The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government

[Ryan Ruck]

"As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process," the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, said in a statement released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Bharara is an Obama appointee....

LOL





They don't even try to hide the tyranny any more.

I guess they're just making good on Valarie Jarret's threat to pay back those who opposed them.

Lines in the sand are being drawn...

[American Patriot]

Obama goes after filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and Hollywood conservatives

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Dr. Eowyn | 1 Comment

Dinesh D’Souza is on (and in) the right

Dinesh Joseph D’Souza, 52, is a well-known conservative author and Christian apologetic, affiliated with a number of conservative organizations and publications, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and Policy Review. He also served as a policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and, from 2010–2012, as president of The King’s College, a small Christian school in New York City.






In the 2012 presidential campaign year, D’Souza released 2016: Obama’s America, a movie based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, both of which posit that Barack Obama’s attitude toward America derives from his father’s anti-colonialism and from a psychological desire to fulfill his father’s dream of diminishing the power of Western imperial states. The documentary was a surprise hit and has the distinction of being the highest grossing conservative political film produced in the United States.
Now it’s Pres. Lucifer’s payback time.

Paul Bond reports for The Hollywood Reporter, Jan. 23, 2014, that D’Souza will be arrested in New York today for allegedly violating campaign-finance laws by giving “too much money” to a candidate who sought to replace former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.



Federal authorities accuse D’Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton but lost to now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Long, however, is not mentioned in an indictment obtained by THR on Thursday.



Insiders say D’Souza has been friends with Long since they attended Dartmouth College together in the early 1980s. According to the indictment, D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds.


But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016 who won a best picture Oscar for Schindler’s List, says the charge is politically motivated. He tells THR, ”In America, we have a long tradition of not doing what is commonly done in too many other countries — criminalizing dissent through the selective enforcement of the law.” Molen says D’Souza is being singled out for “an alleged minor violation” in the same way the IRS reportedly targeted conservative Tea Party groups for retribution. “In light of the recent events and the way the IRS has been used to stifle dissent, this arrest should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans. When American citizens begin to suspect that people are being arrested for alleged minor violations because of their vocal dissent against their elected representatives or rulers, it breeds disrespect and contempt for the law and suspicion of those officials.”


D’Souza’s attorney Benjamin Brafman tells THR that his client “did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever … at worst this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.”


D’Souza first learned he was being investigated in the middle of 2013, several months after 2016 had earned $33 million at the box office and become the second-most-popular political documentary in U.S. history. D’Souza was in San Diego working on his next film and book, each to be called America, when he was informed he was about to be indicted and that he should fly to New York and turn himself in to authorities.



D’Souza’s upcoming film America is due in theaters July 4 and is co-produced by Molen and Gray Frederickson, who won a best picture Oscar for The Godfather Part II. D’Souza wrote and stars in the film, which is directed by John Sullivan.


The filmmakers emailed a statement to THR vowing to release the film on schedule: ”We believe this is an unfortunate misunderstanding arising out of Dinesh D’Souza’s desire to help the uphill campaign of a friend. There was no intent to do anything illegal or corrupt in any way. This will have no impact on the film America, which will be released on the Fourth of July this year as previously announced. Filming is on schedule and D’Souza will continue to lead the enterprise.”


Molen added, “If this unfortunate action against Dinesh is intended to deter the release of his upcoming film, America, that effort will fail.”


Sources say D’Souza has been cooperating with authorities. He will surrender Friday for processing and be arraigned in the Southern District of New York.


But Pres. Lucifer isn’t just going after Dinesh D’Souza.


The New York Post reports this morning that, in addition to TEA Party, conservative, and Christian groups and individuals, Obama’s IRS is now targeting Friends of Abe (Abe=Abraham Lincoln), a group that brings together that rarest of species in Hollywood — conservatives.


Two years ago, Friends of Abe applied to the IRS for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status — just like the People for the American Way, TV producer Norman Lear’s leftist Hollywood group.


But Friends of Abe has been waiting two years for an answer from the IRS and is now being “investigated.” The IRS has asked for access to the group’s private Web site — which the group has resisted because it would mean giving the IRS access to the names of its members.
H/t FOTM’s swampygirl
~Eowyn

[vector7]

Barack Obama's enemies list: Anyone who contributes to Mitt Romney


Washington Times

Joe NewbySpokane Conservative Examiner

April 27, 2012

Does Barack Obama have an enemies list?

