Be Careful. . .
Some of you noticed that we ended Friday's report by suggesting that the Trump campaign had been wiretapped and/or monitored by the Obama Administration. On Saturday morning, the president essentially made the same charge.
The media immediately accused the president of being irresponsible and lacking evidence. The New York Times ran a story over the weekend headlined, "Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones." But there is lots of evidence -- and much of it came from the media!
Here's a clear example from the New York Times itself on January 19th:
"American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump. . . One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."
On January 11th, the left-wing British paper the Guardian reported this:
"The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance [FISA] court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October. . ."
It is fairly well-established that the Trump campaign was under extensive surveillance by the Obama Administration, and the left's flagship newspaper is the source of the evidence.
As the New York Times conceded in a February report, no evidence of collusion was found. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reiterated that fact on "Meet The Press" yesterday. Asked about possible collusion, Clapper said, "We had no evidence of such collusion."
And since no evidence of collusion was found, isn't it worth questioning how this unprecedented operation was launched?
How did the government know that then-Senator Jeff Sessions had met with the Russian ambassador in his Senate office? Was a sitting United States senator under surveillance by the Obama Administration?
How did Hillary Clinton and Slate learn about a "covert server" in Trump Tower?
If White House spying on its political opponents sounds familiar, it should. This could well be worse than Watergate!
I'm sure you've heard of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for." Left-wing politicians demanding investigations and special prosecutors may soon come to regret it.
Yesterday, the White House released a statement calling reports of "potentially politically motivated investigations . . . very troubling." The White House also demanded an investigation by congressional intelligence committees "to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016."
Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced yesterday that his committee will look into the matter.
Reasons To Be Concerned
Since the media want you to believe that Obama would never spy on his political opponents, let me remind you of a few examples.
When Fox reporter James Rosen began filing stories that were embarrassing to the Obama Administration, the Justice Department seized his phone records and emails. They also went after his parents' phone records.
The Obama Justice Department seized the records of 20 phone lines at the Associated Press too.
When Sharyl Atkinson was tenaciously investigating a number of Obama scandals, someone hacked into her computer. Experts brought in by CBS confirmed the sophisticated hack, which Atkinson later claimed was executed by a "government-related entity."
I could go on. But, in closing, I'll mention the most obvious abuse -- the IRS operation to deny Tea Party organizations tax exempt status while conservative groups were being aggressively audited.
Trump's Travel Order
President Trump today re-issued an executive order temporarily suspending all refugee admissions for four months, as well as immigration from six "countries of concern." Those nations were so labeled by the Obama Administration because they are known to be hotbeds of radical Islamic terrorism. Some are essentially failed states.
Today's announcement comes as the FBI acknowledges that it is currently investigating at least 300 refugees already admitted into the country for possible ISIS connections.
As you know, President Trump's first travel order was blocked by left-wing judges. As a result, the White House was forced to revise the order.
According to The Hill, the White House dropped provisions that prioritized refugee claims "on the basis of [minority] religious-based persecution."
Trump's first executive order tried to prioritize Christians and other religious minorities, as federal law currently requires. The Obama Administration seemingly barred Christian refugees. But the left cited Trump's effort as evidence of "religious discrimination" against Muslims.
If only the left were as concerned about the religious GENOCIDE against Christians in the Middle East!
Predictably, the changes did little to placate critics. Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer blasted the new order as "dangerous . . . mean-spirited and un-American." Other liberal members of Congress are calling it "Muslim ban 2.0."
However, an analysis of polls on this issue finds strong and consistent public support for the commonsense security policy President Trump is proposing.
Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently produced a video that only fuels the left's paranoia.
In the video, Lynch says "this is a time of great fear and uncertainty." She adds that "our rights [are] being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back." She continues that in the past ordinary people "marched. . . bled and yes, some of them died."
Meanwhile, there was more left-wing violence over the weekend. Ten people were arrested in Berkeley, California, after they attacked conservatives who had peacefully gathered to show their support for President Trump.
Respected scholar Charles Murray was physically assaulted as he attempted to deliver a lecture at Middlebury College.
The former attorney general should not encourage the left's irrational fears. The only people in danger of being attacked and bleeding for their beliefs are conservatives.