What an absolute mess the American people have allowed to fester!  U.S. Secret Service releases restricted database required by law to be kept private -- Parallels between 2015 America and 1933 Germany are shocking -- Political ties to the Clinton Global Initiative -- Media Caught Distorting President Putin’s Speech -- 'Putin isn't in Syria to fight terrorism – he's partnering with terrorists' -- Muslim immigration is actually jihad in yet another form.

===========

Top U.S. Secret Service official urged release of unflattering information about congressman

The Washington Post By Carol D. Leonnig and Jerry Markon

An assistant director of the Secret Service urged that unflattering information the agency had in its files about a congressman critical of the service be made public, according to a government watchdog report released Wednesday.

“Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out,” Assistant Director Edward Lowery wrote in an e-mail to a fellow director on March 31, commenting on an internal file that was being widely circulated inside the service. “Just to be fair.”

Two days later, a news Web site reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, had applied to be a Secret Service agent in 2003 and been rejected.

That information was part of Chaffetz’s personnel file stored in a restricted Secret Service database and required by law to be kept private.

[Secret Service officials allowed to participate in probe of leak by agency]

The report by John Roth, inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, singled out Lowery, in part because of his senior position at the agency. The report also cited Lowery’s e-mail as the one piece of documentary evidence showing the degree of anger inside the agency at Chaffetz and the desire for the information to be public.

Lowery had been promoted to the post of assistant director for training just a month earlier as part of an effort that Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy said would reform the agency after a series of high-profile security lapses. Clancy had tapped Lowery to join a slate of new leaders he installed after removing more than two-thirds of the previous senior management team.

During the inspector general’s probe, Lowery denied to investigators that he directed anyone to leak the private information about Chaffetz to the press and said his e-mail was simply a vent for his stress and anger.

The Chaffetz file, contained in the restricted database, had been peeked at by about 45 Secret Service agents, some of whom shared it with their colleagues in March and April, the report found. This prying began after a contentious March 24 House hearing at which Chaffetz scolded the director and the agency for its series of security gaffes and misconduct. The hearing sparked anger inside the agency.

The inspector general’s inquiry found the Chaffetz information was spread to nearly every layer of the service.

[Secret Service chief questioned over handling of White House incident]

Staff members in the most senior headquarters offices, the president’s protective detail, the public affairs office, the office of investigations and field offices in Sacramento, Charlotte, Dallas and elsewhere accessed Chaffetz’s file — and many acknowledged sharing it widely, according to the report. The day after the March 24 hearing, one agent who had been sent to New York for the visit of the president of Afghanistan recalled that nearly all of the 70 agents at a briefing were discussing it.

All told, 18 supervisors, including assistant directors, the deputy director and even Clancy’s chief of staff knew the information was being widely shared through agency offices, the report said.

“These agents work for an agency whose motto — ‘Worthy of trust and confidence’ — is engraved in marble in the lobby of their headquarters building,” Roth wrote in his summary report. “Few could credibly argue that the agents involved in this episode lived up to this motto.”

In an e-mailed statement, Clancy said: “I have reviewed the DHS OIG Report and have provided additional information to the DHS IG. The Secret Service takes employee misconduct very seriously, and as I have stated before, any employee, regardless of rank or seniority, who has committed misconduct will be held accountable. This incident will be no different and I will ensure the appropriate disciplinary actions are taken.

“On behalf of the men and women of the United States Secret Service, I again apologize to Representative Chaffetz for this wholly avoidable and embarrassing misconduct. Additionally, I will continue to review policies and practices to address employee misconduct and demand the highest level of integrity of all our employees.”

After reviewing the IG report, the Oversight Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), said in a statement that he was “deeply troubled” by what Roth’s team uncovered and that staffers who have shown themselves to be “unwilling or unable to meet the highest ethical standards” should leave the agency.

“Chairman Chaffetz and I have worked together to help restore the Secret Service to its standing as the most elite protective agency in the world,” Cummings said. “Today’s findings by the Inspector General go directly against this goal and are completely and utterly unacceptable and indefensible.”

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, whose department includes the Secret Service, urged in a statement that those personnel who had engaged in inappropriate conduct should be held responsible.