On Thursday, Kimberley Strassel wrote at the Wall Street Journal that yes, he does, and it appears to include anyone who contributes to Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee.

"Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check," she wrote.

"Several days later," she adds, "President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record."

This message is approved by and comes from the man, she says, "who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money."
She continues:

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

But Obama, the man once dubbed "god of all things," is above the rules, she notes, adding that one of his re-election websites posted this week something called "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors."

Eight private citizens who donated to Romney are highlighted in the post with claims they have " less-than-reputable records."
The post also claims some "have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them."
Among those individuals is Frank Vandersloot, named as the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign. The post says that Vandersloot, "through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future," a super PAC dedicated to electing Romney.
According to the Obama campaign, his other 'crime' is opposing the radical homosexual agenda.
"He is also a 'litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement' who 'spent big' on ads in an 'ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children,'” the post says.
Others, Strassel wrote, include, "people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil."
"These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them," she added.
Clearly, the Obama campaign is engaging in what can only be called a concerted effort to intimidate political opponents and criminalize conservatism. In short, the "Chicago way."
Throughout his term in office, Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for not doing his bidding, and has targeted Wall Street firms, oil companies and insurers. He has attacked Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers and Republican members of Congress, and many others.
He has said in no uncertain terms that those who oppose his radical policies face legislative retribution, Strassel notes, and he has gone so far as to write an Executive Order ordering private "companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans."
That Executive Order, she adds, has "yet to be released."
Strassel says Obama's "real aim" is to cut off funds to the GOP.
"When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices," said former U.S. solicitor general Theodore Olson.
"Any giver, at any level," she wrote, "risks reprisal from the president of the United States."
"As his reelection gets more difficult, expect his list of enemies to grow. Any conservative Republican who breathes is now a target," Eric Golub wrote at the Washington Times in February.
Is this the "hope and change" Americans voted for in 2008?
The Obama re-election team claims it is holding Romney accountable, but Strassel says that excuse is a "dodge." She adds that Obama "swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment."
"If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one," Strassel concludes.
It's just one more reason Barack Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012.
Be sure to check out our series, The case against re-electing Barack Hussein Obama:
Part 1: Who is this Barack Obama person, really?
Part 2: The fight of the century: Obama versus the Constitution
Part 3: The cult of Barack Obama
Part 4: The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
Part 5: The many gaffes of Barack Hussein Obama
Part 6: Barack Hussein Obama: The destroyer of the American Nation
Part 7: Barack Obama's legacy: Incompetence and downgrade
Part 8: Barack Obama: Lord of the Mobs
Part 9: Barack Hussein Obama: The class warfare President

[Ryan Ruck]

U.S. Attorney Behind D'Souza Indictment On Short List To Replace Eric Holder

January 25, 2014

The U.S. Attorney behind the indictment of conservative author and commentator Dinesh D'Souza, is a politically connected Obama appointee who has been talked about as a potential replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder.

Preet Bharara, a former staff member to Senator Chuck Schumer, helped lead the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration. As the U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York, he has received glowing press accounts from the media for cracking down on insider trading.

D’Souza, whose movie “2016: Obama’s America,” based on the 2010 book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” became a surprise box office hit during the 2012 election season, has been charged with campaign finance violations and is facing a $1,000,000 fine and up to 7 years in jail. His book and movie about the president's background posited that his politics were driven by the anti-Western, anti-colonialist ideas of his Kenyan father.

Bharara has an undefeated record in prosecuting insider trading - 77 for 77 in convictions since taking over as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in August 2009, but in an unflattering profile in the New York Post in February of 2012, Fox Business Network senior correspondent Charles Gasparino wrote that Preet Bharara "is a guy with clear political ambitions, and he’s no Eliot Ness."

At the time of the oped, the rumor mill out of Washington was saying Bharara was on the short list to replace the "scandal-tarred" Attorney General Eric Holder.

Gasparino wrote that according to his colleagues, Bharara is "a decent and smart man but one with a mediocre resume highlighted by five uneventful years as a federal prosecutor before joining the staff of Sen. Chuck Schumer."

