Looking at the Evidence as we Celebrate this Easter
Abstract[1]:
This documentary looks at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hosted by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy and Dean Jones.
Looking for the Truth
Abstract[1]: “A SEASONED JOURNALIST CHASES DOWN THE BIGGEST STORY IN HISTORY –
Is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God? Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates who are specialists in the areas of old manuscripts, textual criticism, and biblical studies. Strobel challenges them with questions like; How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event? Strobel’s tough, point-blank questions…It is a riveting quest for the truth about history s most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?”
Book:
[1] The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
#https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308
WOW! GREAT TO SEE CNN DOING THEIR WORK OF REPORTING ONCE IN A WHILE
CNN John King showed Tuesday afternoon the contradictory versions given by Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice about her role in “unmasking” the names of Trump associates on intelligence reports.
3/22/2017: On PBS with Judy Woodruff, Susan Rice denied knowledge:[1]
SUSAN RICE: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
4/04/2017: On MSNBC with by Andrea Mitchell, Susan Rice accepts participation in the unmasking:[2]
RICE: There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided – just “U.S. person.” And sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who that U.S. official was.
Susan Rice also said on April 4: “I didn’t request unmasking of Trump team members for political reasons.
ONE QUESTION:
Did Susan Rice “unmask” (reveal the identities of) U.S. citizens as part of a political fishing expedition or as part of possible national security concern?
We are being told that “unmasking” is not illegal when done as part of a legitimate investigation, but “unmasking” can allow for backdoor surveillance of American citizens.
However, Susan Rice was a political operative, not an investigator.
“The transcript refutes her denial. She was asked a very broad question about Trump associates being swept up in intelligence,” Brit Hume responded to PBS in a tweet.
Fox News’ Brit Hume notes also that the full transcript shows she was asked very broadly about the possibility that Donald Trump and people around him in his campaign were caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and their names disclosed. “Do you know anything about this?” is about as broad a question as can be asked.
Here is transcript of Woodruff’s full question to Susan Rice:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Susan Rice, welcome to the program. So we invited you on to talk about several things, but in the last few hours we’ve been following a disclosure by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence during the final days of the Obama administration – during the transition, after President Trump had been elected – that he [Trump] and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals and that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?
SUSAN RICE: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.
And let’s back up and recall where we have been. The President of the United States accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Nothing of the sort occurred, and we have heard that confirmed by the director of the FBI, who also pointed out that no president, no White House can order the surveillance of another American citizen.
That can only come from the Justice Department, with the approval of a FISA court. So, today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.
And I think it’s important for people to understand what “incidental” means. That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and that the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up.
3/22/2017: The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, said he had received evidence that some of the Trump transition team’s communications with foreign actors were surveilled by the Obama administration:
I also said that while there was not a physical wiretap of Trump Tower, I was concerned that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates.
1. I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
2. Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
3. I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
4. I want to be clear: None of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team.
SOURCES:
[1] PBS: “Susan Rice: The world wonders and worries if the White House can be trusted” (3/22/2017)
#http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/susan-rice-world-wonders-worries-white-house-can-trusted/
video:#https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f3ScOY5FJY Archived video as aired by PBS
[2] MSNBC: “‘I leaked nothing to nobody,’ Susan Rice insists” (4/4/17)
#http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/-i-leaked-nothing-to-nobody-susan-rice-insists-913714243789 Video and transcript via RealClearPolitics
HIGHLIGHTS OF FARKAS’ OP-ED:
Besides asking Obama to release FBI intel on Trump:
– Farkas encouraged “journalists and the world” not to dismiss the discredited, salacious Trump dossier published by BuzzFeed.
The Trump dossier is full of uncorroborated allegations. Evelyn Farkas acknowledged that, but at the same time she didn’t want people to dismiss it:
“Whether the information is partly true, all true, partly false or all false, the dossier, compiled by a former British intelligence officer as part of opposition political research on Donald Trump, cannot simply be dismissed.”
– Since Trump team had not disavowed the dossier, Farkas jumped to the conclusion that “[t]heir silence, for now, could indicate there is something to it.”
– She also wanted Trump “to explain the full extent of his ties with the Kremlin and influential Russians” based on the dossier.
– Farkas revealed that reporters had been using the fake dossier since last summer:
“Leaving aside the most salacious parts of the report on Trump, since the summer reporters have been writing about and investigating links between Trump’s staff, the Kremlin and Russia’s sharing of hacked American documents with WikiLeaks. They are seeking to find the truth on behalf of the rest of us.”
Yes, we want the TRUTH. If we want fiction, we rather read a spy novel.
It seems the discredited, fictional Trump dossier has become the springboard for liberals to do their fishing expedition against the Trump team. Where is the evidence? Insinuations, conjectures and wishful thinking are not evidence.
PARTS OF FARKAS’ OP-ED:
DOES PUTIN HAVE SOMETHING ON TRUMP? OBAMA SHOULD TELL US
BY EVELYN FARKAS ON 1/12/17 AT 4:43 PM
The mainstream press is correct to be cautious about the private sector opposition campaign research dossier posted on the internet by BuzzFeed.
However, journalists and the world should not dismiss it entirely of hand. There are some things in it that are plausible — the internal Kremlin debate about their intelligence operation, why Putin’s chief of staff was suddenly fired and other items that ring true to those of us who have read intelligence reports on Russia.
[…]
They [Trump’s staff people] have resorted to claiming that since the Russian operation has had no proven effect on the actual vote tally, we should move along, leaving aside the fact that the information from the hacks did contribute to the presidential campaign debates and political environment.
The U.S. intelligence officials—no jokers—decided that the matter was serious enough to warn Trump. Whether the information is partly true, all true, partly false or all false, the dossier, compiled by a former British intelligence officer as part of opposition political research on Donald Trump, cannot simply be dismissed. Indeed, it seems unlikely that is was entirely fabricated, because the intelligence community chose to forward it to Donald Trump and we haven’t heard a disavowal of it from them.
Their silence, for now, could indicate there is something to it.
Leaving aside the most salacious parts of the report on Trump, since the summer reporters have been writing about and investigating links between Trump’s staff, the Kremlin and Russia’s sharing of hacked American documents with WikiLeaks. They are seeking to find the truth on behalf of the rest of us.
So, I will repeat what I have written elsewhere: We need President Obama to share with the public the information the FBI has to date on this issue, and we need President-elect Trump to explain the full extent of his ties with the Kremlin and influential Russians.
Aaron Klein found this video of Evelyn Farkas, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, saying before the November 2016 elections: “If Donald Trump were elected, I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government.”
On 10/26/2016, Farkas said: “If Donald Trump were elected, I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking”
Aaron Klein reported today in Breitbart News: “VIDEO: Ex-Obama Staffer Who Urged Spying On Trump Predicted ‘Quick’ Impeachment Weeks Before Election:” [1]
Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made remarks as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump’s removal from office “pretty quickly.”
Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton administration, Farkas stated:
It’s not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And I think it’s very important that we continue to press forward until election day and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove [another panelist] that even if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument – they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances. And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking.
Mark Levin interviewed on Monday reporters Eli Lake (Bloomberg) and Adam Housley (Fox News) who broke the explosive story that Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, requested to unmask Trump associates:
Adam Housley (video mark 9:25) | Eli Lake (video mark 36:57)
Days before Trump took oath, 