Roth said in his report that it was “especially ironic and troubling” that the Chaffetz information circulated so widely inside the agency and yet Clancy did not know about it. Even Clancy chief of staff Michael Biermann and Deputy Director Craig Magaw had been privy to the information, the report said, but did not alert Clancy.

Clancy had previously raised concerns about the failure of his staff to keep him properly informed. At the March 24 hearing, he said he was “infuriated” that he was not alerted by his senior management to an incident earlier that month in which two senior supervisors drove onto the White House complex after a night of drinking and crossed through an active bomb-investigation scene.

“He testified that he was ‘working furiously to try to break down these barriers where people feel that they can’t talk up the chain,’ ” Roth wrote. “Yet the Director himself did not know.”

Roth’s investigation examined not only who accessed Chaffetz’s personnel file inside the service but also who disclosed information about the file to the media. The Daily Beast first reported on April 2 that Chaffetz had once been rejected for a job at the service. The Washington Post reported additional details later that evening.

One official told The Post that the material included a parody poster that pictured Chaffetz leading a hearing on the Secret Service from his congressional dais, with the headline, “Got BQA from the Service in 2003.” Within the Secret Service, “BQA” is an acronym meaning that a “better qualified applicant” was available.

Roth’s report said investigators were unable to pin down how The Post and the Daily Beast obtained their information. “Because of the significant number of individuals who had knowledge of Chairman Chaffetz’s application history, we were unable to conclusively determine the universe of sources of the disclosure . . . to individuals outside of government,” the report said.

Roth himself has faced criticism over his handling of the investigation because he allowed inspectors from the Secret Service’s internal affairs office to sit in on interviews and question some witnesses alongside his investigators. Legal experts and former government investigators have said the service’s involvement was a potential conflict of interest because top officials at the agency had an incentive to embarrass Chaffetz. Experts also expressed concerns that it could deter internal whistleblowers from coming forward with additional allegations of misconduct, for fear of retribution by their bosses.

==========

InfoWars  by Illinois Mike

If you think the things that have been done in this country under the current administration are bad, it’s what is yet to come that we need to keep our eyes on.

Ultimately it will be “the People” as a whole who will choose between stopping or participating in the demise of this country.

All of perversion and anti-American activity that is being pushed and displayed to the population is being done with a purpose; if we look back just 70 years ago we can see exactly why.

In Germany prior to the adoption of National Socialism the country was comprised of 2/3rd Protestant and 1/3rd Catholic; Germany was essentially a Christian nation.

Coming into the 1930s and before the rise of Adolf Hitler, Germany was considered the most socially progressive country in Europe: open homosexuality, transgendered persons and the whole cabaret culture was adopted by and thrust upon the population by the types of people we would call “liberals” today; in fact the first recorded male-to-female gender reassignment surgery occurred in Berlin in 1931.

This type of activity and behavior was hefted upon the average German who was tolerant of it because of their Christian foundations, initially having a “live and let live” attitude toward the other members of their society. However, because they saw it destroying their traditional value system and were watching it being thrust upon their children, it was essentially grinding on the underlying psyche of the average German citizen; much like the United States today.

Then suddenly a tough-talking man comes on the scene, speaking in populist language about restoring the greatness of Germany, knowing this was exactly the average citizen greatly desired.

One of the first actions taken to “return Germany to greatness” was the Reichstag Fire Decree which modified their constitution to allow restrictions on personal liberty, especially the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, the right of assembly and the right of association.

There were also restrictions on privacy in postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on private property.

This was followed by the book burning which was the purging of German society of the “literature of perversion;” literally the burning of pornography and associated materials and text books that were viewed as the source of the perversion they were seeing all around them. This quickly evolved into burning all sorts of things that challenged the agenda of the Nazi party.

Then the round ups began.

In Milton Mayer’s 1955 book They Thought They Were Free, the poem by Martin Niemoller’s that is often quoted regarding the rounding up of persons can be found.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

More accurately, they first came for the gypsies and “perverts” who had “tainted German society” and those people who had “come out” and “proudly identified themselves” during the tolerant period.

You can see this as the catalyst that helped to spin things out of control in order to “purify and restore the greatness of Germany.

Once the concentration in the ghetto’s and round ups began, the ignorant brow beaten population was now effectively scared into submission. Their submission and worship of God was transformed into the submission and worship of the state and the groundwork was laid for all hell to break loose.

So, as scary as the shift is that has occurred under the current political leadership in America, it is the rapid and extreme movement in the other direction that we should all be aware and afraid of.

The people are ready to support anyone who is willing to “get the job done” and this is the point where “…decades can happen in weeks” (to quote Vladimir Lenin) swinging this country so far in the other direction that we will find ourselves quickly on the wrong side of history.

We have a stunningly ignorant, brow-beaten population crying out for a strong leader to restore the greatness of America.

We have the legal frame work of control in place.

We have dozens of groups from “preppers” and “patriots” to “transgendered persons” who have arrogantly identified themselves thanks to pop culture encouragement.

We have the surveillance structure Germany didn’t have, with everyone and their predispositions and social associations carefully catalogued through the technology they haven’t been effectively encouraged to avoid.

We have religious, ethnic and other minorities that are being blamed for every ill possible proudly identifying themselves.

We have “leaders” emerging, who are pitching a populist message with a “get it done” attitude who pledges to restore and prove the greatness of the United States.

Everything is in place, we just need the “right leader” and another catalyst event and we’re all going to be in deep trouble.

One has to ask themselves, if for instance the Republican “tough guy” candidate with populist rhetoric were to be elected and he and his “get it done” attitude wanted to “round up” and “deport” ethnic and religious minorities like the Hispanics and Muslims, how many people in today’s society would really oppose it? Where would it go from there? How could the voice of reason ever stop it once it starts?

The bottom line is one man is not going to fix this mess and will only act to lead you to your own demise; the only way to fix this is that the people are going to have to find it in their gut to stand up and speak out.

==========

RELATED READING: 

Investigate Obama or risk permanent political-media corruption

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

===========

Fiorina's ties to Clinton Foundation closer than disclosed

WND

Aaron Klein

Russia has proceeded to launch air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

But at the U.N. General Assembly on Monday, the country’s leader, Vladimir Putin, highlighted how the US and western allies have knowingly perpetuated the existence of Islamic radicals, all while purporting to fight global terrorism.

 

Last year, on October 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin also flatly expressed before an assembly at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in Sochi, Russia, that the Obama administration was responsible for arming the Syrians fighting against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces and responsible for creating the political climate that facilitated the region’s destabilization:

 

 

 

 

============

 

Russia's real Syria goal explained by top experts

'Putin isn't there to fight terrorism – he's partnering with terrorists'

 

WND by Garth Kant

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON – What is Russian President Vladimir Putin really up to in Syria?

Just the opposite of what he is telling the world, according to two of the top foreign-policy experts in Washington.

Putin recently declared Russia has taken the lead in the fight against the terrorist army ISIS in Syria.

“Putin isn’t there to fight terrorism – he’s partnering with terrorists,” a leading conservative lawmaker’s aide, having just returned from consultations with leaders in the Middle East, told WND.

The reference was to Iran, the leading state-sponsor of terrorism. Putin announced earlier this week that Russia had formed a coalition with Iran and Iraq to fight ISIS by sharing intelligence. Putin’s Russia is also the strongest ally of Syrian President President Bashar al-Assad, who has killed 250,000 people in his country’s civil war.

The source said Russia’s real goal was “to prop up Assad. Salvaging Assad looked impossible 18 months ago. Now it’s perfectly feasible.”

Iran and Middle East expert Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy agreed, telling WND, “Russia is there to save Assad’s regime, which the combined forces of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria forces could not do.”

The proof of the experts’ analysis seemed to be confirmed by Putin’s actions, as opposed to his words.

ISIS fighters marching in Raqqa, Syria

 

Russia began bombing what it said were ISIS targets on Wednesday and continued to do so on Thursday. However, as the Pentagon claimed, and a rebel commander on the ground confirmed, Russia mostly bombed areas run by CIA-trained forces fighting Assad and supported by the United States.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter cited a “logical contradiction” in Russia’s claim it was fighting terrorists while supporting Assad.

Lopez explained it wasn’t a contradiction; Russia has different goals than the U.S.

“They (the Russians) are not there to destroy ISIS. In fact, I think there is an argument to be made that both Iran and Russia, in a way, ‘need’ ISIS to continue to exist – as a ‘reason’ for their military campaign, which, in fact, is about destroying all the other forces” attempting to topple Assad, Russia’s key Mideast ally.

She said those forces included the U.S.-backed (and putatively secular) Free Syrian Army, Jabhat al-Nusra (al Qaida in Syria,) Ahrar ash-Sham (another Islamist group fighting Assad.) Lopez indicated Russia may turn on ISIS at some point to protect Syria, once its other threats are eliminated.

Russia’s increased presence in Syria gives it a long-sought foothold in the Middle East, as evidenced by its recent dramatic increase in fighter jets, troop housing and weapons at military bases in Syria. It also gives Russia a naval port in the Mediterranean.

But, Lozpez said, ISIS also benefits: it gets a new enemy in Russia that can be used for propaganda purposes.

“ISIS gets its ‘Crusaders,’ doesn’t it?” she asked rhetorically. “There will definitely be a reaction from the Sunni world. Look for a flood of new backing, funding and recruits, probably pouring in through a newly once-again loose Turkish border.”

What should the U.S. do about Russia’s sudden insertion into the Syrian civil war, and Putin’s claim to have taken the lead in a battle against ISIS that critics have blasted President Obama for pursuing too weakly to be effective?

“Should the U.S. go to war over a handful of rebels of uncertain loyalty? Probably not,” said the source.

“But we are going to have to take a long hard look at what, if any, options we have in Syria and Iraq. We have a serious intelligence problem, as the administration has been caught flat-footed twice – first by ISIS, then by Putin. We have increasingly limited options as the Russian umbrella of air defense will hamper our ability to strike at will, if the Russians don’t agree with our targets.”

 

Members of the Free Syrian Army

Why did Putin make his dramatic move?

“Putin is an opportunist,” said the source. “He smelled opportunity in Ukraine and took advantage of it. Now he has Crimea. He smells opportunity in Syria. A year ago, Assad’s ouster seemed a matter of time. Now, Putin looks like he will salvage a valuable client, one who will be eternally grateful. And he has a toehold in Iraq.”

How did Putin get away with it?

“It’s classic Putin – he’s skirting a gray line,” said the policy expert.

“Our relationship with the rebels is murky at best. We’ve been pretty explicit that we will neither defend them from the regime nor provide them with the weapons to attack the regime, since our mission is restricted to ISIS.

“It’s not dissimilar to what Putin did in Ukraine in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, which states the U.S. will defend Ukraine in the event that its territorial integrity is violated. But, as a memorandum, it isn’t binding. And he knew Obama had no interest in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, and so just did what he wanted, insisting all the while he wasn’t doing it. We see the same playbook in Syria.”

Lopez suggested Obama might not even mind the Russian incursion, despite what he says publicly.

“We should not be surprised if the Obama White House reaches some kind of accommodation with Russia, just as it already has with Russian partners in Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, and Beirut.”

That’s because, Lopez believes, despite what he has said, Obama has no wish to see Assad toppled.

“In fact,” she asserted, “the Obama strategy is not so very different than Putin’s: keep the Assad regime in power in Damascus by working with Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and its special forces Quds unit, and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And now, soon, Russia.”

And that could lead to revolutionary changes in U.S. foreign policy.

 

Middle East analyst Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy

 

“Perhaps there might be some sort of ‘understanding’ reached over Crimea and the Ukraine, in a way that allows Moscow to save face and the White House to claim success in dealing with Putin,” Lopez speculated. “In fact, nothing will change there, but I expect that the U.S. is going to find itself, more or less, openly allied with the Baghdad-Damascus-Moscow-Tehran-Beirut axis sooner rather than later.”

And, in fact, she believes U.S. foreign policy at present is not the same as Obama portrays it.

The president has repeatedly said Assad must leave power and be replaced by a democratic and secular government.

Lopez remarked, she’s “not completely sure why nobody has actually noticed by now, but it has never been White House policy to actually oust Bashar al-Assad.”

