The Infamous Memo is Finally Released!


Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 2.01.56 PM
Finally the infamous Memo is released and despite cries from Democrats otherwise, it is a scathing memo that uncovers the  weaponization of government by the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch and top FBI leaders, to discredit candidate Trump as well as influence the 2016 Presidential election.

On October 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI asked and received a FISA probable cause order on Carter Page, a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. As stated in the memo,
“the FISA application had to be certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General or the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the national Security Division.”

Based on information supplied by these officers, a FISA warrant was obtained and renewed by the FISC three additional times. Renewals require a separate finding of probable cause. Then Director James Comey signed three requests and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then DAG Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA application on behalf of the DOJ. However, no other information regarding probable cause was cited. As FISA submissions are classified, the FISC is dependent on the government to supply the court with any and all material and facts. This is supposed to include information favorable to the target of the warrant.  However, it was found that the government had four separate opportunities to provide a truthful accounting of the facts, but chose not to do so.
The dossier, compiled by Christopher Steele on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign was the essential evidence cited in the FISA application. It appears as though the  original application, nor any of the subsequent applications disclosed the source of the Dossier, even though the origin was known at the time by senior FBI and DOJ officials.
The FISA application noted Steele was working for an unnamed U.S. person, but did not name Fusion GPS principal, Glenn Simpson, the DNC or the fact that Steele was working for and paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, or that the FBI paid Steele for the information.
The FISA application mentioned a September 23 , 2016 article by Michael Isikoff, focusing on  Carter Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. Steele was then fired from the FBI for leaking information to the media, although he stayed in contact with the DOJ. Later during interviews by the FBI with Ohr, Steele admitted,
“was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.
 
Although Steele’s bias was recorded and noted by Ohr and filed with the FBI, none of this was mentioned or included in the FISA application. Deputy Director McCabe testified in December 2017, no surveillance warrant would have been sought without the Steele dossier information.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Lies; the New Truth?”

Unknown

Sandra Fluke. Who is she? Do you know what she stands for?  What do you know about her qualifications? What does she have to do with Hobby Lobby? Does she speak the truth or does she tell Lies; the new truth?

In March of 2012, Sandra Fluke was a student at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, and spoke before an unofficial hearing convened by Democrats. At the hearing, she criticized  Georgetown University because they would not pay for or cover her birth control, and she made the following statement,

 “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them — them, not me — to be heard.” I am an American woman who uses contraceptives!”

Enter Rush Limbaugh, who responds on his radio show by saying,

 “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

Because of Limbaugh’s comments, Sandra Fluke became an overnight sensation. She was suddenly the expert on contraceptives and women’s healthcare rights. Immediately she began touring colleges and universities around the United States talking to young girls and women about empowerment and how Republicans were purposefully taking away women’s access to healthcare and contraceptives.

She was then invited to speak at the Democratic  National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. After her speech, which wrongly accused Republicans of mentally, emotionally and physically abusing women, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote,

“Seriously, the party of Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman chose to showcase someone whose claim to fame is that she demands that somebody else pay for her birth control.”

Erick Erickson of CNN said,

“Of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting? Her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves.”

Is contraception really unaffordable? Lets look at the cost.  As reported in US News, Money and Personal Finance, the cost runs between $15 and $50 per month depending on your insurance coverage. This amounts to $150 to $600 per year. The cost of condoms, which also prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, runs from 20 cents to $2.50 a piece. Depending on your personal taste in condoms, a max of about $150 per year.

Now, let’s look at the TRUTH behind the Hobby Lobby case that went before the Supreme Court and the FACTS surrounding their decision.

First, the actual complaint (reader’s digest version directly from the court documents):

 “The Green Family’s religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices.”

What does that really represent?  Below is a list of exactly what Hobby Lobby now and will continue to cover and offer all its employees:

  1.  Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

Below is a list of  exactly does Hobby Lobby does not want to  cover or offer all its employees based on their religious beliefs:

  1. Plan B (“The Morning After Pill
  2. ”Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
  3. Copper Intra-Uterine Device
  4. IUD with progestin

What is the difference between these two lists?

The first list is currently what Hobby Lobby offers to all its employers and is considered “contraception.” The items in this list PREVENT pregnancy.

The second list is what Hobby Lobby will not offer its employees based on their religious beliefs. The four items listed are all ABORTION INDUCING devices or medications. These are used AFTER pregnancy is achieved.

In conclusion, Hobby Lobby has no issues supplying its employees with coverage for the PREVENTION of pregnancy, i.e. contraception, nor does it interfere with a woman’s healthcare.

The Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby.

So now lets go back to Sandra Fluke, a woman who graduated from Georgetown University, with a degree in law, and a double major at Cornell University.  After the Supreme Court released its findings, Sandra Fluke interpreted their ruling and made the following statement,

“What this is really about at its base is trying to figure out as many ways as possible to limit women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

Did I miss something? Did Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for any contraception or healthcare for women? Did the Supreme Court decide that religious organizations did not have  to pay for ANY women’s healthcare or contraception? Why is she misrepresenting the findings? The only thing that is being limited in regards to women is abortion inducing drugs or procedures.

Did Sandra Fluke really learn the law at Georgetown or is she purposefully distorting the truth in order to tow the party line and support  the agenda of the Democratic party?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Party’s national chairwoman said,

 “This is going to turn the dial back. Republicans want to do everything they can to have the long hand of government, and now the long hand of business, reach into a woman’s body and make healthcare decisions for her.”

Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said,

“ Today’s Supreme Court decision unfortunately jeopardizes basic healthcare coverage and access to contraception for a countless number of women.”

Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid said,

“Our party must now fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage.”

Hillary Clinton chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that an employer can refuse to provide women with contraception on religious grounds.

CBS reported,

“The Supreme Court as pitted women’s rights against religious freedom. It upheld a challenge to a key provision of Obamacare—the one that requires coverage for birth control.”

Is that really what the ruling said?  Or has this just become another witch-hunt to distract voters from the real issues and to garner votes for the Democrats? Another “War on Women” campaign?

Is it just a coincidence that mainstream media along with Democrats are screaming from the rooftops that the Republicans have taken away the rights of women to receive healthcare and contraception?

As a taxpayer, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, why should our employers or we be responsible for picking up the tab for an abortion when a woman fails to protect herself during a sexual encounter? Is that really our responsibility? Is it okay to demand rights for yourself while stomping on the rights of others?

Have we seen a pattern established in this country under the current administration that has taken hold? A pattern where no one is held responsible or accountable for his or her own actions? Where the taxpayer is responsible for putting up their hard earned dollars to cover everyones bad decisions?  Have we seen our government and our media distort and misrepresent the truth in the name of politics? Is it okay to lie, cheat and steal in order to get the votes needed to win?

What happened to honor and truth and facts? Or have Lies become the new truth?

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather