Tag Archives: Obama

“The biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”

Posted on by
Reply

Is this not the most formidable scandal of our time?

Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.

Well no, it’s actually worse:

It was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”

It gets better and better:

The FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

And how deep does this scandal grow. Think of this:

The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.

So here is THE question.

Why has there been no prosecution of Clinton? Why did the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Obama administration keep the evidence secret? Was it concealed to prevent a scandal that would poison Barack Obama’s presidency? Was Hillary Clinton being protected in her quest to succeed him?

The answer may lie with the people who were in charge of the investigation and who knew of its explosive impact. Who are they?

Yes, who are they?

Holder, Mueller, Comey & Rosenstein

I.E.

“Eric Holder was the Attorney General when the FBI began uncovering the Russian corruption scheme in 2009.”

“Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe.”

“So was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case.”

“Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney, was supervising the case.”

And the punchline:

Mueller (now special counsel) and Rosenstein (now Deputy Attorney General) are the two top people currently investigating whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. Mueller reports to Rosenstein, while Comey is a key witness in the case. . . .

Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey may have covered up potential crimes involving Clinton and Russia, but are now determined to find some evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia.

And what does PDT think? POTUS Trump Fired Up Over Clinton-Uranium One Scandal: ‘Biggest Story Fake Media Doesn’t Want To Follow!’

Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!

Absolutely the biggest and you can hardly read about it anywhere else at all. It is subterfuge on such a vast scale that it is almost impossible to believe it’s true, but true it seems to be. The Obama Administration may have been the most corrupt in American history.

An historical turning point

Posted on by
Reply

This is the sub-title which explains the point of the article: Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself. Here are the last three lines:

The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor.

A turning point in history is here.

If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.

Now read the rest.

Know thine enemy

Posted on by
Reply

There is something so pathetically inane among the supposed right side of the political spectrum that I am at a loss to understand how to get others to see what is right before their eyes. The left knows its own. They can tell from the phrases they all use, their uniformity of perspective on every issue, their inability to reason and make sense of a contrary argument, that they are part of that side of the political world. The comments on my post on John Brennan dealing with Guess who was “a supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War” has led me to put up this post as a response.

The first of these comments is just empty rhetoric from some Democrat/Hillary troll (however he might deny it) and is hardly worth a moment’s thought. But given that I had been on the left in my youth, one of the many things I have learned is that the most perfect dye-marker of someone who no longer has those views is that they never leave anyone in doubt about the ways their political beliefs have changed by their unrelenting criticisms of the left. Brennan has never said a word to indicate he has changed his political beliefs and was appointed by Obama! If you think he was ideologically a different man in 2013 than he was in 1976, when he could not even bring himself to vote for Carter for heaven’s sake, you really ought to rethink these things again.

This comment is purely incoherent:

You can’t have it both ways Kates. On one hand you are complaining that a pinko ran the CIA. On the other you defend Trump’s assertions that Putin’s Russia is no worse than the USA! Make up your mind (if that’s at all possible).

These others, however, make a valid point, I suppose, but seem to be merely a preference to do nothing even as a three-alarm fire is raging right before them. Those asking that we investigate further whether the beliefs that John Brennan hold have changed in a more benign direction are, I’m afraid, forms of rhetorical junk. What genuine point do they make unless they have some reason to think that if we spent time and effort looking more closely at Brennan’s current views that there is something else we might find?

Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyist around the same time.

Steve do you agree with what you thought in 1976?

The traffic from left to right is very thin. With no exception I can think of, all of the people I associated with in my student days have not changed their politics in any way other than to follow whatever the modern fashion might be. To remain friends, we just have to stay off certain topics, which is all right since I see them only every year or so at the most. I have a friend from my university days who went on to become Vice-President of a major Canadian insurance company, but when he retired he immediately went back to overtly expressing the political beliefs of his (and my) youth, beginning his instant return to the far left by reading every Chomsky book he could find. No doubt almost every corporate boardroom has imbeciles just like him. There is no country that would not be turned into Venezuela if these people had their way. They are as unable to understand the workings of a free market as they are to understand how hydrogen and oxygen turn into water.

If after eight years you still want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and John Brennan along with him, I cannot think what can be done to make you see how you are playing into the hands of the left assuming you are not actually part of the left already. And to be quite honest, I am anyway unable to distinguish you from these leftist loons, although I am willing to hear in what way I may be wrong.

Guess who was “a supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War”

Posted on by
Reply

Can this possibly be true and not common knowledge? From: This is the open scandal that Congress should investigate:

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”

This is just a throw-away para and is entirely by-the-way in discussing the role of international agencies in trying to subvert Trump’s run for president which is in and of itself an extraordinary scandal. From Wikipedia:

In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way “of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”

And this was the man who headed the CIA from 2013 until January! How does one keep up with all of the skulduggery and deceit? You can read the entire episode here told by Brennan himself from his own perspective. How did this man get top security clearance never mind the job running the CIA?

FWIW I picked this up at Instapundit where none of the comments even so much as glanced at Brennan’s personal history. Does none of this any longer even matter?

Putin and American foreign policy

Posted on by
Reply

Who is the enemy? Damned if I any longer know. This is from Mike Whitney, described as ” a contributor to “Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion“. The title: Putin Forces Obama to Capitulate on Syria:

The Russian-led military coalition is badly beating Washington’s proxies in Syria which is why John Kerry is calling for a “Time Out”.

On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for an emergency summit later in the week so that leaders from Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could discuss ways to avoid the “total destruction” of Syria. According to Kerry, “Everybody, including the Russians and the Iranians, have said there is no military solution, so we need to make an effort to find a political solution. This is a human catastrophe that now threatens the integrity of a whole group of countries around the region,” Kerry added.

Of course, it was never a “catastrophe” when the terrorists were destroying cities and villages across the country, uprooting half the population and transforming the once-unified and secure nation into an anarchic failed state. It only became a catastrophe when Vladimir Putin synchronized the Russian bombing campaign with allied forces on the ground who started wiping out hundreds of US-backed militants and recapturing critical cities across Western corridor. Now that the Russian airforce is pounding the living daylights out of jihadi ammo dumps, weapons depots and rebel strongholds, and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is tightening their grip on Aleppo, and Hezbollah is inflicting heavy casualties on Jabhat al Nusra militants and other Al Qaida-linked vermin; Kerry’s decided it’s a catastrophe. Now that the momentum of the war has shifted in favor of Syrian president Bashar al Assad, Kerry wants a “Time out”.

Keep in mind, that Putin worked tirelessly throughout the summer months to try to bring the warring parties together (including Assad’s political opposition) to see if deal could be worked out to stabilize Syria and fight ISIS. But Washington wanted no part of any Russian-led coalition. Having exhausted all the possibilities for resolving the conflict through a broader consensus, Putin decided to get directly involved by committing the Russian airforce to lead the fight against the Sunni extremists and other anti-government forces that have been tearing the country apart and paving the way for Al Qaida-linked forces to take control of the Capital. Putin’s intervention stopped the emergence of a terrorist Caliphate in Damascus. He turned the tide in the four year-long war, and delivered a body-blow to Washington’s malign strategy. Now he’s going to finish the job.

Putin is not gullible enough to fall for Kerry’s stalling tactic. He’s going to kill or capture as many of the terrorists as possible and he’s not going to let Uncle Sam get in the way.

These terrorists–over 2,000 of who are from Chechnya–pose an existential threat to Russia, as does the US plan to use Islamic extremists to advance their foreign policy objectives. Putin takes the threat seriously. He knows that if Washington’s strategy succeeds in Syria, it will be used in Iran and then again in Russia. That’s why he’s decided to dump tons of money and resources into the project. That’s why his Generals have worked out all the details and come up with a rock-solid strategy for annihilating this clatter of juvenile delinquents and for restoring Syria’s sovereign borders. And that’s why he’s not going to be waved-away by the likes of mealy-mouth John Kerry. Putin is going to see this thing through to the bitter end. He’s not going to stop for anyone or anything. Winning in Syria is a matter of national security, Russia’s national security…..

The entire US political establishment supports the removal of Assad and the breaking up of Syria. Kerry’s sudden appeal for dialogue does not represent a fundamental change in the strategy. It’s merely an attempt to buy some time for US-backed mercenaries who are feeling the full-brunt of the Russia’s bombing campaign. Putin would be well-advised to ignore Kerry’s braying and continue to prosecute his war on terror until the job is done.

That bit in bold. I didn’t know that. Is it true? Is that really what they want? Seems perfect for ISIS to me, but what do I know? But given Obama’s approach to Libya, Egypt and Israel, whatever the “US political establishment” wants, I am inclined to take the other side.

Hunting conservatives down

Posted on by
Reply

With Libertarians having defected to the Obama side of politics, there are only we few conservatives left to stand up for the traditional values of the West. It has been clear for a while that it is only in the development of technology that America is a world leader, and it anyway all gets stolen by its enemies as fast as it gets invented. As for social values, the United States has had nothing to offer the rest of us since the 1990s. What we see is the transformation of the specific Judeo-Christian values that made Western civilisation free, prosperous and ascendant into the enemy. They may only be comics, but their storylines no doubt mirror the values of the people who read them. They will yet make it illegal to deny global warming, and who knows what after that.

AND CONTINUING: This is Judge Nepolitano from Reason Mag in October 2012 – the centre of libertarian thought if such a thing can exist – who could not choose between Obama and Romney. The article is The Failures of Obama and Romney. This is how a libertarian looked at the last presidential election:

President Obama is a failure as a president, and Gov. Romney is a failure as a candidate.

When he took office, Obama told the press that if he couldn’t cure the economic mess he inherited from President George W. Bush in four years, he wouldn’t deserve a second term. I guess he didn’t anticipate making the mess worse.

When he took office, the federal government owed $11 trillion to its creditors; today it owes $16 trillion. When he took office, gasoline was running about $1.85 a gallon and today costs about $3.85 a gallon. This is price inflation that he directly caused by flooding the markets with cash, and that directly harms the middle class and the poor. Unemployment has remained north of 8 percent throughout his presidency for those still looking for a job, and about 16 percent if you count all able-bodied out-of-work adults, half of whom have stopped looking for work on his watch.

He supported radical fanatics in their takeovers of the governments of Libya and Egypt, even going so far as to help them kill Col. Gadhafi, the former Libyan strongman who was once our ally. In the process, they opened jails in Libya, and out came some of the same folks the U.S. government has been fighting against in the Middle East since 2001. Obama pushed from power Hosni Mubarak, the strongman in Cairo, and he was replaced by the head of a criminal organization that Obama’s own State Department has prohibited Americans from engaging with. (Query: If the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, how can the government help a foreign group and at the same time prohibit Americans from doing the same?)

In his lust to build a new world order in the Middle East, a goal for which he roundly criticized President George W. Bush, Obama has unilaterally, unconstitutionally and unlawfully killed Americans there. He killed Osama bin Laden when he could have captured him, and he let a mob kill our ambassador to Libya when he could have protected him — all to justify a value-free foreign policy that has no lasting friends or enemies, just fleeting interests. And he has killed thousands in foreign lands in secret, using drones that will soon find their way here and come back to haunt him.

Perhaps the next month will prove me wrong on Romney, but so far he is putting the electorate to sleep. I believe him when he claims to favor free market approaches to the nation’s economic ills, but I don’t believe him when he rails against big government and central economic planning, because his record belies his words. He is, of course, the father of the individual mandate — a totalitarian giant leap forward for the welfare state. And he has stated that if elected and re-elected, he will borrow money every year he is in office until the last.

When he was interviewed with the president on “60 Minutes” last week, I purposely did not watch or listen to the show. The next morning, I read the transcript of the interview and thought many of Romney’s answers were articulate and rational. Then I watched the same interview on tape and was bored nearly to death. Romney cannot put a fire in people’s bellies. The only reason he gives for voting for him is that he is not Obama — a reason that appeals to just under half the country, but is not enough to seal the deal. He needs to recognize that his audience for victory is not his former neighbors in Boston, but Joe Sixpack in the heartland.

He supports all of Obama’s killings in the Middle East, but claims he wants to control events there with a more muscular foreign policy. He cannot justify that view, along with the fact that it has failed and put us close to bankruptcy, to an electorate weary of wars. He rips into Obama’s borrowing, but overlooks his running mate’s voting record in Congress, which authorized all of it. At first he vowed to repeal Obamacare saying it is unconstitutional, and then he said he wants to keep the parts he likes, even if they are unconstitutional.

Can anyone get excited about Romney? Aside from a capitalistic attitude about the economy — as opposed to the president’s love of central economic planning — does anyone know what views he will embrace on Inauguration Day? Do you know anyone just aching to vote for him, the way conservatives were for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and progressives were for Obama in 2008? I do not know of such a person.

What do we do? The president’s failures are legion and have made all of us the worse for them. Gov. Romney’s failures are obvious and will give us four more years of Obama. Who says the system is not fixed?

If it was not blindingly obvious that Romney was oceans better than Obama their political judgement is empty and warped. Four years later, it would be interesting if they might just perhaps you know maybe think they might just possibly have been wrong.

You can’t tell the players without a program

Posted on by
Reply

syria competing goals

This is the story as I understand it, but really I don’t understand it at all. Russia, it seems, attacked America’s anti-Assad allies in Syria who are themselves enemies of ISIS but are also the remaining forces of al Qaeda! The US can do nothing to defend its allies, not that they should be its allies, but is in any case without any genuine ability to enforce its will. The diagram above from The Wall Street Journal provides a rough guide to the various major parties and what they are seeking out of the conflict. Meanwhile Europe is submerged in new migrants from alien cultures which has changed Europe forever.

The American reaction is all spelled out here: US urges Russians to focus airstrikes on Islamic State. But in the midst of it, there is a sentence that highlights to me, and probably others, the profound lack of seriousness in American foreign policy:

“We are not yet where we need to be to guarantee the safety and security” of those carrying out the airstrikes, Kerry said, “and that is the discussion that is taking place today,” referring to the US-Russia military talks. “And it will take place even more so over the course of the next few days depending on the outcome today.”

“It’s a way of making sure that planes aren’t going to be shooting at each other and making things worse,” the secretary said in an interview late Thursday on CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

Colbert is the replacement for Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. You cannot parody these people and satire is now impossible.

Obama has no idea what rent seeking is so Charles Koch has to tell him

Posted on by
Reply

Here is something Obama will never understand:

It’s not going to help the country to be subsidizing uneconomical forms of energy — whether you call them ‘green,’ ‘renewable’ or whatever. In that case, the cure is worse than the disease. And there is a big debate on whether you have a real disease or something that’s not that serious. I recognize there is a big debate about that. But whatever it is, the cure is to do things in the marketplace, and to let individuals and companies innovate, to come up with alternatives that will deal with whatever the problem may be in an economical way so we don’t squander resources on uneconomic approaches.”

The man speaking was Charles Koch after he had been personally attacked by the President:

Obama said of those who try to thwart policies intended to boost clean energy: “That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent seeking, and trying to protect old ways of doing business and standing in the way of the future.”

Obama continued: “I mean, think about this. Ordinarily, these are groups that tout themselves as champions of the free market. If you start talking to them about providing health care for folks who don’t have health insurance, they’re going crazy: ‘This is socialism, this is going to destroy America.’ But in this situation, they’re trying to undermine competition in the marketplace, and choke off consumer choice, and threaten an industry that’s churning out new jobs at a fast pace.”

To which the reply was:

“I don’t know whether he knows what that phrase means, but ‘rent seeking,’ of course, is, in economic terms, is getting the government to rig the system in your favor. And that’s exactly what these so-called ‘renewable energy’ proponents are doing.”

Actually he does know that Obama doesn’t know. There are, in fact, a lot of things Obama doesn’t know to go along with all the things he does know that aren’t true.

The American leader of the opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Whatever you may think of the crash in the Chinese economy, who are suffering from the after effects of their Keynesian stimulus – ghost cities anyone? – what I really find interesting about these headlines from Drudge is the comment from Donald Trump. The American system lacks a leader of the opposition; now it has one, of sorts. If Trump comments, it’s news. It has nothing to do with Obama and American politics, but that’s because it is hard really to see Trump as opposed to what Obama is doing anywhere outside of immigration, and even then it’s not all that certain.

CHINA MOVES SPOOK STOCKS…
Roils Markets Second Day as Yuan Cut by 1.6%…
EXPORTERS REELING…
RISKS CLASH WITH USA…
DOW ‘DEATH CROSS’…
TRUMP: Currency devaluation will devastate…

No one else is news. How do any of the established Republican candidates get a look in? He is leading the opposition, but just who or what he is opposed to is still to be determined.