Yes, the U.S. had equipped and trained Syrian rebels. But that was because, she asserted, Muslim Brotherhood-aligned elements inside the Obama administration and among its advisers “succeeded in getting the State Department to run guns out of Libya to the al Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian rebels.”

That same pressure, according to Lopez, was also likely responsible for the CIA setting up Syrian-rebel training camps inside Jordan and Turkey, “which wound up sending jihadis to the Islamic State and other jihadist outfits.”

Lopez, who spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer, was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students and has published two books on Iran. She has long-asserted, and previously described to WND in great detail, her contention that Obama wants to enable “Iran to become the overall nuclear-armed hegemon of the Persian Gulf-al-Sham region.”

“This is why the U.S. negotiating team conceded every single major Iranian demand for its nuclear weapons program, from enrichment, to centrifuges, ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), inspections, the Arak plutonium-producing heavy water reactor, sites with possible military dimensions, and most egregiously, our four American citizen hostages.”

And that contributed, in her view, to Obama’s reluctance to both remove Assad and seriously oppose ISIS.

“That was also why the U.S. has never provided more than token weaponry to the Kurds, the single most effective fighting force on the ground over there, but rather insisted on channeling everything through Iran’s Baghdad puppet regime.

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

“It is why Obama backed away from his ostensible ‘red lines’ regarding Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, and never even made mention of Assad’s extensive, sophisticated bio-weapons program.

“And finally, it is why the Obama admin has refused to back in any serious way any of those among the Syrian rebels who might have been pro-West, pro-U.S., or committed to a less tyrannical system in Damascus.”

Lopez told WND that was because such steps on the part of the U.S. government might have put serious pressure on the Assad regime, “and that would have upset the mullahs.”

“Earlier rhetoric that ‘Assad must go’ was just that: rhetoric.”

And, as for fighting against ISIS, Lopez insisted there just are not any significant rebel militias or tribal forces in Syria that prioritize fighting ISIS over fighting Damascus.

“That’s one of the key reasons for the unmitigated disaster of a U.S. training program that has a mere handful, maybe, of fighters to show for a half-million dollar waste of taxpayer money.”

That’s also why, she said, the U.S. had ended up working with an Iranian-controlled Baghdad, sharing a military base in Iraq with Iranian-controlled Shi’ite terrorist militias, and providing air support and intelligence to Hezballah forces.

Lopez described the result as an America “generally flailing about the region in completely ineffectual and often contradictory ways that nevertheless manage rather uniformly to run counter to core U.S. national security interests and those of our key regional allies, especially Israel.”

As for the future? Bleak, according to Lopez.

 

U.S. State Department map of Saudi Arabia

 

ISIS and Iran are natural rivals, in that they follow rival competing brands of Islam and are Sunnis and Shiites, respectively.

But they share common goals in conquering Sunni monarchies they view as corrupt, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf States.

“Now, look ahead,” beckoned Lopez. “What would ISIS’s next moves be on this Middle East chess board? What I’ve been expecting for quite a long time is pivot west and south. West thru Jordan, destabilizing as they go, on to the Sinai to link up the Egyptian Islamist group Wilayat Sinai, and south into Saudi territory, because Saudi Arabia is the big prize here.”

Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. It is also home to fabulous oil wealth and is strategically situated in between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, not far from the Suez Canal.

Lopez speculated Iran might even find it particularly useful to let ISIS flourish, if it could be turned against its rich neighbor.

“In a way, ISIS may – possibly – if this actually happens – act as the Iranian cat’s-paw vs the Saudis. Iran can’t, or, at least, probably won’t, invade Saudi Arabia straight up – they always use proxies when they can. What better proxy than ISIS?

“Total, but total, plausible deniability.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

 

 

=============

 

Migration as Jihad

 

 

 

Migration is part of the doctrine of jihad. Migration is so important that the Islamic calendar is based upon the Hijra, Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Why? Because it was migration that lead to the creation of jihad in Medina. And it was jihad that made Islam triumphant.

In the past Muslims tended to stay in Islamic countries. Today, the new politics is to migrate to Kafir lands and immerse themselves in local politics. This is the jihad of money, writing and speech. Their politics is to bring the Sharia to Kafir culture. An example is using Islamic money is to build departments in universities that will support Sharia and never criticize Islam.