What Biographer Garrow Missed in His Obama Takedown
On August 2, two days before Barack Obama’s reported sixty-second birthday, the Jewish journal Tablet published an interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights historian David Garrow.
Asking the questions and providing extensive commentary of his own was the well-traveled journalist David Samuels. Although Garrow is a progressive and Samuels something of a centrist, their evaluation of Obama’s tenure in the White House borders on cruel.
The exchange between the two deserves to be read in full. Rather than summarize that exchange, I will focus on a few key truths, both those they nailed and those that squirmed away. Most intriguing in the latter category are the questions about Obama’s literary talents and about his birth. Garrow’s opinion matters. His 2017 bio, Rising Star. The Making of Barack Obama, is easily the boldest and most accurate of the Obama biographies.
One thing Garrow and Samuels get right is their take on Obama as president. Says Garrow, “I think even the fanboy journalists would acknowledge, under a little bit of pressure, that it ended up being an underwhelming, disappointing presidency.” On the subject of race relations, Garrow does not equivocate: “There’s no question in anybody’s mind, that on that score, that scale, the presidency was a total failure.”
If anything, Samuels was harsher. Once a “fan” of Obama, Samuels slams his legacy: “America’s emerging oligarchy cementing its grip instead of going bust. The rise of monopoly internet platforms. The normalization of government spying on Americans. Race relations going south. Skyrocketing inequality. The rise of Donald Trump. The birth of Russiagate.” Says Samuels, “It all happened with Obama in the White House,” a man he derisively labels, “the Magic Negro of the billionaire industrial complex.”
Both Samuels and Garrow lament as well the demise of American journalism. Writes Samuels in his introduction, “Rising Star highlights a remarkable lack of curiosity on the part of mainstream reporters and institutions about a man who almost instantaneously was treated less like a politician and more like the idol of an inter-elite cult.”
At the same time the media were turning a blind eye to Obama, says Samuels, they spent years “broadcasting fantasies about secret communications links between Trump Tower and the Kremlin.” One symptom of this fantasy was the ready acceptance of the Steele dossier, packaged and sold on Obama’s watch. “From the get-go,” says Garrow, “I realized that Christopher Steele’s shit was just complete crap.”
Obsessed with Trump and still smitten by Obama, the Washington press corps failed, says Samuels, “to imagine, let alone report on, Obama’s role in government.” He believes that Obama is still the man in charge. He points out that Obama’s continued residence in D.C. is an historical first for an ex-president. Then too, “large parts of White House policymaking” belong to Obama in that they’re “staffed by his people, who worked for him and no doubt report back to him.”
More than once, Samuels looks to Garrow for affirmation on this point, but Garrow resists. He knows Obama too well. “The number one thing about Barack this past five years is how completely he’s vanished,” says Garrow. He describes Obama as “lazy” and adds, “He has no interest in building the Democratic Party as an institution… And I don’t think he had any truly deep, meaningful policy commitments other than the need to feel and to be perceived as victorious, as triumphant.”
Here, I tend to agree with Garrow. Obama is not a serious man, never was, more the Hirohito of the imperial left than a Tojo. Garrow calls Obama “hollow.” He paraphrases an intermediary who claimed “Barack once said to him that the only two things he wanted were a valet and an airplane.” Even Samuels cannot dismiss the possibility that Obama might very well be little more than a “celebrity-obsessed would-be billionaire.”
To the surprise of many readers, the two reporters ventured into several journalistic no-go zones, one of which being Obama’s sexual orientation. Garrow speaks candidly about a letter in which the young Obama “repeatedly fantasizes about making love to men.”
As Garrow reports in the paperback version of Rising Star, Obama wrote to girlfriend Alex McNear that he viewed gay sex as “an attempt to remove oneself from the present, a refusal perhaps to perpetuate the endless farce of earthly life.” Obama continued, “You see, I make love to men daily, but in the imagination. My mind is androgynous to a great extent and I hope to make it more so.”
In researching my 2020 book, Unmasking Obama, I reached out to Garrow for an explanation as to why this passage appeared in the paperback but not in the original. As Garrow told me and as he relates in the interview, he was able to access the original only after McNear sold her letters to Emory University.
Obama’s flirtation with homosexuality, perhaps ongoing, should have been big news when Garrow revealed these letters five years ago. Like so many details of Obama’s life, however, the media have obliged Obama by suppressing an inconvenient story line.
When alleged former lover and drug buddy, Larry Sinclair, planned a press conference in 2008, some leftist bloggers launched a petition drive to deny Sinclair a stage at the National Press Club. Others succeeded in getting Sinclair arrested by reporting him to authorities for an outstanding warrant. The mainstream media ignored the story altogether.
In their conversation, Samuels and Garrow dance around another touchy subject, the unreality of Obama’s literary genius. Samuels, for instance, describes Obama’s letters to Alex McNear as “poorly written.” He says of Dreams, however, “The whole book’s really good.”
Arguably, the letters are the best part of Obama’s clunky pre-Dreams oeuvre, such as it was. His one great solo effort, an 1800-word piece on nuclear disarmament as a senior at Columbia, rivals Michelle’s misbegotten Princeton thesis for sheer awfulness.
No paper trail traces Obama’s rise from sophomoric student writer to literary star. In their conversation, neither Samuels nor Garrow addresses its absence. As a way of self-protection, Obama guards his journals as zealously as he has his LSAT scores. “He doesn’t want the writerliness challenged,” Garrows tells Samuels. “It’s my story and I’m sticking to it. The book is so fictionalized. It’s so inaccurate.”
On the right, this comes as old news. In an October 2008 American Thinker article, “Who Wrote Dreams from My Father,” I made the same point -- Dreams was in no small part fabricated. In this same American Thinker article, I introduced another likelihood, namely that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers played a major role in the crafting of Dreams.
Ayers was a fabricator as well. He called his 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, a “memory book,” one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama learned from his mentor.
In writing my own recently published memoir, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, I felt no need to invent incidents, create composite characters, or shift timelines to make my point. That’s not postmodernism. That’s fraud. So is plagiarism. In his chapter on Kenya, Obama freely pilfered words, phrases, and even events from Kuki Gallman’s 1994 memoir, African Nights. Garrow does not get into this, either in the conversation with Samuels or in his book.
By October 2008, the textual evidence for Ayers’s involvement in Dreams was strong. By the time of my 2011 book, Deconstructing Obama, it was overwhelming. In the interim, the apolitical mainstream biographer Christopher Andersen confirmed Ayers’s role in his Obama-friendly 2009 book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage.
Andersen’s sources in Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood told him that Obama, with book deadline looming, found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” he “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with family and friends, Andersen elaborates, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.”
In Rising Star, Garrow put a lie to Obama’s famous 2008 campaign canard that Ayers was just another guy in the neighborhood. According to Garrow, Barack and Michelle attended “almost nightly dinners” with Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, along with PLO supporter Rashidi Khalidi and his wife Mona. These dinners continued up until the time Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Garrow, however, has blinded himself to Ayers’s role in the composition of Dreams. Ayers is a skilled writer and editor. In his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi gave credit where due. "First, chronologically and in other ways comes Bill Ayers,” he wrote in the acknowledgements section. As a radical with tenure, Khalidi could afford to give Ayers the public strokes an aspiring politician could not.
For all his virtues Garrow shares a flaw common to nearly all mainstream journalists, namely the failure to take seriously information generated by the conservative media. In Rising Star, Garrow fails to cite my Ayers-Obama thesis, even to discredit it. Christopher Andersen gets no mention in the text at all. He and I are relegated to the footnotes. Mine involves a poem that Obama wrote in college called “Pop.” Garrow writes, “Most commentators presumed that Obama had written about his grandfather, Stan Dunham, not Frank Marshall Davis.”
Among the friendly commentators was New Yorker editor David Remnick. In his 2010 Obama biography, The Bridge, Remnick claims the poem “clearly reflects Obama’s relationship with his grandfather Stanley Dunham.” No, the poem is not about “Gramps.” It clearly reflects the young Obama’s inappropriate relationship with “mentor,” Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the CPUSA, a pornographer, and a man Obama and his pals called “Pop.”
Garrow implies the poem is about Davis, but he attributes that interpretation to unnamed “hostile critics.” In the footnotes, he identifies those critics as Paul Kengor, a Davis biographer and now the editor of the American Spectator, and yours truly, adding parenthetically, “someone who is cited with the greatest reluctance.” Ouch!
Remnick was meaner still. In The Bridge, he dismisses my theory about Ayers as “a mere twinkling in the Web’s farthest lunatic orbit,” calling it a “racist insinuation,” one with a “particularly ugly pedigree.” The Obama fanboys never weary of attributing racism to his critics. It remains the best way to silence high profile conservatives with careers to protect.
Remnick, I should add, made a complete botch of Obama’s first few years. In a book self-published before the 2008 election, conservative journalist Michael Patrick Leahy successfully deconstructed the sham romance that propped up, in Remnick’s words, Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
These details were manufactured by Obama and his family and spread mindlessly by the likes of Remnick. Not until Garrow confirmed baby Obama’s fatherless first year in Seattle did anyone in the mainstream media get the story straight.
Not surprisingly, the touchiest of all subjects with Obama was the Kenyan Barack Obama. The attorney assigned to help protect Obama’s literary legacy, Bob Bauer, told Garrow before the first of his three off-the-record interviews with the president, “Whatever you do, don’t ask him about his father.”
Bauer, a top gun from the Democrats’ go-to law firm, Perkins Coie, led the legal fight during the 2008 campaign against Democrat attorney Philip Berg. Berg had petitioned to see Obama’s birth certificate. With that suit successfully quashed, Bauer was appointed White House counsel.
“I never paid much attention to birtherism for a large chunk of time, but I know I thought that they were making a mistake by not putting the actual birth certificate out there,” says Garrow unprompted. “And I think, in retrospect, there’s no question that it was horrific political malpractice not to put the birth certificate out there ASAP.”
“Why didn’t they?” Samuels asks. Responds Garrow unconvincingly, “Because Barack was so deeply contemptuous.” Samuels offers an even less convincing explanation as to why Obama might have invested so much time and resources in so gratuitous an act of resistance. If Garrow asked Bauer for clarity, his answer does not appear in this admittedly edited interview. Bauer was in a position to know.
“Finally I decided I’d had enough,” Obama writes of Donald Trump’s challenge in his 2020 memoir, A Promised Land. “I called in White House counsel Bob Bauer and told him to go ahead and obtain the long-form birth certificate from its home in a bound volume, somewhere deep in the bowels of the Hawaii Vital Records office.” Bauer dispatched Obama’s personal attorney Judith Corley, also of Perkins Coie, to secure two copies of the long form birth certificate.
Obama went live on national TV in late April 2011 to address the birth certificate issue. The timing was strategic. Planning was well underway for the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout. Less than a week after the announcement, Osama bin Laden was killed, and the “birther” controversy was deep-sixed along with him.
It should be noted that the same law firm that retrieved the birth certificate commissioned the “crap” Steele dossier. For the record, Trump never said Obama was born in Kenya. He merely said Obama was hiding something. I believe he was, not the state of his birth, but the date of his birth, and that’s a story for another day.
Jack Cashill’s new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, is available in all formats.
Image: HarperCollins
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROScorruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS (WANTS TO BE OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
The Obama Factor
“He’s not normal—as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.”
[Make sure to order Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
“He’s not normal—as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.”
That was David Garrow, author of the 1460-page Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, in a recent rambling interview with Tablet’s David Samuels headlined, “The Obama Factor.” Barack Obama is the author of Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, published in 1995. On page 537 of Rising Star, David Garrow writes:
“Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction. It featured many true-to-life figures and a bevy of accurately described events that indeed had occurred, but it employed the techniques and literary license of a novel, and its most important composite character was the narrator himself.” (emphasis original)
“He wants people to believe his story,” said Garrow, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Bearing the Cross. “For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction—oh God, did that infuriate him.” Samuels, who writes for Harpers, the Atlantic and New York Times Magazine, countered that “the pose of being a writer is actually one that he prefers in many ways to being a politician.”
“Oh God, yes. Yes, yes, yes,” said Garrow. “He doesn’t want the writerliness challenged. It’s my story and I’m sticking to it. The book [Dreams] is so fictionalized.” And it “completely omits women. I’ve always thought that there’d eventually be a feminist critique of Obama because his mother and all the girlfriends—they’re not there. They don’t exist.”
As Garrow reveals, the Dreams author wrote to Alex McNear, his girlfriend at Occidental College, “about how he repeatedly fantasizes about making love to men.” But there’s more to the man who is “not normal,” such as the question of his provenance.
Garrow’s go-between with president Obama was lawyer Bob Bauer. “Whatever you do,” Bauer counseled Garrow. “Don’t ask him about his father.” In the Dreams novel, the father is the Kenyan Barack Obama, a student at the University of Hawaii. The Kenyan “bequeaths his name” to the American and by the end of the novel he becomes a nameless “old man.”
The Kenyan’s written communications from 1958-1964, housed at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in New York, make not a single mention of an American wife and son. Perhaps that is why the president formerly known as Barry Soetoro never accessed the archive, also missing from Garrow’s Rising Star.
In Dreams, the author devotes more than 2,000 words to a happy-drunk black poet known only as “Frank.” In Rising Star, Garrow identifies “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist pornographer. On the other hand, Garrow ignores Paul Kengor’s 2012, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis – The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, which showed the “remarkable similarities” between the politics of the Dreams author and Davis.
The Communist bears a strong physical resemblance to the author but the rising star would “forcefully reject the Davis hypothesis,” Garrow wrote, and “Davis’ Communist background plus his kinky exploits made him politically radioactive.” That is why Barry needed the “historical fiction” of Dreams from My Father, the story about the Kenyan foreign student.
In Dreams, the author visits Kenya and the account bears remarkable similarities to I Dreamed of Africa, published in 1991, and the 1994 African Nights. Both books are the work of Italian writer Kuki Gallmann, a longtime resident of Kenya.
In African Nights, Gallmann and company “camped in the area of Narok, one of the main centers of the proud Maasai tribe.” In Dreams from My Father, the American travels to Narok, “a small trading town where we stopped for gas and lunch.”
In I Dreamed of Africa and African Nights, the reader finds “the ink-black of Arap Langat” and “the ink-black darkness” where fish are approaching. Under a slate sky lies the “ink-black turmoil of the ocean.” Dreams of My Father speaks of “ink-black stairwells” and “tall ink-black Luos and short brown Kikuyus.” In Kenya, men “dive into inky-black waters.” And so forth, with many other passages too similar to be accidental.
If Garrow picked up on the plagiarism, nothing emerges in Rising Star. In 2008, David Samuels re-read Dreams from My Father and came upon the passage where Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro, takes Barry into the back yard and teaches him to fight.
“Wait a minute, I know this scene,” Samuels said. “And then I want back and found the battle royal scene in The Invisible Man.
“Each of us was issued a pair of boxing gloves and ushered out into the big mirrored hall,” Ralph Ellison wrote. “A glove smacked against my head. . . Blows pounded me from all sides while I struck out as best I could.”
In Dreams, Barry has a tussle with a boy down the road. The next day, Lolo “had two pairs of boxing gloves,” and they lace them up. “Keep your hands up,” Lolo tells Barry. “You want to keep moving but always stay low. Don’t give them a target.” And so on.
In Rising Star, Garrow writes that Barry was often seen with a copy of The Invisible Man, and after Samuels pointed out the Ellison passage, Garrow said, “Right, Right, Right.”
Samuels also probed Garrow on what the composite character had done in office. For example, “The Iran deal bothered you?”
“I do find the Iran deal offensive and puzzling,” Garrow said. “I mean, it’s an explicitly antisemitic state. I also found the Cuba thing deeply puzzling and offensive. It’s a fucking dictatorship that imprisons all sorts of truly progressive, creative people.” Many of the Cuban prisoners are black but the former Barry Soetoro is basically uncritical of the Communist regime. But then, the composite character is not a normal politician or human being.
“For Barack, everything has to be a success,” Garrow said. “Everything has to be a victory.” And on his own terms, Obama may be the most successful president ever. He transformed the nation into a place where the outgoing president picks his successor and deploys the FBI and DOJ to help Hillary Clinton and harm candidate and President Donald Trump.
“From the first time I saw it,” Garrow said, “I realized that Christopher Steele’s shit was just complete crap. It was bad corporate intelligence, even. It was nonsensical.” And Garrow had “always thought that the whole Obamacare thing was, in large part, a fraud.”
Obamacare sought to transform the nation into a place where you get only the care the government wants you to have, as in a totalitarian state. The composite character also showed a fondness for any state opposed to the USA, and disrespect for America’s friends.
In one of his first actions, Obama canceled missile defense for U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic, and Garrow laments his “failure to object to Russia taking Crimea and the Donbas.”
Now, as Samuels notes, Obama is “fixated on Iran after the Iran deal failed.” The easy explanation is that “Joe Biden is not running that part of his administration. Obama is. He doesn’t even have to pick up the phone because all of his people are already inside the White House.” True to form, as Fred Fleitz explains, Biden is planning to evade Congress with a “secret nuclear deal with Iran.”
With that kind of ongoing clout, no surprise that Obama buys mansions and hangs out with celebrities. Remember, according to David Garrow, he’s not a normal politician or normal human being. The former Barry Soetoro is a “composite character,” and Dreams from My Father is a novel, swaths of it plagiarized. David Samuels finds this deception profoundly troubling.
“There was something about this fictional character that he created actually becoming president that helped precipitate the disaster that we are living through now.” That’s the Obama factor, and there’s more to it.
“So how do you talk all this foundation-land, community-organizer shit and then preside over the transformation of the country into a Gilded Age oligarchy?” wonders Samuels. “Maybe I just answered my own question: Obama is the Magic Negro of the billionaire industrial complex. And targeting Jews as outsiders and pushing them outside the circle was the way that the Gilded Age oligarchy consolidated itself in America, back then and also now.”
Reader Interactions
BARACK OBAMA IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LAP BITCH FOR BANKSTERS AND GEORGE SOROS. HE WAS A FIGUREHEAD WHO RAKED IT IN.
What makes the book newsworthy today is that David Samuels has interviewed Garrow and revisited narratives in the book, reminding everyone of the scary, power-obsessed nastiness behind Obama’s carefully built façade.
A revealing interview reminds us what a bizarre, fake person Obama was and is
In 2017, David Garrow’s carefully researched Obama biography, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, appeared to much less fanfare than it deserved. The media undoubtedly downplayed it because it offered the truth behind many of Obama’s self-adulatory inventions, and Trump’s new presidency occupied everyone’s energy. What makes the book newsworthy today is that David Samuels has interviewed Garrow and revisited narratives in the book, reminding everyone of the scary, power-obsessed nastiness behind Obama’s carefully built façade.
The interview on Tablet is long and worth every second it takes you to read it. However, I’ve summarized below some of the highlights.
In Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his breakup with Sheila Miyoshi Jager, now a scholar known for her meticulous, honest research. According to Obama, they broke up because after seeing a play by August Wilson, a black writer, Obama suddenly gained a black consciousness that Jager refused to recognize or understand.
However, Garrow, unlike other journalists in America, interviewed Jager for her side of the story. It was quite different.
Image: Barack Obama. YouTube screen grab (cropped).
Jager said that they broke up because they went to see an exhibit about Adolf Eichman’s 1961 trial at the same time that Steve Cokely accused Chicago’s Jewish doctors of giving black babies AIDS. Jager, whose grandparents were honored as Righteous Gentiles for saving Jews during WWII, broke up with Obama because he refused to denounce anti-Semitism. Considering Obama’s open hostility to Israel and later palling around with famous anti-Semites (e.g., Rev. Wright; Obama’s infamous and still hidden tape at a pro-PLO dinner, and Obama’s photo with Farrakhan), her version rings true.
Another revelation was that Obama fantasized about sex with men, which would seem to support the many rumors about his sexuality.
When Garrow interviewed Obama over the course of 8 hours, he impressed Garrow with his focus on the “hilariously inconsequential,” such as insisting that he spoke fluent Indonesian in third grade.
When Garrow spoke with Bob Bauer, Obama’s lawyer, to ensure that he was correctly stating things Obama had told him, Bauer told Garrow something very unusual considering the book that launched Obama’s career:
My clearest memory, and there’s nothing officially off the record with Bob, so I think I can say this, and boy, it’s the clearest thing I remember of all my conversations with Bob. … This is close to a quote: “Whatever you do, don’t ask him about his father.”
Samuels noted how odd this was from the author of Dreams from My Father, eliciting from Garrow this stunning statement about a man he’d spoken with personally and whose life he explored in detail: “He’s not normal—as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.”
The interview expands on the letters Alex McNear, Obama’s girlfriend in college, received from Obama. As noted above, it was in those letters that Obama fantasized about sex with men. The passage in the interview about those letters is striking because they reveal that Obama was a narcissist, someone who used people but never connected with them. (The bolded passage is Samuel’s question):
Barack’s love letters to Alex, if they are actually love letters, are hard to read. Not just because they’re so poorly written, but because of the clear lack of any human interest in the person he’s writing to. The letters are completely performative. She may as well have been a tree or some kind of theater backdrop. Maybe all young men are guilty of this fault, but these examples seem pretty egregious.
It’s pretty clear to me, and this is me putting little pieces together with Alex and with Sheila, but I’m 97 percent convinced that Barack either drafted all those letters in his journal and then made them into letters, or he wrote the letters and then copied them into the journal.
According to Garrow, Obama has always kept journals that he will deep six forever. Why? Because “[h]e wants people to believe his story. For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction—oh God, did that infuriate him.”
There’s so much more, and every bit of it is worth reading because it reveals who Obama is and what the mainstream media assiduously ignored and, therefore, hid from the American public. All this still matters, by the way. There’s good reason to believe that Obama, who refused to leave D.C. after his presidency ended (a norm-busting decision that Samuels describes in detail), is calling the shots in the ostensible Biden presidency.
Additionally, as increasing numbers of people fear, there’s a good possibility that, when Biden is pushed out of the campaign, Michelle Obama will be substituted as the Democrat candidate—and she is still considered one of the most popular people in America, especially among two passionate voting demographics; namely, black and white women.
In 2017, David Garrow’s carefully researched Obama biography, Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, appeared to much less fanfare than it deserved. The media undoubtedly downplayed it because it offered the truth behind many of Obama’s self-adulatory inventions, and Trump’s new presidency occupied everyone’s energy. What makes the book newsworthy today is that David Samuels has interviewed Garrow and revisited narratives in the book, reminding everyone of the scary, power-obsessed nastiness behind Obama’s carefully built façade.
The interview on Tablet is long and worth every second it takes you to read it. However, I’ve summarized below some of the highlights.
In Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his breakup with Sheila Miyoshi Jager, now a scholar known for her meticulous, honest research. According to Obama, they broke up because after seeing a play by August Wilson, a black writer, Obama suddenly gained a black consciousness that Jager refused to recognize or understand.
However, Garrow, unlike other journalists in America, interviewed Jager for her side of the story. It was quite different.
Image: Barack Obama. YouTube screen grab (cropped).
Jager said that they broke up because they went to see an exhibit about Adolf Eichman’s 1961 trial at the same time that Steve Cokely accused Chicago’s Jewish doctors of giving black babies AIDS. Jager, whose grandparents were honored as Righteous Gentiles for saving Jews during WWII, broke up with Obama because he refused to denounce anti-Semitism. Considering Obama’s open hostility to Israel and later palling around with famous anti-Semites (e.g., Rev. Wright; Obama’s infamous and still hidden tape at a pro-PLO dinner, and Obama’s photo with Farrakhan), her version rings true.
Another revelation was that Obama fantasized about sex with men, which would seem to support the many rumors about his sexuality.
When Garrow interviewed Obama over the course of 8 hours, he impressed Garrow with his focus on the “hilariously inconsequential,” such as insisting that he spoke fluent Indonesian in third grade.
When Garrow spoke with Bob Bauer, Obama’s lawyer, to ensure that he was correctly stating things Obama had told him, Bauer told Garrow something very unusual considering the book that launched Obama’s career:
My clearest memory, and there’s nothing officially off the record with Bob, so I think I can say this, and boy, it’s the clearest thing I remember of all my conversations with Bob. … This is close to a quote: “Whatever you do, don’t ask him about his father.”
Samuels noted how odd this was from the author of Dreams from My Father, eliciting from Garrow this stunning statement about a man he’d spoken with personally and whose life he explored in detail: “He’s not normal—as in not a normal politician or a normal human being.”
