Why did Trump say that Obama spied on him? Because he did.

What is the likelihood that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, USA Today, and other major news outlets will cover the fact that the Obama administration repeatedly violated the law by spying on Americans from 2011 until he was almost out of office, when his administration finally admitted it?

Is it any surprise that an administration that would target political opponents through the IRS would do this, or an administration that would start monitoring a political opponent four months prior to the election?  Does anyone think Obama's people didn't spy on other Republicans running against Hillary?  Or, for that matter, her socialist challenger, Bernie Sanders?

So far, after ten months of monitoring and investigations on the Russia-hacked-the-election brouhaha, there is still no evidence of a crime or collusion.  But the media are still all in for that one.  Why haven't we seen any media monitoring of Hillary, her staff, or John Podesta, since we know they had Russian connections?  If the intelligence community and the Obama administration are concerned about collusion, why are they concerned only about Republicans?  Why hasn't James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, or Barack Obama been asked why they targeted only Republicans for monitoring?

Aren't the media curious?

Here are some quotes from the above article:

"Since 2011, NSA's minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702.  The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court." 

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.'"

In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

We have been told that the only way Gen. Michael Flynn's conversations were picked up is because we monitor foreigners, and he just happened to be talking to the Russians.  That is probably a bald-faced lie.  The Obama administration essentially monitored Americans and used the excuse that they were monitoring foreigners.

Why would anyone believe Clapper, Brennan, Comey, or Obama, since they have such a history of not telling the truth?

Comey has said under oath that Trump did not impede any investigation.  My guess is that if he now changes that testimony, the media won't care and will seek to destroy Trump, as they do every day.

Obama was never scared to break the laws because he knew that the Justice Department, the media, and the Democrats wouldn't care.  On Fox News Wednesday night, Charles Krauthammer said he hopes people don't spend a lot of time looking back to see who violated the law, but instead focus on stopping it in the future.  I do not understand that at all.  I believe that powerful people like Obama and his staff and Hillary and her staff should be held responsible for what they did.  If you don't hold the powerful to account, how do you ever hold lower-level people to account for the same or lesser things?  I believe that the treatment for powerful privileged people should be harsher, not easier. 

Contrast the way Trump is being treated with the way Obama was treated.  With Trump, the Justice Department, the media, the Democrats, and some Republicans are trying to essentially find Trump guilty and destroy him when there haven't been any known actual violations of law.  I believe that the difference in treatment is because Trump is an outsider who is trying to clean the huge Washington swamp with an R behind his name. 

The media and the Democrats keep searching for the next Watergate. Well, here it is:

President Obama was so concerned about his legacy and continuing his far-left agenda that he and his Justice Department absolved his handpicked successor-designate and her staff of any of the continuous, serious violations of law they committed throughout their four years at the State Department.  They didn't charge her despite charging lower-level people for similar crimes.  Then, at least four months prior to the election, the Obama administration, the intelligence community, and the Justice Department started investigating and monitoring a political opponent and people who knew him, under the ruse that they were worried about Russian collusion.  (Somehow, they had no concern about the Democrats' obvious, extensive connection to the Russians.)  Then, after his political opponent was elected and almost eight years into his term, Obama all of a sudden changed the rules on how widely classified intelligence information is disseminated.  Obama obviously did this so the information could be leaked to the media and chosen opponents' names could be unmasked.

The leakers knew that all they had to do was distribute anonymous information to the Times, the Post, and the AP.  As long as it was against Trump, they knew these news outlets would prominently print the stories with no questions asked.  Then networks and other newspapers throughout the country would just reprint or retell these stories with no questions asked afterward.  Propaganda is easy to spread when most of the media is in the tank for a specific agenda and against a specific person like Trump.

The media, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and the Democrats are essentially guilty of dereliction of duty these last eight years.  They never cared how many laws Obama, his Cabinet, or his staff didn't obey, or how much they lied, or how much they targeted political opponents as long as they voted for him and liked his agenda that they were glad to support him and cover things up.

The media are especially guilty because they knew how little transparency there was with Obama and how hard the Obama administration worked to ignore and fight FOIA requests, but they didn't care.  They just went along.

There are two additional extremely important stories that almost all the media is intentionally ignoring.  The murder of a DNC staffer in the summer of 2016 who may have been sharing Democratic Party emails with WikiLeaks and the hacking of government computers by foreign I.T. staffers who worked for multiple Democrat House members.  We do know that reporters have some investigative skills left because we have learned that Trump takes two scoops of ice cream while others take only one and that he eats ketchup on his steak.  Those are two extremely important stories that they may win Pulitzers for, but the murder of a DNC staffer isn't worthy of reporting.

And one last thing: I do have to admit that my reporting here is biased as it relates to ketchup.  I have to confess that sometimes when I eat steak and fries, I sneak ketchup on my steak.  I am not a ketchup denier.  I believe in equal rights and equal treatment of all condiments.  Unlike others, I do not pit classes against each other.  I believe that ketchup has the right to share space with all classes of meat, whether the lowly hamburger or the obscenely rich filet mignon.  Above all, I believe in ketchup getting its fair share.

What is the likelihood that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, USA Today, and other major news outlets will cover the fact that the Obama administration repeatedly violated the law by spying on Americans from 2011 until he was almost out of office, when his administration finally admitted it?

Is it any surprise that an administration that would target political opponents through the IRS would do this, or an administration that would start monitoring a political opponent four months prior to the election?  Does anyone think Obama's people didn't spy on other Republicans running against Hillary?  Or, for that matter, her socialist challenger, Bernie Sanders?

So far, after ten months of monitoring and investigations on the Russia-hacked-the-election brouhaha, there is still no evidence of a crime or collusion.  But the media are still all in for that one.  Why haven't we seen any media monitoring of Hillary, her staff, or John Podesta, since we know they had Russian connections?  If the intelligence community and the Obama administration are concerned about collusion, why are they concerned only about Republicans?  Why hasn't James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, or Barack Obama been asked why they targeted only Republicans for monitoring?

Aren't the media curious?

Here are some quotes from the above article:

"Since 2011, NSA's minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702.  The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court." 

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.'"

In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

We have been told that the only way Gen. Michael Flynn's conversations were picked up is because we monitor foreigners, and he just happened to be talking to the Russians.  That is probably a bald-faced lie.  The Obama administration essentially monitored Americans and used the excuse that they were monitoring foreigners.

Why would anyone believe Clapper, Brennan, Comey, or Obama, since they have such a history of not telling the truth?

Comey has said under oath that Trump did not impede any investigation.  My guess is that if he now changes that testimony, the media won't care and will seek to destroy Trump, as they do every day.

Obama was never scared to break the laws because he knew that the Justice Department, the media, and the Democrats wouldn't care.  On Fox News Wednesday night, Charles Krauthammer said he hopes people don't spend a lot of time looking back to see who violated the law, but instead focus on stopping it in the future.  I do not understand that at all.  I believe that powerful people like Obama and his staff and Hillary and her staff should be held responsible for what they did.  If you don't hold the powerful to account, how do you ever hold lower-level people to account for the same or lesser things?  I believe that the treatment for powerful privileged people should be harsher, not easier. 

Contrast the way Trump is being treated with the way Obama was treated.  With Trump, the Justice Department, the media, the Democrats, and some Republicans are trying to essentially find Trump guilty and destroy him when there haven't been any known actual violations of law.  I believe that the difference in treatment is because Trump is an outsider who is trying to clean the huge Washington swamp with an R behind his name. 

The media and the Democrats keep searching for the next Watergate. Well, here it is:

President Obama was so concerned about his legacy and continuing his far-left agenda that he and his Justice Department absolved his handpicked successor-designate and her staff of any of the continuous, serious violations of law they committed throughout their four years at the State Department.  They didn't charge her despite charging lower-level people for similar crimes.  Then, at least four months prior to the election, the Obama administration, the intelligence community, and the Justice Department started investigating and monitoring a political opponent and people who knew him, under the ruse that they were worried about Russian collusion.  (Somehow, they had no concern about the Democrats' obvious, extensive connection to the Russians.)  Then, after his political opponent was elected and almost eight years into his term, Obama all of a sudden changed the rules on how widely classified intelligence information is disseminated.  Obama obviously did this so the information could be leaked to the media and chosen opponents' names could be unmasked.

The leakers knew that all they had to do was distribute anonymous information to the Times, the Post, and the AP.  As long as it was against Trump, they knew these news outlets would prominently print the stories with no questions asked.  Then networks and other newspapers throughout the country would just reprint or retell these stories with no questions asked afterward.  Propaganda is easy to spread when most of the media is in the tank for a specific agenda and against a specific person like Trump.

The media, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and the Democrats are essentially guilty of dereliction of duty these last eight years.  They never cared how many laws Obama, his Cabinet, or his staff didn't obey, or how much they lied, or how much they targeted political opponents as long as they voted for him and liked his agenda that they were glad to support him and cover things up.

The media are especially guilty because they knew how little transparency there was with Obama and how hard the Obama administration worked to ignore and fight FOIA requests, but they didn't care.  They just went along.

There are two additional extremely important stories that almost all the media is intentionally ignoring.  The murder of a DNC staffer in the summer of 2016 who may have been sharing Democratic Party emails with WikiLeaks and the hacking of government computers by foreign I.T. staffers who worked for multiple Democrat House members.  We do know that reporters have some investigative skills left because we have learned that Trump takes two scoops of ice cream while others take only one and that he eats ketchup on his steak.  Those are two extremely important stories that they may win Pulitzers for, but the murder of a DNC staffer isn't worthy of reporting.

And one last thing: I do have to admit that my reporting here is biased as it relates to ketchup.  I have to confess that sometimes when I eat steak and fries, I sneak ketchup on my steak.  I am not a ketchup denier.  I believe in equal rights and equal treatment of all condiments.  Unlike others, I do not pit classes against each other.  I believe that ketchup has the right to share space with all classes of meat, whether the lowly hamburger or the obscenely rich filet mignon.  Above all, I believe in ketchup getting its fair share.

RECENT VIDEOS