UN and the globalist elites are pushing for a one world government with open borders and under UN rule _ Trump Says NO!

The UN Propaganda Film:

The Reality of Mass Migration:

Trump Touts Rejection of U.N. Plan to Force Mass Third World Immigration

Ian Mason8 Dec 2017

Breitbart

Scott Eisen/Getty Images

At his speech in Pensacola, Florida Friday, President Donald Trump celebrated his decision to take America out of negotiations for the so-called “Global Compact on Migration.”

“I recently withdrew the United States from the United Nations plan for global governance of immigration and refugee policy,” Trump told the raucous crowd, calling the Global Compact a “no borders plan.”

“I heard about this recently … no borders, everyone can come in! If you don’t mind, I rejected that plan, is that OK?” Trump continued.

The plan Trump referenced was the United Nations’ (U.N.) “Global Compact on Migration,” to which the Obama administration pledged the United States participation last year. Talks began this week in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on the massive United Nations (U.N.) plan to create “safe, regular and orderly migration,” from the third whole to wealthy countries in Europe and North America. On the eve of those talks, however, Trump reversed Obama’s decision and pulled U.S. negotiators.

“I told them, not only do we not want ‘no borders,’ we want the strongest borders you’ve ever seen,” Trump boasted. “America is a sovereign country. We set our immigration rules. We don’t listen to foreign bureaucrats.”

A Boat Load of Bright Young Students and Engineers:

" Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country."

Barack Obama

The details of the of the Global Compact are yet to be hammered out, but the outline to which the Obama administration signed on, called the “New York Declaration for Refugee and Migrants,” presents a nightmare scenario for immigration restrictionists and border security advocates.

The declaration stipulates that participating countries should drop laws criminalizing illegal entry and stop detaining illegal immigrants that are caught. Paragraph 33 “reaffirms:”

[T]hat all individuals who have crossed or are seeking to cross international borders are entitled to due process in the assessment of their legal status, entry and stay, we will consider reviewing policies that criminalize crossborder movements. We will also pursue alternatives to detention while these assessments are under way.

And later, the declaration calls for the end of all deportations, “encouraging” that “migrants who do not have permission to stay in the country of destination” leave “preferably on a voluntary basis.”

Perhaps most disturbingly to a country with as robust a tradition of free speech as the United States, the New York Declaration casts resistance to mass migration as racism, xenophobia, and illegal under international law. Paragraph 13 reads:

We recall that our obligations under international law prohibit discrimination of any kind on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Yet in many parts of the world we are witnessing, with great concern, increasingly xenophobic and racist responses to refugees and migrants.

Paragraph 14 then calls for so called “hate speech” laws to be mandatory:

Demonizing refugees or migrants offends profoundly against the values of dignity and equality for every human being … We will take a range of steps to counter such attitudes and behavior, in particular with regard to hate crimes, hate speech and racial violence.

In contrast, Trump offered an unapologetic populist-nationalist vision of national sovereignty and local governance. “America is more than a place on a map, it’s a nation, it’s a family,” he told the crowd. “Our agenda is pro-family, pro-police, pro-workers and 100% pro-American.”

FBI Director Wray Gets Severe Dry Mouth As He Gets Emulcified by Rep. Jordan Over The Democrats Dodgy Dossier

Bruce Ohr, who met with dossier author Christopher Steele, to be hauled before Congress

Washington Times

The House Intelligence Committee plans to compel testimony from a career Justice Department attorney who met during the election campaign with the writer of the infamous unverified Trump-Russia dossier.

The committee has learned that Bruce Ohr, an associate attorney general, not only spoke with dossier writer Christopher Steele but also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele with Democratic Party money.

“Pursuant to the House Intelligence Committee’s prior subpoenas and information requests, the Department of Justice should have provided the committee with information on contacts that DOJ official Bruce Ohr had with Fusion GPS representatives and Christopher Steele.,” said committee chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican. “The Committee will issue a subpoena to Bruce Ohr for information on this matter.”

The committee is investigating Fusion’s financial arrangements, including the reasons for paying three journalists. It was Mr. Nunes’ first subpoena for Fusion bank records that forced Democrats to admit that the party and Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the dossier beginning in June 2016.

The dossier has taken on immense importance. The FBI relied on it in July 2016 to begin an investigation into the Trump campaign and any collusion with Russia over the hacking of Democratic Party computers. It relied on the dossier to obtain at least one eavesdropping warrant on a Trump associate.

The dossier contains salacious material and allegations of collusion against President Trump and his people, with Russia. None of those charges has been confirmed publicly.

Republicans have labeled the dossier a piece of fiction and demanded the FBI disclosed publicly how it was used to investigate Mr. Trump.

The top FBI agent over seeing the probe was Peter Strzok. He was removed last summer by Special Counsel Robert Mueller after investigators discovered he was sending anti-Trump pro-Hillary Clinton text messages to his lover

Republicans believe Mr. Strzok must have played a big role in getting the FBI to embrace the dossier.

Fox News first reported the Ohr subpoena. Fox said Mr. Ohr wore two hats at Justice. He led a drug enforcement task force and was a close aide to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He has relinquished the latter role, Fox said.

