus  years later,  the language commands fifteen grammatical “cases”…you know, the subject, possessive, indirect object, direct object divisions we have in English to direct information in some kind of communicative order.

Dennis was quite upbeat about the Finn friend he was interviewing.   Finns had lived borderline to Stalinist Soviet Russia for decades and yet, remained independent and generally democratic.  Moreover,  in truth, the Finns  defeated  Stalin’s invasion attempt of their nation  during the late 1930s.

My first visit to Soviet Russia was in 1966 when with more fact than fiction, it was still a Stalinist level police state.   I had been taught the Tsar’s Russian in Minnesota…..I wasn’t aware of such a nuance  at the time.   I spoke it as I was taught……by Russian  refugees from Manchuria when mass murderer Mao Tse Tung had finally conquered all of China in 1949.   Yes, I did sense these folks, my Manchurian Russian teachers of the language, were aristocratic, precise, and demanding of their language they taught, but I had no idea it was as beautifully spoken as the Queen’s English used to be.  I learned to speak Russian as I was told by these Tsarist immigrants.

When I arrived in the USSR in 1966, I immediately bought “Soviet Russian” clothes….saggy black cotton trousers, and a couple wrinkly long sleeved white shirts.  I wanted to appear as native as possible wherever I went…Moscow, Kief, Rostov, Sochi, Leningrad.

In Sochi I had caused a crowd of more than  hundred gathering on the shore of the Black Sea….Russians were very, very private then when in public  in Moscow or Leningrad.   Silence ruled, or a dozen or more  of armed police would arrive well armed to  scatter upon mere appearance.   Not so, this time in Sochi.    They waited ten minutes before politely dispersing the crowd.

As I was walking toward my residence, two attractive couples, Georgians in their thirties asked me if I would like to join them in a cave restaurant nearby.   They said they were on vacation.   All four said they  had enjoyed my conversations and answers to questions  with the previous crowd.   They seemed very, very  confident in carriage and speech, so at first I suspected they might be secret police folks.

They asked about my family, trade….(I taught Russian at the high school level), how many cars did I own, did I live in a house, did I own it, were my parents still alive?  (They were!)….and then the group paused.   I waited for more questions….but one of the gals direct  me to keep talking…(Please, just talk!   I have never heard anyone speak Russian as beautifully as you do!”).  She then caught agreement from the other three, so they asked me where  I learned my Russian.

I answered  truthfully….”From strict, very demanding Tsarist aristocratic Russians who fled to the United States from  Manchuria”.

Since then I have always felt some  guilt, for I never had a chance to thank these Tsarists  for their talents as teachers.

A fascist nation is a difficult nation to endure.  One is always in fear of the secret police.  Throughout my 1966 Soviet visit I never realized the tension I was collecting within me masked by the enjoyment of being able to speak person to persons more freely than I had expected.   The American group I traveled to the USSR with was made up of twenty public school teachers who had received a grant called the National Defense Education Act….a Eisenhower grant to teachers of Russian …..to educate our American young to know more about our major world competitor at the time.

At visit’s end, our group of twenty left Moscow for Helsinki, Finland on a beautiful late August day.  Three or four of our group of  gals strangely began crying quietly upon take-off.   Otherwise, there were no noises, no chatting, no activity, almost no breathing……only apparent exhaustion!





When  in Kiev on the shores of the Volga,  I’d cause conversations with couples around age 30.   One Sunday I purposely wore my yellow swim trunks where thousands of males wore saggy black things about to fall off at any moment.

After a brief swim in the river, I intentionally approached two couples in their thirties sitting on a blanket playing some kind of card game to open a conversation.  “Excuse me, what card game are you playing”…..No vocal response whatsoever…which I expected!   I apologized for  interrupting, and then mentioned  I was a  “foreigner”, and so curious…..Still no response.    Then I excused myself and turned to find some other “victim” for conversation.   One of the guys apparently   bored about the entire scene rather rudely asked,  “Ot kooda vwi?”   ( “Where are you from?”)…and I knew they were trapped!  ” Ya, Amyericanetz”…and then paused and again apologized, but before I could finish my  words, I saw the shock on all three faces….and then they were hooked, as I had   hoped from experience.

