Tag Archives: President Obama

If You Had Any Doubts About The Uni-Party…

Posted on by

Like him or not, President Trump represents an ever-present threat to the status quo in Washington. Under President Trump we had four years of no new war, higher wages for the middle and lower class, a growing economy, manufacturing jobs returning to America, and low inflation. The average American prospered. The uni-party in Washington can’t afford to let that happen again–we might get used to it. The real question is whether or not anyone other than President Trump is willing to fight the corruption in Washington and in other areas of our country. I don’t know the answer to that question.

On Sunday, BizPacReview posted an article about the latest strange bedfellows to try to stop Americans from having their voices heard.

The article reports:

With the ruling D.C. establishment having successfully beaten back the midterm election challenges to their unchecked power by congressional candidates who were supported by former President Donald J. Trump, the job now turns to snuffing out the MAGA movement and, in the eyes of many, two former leaders with much in common will be spearheading the effort.

Two of Trump’s fellow White House alumni Barack Obama and George W. Bush will be holding back-to-back “democracy” conferences following the expected announcement that he will be officially declaring a 2024 presidential run, something that the corrupt uniparty appears to be determined to prevent at all costs.

According to a report from Axios, the two conferences will highlight “rising threats from authoritarianism and disinformation — and how to combat them globally and at home,” which will inevitably lead to increased demands for censoring of dissenting voices on social media and the further demonization of the “MAGA Republicans” who were effectively designated as enemies of the state by President Joe Biden in his disgraceful “Soul of a Nation” speech.

On Wednesday, the George W. Bush Institute will hold “The Struggle for Freedom” event in Dallas to be highlighted with an appearance by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky who will converse with Dubya.

The article concludes:

In addition to turning the system intended to protect the American populace against those who hate us for our way of life upon law-abiding citizens as documented by the evidence of domestic surveillance programs leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, Obama took particular relish in droning innocent civilians, further contributing to animosity against Americans.

Both men are also bonded by their hatred of Trump, with it being intensely personal for Bush after Trump emasculated his younger brother Jeb during the 2016 primaries, single-handedly sparing the nation from a third Bush presidency.

According to Axios, “Bush and Obama — a Republican and a Democrat respectively — didn’t coordinate their timing, organizers say. But their events — Bush’s is Nov. 16 in Dallas and Obama’s is Nov. 17 in New York — are happening the week after the U.S. midterm elections.”

I am amazed at the embrace of Zelensky after the recent failure of FTX and the claims that FTX was a Crypto laundromat for the Ukrainian Government (article here). I don’t believe that the mainstream media has picked up the details of this story yet.

It is sad that two former presidents are claiming to work for freedom and democracy with those currently in power who are working to move the average American away from freedom and prosperity.

Equal Justice Under The Law

Posted on by

The U.S. Constitution states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  (emphasis mine)

In the past two years there have been some events that have caused me to question whether the Biden administration is adhering to the concept of equal protection under the law. There are many questionable happenings regarding the January 6th defendants and recently questions about the pro-life activist who had never broken a law and whose home was raided by 15-20 FBI agents with guns. Now we have more questions regarding the standard applied to President Trump versus the standard applied to President Obama regarding the keeping and storing of presidential records.

On Tuesday, The American Thinker reported the following:

It almost sounds like a scene from an Indiana Jones movie: a dusty warehouse.  The smell of must permeating the air.  The only sound the scurrying of the occasional rat.  And entombed within it, thousands of boxes upon boxes, practically stamped “TOP SECRET.”

But this is no flight of Hollywood fantasy.  It is the reality of what remains of the Barack Obama presidency: Twenty truckloads of crates, kept in a space that formerly housed the inventory of Plunkett Furniture, containing roughly thirty million documents generated during the eight years of Obama’s time in the Oval Office.

And to the best of anyone’s public knowledge, it may still be sitting there, uncatalogued and unscanned for future perusal.  It’s composed in part, it can be assumed, of classified files.

That is the conclusion being made following a letter from the Obama Foundation to the National Archive and Records Administration  that has recently come to light.  According to the letter, at least up until 2018, the Obama-era documents — all of them — were being stored in the warehouse at Hoffman Estates.  The letter clearly states that classified papers were included alongside the unclassified files.

From the letter: “The Obama Foundation agrees to transfer up to three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) to the National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) to support the move of classified and unclassified Obama Presidential records and artifacts from Hoffman Estates to NARA-controlled facilities that conform to the agency’s archival storage standards for such records and artifacts, and for the modification of such spaces. The first transfer of $300,000 was already made on August 9, 2018. An additional interim transfer will be made within 180 days of that date. Subsequent payments are subject to the negotiation of terms of the digitization process and museum operations.”

It is now also being reported by the Daily Herald that the Obama Foundation has extended its lease of the warehouse through 2026.

Somehow the FBI has not chosen to raid that warehouse. I kind of wonder who is pulling the strings at the FBI right now.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

When The Problem Comes Home

Posted on by

On Friday, Power Line Blog posted an article about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s shipping of illegal aliens to Martha’s Vineyard. Martha’s Vineyard is a beautiful place, and I am sure that the immigrants were glad to land there. Unfortunately, the people who live on Martha’s Vineyard were not particularly excited to see the illegal aliens.

The article reports:

The strategy of Greg Abbott and others to send illegal aliens to sanctuary cities around the country was a stroke of genius. Not that it was original: for at least the last five or six years, a friend has been emailing me to the effect that illegals should be sent to Marin County, Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco mansion, and, above all, Martha’s Vineyard. That, he said, would bring the open border problem to a screeching halt.

And it may. Ron DeSantis’s master stroke of sending two planeloads of aliens to Martha’s Vineyard has made liberal heads explode. The irony is evident to everyone. These places are “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens, but if they actually see a few of them they panic. Their yards boast “All Are Welcome Here” signs, but it turns out that some are more welcome than others.

Rasmussen finds that most people approve of Governor Abbott’s shipping illegals to sanctuary cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C., by 52% to 36%. Those 36% are diehard Democrats who think it is fine for Texas to try to deal with one million aliens, but an outrage if a liberal city has to take on a few hundred.

Unlike most Americans, liberals don’t appreciate the irony. Their reaction has been priceless.

The meme below is posted at the bottom of the article:

The article concludes:

Members of the West Tisbury Select Board were told about the unexpected development during a Wednesday night meeting at which Town Administrator Jennifer Rand said she’d been receiving “furious texts” from residents, the MV Times reported.

I’ll bet they were furious! Not just anyone can live on Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe the Vineyard folks can ship the unwanted illegal aliens to a more downscale location, like the Hamptons. Or else the illegal immigrants, of whom there are only around 50, could all stay at Barack Obama’s $12 million estate. There is plenty of room there, and I understand his mansion has 10 bathrooms. That would be more than enough. But don’t hold your breath.

In all seriousness, if there is anything that could motivate Democrats to accept United States sovereignty, this is probably it.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that Governor Abbott also bused around 100 illegals to Kamala Harris’s Washington, D.C., residence, the Naval Observatory. This was in response to Harris’s absurd claim that the southern border is “secure.” No way, say the illegals themselves: the border is “open!” Let’s have more of this, until the Democrats say “Uncle.”

UPDATE: Will the Obamas come through for their illegal friends? Some are doubtful:

I Think We Can File This In The ‘Fiction’ Section

Posted on by

On Monday, Issues & Insights posted an article about some recent comments by former President Obama. The former President claimed that Americans are better off because Joe Biden is President. Actually, I don’t think that is true.

The article reports:

When he wasn’t admiring his White House portrait, Barack Obama managed to say a nice thing about President Joe Biden. He must have been joking, though, because what he said defies reality.

“Joe, it is now America’s good fortune to have you as president,” Obama said. “The country is better off than when you took office. We should all be deeply grateful for that.”

Our “good fortune”? Let’s review just how much “better off” we all are thanks to Biden and his fellow Democrats.

Here are the highlights. Please follow the link to the article to read the details:

COVID deaths

Inflation

Real earnings

Financial stress

Economic optimism

Unity

Stock market

Crime

Direction of the country

The article concludes:

Finally, there’s the fact that a majority of Americans now favor impeaching Biden. A new Rasmussen survey finds that 52% of likely voters want him impeached. Even among Democrats, almost a third (32%) want him impeached.

Ask yourself, are you “deeply grateful” for how things have turned out under Biden? If not, what are you going to do about it?

It might be a really good idea to keep these items in mind when you vote in November.

While We Weren’t Paying Attention…

Posted on by

While most Americans have been watching the political theater at home, the Biden administration has been continuing negotiations on an Iran deal supposedly to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

On Thursday, The Patriot Daily Wire reported:

Mossad Director David Barnea called the new nuclear deal negotiated between Iran and the West “a strategic disaster” that is “very bad for Israel” on Thursday, The Times of Israel reported.

Barnea emphasized that the emerging deal, mainly resulting from talks between Iran and the United States, is “ultimately built on lies” as he implored international leaders not to rush into signing on.

The Israeli intelligence leader said of the possibility that Iran obtains nuclear weapons that Mossad “is preparing and knows how to remove that threat.”

“If we don’t take action, Israel will be in danger,” he added.

Barnea’s strong statement comes as the U.S. and Iran inch close to implementing a form of the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) passed under former U.S. President Barack Obama.

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell recently said that the U.S. could respond as soon as this week to a final draft proposal that would restore a form of the 2015 JCPOA accord.

“I hope that this response allows us to end the negotiations,” Borrell declared. “That’s my hope, but I cannot assure you that this will happen.”

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price signaled similar optimism to the E.U. on Monday but acknowledged that “there are still some outstanding issues that must be resolved.”

Israel is our strongest and most loyal ally in the Middle East. They are also the best informed as to what is actually going on with Iran’s nuclear program. It is well-known that Iran is the major fund source for terrorism around the world. A nuclear deal that gives them billions of dollars will help fund that terrorism as well as help fund their nuclear research. Any deal with Iran will probably be broken by Iran secretly or openly, and we will find out about it when they announce that they have a nuclear bomb and a delivery system or when they demonstrate that bomb by destroying Israel.

There are two principles that need to be considered when negotiating with Iran, which is a Muslim caliphate. The first is taqiyya, which essentially means that it is okay to lie to advance the cause of Islam. Remember that the goal of Iran is to recreate the former caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire. The second is hudna. Basically hudna is a cease fire called by an Islamic entity to give that entity time to rearm or gain some advantage. Both of these principles are in play in our current negotiations with Iran.
Our State Department is either ignorant of these principles or is choosing to ignore them. Neither should be acceptable to Americans.

 

 

The Existential Threat

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article that included the following Tweet:

The Tweet is part of a long, detailed article explaining why Donald Trump is such a serious threat to business as usual in Washington, D.C. The article is very detailed, so I suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article. Basically, the premise is that Washington works for the political elite using the government apparatus to secure and maintain power and helps Congressmen who enter Congress as middle class people become very wealthy in a very short time. Meanwhile, the American taxpayers pay the price.

Here are a few highlights from the article:

What was it that Washington DC and President Obama’s team feared so much about Donald J Trump?

The answer to that question is why the FBI, DOJ and CIA targeted Trump in 2016; and why they continued the targeting in 2017 with the Mueller investigation; and why they continued the targeting through two attempts at impeachment in 2019 and 2020; and why they still keep targeting Donald Trump with the J6 committee and a DOJ investigation two years after he is no longer in office.

Donald J Trump is the existential threat.

When your business involves gaining personal wealth by selling out America, Donald Trump is bad for business.

Barack Obama, John Brennan, Eric Holder and James Comey did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act. What the Obama era officials did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so those weapons of government only conducted surveillance and targeting toward one side of the political dynamic.

This point is where many people understandably get confused.

The article notes:

What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political opposition became the target of this new national security system.

The problems we face now as a country are directly an outcome of two very distinct points that were merged by Barack Obama. (1) The post 9/11 monitoring of electronic communication of American citizens; and (2) Obama’s team creating a fine-tuning knob that it focused on the politics of the targets.  This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01.  The Department of Homeland Security came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was formed.

When President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.

The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus: a domestic surveillance state. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology.

The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.

We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.

The article concludes:

In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. The legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize against domestic enemies.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. Simultaneously the mission of the intelligence community now encompassed monitoring domestic threats as defined by the people who operate the surveillance system.

The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the network of President Barack Obama did.

The Obama network took pre-assembled intelligence weapons (we should never have allowed to be created) and turned those weapons into political tools for his radical and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation.

Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective the fundamental change was successful.

This is the scale of corrupt political compromise on both sides of the DC dynamic that we are up against. Preserving this system is also what removing Donald Trump is all about…. And like I said in the precursor, I doubt Donald Trump fully comprehends the motives of his opposition.

I was privileged to sit in on a law class at Suffolk University where the professor discussed the Patriot Act as it was being passed. (I was not a student, I was simply an observer). He warned of what was to come although most Americans did not see it. There are some real questions as to whether or not the genie can be put back into the bottle, but there are some real dangers up ahead if it is not.

This Is Not Surprising

Posted on by

For a long time, America trusted its news sources. However, in recent years, those sources have come into question as they have become more and more biased. There are also some real questions as to what is being left out of what is being reported. The addition of alternative news has helped balance things out for those who are willing to do their own research, but a large segment of the American population still believes that everything they hear on the mainstream media is true. That is one of many reasons for the division we see among Americans. There are, however, some elements of our society who like the current lack of unbiased information and would like the division to continue. Unfortunately many of these elements are found inside of our government.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article titled, “Former Intel Officials Want Efforts to Break Up Big Tech Stopped–Data Control and Retention of Social Media Partnership Is A National Security Imperative.” Just for the record, controlling the media in our free republic is not only not a national security  imperative–it is totally unconstitutional.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is long and complicated, but worth the read. I will post a few important points here.

The article reports:

Former Obama era intelligence officials, those who helped construct, organize and assemble the public-private partnership between intelligence data networks and supported social media companies, have written a letter to congress warning that any effort to break up Big Tech (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, etc.) would be catastrophic for the national security system they have created.

[READ LETTER HERE]

Citing the information control mechanisms they assembled, vis-a-vis the ability of social media networks to control and approve what is available for the public to read and review, the intelligence officials declare that any effort to break up the private side of the intel/tech partnership will only result in less ability of the intelligence apparatus to control public opinion.

They willfully admit that open and uncensored information is adverse to the interests of the intelligence state and therefore too dangerous to permit. They specifically argue, if the modern system created by the partnership between the U.S. government and Big Tech is not retained, the national security of the United States is compromised. Let that sink in for a moment.

The article concludes:

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives through their efforts in social media.

In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it. Back then, the legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama era intelligence team took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created and turned those weapons into tools for radical, political and fundamental change. The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch. From that perspective, the fundamental change was successful.

…It’s all Connected Folks, SEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

Welcome to 1984.

No. Just No.

Posted on by

PJ Media reported yesterday that the Biden administration is trying once again to settle the legal situation for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and the other plotters of the September 11th attack and has opened negotiations that would give the terrorists life sentences. Is there any indication that the attitude of these prisoners has changed? Is a life sentence an intermediate step toward releasing them to their home countries where they will miraculously escape jail?

The article reports:

Even the suggestion of a deal during the Trump administration enraged then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who complained to Defense Secretary James N. Mattis about the convening authority, Harvey Rishikof. Shortly after that, Rishikof was fired.

There have also been suggestions of transferring some prisoners charged with lesser crimes to third countries and reducing the sentences of others who were unaware of the 9/11 plot. The goal — as stated first by Barack Obama and then Joe Biden — is to close the prison camp at Guantanamo and try the remaining inmates in civil court. When Obama tried this in 2010, the backlash was so severe he had to drop it.

President George Bush made a mistake in building the prison camp at Guantanamo. But if we’re not going to execute the terrorists who plotted to murder nearly 3,000 American citizens — and the fact that we haven’t is a blot on American justice — they should be locked away and forgotten.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything stated in the article, but the fact remains that plotting to kill Americans only gets you locked up in a tropical paradise where people cater to your culinary requests. If an American plotted a mass murder, in most American states he would face the death penalty. We don’t even have the will to execute terrorists anymore? Have we forgotten?

Good News For America–Bad News For Russia

Posted on by

On March 10th, Newsmax reported that the Iran nuclear talks have stalled. The sticking point is that Russia is demanding protection from sanctions in response to its invasion of Iran.

The article reports:

Just days after reports a deal was close, diplomats are now signaling talks for a rewritten Iran nuclear deal have stalled due to Russia’s demand for sanctions protections amid the world response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Politico reported Thursday night.

“The talks seem to have stalled, primarily because of Russian demands,” International Crisis Group analyst Ali Vaez told Politico.

The article also notes:

Russia is leading talks with Iran, along with diplomats from China, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S., but those other parties are balking at the demand for sanctions relief, according to Politico.

An official from the West parties told Politico the accommodation cannot be made in talks that were designed to pull the U.S. and Iran back into the deal — not to give Russia more trade leverage.

“We’ve made it very clear,” U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters Thursday, “that the new Russia-related sanctions are wholly unrelated to the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].” 

“We also have no intention of offering Russia anything new or specific as it relates to the sanctions.”

The old Iran nuclear deal was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under former President Barack Obama’s administration when current President Joe Biden was vice president. Many of the Obama administration officials are now working in the Biden administration.

Just for the record, it is not a good idea to make a deal with the world’s largest source of terrorist funding. We have seen that Iran did not follow previous agreements, and there are no indications that Iran would follow any new agreement no matter how generous it is. Short of sanctions on Iran (which the Biden administration would never do), at this point there is probably no way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. If you understand the apocalyptic beliefs regarding the return of the Mahdi, that is a problem. There is a belief among some Muslims that if they create chaos, the Mahdi (their messiah) will return more quickly. Unfortunately, our State Department is obviously ignoring much of the history and beliefs of the militant Islamists who are currently ruling Iran.

Bad Decisions Have Bad Results

Posted on by

In October 2018 The Military Times reported the following:

Five members of the Afghan Taliban who were freed from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for captured American Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl have joined the insurgent group’s political office in Qatar, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Tuesday.Guantn

They will now be among Taliban representatives negotiating for peace in Afghanistan, a sign some negotiators in Kabul say indicates the Taliban’s desire for a peace pact.

Others fear the five, all of whom were close to the insurgent group’s founder and hard-line leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, bring with them the same ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam that characterized the group’s five-year rule that ended in 2001 with the U.S.-led invasion.

On Monday, The New York Post reported:

When President Barack Obama released five Taliban commanders from the Guantanamo Bay prison in exchange for an American deserter in 2014, he assured a wary public that the dangerous enemy combatants would be transferred to Qatar and kept from causing any trouble in Afghanistan.

In fact, they were left free to engineer Sunday’s sacking of Kabul.

Soon after gaining their freedom, some of the notorious Taliban Five pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan and made contacts with active Taliban militants there. But the Obama-Biden administration turned a blind eye to the disturbing intelligence reports, and it wasn’t long before the freed detainees used Qatar as a base to form a regime in exile.

Eventually, they were recognized by Western diplomats as official representatives of the Taliban during recent “peace” talks.

…After raiding the presidential palace in Kabul, a group of armed Taliban fighters told Al Jazeera that they were arranging to bring back their Gitmo-paroled leadership from Qatar upon securing the capital. One unidentified fighter, who blasted America for “oppressing our people for 20 years,” claimed he had also been locked up at the Guantanamo Bay facility. It’s more evidence that Gitmo catch-and-release policies facilitated the fall of Afghanistan to the enemy that Washington vowed to crush after 9/11.

Leopards don’t really change their spots:

The mastermind of the regime change is former detainee Khairkhwa, the Taliban mullah whom Obama released from Gitmo even though the Pentagon classified him as too dangerous to release.

The article notes the behavior of the Taliban as they conquer Afghanistan:

Earlier this year, Khairkhwa assured the administration that the Taliban would not launch a spring military offensive if Biden committed to removing all remaining American troops. He also promised not to retaliate against any Afghans who worked with the US military or the US-backed government in Kabul. But Khairkhwa showed no signs of remorse or rehabilitation inside Gitmo — if anything, he’s probably more embittered toward the United States. Why would they believe him?

Reports coming out of Kandahar and Kabul indicate the extremists have already broken their word. Taliban thugs have started a reign of terror against people who cooperated with Westerners. Guided by a “kill list,” they are going door to door to punish their enemies.

The New York Post article concludes:

It’s not clear if then-Vice President Biden was fully on board with Obama’s controversial prisoner exchange. But in a reversal of Trump administration policy, Biden has restarted Obama’s program to release Gitmo detainees as part of a renewed push to close the prison.

Last month, the president released his first prisoner — accused terrorist Abdul Latif Nasser — leaving the number of remaining detainees at 39. Ten others have been cleared for release, while still others have appealed to Biden through their pro-bono defense lawyers to ensure their release, despite the risk of them returning to militant activities like the Taliban Five.

If Obama and Biden had left the five Taliban thugs to rot in Cuba, Kabul more than likely would not be back in the clutches of the Taliban right now. And maybe Americans wouldn’t have sacrificed more than 2,400 troops and $1 trillion in vain.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy decisions were not helpful to our nation. It looks as if the Biden administration has the same problem.

Strange Things Happened At The End Of The Obama Administration

Posted on by

There were a number of odd things that happened toward the end of the Obama administration. There was the Susan Rice memo about the January 5, 2017, meeting (story here), the large number of unmasking requests (story here), but there is another odd thing that has just been discovered.

On Saturday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the ban on gain-of-function research.

The article reports:

…Eleven Days before leaving office President Obama’s administration re-authorized funding for the creation of biological weapons using SARS viruses. However, essentially this re-authorization was only kickstarting funding within the U.S. because the funding of weaponization of SARS-CoV-2 never actually stopped in 2014. The media reporting on this is misleading, if not downright false.

The article continues:

The article includes a summary of events:

SUMMARY: President Obama (not Trump) started the reauthorization of SARS-CoV-2 Virus experimentation in 2017.  The funding of the Wuhan Lab for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 was originated during the Obama administration and continued during the Trump administration.  The scientific community, the Obama White House and National Security Team, and the Pentagon knew the dangers of funding the weaponization of a biological weapon from SARS.  The COVID-19 pandemic was an outcome of these originating decisions.

…. and yes, there are political and ideological benefits from the perspective of Obama’s ideological group for unleashing the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic as an opportunistic “crisis” to create totalitarian government solutions regardless of who was in office.  However, the timing of the subsequent biological release is very suspicious in relation to the 2020 presidential election and the downstream benefits of manipulating the election via mail-in ballots.

Perhaps not a smoking gun of intent, but definitely bloody footprints walking out the door – in Obama’s size.

Something to consider as you listen to the news.

A Portrait Of Things To Come

Posted on by

One of the things that President Trump did that positively impacted the American economy was to deal with over-regulation and to make sure that the rights of people who chose not to join unions were protected. Well, that was then; this is now.

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported on a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s labor arbiter threw out hundreds of votes from workers attempting to cut ties with a Delaware union.

The National Labor Relations Board overruled hundreds of Delaware poultry workers who had voted to reject union leadership. The agency said in a 3-1 ruling released Wednesday that a provision prohibiting workers from leaving a union for a set time period after a contract is signed allowed the board to ignore the workers’ March 2020 vote. The decision reversed a regional NLRB director who had initially ruled in the workers’ favor.

Oscar Cruz Sosa, the employee who led the charge to hold the election, ripped union leadership for disregarding the voices of workers. “The union has been harassing and intimidating us for a long time and it’s unbelievable that they’re going to get their way by having 800 ballots destroyed,” Cruz Sosa told the Washington Free Beacon.

The article notes:

The decision marks a victory for the local chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, the nation’s largest private sector union and a major backer of Democratic candidates. The union’s PAC spent more than $1.2 million in 2020 electing Democratic candidates.

Of course they did.

The article concludes:

The decision comes after the NLRB became engulfed in a political scandal over a series of unprecedented personnel moves made by Biden. As one of his first moves in office, the Democrat fired the NLRB’s top prosecutor after the general counsel refused to resign. Glenn Taubman, a National Right to Work attorney who helped represent Cruz Sosa, said the Biden administration has repeatedly signaled that it “exists solely to please labor union officials.”

“They do not give one whit about employees and employee rights. All they want is to force employees to pay dues to labor union officials, whether those employees want to or not,” Taubman said. “The whole tone and tenor of this administration is, ‘We’re here for the union bosses and if it’s good for them, we don’t care who it harms or it’s bad for.'”

The NLRB declined to comment further on the decision beyond the press release. The United Food and Commercial Workers union did not respond to a request for comment.

The politicization of the NLRB began under President Obama.

On August 11, 2015, The Washington Examiner reported:

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Lafe Solomon, the former acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board from 2011 through 2013, had been serving in violation of the law governing federal appointments. It was the latest example of a federal court throwing out President Obama’s picks for the board, which is the main federal labor law enforcement agency.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Noel Canning v. NLRB that three of Obama’s 2012 recess appointments to board were unconstitutional. The decision voided an entire year’s worth of agency decisions.

Friday’s ruling is unlikely to be as far-reaching as the Supreme Court decision. A three-judge panel for the circuit court was careful to say the ruling was specific to the case in question, which involved a business that had directly challenged the legality of Solomon’s appointment at the time he was serving, and would extend only those that had made the same challenge.

Unfortunately, any objectivity in the NLRB will be further eroded under President Biden. The formerly non-partisan NLRB is simply another casualty of the 2020 presidential election.

When Intelligence Became A Political Operation

Posted on by

A friend sent me a link to the article below along with the following note:

Since Obama political appointees have infiltrated the Intelligence Community, it has gone political.   No one before Obama put political appointees there.  For example, in 2012 Obama put his White House lawyer as the NSA AG – never done before – always someone who knew the mission and had risen through the ranks held every position BUT the Director.  As Congress has to approve that position – that is the only position that was ever tainted with politics.  True for all other positions as well.   NSA, NGA, and DIA were always under the Department of Defense umbrella until 911.  After 911 they created a DNI – which caused loyalty issues for those that forgot we took an oath to the constitution not to any department or person.   That’s how Brennan got appointed.   That is how the spying on the Trump campaigned happened – Obama put people in place prior to the 2016 election to enable getting information about the opponent’s campaign to insure HRC won. 

On February 14th, 2021, Zero Hedge posted an article about what has happened to our intelligence community. The article is titled, “Opening The CIA’s Can Of Worms”

The article reports:

“The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal conspiracy,” wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book, The CIA As Organized Crime.

This is true.  The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national security state’s ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an international audience. 

We have long been subjected to this “information warfare,” whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by The New York Times, CBS, etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless wars, coups, false flag operations, and assassinations at home and abroad.

Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be distinguished.

For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in The Secret Team; that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor Saunders in The Cultural Cold War and Joel Whitney in Finks, among others; that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in “courting the Compatible Left” since right wingers were already in the Agency’s pocket. 

All this is documented and not disputed.  It is shocking only to those who don’t do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.

With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and went on the defensive. It, therefore, should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves.

There is no way I can summarize this article, so I am asking you to please follow the link and read the entire article.

The article concludes:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth seeking, conjures up his father’s ghost, the last politician who, because of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.

So they killed him.

There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi.  He controls the can opener for so many. He has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual.  The assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official Covid-19 story are not among them, and so they are eschewed.

To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says – “This far and no further” – and jump over it.  That’s where the true stories lie.  That’s when they’ll see the worms squirm.

If we don’t limit the actions of the Intelligence Community and their ability to control the news Americans actually receive, we will lose our republic.

 

 

 

This Is Troubling, But Not Surprising

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted the following headline, “REPORT: Former Obama Staff Colluded With Iran to Undermine Trump.” This is not really a surprise. There were a lot of Democrats and Republican who sought to undermine Trump. We heard a lot of talk about a ‘peaceful transition of power’ when Joe Biden was elected, but we need to understand that there was no ‘peaceful transition of power’ when President Trump was elected. President Obama remained in Washington, D.C., and from his command center threw every obstacle he could into the path of President Trump with full compliance from the media. The antics of the Democrats, some swamp-dwelling Republicans, and the media from 2015 until 2020 are a disgrace to our republic.

The article reports:

Former Obama administration officials, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, went behind President Donald Trump’s back in backchannels with Iran, sources told The Washington Times. Some of the architects of the Iran nuclear deal met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after Trump withdrew from the deal.

A slew of former Obama officials, including Kerry, Obama’s Middle East advisor Robert Malley, and Obama-era Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, met with Zarif during the Trump years. Kerry, Malley, and Moniz led negotiations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in which the U.S. provided sanctions relief and access to tens of billions of dollars in frozen bank accounts in exchange for Iran’s promises to limit nuclear enrichment.

Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018, citing the need for a tougher agreement that also addressed Iran’s support for terrorist groups and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East. Yet a former senior U.S. official told The Washington Times that Zarif met with Democrats like Kerry multiple times in 2017, 2018, and 2019, before the Trump administration halted his visa in 2020.

The former official told the Times that Zarif’s meetings aimed “to devise a political strategy to undermine the Trump administration” and to build support for a new version of the Iran deal in case a Democrat returned to the White House in 2021.

Kerry acknowledged meeting with Zarif at least twice in the early years of the Trump administration. He told radio host Hugh Hewitt that there was nothing secret about his meetings with the Iranian minister. Kerry said he intended to find out “what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better.”

Kerry was a private citizen at that time; he had no authority to represent America in any way or to meet with foreign leaders in any capacity.

The article concludes:

“Former administration officials can play a very helpful role in close coordination with a sitting administration to open and support sensitive diplomatic channels,” Mark Dubowitz, chief executive at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Times. “But it is not good practice for senior officials who served at the highest levels of a former administration, Democratic or Republican, to be trying to undermine the policy of a sitting administration by engaging actively with a known enemy of the United States.”

Indeed, Malley was reportedly engaging in this “shadow diplomacy” while Iran-backed militias targeted U.S. troops in Iraq, leading up to the assassination of Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.

Sources also told The Washington Times that Zarif wields tremendous influence over the Iran lobby in the U.S. They described a “web” of activity linked to think tanks across the U.S. as well as lobbying efforts that reached into the Obama White House.

Many members of Congress, including Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), have hired current or former staffers with the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), an organization with links to Iran’s regime and which Iran state media has described as “Iran’s lobby” in the U.S.

Did the Obama administration architects of the Iran deal carry out a “shadow diplomacy” with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism in order to undermine President Trump, hoping that a Democrat would win in 2020 and return them to power? Did they work with the Iran lobby behind the scenes? This explosive report suggests the answers to those questions are “yes,” but the details are yet to be forthcoming.

Where is the Logan Act when you actually need it?

About That Unity Thing

Posted on by

Yesterday Bloomberg posted a very interesting article about bipartisanship. Despite President Biden’s claim that he seeks unity, there seems to be very little unity in Washington these days. I should mention that bipartisanship is not a requirement. The Democrats control the White House and the House of Representatives and essentially the Senate. There is no requirement that they work with Republicans. However, the article points out that the Republicans are not solely responsible for the lack of bipartisanship.

The article notes:

During the Obama years, Democrats cited incidents like this one to cast Republicans in a bad light. Obama and several other Democrats also complained bitterly that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had announced at the start of his first term that his top priority was preventing a second one. Democrats said they tried again and again to meet Republicans halfway on health care, too, and were rebuffed.

With President Joe Biden in the White House, Democrats are saying that the Republicans’ behavior then justifies ignoring them now: There’s no point wasting time trying to negotiate with them.

The incidents didn’t actually happen, though, or at least didn’t happen the way Obama related them. Before he met with House Republicans in January 2009, House Democrats had already introduced a stimulus bill without any of their input, and Republicans had already made public statements of opposition. In his meeting with the Republicans, Obama reportedly said he was open to changing the bill; the Republicans then voted against the unchanged bill; and Boehner issued a statement saying he would still like to work with Obama on the issue.

McConnell’s remark, meanwhile, was made well into Obama’s term, right before the midterm elections of 2010. He said in the same breath that he would work with Obama if he moderated the way the previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton, had: “I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change.”

Part of the problem right not is that we really don’t know who is making the decisions in the White House.

The article concludes:

Republicans and Democrats worked together to pass a large Covid-relief bill last spring, and did it again just a few weeks ago. The second one was passed after Biden had won the election and the Electoral College had met. Republicans knew that any positive effect it had would buoy Biden politically, and did it anyway.

There’s no moral or constitutional obligation for Democrats to bargain with the Republicans. Obama came into office with large Democratic majorities in Congress, and had the votes he needed to pass the stimulus and his health-care bill without Republicans.

Maybe they will have the votes they need in Congress this time, too. It would be nice, though, if they would stop pretending that they have no other choice.

If you are going to talk about unity, it would be nice if you did something to promote it.

When Did We Give Judges This Kind Of Power?

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News reported that a federal judge has reinstated DACA. DACA is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that would provide people brought into America illegally as children a path to citizenship. DACA was put in place by an executive order by President Obama. When President Trump tried to undo that executive order, which supposedly he is allowed to do, the courts got involved. It went to the Supreme Court, and they told President Trump he was doing it wrong. So we are essentially back at square one.

The article reports:

The DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) saga continues its long and winding road through all branches of government, as a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Friday that these undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children can once again apply to remain in this country legally.

This goes back to the Obama administration, who said repeatedly that “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen,” and words to that effect.  

But finally he gave up on Congress and in June of 2012, he signed DACA into law as an executive directive and said that it was “a temporary stopgap measure.”

President Trump had planned to end it, and then offered it as part of a grand bargain to get a wall built and to end chain migration. The Democrats did not accept his offer. Finally he attempted to rescind the Obama directive and end the program, but the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against him in June of this year on the basis that he hadn’t properly used the Administrative Procedure Act, not on the merits or the constitutionality of the case.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis fully restored the Obama-era program. He ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin accepting new applications on Monday.

The Trump administration can now go back to court. I do have compassion for the children who were brought here with no say in the matter. However, DACA as it is currently set up is an invitation to fraud. We have MS-13 gang members lying about their age to get into the country. We have no real handle on how many people this will impact. What do you say when you see a person who has waiting years to immigrate to America, doing it the right way and paying the cost and they watch someone who came illegally step in front of them in line? This whole program needs to go back to the drawing board along with our existing immigration policies.

Chris Wallace Must Be Getting Heat For His Debate Performance

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about an interview on ” Fox News Sunday.” Chris Wallace, who hosts the show, was conducting an interview of Democratic Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

The article reports:

Wallace specifically asked Coons to weigh in on the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court, and the Delaware Senator pivoted to argue that the Trump administration’s focus on filling judicial vacancies amounted to court packing.

For once, Chris Wallace got it right. The article notes:

“Let me just say — I’m just going to say, that’s a different issue than packing the court,” Wallace concluded. “If that’s the question, whether or not the court should — the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett, that’s different than changing the number of justices on the court. Senator Coons, I got to leave it there, thank you.”

For the record, packing the court means adding more justices to the Supreme Court in order to impact the balance of liberal and conservative judges. Filling judicial vacancies is one of the responsibilities of the President. Because of the increasing rancor in the Senate, a large number of the nominees of President Obama were not confirmed, and there were a lot of judicial vacancies when President Trump took office. He promptly began to fill these vacancies. Getting judicial nominees passed is much easier when the President and the Senate are held by the same party. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the case (they disliked the idea of political parties), but that is where we are today.

I give credit to Chris Wallace for at least correcting Senator Coons on his talking point.

The Story Unfolds

Posted on by

Yesterday Townhall posted an article with the headline, “Caught Red Handed: Brennan’s Handwritten Notes Prove Obama Was Briefed on Scheme to Set Up Trump.” Wow. As more documents are declassified, we are finally learning what the deep state was up to during the campaign and first three years of the Trump administration.

The article reports:

Newly declassified documents show former CIA Director John Brennan took notes after briefing President Barack Obama on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s plans to frame then presidential candidate Donald Trump as a Russian asset. The briefing took place during the 2016 presidential election.

Townhall had previously reported:

“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” Ratcliffe wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”

How many taxpayer dollars were spent as a result of this scheme? How many laws were broken in this scheme? When will we see people held accountable?

People In The Obama Administration Seem To Have Very Faulty Memories

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that James Comey has no memory of receiving a recently declassified CIA memo about Hillary Clinton’s plan to smear President Trump with a charge of colluding with Russia.

The article reports:

The three-page referral, released by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to members of Congress in partly redacted form, apprised Comey and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok that intelligence suggested that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had approved a plan concerning the Trump campaign and Russia’s alleged hack of the Democratic National Committee.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Comey claimed not to remember ever receiving the referral.

Ratcliffe sent copies of the partly redacted, three-page referral (pdf) to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, alongside written notes (pdf) taken by CIA Director John Brennan.

Last week, Ratcliffe released a summary (pdf) of the contents of the documents, in which he alleged that Clinton approved the plan on July 26, 2016, and that Brennan’s handwritten notes concern a briefing he provided to President Barack Obama in late July. The information about the plan came from a Russian intelligence analysis obtained by U.S. authorities, according to Ratcliffe.

Please follow the link to the article to see the timeline.

The article concludes:

While a full accounting of the events is yet to be made public, the timing of the events suggests that the FBI may have pivoted its investigation of the DNC email hack into an investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia around the time Clinton allegedly approved the plan to stir up scandal around Trump and Russia.

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who took over the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in May 2017, eventually indicted Russian intelligence officers for allegedly hacking the DNC. The indictment suggests that the DNC email hack was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Last night President Trump authorized the total declassification of all documents related to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and Obamagate without redactions. This could be very interesting. Hopefully people who used their government positions for political purposes will be held accountable.

This Is Frightening

Posted on by

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about some information declassified and released by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe yesterday.

The article reports:

Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear.

At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes.

Fired former FBI Director James Comey and fired former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok were even sent an investigative referral on September 7, 2016, regarding Russia’s alleged knowledge of Clinton’s plans to smear Trump as a treasonous Russian agent, Ratcliffe wrote. Rather than investigate at the time whether Russian intelligence had infiltrated the Clinton operation’s anti-Trump campaign and sowed Russian disinformation within it, the FBI instead used unverified gossip from a suspected Russian agent to obtain federal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

There is no evidence the FBI ever investigated the Clinton campaign’s documented use of Russian agents and intelligence assets to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election, raising questions of whether the top federal law enforcement agency may have itself interfered in the election by using its powers to arbitrarily target the campaign of the outgoing administration’s political enemy.

The article concludes:

Clinton personally pushed the Russia collusion claims on multiple occasions. Following her surprising defeat, she immediately pivoted to a campaign of blaming Russia for election meddling with Trump’s assistance. Within the last few weeks, Clinton has repeated her claim that Trump stole the election from her with Russia’s help.

While Comey, Strzok, and other Obama-era FBI officials have claimed that the investigation of Trump was legally predicated, U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the propriety of the entire Crossfire Hurricane operation, has publicly stated, based on evidence he has obtained, that he does not necessarily believe that to be the case.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. This abuse of federal power is something that needs to be dealt with. It is a safe bet that if Joe Biden wins the election, all of this corruption will be buried and the same techniques used against any opponent of the Democrats. At that point we will no longer have a recognizable America. The voters need to know what happened before the election. Unfortunately the deep state will prevent that from happening in order to continue its war against the American people.

Something To Consider Before You Vote

Posted on by

Yesterday Jed Babbin posted an article at The Washington Times titled, “Biden’s loose lips will make it difficult to maintain national security and America’s secrets.” That is a frightening statement, but unfortunately it is true.The article notes the events following then Vice-President Biden’s statement that Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy SEAL Team.

The article notes:

On May 2, 2011, President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden. He credited the action to a “small team of Americans.” That was the right way to do it.

Nine days later, Mr. Biden made a speech in which he said that the bin Laden operation was conducted by Navy SEALs. He did not name SEAL Team Six specifically, but once the SEALs were named, any intelligence agency (or terrorist network) could easily determine that it was Team Six. The location of their home base — and thus their families — has been one of the worst-kept secrets in the military. Mr. Biden’s remarks endangered them all.

Caring for the nation’s secrets is a mundane task at which the Obama administration — including Mr. Biden — failed utterly. 

The members of Navy SEAL Team Six were killed in an ambush on August 6, 2011. The claim that the ambush was a result of Joe Biden’s stating that the SEALs killed bin Laden is disputed by some, but those familiar with the events believe the ambush was the result of the Vice-President’s statements.

The article also notes that during the Obama administration classified information was sent over non-secure computers (Hillary Clinton’s private server) even by the President. It is considered highly likely that the Chinese had a copy of everything that went through Mrs. Clinton’s server in real time. We lost a lost of intelligence assets in China during those years.

Those who have watched the infrequent appearances of the former Vice-President believe that he is showing his age. He does not seem to be able to hold a train of thought for an extended period of time and seems to be easily distracted or confused. Are the American voters willing to trust a man who may not be working at full mental capacity?

 

Principles, Anyone?

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about what seems to be a change of heart on the part of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The article notes:

The payroll tax was cut in 2010, under President Obama’s leadership, and extended in 2011 and 2012.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported the payroll tax cut under former President Barack Obama but opposes it under President Donald Trump.

In the absence of a stimulus deal in Congress, Trump authorized a payroll tax deferral by executive order on Saturday. The order instructs the Treasury Department to look at forgiving the deferred taxes.

Pelosi referred to the executive action as unconstitutional and argued that the payroll tax cut will harm Social Security and Medicare.

The article includes a statement from Speaker Pelosi in 2011:

In 2010, Obama signed a payroll tax reduction, and Congress extended the cut in 2011 and 2012. Pelosi supported the payroll tax cut at the time.

“Today is a victory for all Americans — for the security of our middle class, for the health of our seniors, and for economic growth and job creation. The American people spoke out clearly and, thanks to President Obama’s leadership, 160 million Americans will continue to receive their payroll tax cut,” Pelosi said in a statement in 2011.

This is another example an action that the Democrats thought was wonderful when President Obama did it, but the Democrats think it is horrible when President Trump does it.

The Supreme Court Lost Their Copy Of The Constitution

Posted on by

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. It’s interesting that they chose to uphold the program when President Obama, the author of the program, admitted various times that the program was illegal.

Yesterday PJ Media posted a list of the ten times President Obama declared that his creation of DACA was illegal. Please follow the link to the article for the details, but here is the basic list:

  1. During remarks at a 2010 Cinco de Mayo Celebration
  2. During remarks on comprehensive immigration reform at American University
  3. During an MTV/BET town hall meeting and a question-and-answer session
  4. During a radio interview with Univision
  5. During a Univision town hall
  6. During remarks at a Facebook town hall meeting and a question-and-answer session
  7. During the 2011 Miami Dade College commencement
  8. During remarks on comprehensive immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial
  9. During remarks to the National Council of La Raza
  10. During a roundtable with questions from Yahoo!, MSN Latino, AOL Latino, and HuffPost Latino Voices

So a President who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution passed a law (a violation of the separation of powers) and now the Supreme Court is not willing to undo that law. That is another reason Americans think Washington has lost its way.

The Western Journal posted a screenshot of a tweet by The Daily Caller summarizing what Justice Thomas said in the dissent:

As usual, Justice Thomas got it right.

 

 

The Networks Have Totally Lost Their Credibility

Posted on by

Newsbusters posted an article today about an interview to be aired on ABC during prime time on Sunday.

The article reports:

On June 15, former National Security Adviser John Bolton sat down for an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz to promote his new “tell all” book, expected to rip the bark off the Trump White House. ABC is airing it Sunday during prime time….just like they aired a prime time interview in 2018 with former FBI director James Comey to promote his anti-Trump “tell all” book.

In 2007, Bolton wrote a book about his experience in government. No major network came calling for a prime time special. He wasn’t useful to them back then.

Now try to remember ABC offering a prime time special to an Obama insider who wrote a rip-roaring “tell-all” book. You’ll have a tough time. Because most publishers are liberals, and aren’t going to roll out the red carpet for that kind of book….even if the author is a liberal. So there was no insider “tell-all” for ABC to promote.

The article notes that there were never any prime time interviews for authors of tell-all books about the Obama administration.

The article continues:

To be fair, there were former Obama officials who came out with memoirs that may have said something negative about Obama…and they were attacked for it.

In 2014, Robert Gates, Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, was selling a book. As he sat in NBC’s studio wearing a neck brace, Today co-host Matt Lauer accused him of endangering the troops for having the audacity to criticize the sitting commander-in-chief: “[A]t a time when some 40,000 U.S. troops are in harm’s way, do you think that by calling him into question at this stage it is either dangerous or dishonorable?”

Now look back and imagine being called “dishonorable” by Matt Lauer.  

In 2013, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, fired by President Obama over critical comments from his staff in a Rolling Stone article, issued his memoirs, and did a round of TV interviews. The first one, with CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin, mostly skipped Obama, except for McChrystal to express pain over his apparent “disloyalty” with Rolling Stone. There wasn’t any attack on Obama. The general did promote his book on a special edition of Hannity in prime time, and the Fox host talked through what happened with Obama, but there was no trashing of the president.

This same pattern emerged last September with Gen. James Mattis. CBS promoted his book in two interviews, but completely ignored his strong criticisms of Obama. He even called some of his choices “catastrophic.”

Instead, CBS This Morning co-host Anthony Mason asked about Trump: “What do you think the President got wrong about Syria?” Guest host Maria Elena Salinas pushed about his resignation: “Was it your decision to leave, or were you fired, or were you pushed into resigning or pressured into resigning?”

The article concludes:

There’s no need to pre-judge what John Bolton will say to ABC. But we can judge a long history of “tell all” imbalance, from the publishing houses to the TV studios. Republicans are mercilessly dissected. Democrats are carefully protected.

ABC is not noted for presenting both sides of the story. How much of the Comey interview was proven to be lies after documents were declassified? Those who claim to want to bring the country together (and accuse President Trump of dividing it) would do well to begin by reporting both sides of every story and letting the American people discern the truth.

The Root Of The Problem

Posted on by

President Obama seemed to be a president who held grudges. He never missed an opportunity to say an unkind word about someone who had disagreed with him at some point. It should be no surprise that General Flynn was so brutally targeted by some in the Obama administration. On May 12, The Tennessee Star posted a commentary piece that detailed reasons why the author believes that President Obama was behind the mistreatment of General Flynn. One of the unusual things that President Obama did after leaving office was to remain in Washington. There has been some speculation that his purpose was to make sure that the policies he instituted as President would not be undone. Many of those policies have been undone, but attacking General Flynn would be a way to protect some of President Obama’s foreign policy decisions.

George Rasley wrote the commentary in The Tennessee Star. Here are a few of his reasons for putting President Obama behind the targeting of General Flynn:

General Flynn’s must-read book, Field of Fight, is a searing indictment of Obama’s policies in the Near East and Afghanistan. It was also a damning indictment of Obama’s pro-Muslim supremacist policies that downplayed the cultural and constitutional threat of importing vast numbers of Muslims to America.

It is easy to forget now, but Mike Flynn was one of Donald Trump’s most effective surrogates during the campaign. Along with a few other military and intelligence outsiders like Rich Higgins, he hoisted the pirate flag and pounded Obama and Hillary Clinton with broadside after broadside. He also helped Trump craft his America First national security platform. A key piece of Trump’s appeal to voters wary of the Obama – Clinton pro-Muslim immigration policies.

And beyond the military, political and cultural critique of Obama’s destructive policies there was the fact that Flynn had been on the inside of Obama’s intelligence apparatus and cried foul, causing Obama to push him out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn was, as far a we can remember, the only Obama insider to break ranks and switch sides.

In short, Flynn earned Obama’s hatred the easy way – he told the truth.

The article also notes:

Remember – when Obama fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating lslamic extremism.

The topic of the disputed phone call with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was, among other things, another Obama policy Flynn and Trump planned to undo – Obama’s sanctions on Russia.

Or from Obama’s perspective, another act of insubordination by Mike Flynn.

It is unknown who informed Obama of the intercepted Flynn – Kislyak phone call, and it remains to be seen if Yates, Comey, Biden or anyone else will tell the full truth about what was said directly or between the lines in the January 5, 2017 “stay behind” meeting. However, one thing is clear even from the sketchy details available today – Obama was out to get Flynn and he had some willing accomplices available at the January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting.

The commentary provides a much more complete picture than these two excerpts. Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

What has happened to the Trump administration is a blatant example of a political party made up of sore losers who refused to allow the peaceful transfer of power in a representative republic.