It was in Schumer’s office that Bharara made his political bones, burnishing his Democratic Party street cred as chief counsel in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into the Bush administration’s firings of US attorneys.

While the hearings that Bharara helped conduct made the firings look sordid, the legal impact was pretty minimal. For all the political hoopla (including high-level resignations), the Justice Department’s career staff decided not to prosecute any of those involved.

But Bharara had made his political mark, and the Obama administration rewarded him with the country’s premier law-enforcement post in May 2009 — just as the nation was recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, and when public outrage against Wall Street was at its highest. What has Bharara done since taking the job? A lot less than his headlines suggest.

Consider that the biggest cases coming from his office involve insider trading, something he had very little do with. As most insiders know, it was the Bush Justice Department that launched the massive crackdown on insider trading nearly two years before Bharara even took office, mainly by following up on evidence already developed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

President Obama and the left-leaning press may like to spin a tale that Republicans are easy on Wall Street miscreants, but keep in mind that the key ingredient in these cases has been the aggressive use of wiretaps, which were usually reserved for snaring terrorists and mobsters — and this, too, is something the prior administration fought for and won, even if Bharara has been taking credit for the results.

Of course, you wouldn’t know any of this as Bharara’s press office continues its selective leaking and obsessive image-building, which isn’t such a bad thing if it weren’t so blatantly political.

Gasparino concluded, "if President Obama wants to replace the hapless Eric Holder with somebody who knows how to massage the press to look good, maybe he’s got his man in Preet Bharara."

Bharara's office claims that D'Souza's indictment is the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC.

PJ Media's Rick Moran, who's known for being politically moderate, smells a rat:

How is it possible that a measly $20,000 in donations could leap out at investigators during a “routine review”? Most people charged with this crime front hundreds of thousands of dollars — and end up with far lesser charges. And are we to believe this “routine review” only snared Mr. D’Souza? If $20,000 in contributions leapt out at the FBI, are we to believe that D’Souza is the only contributor guilty of setting up straw donations? Where are the other lawbreakers?

Indeed.

[American Patriot]

Dershowitz, legal experts say vindictive D’Souza indictment came from higher up

January 30, 2014 by Michael Dorstewitz 1 Comment
Photo credit: www.breitbart.com

Famed liberal Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz joined other legal experts in slamming the Obama administration for targeting conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza for campaign finance law violations.
“This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers.”
D’Souza was indicted last week for making illegal contributions in the names of others to a political candidate. News of his felony arrest prompted ”Schindler’s List” producer Gerald Molen to remark, “I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now.”
According to Newsmax:

Prosecutors allege that D’Souza illicitly directed a total of $20,000 in donations, with the money reportedly going to the New York Senate campaign of Republican Wendy Long, a long-time friend, who was handily defeated by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in last November’s election.

The incident reminded the celebrated legal scholar of Stalin’s feared secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
“This is an outrageous prosecution and is certainly a misuse of resources. It raises the question of why he is being selected for prosecution among the many, many people who commit similar crimes,” Dershowitz said. “This sounds to me like it is coming from higher places. It is hard for me to believe this did not come out of Washington or at least get the approval of those in Washington.”

Budweiser does it again! Super Bowl XLVIII Commercial ‘Puppy Love’

And Dershowitz isn’t alone.
“What struck me first was that it is unusual in cases like these for the FBI to go out and actually arrest someone, simply because it is not necessary,” former Federal Election commissioner, David Mason, told Newsmax. “And even less so in this case because [D'Souza] has enough prominence that it is fairly obvious that he is not a flight risk. White collar indictments are made lots of times without an arrest being made.”
Newsmax reported:

Law enforcement experts tell Newsmax that if the FBI or another federal agency received a tip about a fraudulent act involving just $20,000, the government would likely show little interest in investigating. Mason notes that a violation of $20,000 in contributions is trivial compared to most cases.

Bur D’Souza isn’t just any ordinary defendant. He produced the film, “2016: Obama’s America,” which was highly critical of the president and was released in the months before his re-election bid.
All of which is reminiscent of a remark the president made shortly before the 2010 midterms: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends.”

[American Patriot]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama critics: D'Souza indictment is payback

'It's really to send a signal to others … This is worse than people can imagine'

Published: 13 hours ago

Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.

Dinesh D'Souza

Now dozens of conservatives are claiming the Obama administration is exacting revenge on conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza for criticizing the president in the hit documentary, “2016: Obama’s America” – but liberals insist it’s just another right-wing paranoid conspiracy.

The film was a box office sensation, bringing in more than $33 million and becoming the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time as President Obama campaigned for re-election in 2012. D’Souza’s latest film, “America,” is due in theaters July 4.

Numerous high-profile conservatives say emphatically that D’Souza’s criminal indictment is clearly payback for criticizing Obama.




Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has pursued several well-known conservatives. Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife were indicted after they purportedly accepted gifts and loans from a political donor. Also, the IRS – recently under fire for improperly targeting the tea party – is now going after Friends of Abe, a group of Hollywood conservatives.

Now D’Souza has been indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony counts for violating campaign finance laws. He was charged with making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and illegally contributing $15,000 to a Senate candidate. He could face up to seven years in prison.

See the film that put D’Souza in the feds’ cross-hairs: “2016: Obama’s America.”
Cleta Mitchell, a high-profile attorney specializing in campaign finance issues, told WND, “The decision to prosecute – or not prosecute – is always a matter of discretion. It was the prosecutor’s decision – indeed DOJ’s decision – not to prosecute widespread conduit contributions to the John Edwards campaign in 2008. Contrast that with this prosecution, which involved $15,000 (not $20,000 as claimed).”


Campaign-finance lawyer Cleta Mitchell

Asked whether she believes the indictment was politically motivated, Mitchell said, “Do I think this is politically motivated? I think if a Republican appointee had done this, the press corps would be going ballistic. Just consider how outraged they were when Bush asked for and received resignations of all U.S. attorney appointees at the start of his second term, something that is customary. Imagine if his appointee had gone after a George Soros friend. Imagine the outrage.”

In 2011, prominent Hollywood lawyer Pierce O’Donnell – a Democrat who contributed to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential bid – admitted to asking 10 people, including a relative and employees of his law firm, to each donate $2,000 to Edwards’ run. O’Donnell reimbursed the donors.

O’Donnell was indicted on three felony charges in 2008. In 2011, Politico reported, “The judge struck two of those charges in his ruling and later dismissed one at the request of prosecutors. With only misdemeanors on his record, O’Donnell could regain his law license, which was suspended after the charges were filed.” O’Donnell would serve only 60 days in prison, 500 hours of community service and pay a $20,000 fine.
In 2003, Sam Dealy wrote an article in The Hill, “Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned,” in which he reported, “Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations. … In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day – from partners, attorneys, and other support staff.”

Each person gave the maximum contribution of $2,000, including spouses and relatives of staffers, some of whom had been in financial distress and even filed bankruptcy previously.


John Edwards

Dealy continued, “In the three-month financial reporting period ended March 31, the Edwards campaign reported raising more than $7.4 million, the vast majority from individual contributors. Records show that nearly two-thirds of these contributions came from persons connected with law firms.”

In 2013, Virginia businessman William Danielczyk was sentenced to two years and four months in prison and fined $50,000 for reimbursing straw donors who contributed $186,600 to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 Senate and 2008 presidential campaign.


Gerald R. Molen

Also in 2013, Florida developer Jay Odom, admitted to using straw donors to donate more than $23,000 in illegal donations to former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. He was sentenced to six months in federal prison and ordered to pay a $46,000 fine. He pleaded guilty to one felony count of causing a presidential campaign committee to make a false statement to the Federal Election Commission.

According to reports, the judge handling Odom’s case “noted with some frustration that several people who had written letters to him on Odom’s behalf said they found ‘nothing wrong’ with what he had done and stated ‘everybody does it.’”

Dinesh D’Souza’s books are available at the WND Superstore
As for D’Souza, Gerald R. Molen, producer for “2016,” called the charges against D’Souza “the equivalent of prosecuting a political dissident in the Soviet Union for jaywalking.”

“Yes, jaywalking in the Soviet Union is a crime, but it’s a minor crime. The real point is that you are a political dissenter and the government wants to put you away,” he told WND.

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie,” he continued, “every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’”


Dave Weigel

Dave Weigel of the left-leaning website Slate, has labeled the whole question of whether Obama is exacting revenge a “Conspiracy of Dunces.” He told WND he doesn’t believe this case is about payback.


“The law is the law, and cases like these are usually settled,” Weigel said. “Yes, in general, it’s a problem that campaign finance law is so haphazardly enforced. But I don’t see the logic that would turn D’Souza’s actions, as reported in the indictment and described by his lawyer, into a conspiracy.”

He asked, “What’s the theory, that a lame-duck president would order the U.S. Attorney to nail this activist whose film – according to Republican focus groups – was a failure at turning voters against the president?

Weigel said, “Fame shouldn’t inure anyone from consequence if they break laws.”


Attorney General Eric Holder, left, and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, right

Added Bill Ayers, President Obama’s longtime buddy, “He was indicted. I don’t know anything about the facts. I don’t know anything about the case. I’m not a lawyer. …. He was indicted. He was arrested. He’ll have his day in court. Who knows.”

The U.S. Attorney behind D’Souza’s indictment, Preet Bharara, is rumored to be on a short list of candidates to replace Eric Holder.
Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News, told WND, “Given the scale of the allegations, it strikes me that the U.S. attorney went out of his way to intimidate and humiliate Dinesh. And for what purpose? If Preet Bharara demands ‘zero tolerance,’ let’s have at it – let’s have a full, unfettered FBI/Justice Department investigation into every allegation, starting with the fundraising apparatus built by the president and his ‘Chicagoland’ cronies.”

Brent Bozell, founder and president of Media Research Center, cited former President Bill Clinton and Obama’s own history of accepting highly questionable campaign donations.


Dinesh D'Souza

“Let’s assume Dinesh D’Souza is guilty, and I mean 100 percent guilty. What is he guilty of? Circumventing FEC dictates by directing [$15,000] to a Senate candidate of his choice. Big deal,” Bozell told WND.

“First, in a multi-million Senate campaign, this is a fraction of a fraction. It ‘buys’ a can of soda pop, and that’s about it. Second, and more importantly, compare this ‘crime’ with Bill Clinton, who raised millions of dollars from questionable at best, and illegal at worst sources, including felons and Chinese Communist generals. Compare it to Barack Obama, who raised millions upon millions from who-knows-who-or-where to this day. Nothing ever came of their fundraising abuses, abuses one thousandfold larger than anything attributed to D’Souza. And yet he was arrested and forced to post a $500,000 bond.

“It is astonishing. Given all the other abuses of power swirling around this administration, so many of them finding their origins in the ‘Justice’ Department, do I see deliberate persecution against conservatives? I am not conspiratorial by nature, but I will say unequivocally, you better believe it.”


Bill Press

Liberal talk-radio host and political columnist Bill Press, author of “The Obama Hate Machine: The lies, distortions and personal attacks on the president – and who is behind them,” doesn’t buy the arguments of conservatives who point to other straw donor schemes and indictments as proof that D’Souza is being subjected to unjustifiably harsh treatment for the crime.

“As hard as I look, I fail to find any political conspiracy behind the indictment of Dinesh D’Souza,” Press told WND. “If he did, indeed, as his lawyers claim, do nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about. Under our great system of justice, he will never be convicted or serve any time unless he’s proven guilty without any doubt.


Tucker Carlson

“The two arguments raised by conspiracy theorists are absurd. True, it’s not rare for people to try to get around the law by making ‘shadow’ political contributions. But it’s still against the law, and you have to pay the price, if caught. Surely, conservatives don’t believe that the argument ‘everybody does it’ is a morally valid reason for breaking the law.”

Asked if he believes the indictment is political payback, Tucker Carlson, political commentator for Fox News and editor in chief of The Daily Caller, told WND, “If you’d asked me this three years ago, I would have dismissed the question as paranoid. I’ve always disagreed with Obama’s policies, but I never thought this or any other administration would dare use the IRS to crush its political opponents.”

He added, “Obviously I lacked imagination. The Obama people are perfectly capable of using law enforcement to hurt people they disagree with. We know this because they’ve done it.”


Michele Bachmann

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., agreed, telling WND the indictment of D’Souza is “100 percent” political.

“Of course it is,” she said. “It is payback from the DOJ. Plus, it sends a signal to anyone else for 2016 who may be thinking of producing a movie.