They asked me to sit down with them and with great curiosity  quizzed me for two hours in the most polite manner.   One of the gal’s Mother then arrived on the scene.  I stood up when introduced to her, and that is when a large  crowd began to gather…..to more than one hundred.   There wasn’t a snotty phrase in any of the discussions or quizzes.  We chatted for another hour when six or seven well armed police finally appeared, and nastily shouted to break up the crowd.   Their uniforms were made of gunny sack.  It was 80 degrees F.   They were sweating like waterfalls.

They didn’t look happy!

I was very surprised to hear several voices from the crowd shout at the police to leave all of us alone….Several of them yelled…”He’s an American.  You’re embarrassing us!”  and repeated it again and again.   They physically separated me from my “new friends”  and told me it was time  to take a swim.







February 22, 1980…..That Miracle of American Sports! USA 4 USSR 3


More than half of the members of the 1980 American Olympic hockey team,  perhaps 14 players in all, were raised in, or learned their hockey  from my own state of Minnesota.

Wintertime between 1955 to 1965 I attended over 300 Minnesota high school hockey games.  I was the state high school boy  hockey ratings guy for the Sunday St. Paul Pioneer Press.    Roseau, Thief River Falls,  International Falls, Duluth East, Grand Rapids,  Eveleth, St. Paul Johnson, Minneapolis Roosevelt, Edina  were the hockey powerhouses perennially  leading  the ratings from 1947 through the 1960s.    St. Paul Johnson was THE hockey powerhouse  from the Twin City in  those days…..winning State championships in 1947, 1953, 1955,  and 1963.

Herbie Brooks starred at  St. Paul Johnson High School leading the school into  two state tournament victories,  1953 to 1955.  He was an awkward skater from hip to ankles, rather slow in the speed,  yet he starred because he was a star.   He was so clever on the attack with the puck under his control, spectators and competing players often seemed to  fell  he could ‘deek’ the goal posts.

In all of the twenty or more years attending Minnesota  High School  State Tournaments, I never saw a player who could out maneuver a defender as easily at this kid.   Herbie Brooks was a genius with the puck at the end of his hockey stick…..clever player who loved the game, a winner, who had a brain far more skilled than his legs.   HE WAS A WINNER by drive and  because of that brain!

(I think Herbie actually  majored in psychology while at the University of Minnesota, back then when the University really meant something in learnings.   This Herbie was focused that 1979-1980!)

I was not surprised that Herbie decided to play the Olympic Soviet team  (for practice) a couple weeks before the Olympic games began, losing 10-3,  at Madison Square Garden!   I was not surprised he’d work the blood out of his Olympic team players whether they liked it or not, during every practice until the Olympic competitions began.  I was not at all surprised that his superbly-coached team had managed to remain  undefeated by the time they had to play the Soviets.

Herbie was in charge!

Minnesota boy high school players in the 1980s were becoming more spoiled in their athletic surroundings than in the years gone by.  They didn’t have to play critical outdoor games in minus 15 degree temperatures any more……such as a critical  outdoor game  I watched in Roseau when the team  played St. Paul Johnson one January.

Mark Johnson blood came from Minnesota.   I knew his dad, Bob Johnson quite well.  ….a First Class Guy, if there ever was one!  He was a star coach at Minneapolis Roosevelt….and a ‘side kick’ of mine when we took graduate school classes together in the College of Education at the University of Minnesota before he came to coach hockey at the University of Wisconsin.