The Ohr investigation adds to suspicions among Republicans that a “deep state” of anti-Trump current and former federal officials have worked to sabotage Mr. Trumpas candidate, president elect and president.

Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible

Mueller’s Credibility Problem

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.

The Editorial BoardDec. 4, 2017 7:05 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller Photo: thew/epa-efe/rex/shutterstock/EPA/Shutterstock

By

The Editorial Board

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview. 

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr.

 McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent. 

There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress, which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority. Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.

While there is no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey’s FBI investigation. The public has a right to know whether the Steele dossier inspired the Comey probe, and whether it led to intrusive government eavesdropping on campaign satellites such as Carter Page.

All of this reinforces our doubts about Mr. Mueller’s ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI’s considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama. Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel. The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.

***

Mr. Mueller’s media protectorate argues that anyone critical of the special counsel is trying to cover for Mr. Trump. But the alleged Trump-Russia ties are the subject of numerous probes—Mr. Mueller’s, and those of various committees in the House and Senate. If there is any evidence of collusion, Democrats and Mr. Mueller’s agents will make sure it is spread far and wide.

Yet none of this means the public shouldn’t also know if, and how, America’s most powerful law-enforcement agency was influenced by Russia or partisan U.S. actors. All the more so given Mr. Comey’s extraordinary intervention in the 2016 campaign, which Mrs. Clinton keeps saying turned the election against her. The history of the FBI is hardly without taint.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, is also playing an increasingly questionable role in resisting congressional oversight. Justice has floated multiple reasons for ignoring House subpoenas, none of them persuasive. 

First it claimed cooperation would hurt the Mueller probe, but his prosecutions are proceeding apace. Then Justice claimed that providing House investigators with classified material could hurt security or sources. But House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has as broad a security clearance as nearly anyone in government. Recently Justice said it can’t interfere with a probe by the Justice Department Inspector General—as if an IG trumps congressional oversight.

Mr. Nunes is understandably furious at the Strzok news, on top of the other stonewalling. He asked Justice to meet the rest of his committee’s demands by close of business Monday, and if it refuses Congress needs to pursue contempt citations against Mr. Rosenstein and new FBI Director Christopher Wray.

The latest news supports our view that Mr. Mueller is too conflicted to investigate the FBI and should step down in favor of someone more credible. The investigation would surely continue, though perhaps with someone who doesn’t think his job includes protecting the FBI and Mr. Comey from answering questions about their role in the 2016 election.

Liars on the Potomac

New documents reveal FBI's Clinton cover-up

Tom Fitton 3 december 2017

Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting triggered FBI hunt for leaker

American Center for Law and Justice says documents show FBI was more focused on keeping the meeting quiet than the meeting itself.

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. 

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch's lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—"reopened" our FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.

Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.

In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.

No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them.

Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch Inc. is a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Trump Should Have Followed Through on His Campaign Promise to Prosecute Clinton Immediately - Why He picked Jeff Sessions Is Beyond Me

Trump: 'So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed' but 'nothing happens' to Hillary Clinton

Katie LeachDec 2, 2017, 9:39 PM

President Trump reignited the “Crooked Hillary” attacks in a series of tweets calling attention to what he views as a double standard between how Hillary Clinton's email scandal was handled versus the controversy surrounding former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty in federal court Friday to lying to the FBI.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday “interrogation” with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times...and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or just a double standard?

9:06 PM - Dec 2, 2017

A few minutes later the president followed up by taking a swipe at the Justice Department.

✔@realDonaldTrump

Many people in our Country are asking what the “Justice” Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and “acid washed” 33,000 Emails? No justice!

9:13 PM - Dec 2, 2017

During the 2016 election, Clinton was under FBI investigation for the usage of an unauthorized personal email server while serving as secretary of state during the Obama administration. She was reportedly interrogated by the FBI over a holiday weekend in 2016, which appears to be what Trump was referring to.

Ultimately the investigation found that there was no criminal wrongdoing in her actions, with former FBI Director James Comey saying last summer calling her conduct "extremely careless."

Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February after it was revealed he misled Trump officials about his communications with the Russian ambassador.

Throughout the year, Flynn has been a leading subject of scrutiny in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. He pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contact with Russian officials in January and has stated he will cooperate with Mueller.

Lying to the FBI could get Flynn up to five years of prison time, but court documents suggest that the sentence could be lighter.

Heroes of The USA, General Michael Flynn And President Donald Trump

US Justice System

Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In The 1984 Elections

Sean Davis

The Federalist

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators published an open letter informing the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal with the United States that failed to be approved by the Senate would likely expire in 2017, once President Barack Obama’s term ended. You can read the full letter here.

The letter enraged progressives, who immediately began accusing the senators of treason for having the audacity to publish basic constitutional facts about how treaties work. If these progressives want to know what actual treason looks like, they should consult liberal lion Ted Kennedy, who not only allegedly sent secret messages to the Soviets in the midst of the cold war, he also begged them to intervene in a U.S. presidential election in order to unseat President Ronald Reagan. That’s no exaggeration.

According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

You can read the full KGB memo detailing Kennedy’s secret letter and request for electoral intervention here.

Every American With Any Decency Should Deplore This Travesty

It is time to go after the law breakers that are supporting amnesty cities. Where is Jeff Sessions?