“It is up to the candidate to return the money. This should have been found when the FEC filing occurred. I don’t know the details, but this could cost Dinesh literally millions in legal defense fees, plus destroying his name and making him toxic to conservatives and Republicans. These are the goals of the political destruction machine at the DOJ.”

She added, “It’s really to send a signal to others and to punish his success. This is worse than people can imagine.”

Likewise, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND, “Yes, I think it is political. It fits a pattern of abuse of power. As someone else said, President Obama is the president Nixon wanted to be.”



Dinesh D'Souza interviews George Obama, President Obama's half-brother, in the film, "2016: Obama's America"

Though he told WND he doesn’t know all the facts in the case, conservative icon and author Richard Viguerie said, “What I do know is that the Holder Justice Department and Obama administration, including its IRS targeting conservatives, have replaced the rule of law and the equal protection of the laws with politicized law enforcement. Is the indictment of Dinesh D’Souza politically motivated? It certain appears to be.”
Dennis Michael Lynch, a successful filmmaker in his own right, told WND he sees a political motive behind the charge.

“Is he guilty of what it is they claim he did? I have no idea,” Lynch said. But, he added, “Guilty or not, they’re going to throw him into the mud to discredit his name.”

He said if D’Souza were a liberal, he’d be a “superhero” in the mainstream media, like Michael Moore.

“How can Michael Moore make an anti-capitalism film then go buy a mansion on a lake? Where’s his investigation?” he asked. “Why doesn’t anybody ever look into him? He uses creative editing.”




Gary Bauer

Gary Bauer, president of American Values and columnist for Human Events, served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration for eight years as undersecretary of education and chief domestic policy adviser.

“I know Dinesh D’Souza well – he worked for me in the Reagan White House,” he wrote. “He is an extremely intelligent man and an articulate spokesman for conservatism. I won’t defend illegal behavior, but this case seems fishy.”

Bauer explained that cases like D’Souza’s have been historically treated as misdemeanors and offenders have merely received fines – when they are Democrats, as in the case of O’Donnell. He said typically these charges appear when a race has been hotly contested and every dollar makes a difference.

“In D’Souza’s case, the race was a runaway for the Democrat,” Bauer wrote. “The candidate D’Souza supported had virtually no chance. So why was the FBI targeting this race unless someone decided to go after Dinesh D’Souza?

“If D’Souza broke the law, he should be held accountable. But given the harassment of conservatives in Hollywood, the treatment of tea-party groups and Christian ministries and the targeting of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas in New York, it is hard not to question whether justice in Obama’s America is indeed still blind.”

MSNBC’s Steve Benen lamented that “the right will take this opportunity to celebrate D’Souza as a political martyr.”
“Obviously, the idea that the Justice Department would go out of its way to target D’Souza is pretty silly and those pushing the argument have nothing to substantiate it,” he said. “But the takeaway from their reaction is that the indictment may actually help improve D’Souza’s standing in conservative political circles.”

Famed law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax, “This is clearly a case of selective prosecution for one of the most common things done during elections, which is to get people to raise money for you. If they went after everyone who did this, there would be no room in jails for murderers.”



Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report recently tweeted, “They are going after the Obama critics with indictments. VA Gov. Now Dinesh D’Souza. Holder unleashing the dogs.”

And Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took to CBS’ “Face the Nation” to share his concerns on Jan. 26. Instead of airing Cruz’s statements about alleged retaliation by Obama, CBS edited the following comments out of the exchange:

“Let me tell you something that deeply concerns me – it’s the abuse of power from this administration. We’ve seen multiple filmmakers prosecuted and the government’s gone after them. Whether it was the poor fellow that did the film that the president blamed Benghazi and the terrorist attack on – turned out that wasn’t the reason for the attack – but the administration went and put that poor fellow in jail on unrelated charges. Or just this week it was broken that Dinesh D’Souza, who did a very big movie criticizing the president, is now being prosecuted by this administration.”

“Can you image the reaction if the Bush administration had went, gone and prosecuted Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn?”
The following is a video of Cruz’s statement:



WND also attempted to contact more than three dozen liberal pundits and left-leaning organizations to ask them if they believed the D’Souza indictment was politically motivated and, “If Michael Moore were criminally indicted during the Bush administration after directing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ would you have any suspicions about political motivations?”