Herbie Brooks was a  genius coaching at that level at  that time to that Olympic victory that year, AD 1980!  It was made to be by our Creator!  His young, rather spoiled youthful team was tortured into mental, physical strength into  resolution and  endurance throughout those many  months of practice leading up to that Miracle on Ice……Team USA  was a much stronger, better balanced USA hockey team playing the Soviets during the last fifteen minutes than the first 45!   Take a look below during that third period following the Eruzione go-ahead  goal with ten minutes left!








    The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene on Capitol Hill this Christmas season.
    This isn’t for  any religious reason. They simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation’s Capital.
     A search for a Virgin also continues.
   There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.


by Adriana Cohen   at  the Boston Herald:

“When the news broke Friday evening that a federal grand jury has approved criminal charges in relation to the special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference, the left wing media — especially CNN — frantically launched into wall-to-wall coverage of something that’s still under seal.

With three guests in-studio and seven other talking heads, CNN, which was shockingly the first to break the story, began breathlessly pushing the narrative that this was the big moment they’d been waiting for. This, surely, was the pivotal moment that would lead to the end of Trump’s presidency.

And though these anti-Trump media members went on and on — late into the night — speculating about who the target could be, and what charges they could face, it was all just wild speculation. But the fact that they were all so excited to speculate tells you everything you need to know about these outlets.

For all they know, the person or people facing federal charges could very well be members of the Clinton campaign.

After all, many of these same media members spent the week ignoring or explaining away the fact that John Podesta, Clinton’s former campaign manager, and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz denied any knowledge of funding the infamous and widely discredited Russian dossier on Trump.

An absurd claim considering published reports detailing how they spent a combined $9.2 million to their law firm, Perkins Coie, who then paid Fusion GPS and an ex-British spy to dig up their opposition “research” from Russian informants.

And is it any surprise that CNN was the first network to get the news?

Perhaps that is where some of the real “collusion” lies — between powerful partisan forces within our Justice Department and the anti-Trump media.

Not a stretch given we already know that fired former FBI Director James B. Comey admitted to Congress that he fed a reporter sensitive “memos” detailing private conversations with the president to spur the appointment of a special counsel.

A move that, in addition to whipping the anti-Trump media into a frenzy, led to Comey’s longtime buddy, Bob Mueller, launching into a politically motivated Russian investigation — thanks to a tacit partnership between a high-ranking FBI official and the lefty media.

Jason Chaffetz, former chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, nailed it on the head yesterday.

“All Grand Jury business is supposed to be secret,” he tweeted. “Leak after leak someone should be prosecuted.”

Regardless of what comes out tomorrow, when the indictment is expected to be made public, Americans want fair play and accountability on both sides of the aisle. If politically driven indictments are handed out to Republicans while criminal aristocrats within the Democratic Party get a free ride, it will destroy public trust in our justice system, the very cornerstone of our democracy.

If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, nothing will……”  Please continue below to view an icon of St. Hillary the Great at her best.



Hillary and Her Podesta Group Are in DEEP TROUBLE!

Podesta Group now part of special counsel probe into Russian collusion: Report

by Sally Persons  at the Washington Times

“Tony Podesta and The Podesta Group are now being investigated as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into collusion claims between the Trump campaign and Russia, NBC News reported.

The group became part of the probe after Mr. Mueller’s team looked into former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort’s finances. Mr. Podesta is the brother to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, although he is not part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation at this time.

According to the report, the group was connected to a public relations campaign for a nonprofit in Ukraine called European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Tony Podesta’s group worked on the campaign, but now Mr. Mueller’s team is looking at possible criminal activity through violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, NBC News said. The Podesta Group apparently did not filed the necessary paperwork disclosing its work in Ukraine until after it was reported in the media.

The ECMU was reportedly supported by a pro-Russia political party in the Ukraine for which Mr. Manafort worked as a consultant.

In a statement to NBC News, the Podesta Group said it was “cooperating fully” with Mr. Mueller’s office.”



Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid Russia Dossier Research

Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid For Russia Dossier Research

Last week two executives from Fusion GPS were subpoenaed to appear at a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee. They did appear and promptly chose to plead the Fifth rather than answer questions about who funded the oppo-research dossier on Donald Trump. Today we know why they made that choice. The Washington Post reports the research that became the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC:

SEE ALSO: So, when does Ben Sasse announce that he’s not running for reelection either?

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the firm in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Prior to that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

The story does contain one line offering a possible escape hatch for Hillary: “One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed of Fusion GPS’s role by the law firm.” This seems like the kind of Clintonian statement Clinton world is famous for making. It sounds as if Hillary might not have known she was paying for the dossier but notice it doesn’t definitively say that (also there’s no name attached, so it’s deniable). Does this mean Clinton wasn’t informed at the time or that she was never informed? Your guess is as good as mine.

Stay tuned for another carefully crafted statement from Hillary as soon as her army of lawyers and advisers settle on the wording she will use. And Andrea Mitchell should stay by the phone in case Hillary’s people need to arrange an exclusive interview with a friendly outlet this week.

We still don’t know which GOP candidate started the ball rolling, but the article suggests the shift in focus to Russia happened after the DNC and Clinton started paying Fusion GPS. In fact, that much was reported almost a year ago by Mother Jones:

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump’s dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) “It started off as a fairly general inquiry,” says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, “there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.”

So the DNC and Clinton camp took over the funding in April 2016. After that, Fusion GPS hired Steele, the Russian intelligence specialist who discovered connections to Russia he found troubling sometime after June 2016. So it doesn’t sound as if the GOP-funded research was focused on Russia. That came after Hillary and the DNC stepped up.

The Post reports that the Clinton camp/DNC paid the law firm which hired Fusion GPS a total of $9.2 million between June 2015 and December 2016 but it’s not known how much of that money went to Fusion GPS for the dossier after June 2016.

The fact that Trump’s opponent in the race was funding the dossier which has dogged his presidency for the past 10 months certainly throws a new light on it, as does the fact that everyone involved has refused to admit and even outright denied involvement:




It Was the Deep State that Colluded with the Russians, not Trump

by Clarice Feldman  at American Thinker:

“As more and more leaks about the ongoing “Russian collusion” witch hunt by Robert Mueller appear in print, it seems to me that if Russia had been trying to erode our faith in our institutions, the Deep State is accomplishing what Russia failed to do.

The Obama claque’s efforts were initially intended to help Clinton when they thought she would win and no one would know about their crimes. Then they continued the unlawful spying to cover up their role in the worst case of misuse of federal power in our history, to effect the removal or emasculation of the President, and  now they are desperate to cover up their illegal actions when all that failed.

A. Where we are today on “Russian collusion”?

Instapundit tweeted the answer succinctly: “The election was hacked!” turns out to mean, “Russia bought some ads on Facebook.”

Facebook is turning over ads presumably purchased by Russians during the campaign. Good — let’s see them. As the article notes:

The announcement that Facebook would share the ads with the Senate and House intelligence committees came after the social network spent two weeks on the defensive. The company faced calls for greater transparency about 470 Russia-linked accounts  — in which fictional people posed as American activists — which were taken down after they had promoted inflammatory messages on divisive issues. Facebook had previously angered congressional staff by showing only a sample of the ads, some of which attacked Hillary Clinton or praised Donald J. Trump.

As Tom Maguire reminds us, it would be unwise to assume this was a one-sided campaign: “Let’s see all the ads and find out whether Russia was winding up both sides. Back in the day it was believed Russia backed anti-fracking groups in Europe. Why not also in the US?”

Best of the Web’s James Freeman thinks that, in any case, the notion that these ads swung the election is ridiculous on its face:

So the spending on fake Russian political ads identified by Facebook amounted to around 1/7,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising. And of course these fake ad buys were not material in the context of Facebook’s total advertising revenues, which amounted to nearly $27 billion last year.

Is a $150,000 ad buy even big enough to require sign-off from Mr. Putin? If as some believe, Russian meddling was simply intended to discredit the likely winner, some poor Russian agent may now be headed to Siberia for engineering the election of a U.S. President who seems determined to drive down the price of oil.

Let’s hope Congress gets to the bottom of this. If $150,000 amounts to the entire iceberg, and it still managed to sink the S.S. Clinton, marketing majors will be studying these ads for years to come.

B. Using the Full Force of FISA to spy on a political opponent

Obama has a long history of spying on his opponents and releasing information damaging to them. It’s a lifelong pattern. He got two opponents’ sealed divorce records unsealed in order to use unsubstantiated claims in pleadings by estranged spouses against them. As President, he continued this practice. By way of example, the Obama Administration did that with IRS, collecting information about the activities and donors of conservative and pro-Israel citizen groups while it refused to grant them the tax-exempt status to which they were entitled. The EPA collected private information from farmers and ranchers and released it to environmental groups to help them in their battles against those farmers and ranchers. There’s no reason to suppose that this pattern didn’t carry over to the 2016 election, and plenty of evidence that it did. As Sharyl Attkisson points out, they did it with reporters and Congressmen.

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.

You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.

There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

Journalists have been targeted, too. [snip]

The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News.

As Attkisson reminds us, other Trump associates General Michael Flynn and Carter Page were also under government surveillance. As bad as that was, it was ”discovered [that] multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking,” or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked,” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.”

She also specifically unmasked Steve Bannon, who met in the transition period with a UAE official so it’s altogether possible they were spying on him generally as well.

If so, that would mean that four Trump associates had been spied on, multiplying the number of conversations with the President these people were listening in on.

Even more “unmasking”– revealing the names of those innocents scooped up in this broad surveillance — about 300 people had their privacy violated when the dyspeptic-looking UN Ambassador Samantha Power was revealed to have made almost one unmasking request a day, rapidly adding to the list as the inauguration approached.

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 — and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

C. The FISA Court surely was misled in order to get information to surveil and to continue surveilling Trump and his associates.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) permits blunderbuss intelligence gathering. It’s not designed to gather information on crimes in general, but only to act as a tool of counterintelligence or counterterrorism. And it certainly would be suspicious if efforts were made to misuse it to conduct domestic political spying. There’s only one legitimate reason to conduct surveillance on a U.S. citizen under FISA — to find out more about the activities of a foreign power or terrorist organization. Since in the process of scooping up so much information, other matters might be revealed, “minimization” procedures are used to mask the identities of those caught up in the sweep who are not involved in such activities.

CNN reported — with some obvious omissions and errors of law — that former FBI director James Comey secured secret FISA orders to wiretap Paul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump’s campaign manager, and that having received nothing from that order, then secured another FISA warrant in 2016 (after Manafort joined the Trump campaign) and continued that surveillance into 2017, after the election.

Further, CNN reported that two attempts were made in the summer of 2016 to obtain a FISA order, both of which were rejected, and an order was issued only after the third try. FISA rarely rejects such requests, so I think it fair to assume the court was suspicious of these requests, which smelled like political, not national security matters. I think it almost a certainty that the final request received the personal imprimatur of Comey (as Director of the FBI) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

And what, you may ask, was different about the third and ultimately successful third attempt? I suggest it was the phony Steele dossier, which credible reports indicate was partially financed by Comey’s own FBI.

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “Dossier.” That Dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele. [Ed: Sources for the most scurrilous allegations in it were from unnamed sources in Russia, most likely Russian government intelligence agents or liars working on a pay for dirt basis.]

