90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Lawsuit Suggests Spying On Trump Campaign Started In Early 2016

Svetlana Lokhova’s complaint now raises the question of whether the efforts to spy on the Trump campaign date back even further, to late 2015 or early 2016.

Late last week, Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-born English citizen, sued presumed Spygate frontman Stefan Halper and three media giants—the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and MSNBC—for defamation and conspiracy, alleging the defendants falsely painted her as a Russian spy and Michael Flynn paramour in order to push the Russia collusion narrative.

Lokhova’s 66-page complaint reads more like a political shock jock transcript than a legal document: “Stefan Halper is a ratf—er and a spy, who embroiled an innocent woman in a conspiracy to undo the 2016 Presidential election and topple the President of the United States of America,” her lawsuit opened. But behind the colorful language—clearly crafted for public consumption—Lokhova’s lawsuit lays out facts that suggest spying on the Trump campaign began in early 2016 and with the aid of British intelligence.

In her lawsuit, Lokhova detailed how she first met the retired general and short-lived Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn. In January 2014, while working to complete her Ph.D. at Cambridge University, her mentor Professor Christopher M. Andrew (“Andrew”), and Sir Richard Dearlove (“Dearlove”), invited Lokhova to attend a group dinner with Flynn.

Andrew and Dearlove are connected to British intelligence, with Andrew having served as the official historian to “MI5,” the counterintelligence organization in the UK, and Dearlove having spent “decades with British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), known as MI6,” and serving as its director from 1999 to 2004.

Lokhova stated the purpose of the dinner was to promote what was to become the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSI), “a group chaired by Dearlove,” which sought “to advance education in international security and intelligence issues and to help support graduate students, such as Lokhova, while they were studying at Cambridge.” Among the 20 guests attending the February 28, 2014, dinner at Cambridge was Flynn, then President Barack Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Following the dinner, and while in the presence of the other attendees, Lokhova spoke briefly with Flynn about...

Feeding Rosie O'Donnell

CRAZED COW ROSIE O’DONNELL WANTS OBAMA TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW TO STOP TRUMP INAUGURATION

AWFUL. Rosie O’Donnell Goes After 10 Year-Old Baron Trump – Calls Him Autistic

Rosie O'Donnel Dies in Terrible Diving Accident!

All I have to say is..

Are Democrats Opposed To Safe Neighborhoods?

Ever since taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats have been waging an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), the caucus has been an entity in virtual lock-step promoting a laundry list of today’s most popular anti-gun proposals. Whether it is banning semi-automatic firearms and placing limitations on magazine capacities, pushing “universal” background checks, imposing potentially endless waiting periods, or trying to use financial institutions to drive their political agenda, anti-gun Democrats are looking to exploit every opportunity they can to promote their attacks on our freedoms.

At every step, Pelosi and her minions push anti-gun legislation with the lie that each proposal will be the death knell to violent crime committed with firearms. Of course, we’ve all heard this mantra for decades. And for decades we’ve seen every anti-gun law that has passed fail to put a dent in crime, only to be followed by a new proposal that the gun-ban extremists insist will get the job done…this time.

Supporters of the Second Amendment have always known that gun control laws have a fatal flaw; criminals don’t obey the law. They ignore or circumvent the new laws just as readily as they ignore or circumvent the old ones. If they are willing to commit robbery, why would they not also be willing to commit armed robbery? If they are willing to commit assault, why would they not be willing to commit assault with a deadly weapon? And if they are willing to commit homicide, again, why would they not be willing to commit homicide using a firearm? One more law will not stop a violent criminal from being a violent criminal.

The people actually impacted by gun control laws are, of course, law-abiding gun owners, who were never part of the problem to begin with. They may not agree with anti-gun laws, but they tend to obey them while working to change them.

This doesn’t mean that there are no options for addressing violent crime. The secret, which isn’t really a secret, is to go after the actual offenders. One good example is Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).

Started in 2001 under President George W. Bush, PSN is a collaborative effort, utilizing the resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement, prosecutors, and community leaders to target violent crime at the local level. Specific priorities are identified based on the local environment, and solutions are developed, with the primary objective of going after the most violent offenders and...

Bad Policy Always Leads To Bad Results.

One mile of border wall built over the weekend in surprise secret project led by Steve Bannon

A group chaired by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon accomplished over the weekend what the Nancy Pelosi-led House has all but refused to do — build a wall on the southern border.

The group, We Build the Wall, was started by Brian Kolfage, a Purple Heart recipient triple amputee veteran, and has raised more than $22 million through GoFundMe. In a “secret project,” as reported by Yahoo News, the group constructed a mile-long wall of metal slats along the border with Mexico.

The project, overseen by construction mogul Tommy Fisher of North Dakota-based Fisher Industries, began Friday evening and was completed by Monday morning, a display of efficiency government contractors could never hope to match.

The overall cost was $6 million, with hundreds of workers employed, according to Bannon.

Kolfage shared a video of the construction project on the group’s Facebook page:

We Build the Wall hastily “purchased the rights” to the private land and got to work right away.

“We had to catch them by surprise,” Bannon said, according to Yahoo News.

It’s not hard to imagine the response that could have been expected from the open border left, had they known of the project ahead of time — visions of social justice warriors chaining themselves to bulldozers easily come to mind.

Local authorities reportedly pointed to the dangerous one mile gap between two 21-mile sections of completed wall “where the cartels and asylum seekers are...

For Terrorists,
For Iran,
For North Korea,
For The Islamic Brotherhood,
For Deep State Traitors.

Expert modelers predict Trump reelection after models all point to one result: ‘Mr. Trump wins in all of them’

Three different forecast modelers are predicting that President Trump is on track to win reelection in 2020, according to a Monday New York Times column by Steven Rattner, an Obama-era administration official.

The models give credence to multiple factors, but key are jobs, economic data, and advantages that an incumbent carries into an election. However, a deciding factor in the election is likely to be the “poor perception” of President Trump by a large segment of the voting population, to include virtually all Democrats.

Rattner’s commentary entitled “Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind,” looks at not only the expectations, but also past performance, which for most has been impressive.

One model, according to Rattner is “one of the first–and perhaps still the best,” by Yale professor Ray Fair. Fair finds “that the growth rates of gross domestic product and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors — but he also found that incumbency was also an important determinant of presidential election outcomes.”

Another of the modelers’ assessments referenced is by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. Zandi has himself looked at 12 models and “Mr. Trump wins in all of them.”

Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics reaches the same conclusion, examining the Electoral College.

Fair’s model accurately foretold Barack Obama’s 2008 popular vote total within six-tenths of a percentage point, predicting 53.1 percent of the vote that actually came in at 53.7 percent. In 2012, the Fair model did even better, estimating a vote share of 51.8 percent that ended up at 52 percent.

As for 2016, Rattner reported that Trump’s 2016 advantage was the incumbency factor, which would suggest that after eight years of a Democrat in the White House, voters would normally elect a Republican. Note that since 1952, the only person elected from the same party after eight years of a presidency was...

Several Confucius Institute have closed their doors amid President Trump's ongoing trade battle with China.
Experts have argued that these Chinese funded centers are used by the Chinese as propaganda arms.

Amid President Donald Trump's ongoing effort against China and Chinese tariffs imposed on imported U.S. goods, several Chinese-funded Confucius Centers on college campuses around the country have ceased their operations.

The University of Oregon, Western Kentucky University, and San Francisco State University have all announced the closures of their Confucius Institutes, which are on-campus language centers funded by the Chinese government. Along with allegations of spying, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) labeled the institutes a threat because of their close ties with the Chinese Communist Party.
“[The Confucius Institutes] present a picture of China that is not in accord with reality" Tweet This

The Department of Defense (DOD) recently denied the schools’ request for waivers to allow the institutes to receive funding. A new federal law signed by Trump last year prevents universities from receiving DOD funding for Chinese language studies if these universities host Confucius Institutes.

Citing this reason in a statement, the University of Oregon chose to keep its Chinese Flagship program, which has received $3.8 million in federal grants since the 2016-2017 academic year.

Over a dozen colleges and universities have shut down their Confucius Institutes over the last year after increased scrutiny from Washington. Last year, the National Association of Scholars estimated that there were approximately 107 Confucius Institutes in the United States.

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have led efforts to close Confucius Institutes across the country. Three Florida universities announced the closure of their institutes after Rubio sent a letter urging them to do so.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Campus Reform that Confucius Institutes deliberately “mislead” college students through propaganda: “China is a totalitarian country. To present them as a normal country would be to misguide and...