Only Slate’s Dave Weigel and liberal pundit Bill Press agreed to comment.

In a column on FrontPage mag, Robert Spencer wrote, “Liberals should be as concerned about this as conservatives. … For the evidence is mounting that D’Souza has indeed been targeted for being a public and high-profile foe of Barack Obama – a development that should disquiet anyone who believes in the value of a stable, functioning republic with a loyal opposition. …

Spencer noted that D’Souza’s $500,000 bond had been set higher than that given to people accused of attempted murder, rape and assault.
“Decades of this have poisoned the well of American politics, and paved the way for Obama to take the demonization to the next level by unleashing the law on them,” Spencer wrote. “Arresting prominent members of the opposition is the kind of behavior we have seen from the likes of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler; it is a hallmark of authoritarianism, not (until now) of politics in the United States. Of course, Stalin and Hitler didn’t stop with arresting their foes; they had them murdered as well, usually after a show trial. Obama is not doing that, but is even one step down this road one that Americans want to take?

“Leftist pundits who are waving away concern over the arrest of D’Souza should bear in mind that the worm could turn. They could, for some reason or another, find themselves somewhere down the line opposing the Obama regime or some other presidency that apes Obama’s strategy. Then those who are claiming that only believers in crazy “conspiracy theories” are concerned about the Obama Justice Department’s (to say nothing of the Obama IRS) clear pattern of singling out opponents of the president for prosecution while ignoring more serious crimes among his friends may find themselves on the receiving end of this tactic.”

See a trailer for the upcoming “America:”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-cri...gIF6I4ZhiPM.99

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-cri...gIF6I4ZhiPM.99

[vector7]

Obama Declares War On "Extremism" – Are You An "Extremist"?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/13/2015 23:35 -0500

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Do you know what an “extremist” is? In the wake of the horrible terror attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in France, Barack Obama is speaking very boldly about the need to win the war against “extremists”, and he has announced plans to host a major global summit on “extremism” next month. And on the surface that sounds great. But precisely how are we supposed to determine whether someone is an “extremist” or not? What criteria should we use?

As you will see below, your definition of an “extremist” may be far, far different from the definition that Barack Obama is using. When you do a Google search, you will find that an “extremist” is defined as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.” According to Wikipedia, “extremism” is “an ideology (particularly in politics or religion), considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of a society or to violate common moral standards. Extremism can take many forms, including political, religious and economic.” Please notice that neither of those definitions uses the word violence. In this day and age, you can be considered an “extremist” simply based on what you believe, and as you will see later in this article there are now tens of millions of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” according to official U.S. government documents.

When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning. In recent years, it has become a code word for those that do not have an “enlightened” view of the world. If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.

Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy. And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism. But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism. In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials…

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

Now, much of the focus in law enforcement training materials is on “domestic extremists”. We are being told that “domestic extremism” is just as great a threat to our national security as terror groups overseas are.
But exactly who are these “domestic extremists”?

Well, the truth is that you may be one of them.

I want to share with you a list that I have shared in a couple of previous articles. It is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked, so if you would like to go see the original source document for yourself, just click on the link. As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

Do you fit into any of those categories?

Personally, I fit into a couple dozen of them.

That is why alarm bells should go off whenever Barack Obama speaks of the need to crack down on “extremism”.

If Barack Obama wants to denounce Islamic terror, he should do so. But because of his extreme political correctness, he goes out of his way to avoid any connection between Islam and terror. Instead, he speaks of the need to recognize “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings” and he insists that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Meanwhile, our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day. In the name of fighting “terrorism” or “extremism”, our government is constructing a Big Brother police state control grid all around us. I like the way that Ron Paul described what is happening to us just the other day…

If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.

It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.

With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.

It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.

The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that’s like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society’s wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.

Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.

The country that our forefathers founded is dying.

Now, individuals and organizations that attempt to restore the values that our founders once believed in so strongly are regarded as dangerous “extremists” that need to be watched carefully.

Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize what is happening to this nation. As long as they are fed a constant diet of mindless entertainment, most Americans are perfectly content to let “the experts” do their thinking for them.

We are steamrolling toward oblivion, and most of the country is dead asleep.

So is there any hope for us?