The Washington Post in February reported that Mr. Steele “was familiar” to the FBI, since he’d worked for the bureau before. The newspaper said Mr. Steele had reached out to a “friend” at the FBI about his Trump work as far back as July 2016. The Post even reported that Mr. Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

Who was Mr. Steele’s friend at the FBI? Did the bureau influence the direction of the Trump dossier? Did it give Mr. Steele material support from the start? The timing matters because it could answer the vital question of why the FBI wanted the dossier. Here’s one thought: warrants.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees spying activities, is usually generous in approving warrants, on the presumption law-enforcement agencies are acting in good faith. When a warrant is rejected, though, law enforcement isn’t pleased.

Perhaps the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance on someone connected to a presidential campaign (Carter Page?) but couldn’t hit what was — and ought to be — a supremely high bar for getting such a potentially explosive warrant. A dossier of nefarious allegations might well prove handy in finally convincing the FISA court to sign off. The FBI might have had a real motive to support Mr. Steele’s effort. It might have even justified the unjustifiable: working with a partisan oppo-research firm and a former spook to engineer a Kremlin-planted dossier that has roiled Mr. Trump’s entire presidency.

True Pundit claims that FBI connivance with GPS Fusion to create the dossier was not all it did to secure the final 2016 FISA warrant — it also set up a meeting in Trump Tower and used information gleaned from Britain’s GCHQ in NSA headquarters to unlawfully gather information on U.S. citizens.

From the beginning it was a set up to find dirt on Trump campaign insiders and if possible to topple Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations.

Before and after the 2016 election. And while this operation had many moving parts and alternating players, the mission to unseat Trump never changed. And it remains ongoing.

And none of it was very legal.

Six U.S. agencies [the FBI, NSA, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, Justice Department]created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.

To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.

The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.

GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.


The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised.

Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.

After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.

By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.

The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”

Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).

Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian’s visa by True Pundit.

(More on the unusual visa granted to Veselnitskaya here. More on GCHQ operating from NSA headquarters here.)

In July, Bharara’s former associate US Attorney Andrew Goldstein was added to Mueller’s army of largely Clinton backers and contributors to the special counsel’s enormous team.

In sum, the contention by True Pundit is that the government first spied on Trump and then concocted a national security ruse and desperately sought a FISA warrant to cover up the political spying which occurred before the FISA warrant was ever issued.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal also suspect that the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant, and, if so, that requires a congressional investigation:

The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey’s FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?

All of this is reason for House and Senate investigators to keep exploring how Mr. Comey’s FBI was investigating both presidential campaigns. Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the “integrity” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don’t cooperate in contempt.

I agree with Daniel Greenfield. Based on what I’ve read and observed, while the initial surveillance was to stop Trump and help Clinton, Obama used FISA to provide a “national security” cover for politically spying on Trump right up to the inauguration. As he notes, the first 2016 application was made the month after Trump obtained the nomination and the second in October, the month before the election.

As the unmasking picked up pace after the election, the reasonable assumption is that its purpose was to undo the results of the election or hamstring the incoming President.

Now Obama and his allies are or should be terrified that the scope of the illegal surveillance is revealing their criminal acts.

This is why I believe Mueller is growing increasingly desperate to find one crime by one person he can force by threat of jail to provide any shred of anything that might be used to justify their illegal espionage. Greenfield’s conclusion is apt: “The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor. A turning point in history is here. If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.”

Why do I say that Mueller seems increasingly desperate? How else does one explain a middle-of-the-night pick-lock armed entry (and the search of his bedclothes-garbed wife) into the home of a man who by all accounts had been fully cooperating and turning over all requested documents? How else to explain requesting a court grant such a necessary special warrant on the ground that otherwise documents evincing a purported eleven-year-old crime would suddenly be destroyed? How else to explain the effort by Mueller to find out client information from the Skadden Arps and Akin Gump law firms, materials probably covered by attorney-client privilege? With each leak of his conduct – designed, I suppose, by his team to terrify honest men into lying to redeem the special counsel’s misbegotten efforts — Mueller looks more and more like a petrified enlistee in  the secretive repressive state force — the Stasi — as the wall is coming down and their conduct made public.”