The interview expands on the letters Alex McNear, Obama’s girlfriend in college, received from Obama. As noted above, it was in those letters that Obama fantasized about sex with men. The passage in the interview about those letters is striking because they reveal that Obama was a narcissist, someone who used people but never connected with them. (The bolded passage is Samuel’s question):
Barack’s love letters to Alex, if they are actually love letters, are hard to read. Not just because they’re so poorly written, but because of the clear lack of any human interest in the person he’s writing to. The letters are completely performative. She may as well have been a tree or some kind of theater backdrop. Maybe all young men are guilty of this fault, but these examples seem pretty egregious.
It’s pretty clear to me, and this is me putting little pieces together with Alex and with Sheila, but I’m 97 percent convinced that Barack either drafted all those letters in his journal and then made them into letters, or he wrote the letters and then copied them into the journal.
According to Garrow, Obama has always kept journals that he will deep six forever. Why? Because “[h]e wants people to believe his story. For me to conclude that Dreams from My Father was historical fiction—oh God, did that infuriate him.”
There’s so much more, and every bit of it is worth reading because it reveals who Obama is and what the mainstream media assiduously ignored and, therefore, hid from the American public. All this still matters, by the way. There’s good reason to believe that Obama, who refused to leave D.C. after his presidency ended (a norm-busting decision that Samuels describes in detail), is calling the shots in the ostensible Biden presidency.
Additionally, as increasing numbers of people fear, there’s a good possibility that, when Biden is pushed out of the campaign, Michelle Obama will be substituted as the Democrat candidate—and she is still considered one of the most popular people in America, especially among two passionate voting demographics; namely, black and white women.
Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is widely available. See also www.cashill.com.
Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency Hardcover
by Jack Cashill (Author)
Jack Cashill’s Unmasking Obama By Thomas Lifson
To my surprise, Jack Cashill's new book, Unmasking Obama, couldn't be more relevant to the political struggle facing us today. In 2020, as in 2008 (and throughout the two Obama presidential terms), the key to political power is what must be called "information warfare" (my term, not Jack's) between the mighty establishment media and the feisty conservative alternative media, which Jack likens to the samizdat underground commentary in the old Soviet Union. It is the process of the unmasking of the phony propaganda peddled by the all-powerful establishment by the resource- and prestige-poor "Lilliputians" (an appropriation of Jonathan Swift's work that the satirist surely would approve of) that is the heart of the book. The narrative history presented in Unmasking Obama is captivating. Jack takes readers along with him as he was both a participant in the warfare and a historian of it, digging up parts of the elusive truth about the real Barack Obama in the face of derision and obstruction that came his way. But Jack is far from the sole hero of the story of the warfare. Because of his literary detective work, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill Ayers wrote the autobiographical book, Dreams from My Father, that first established Obama as a serious intellect, Jack enjoyed access to many of the most formidable truth-tellers about Obama. The book's prologue, in fact, begins with a phone call Jack received in 2011 from a then little-known lawyer named Michael Cohen, acting as a lawyer for Donald Trump. Unmasking Obama takes the reader through the major aspects of the fraudulent picture of Obama that was painted by the media and political establishments and details how the truth was uncovered and often partially suppressed by the retaliatory efforts launched in response. It often resembles detective fiction in the drama of the struggle to get at the truth and the struggle to prevent that. I hesitate to call it beach reading, for it is not in any sense fluff, intended to while away time. But it is vastly entertaining and thought-provoking, and the 218 pages fly by rapidly. Today, exactly the same struggle is underway between the Lilliputians seeking to uncover who really is running the front-man candidacy of Joe Biden and the shadowy movement that is looting and destroying our cities and the coordinated might of the mass media that spends 95% of its time pushing a party line that Trump is an unprecedented threat to human civilization and Joe Biden an amiable and pragmatic centrist. Future historians, if there are any left still interested and able to dispassionately understand how America came to the current point of crisis, will find the story told in Unmasking Obama a very helpful guide. If journalism is the "first draft of history," Unmasking Obama is a well considered second draft, adding crucial perspective and assessment of the consequences of the real-time reports. You don't have to wait that long, though. It went on sale last week, and is well worth your time.
BAN LAWYERS, LIKE FELONS, FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE. THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CLASS MORE CONTEMPTUOUS OF LAWS THAN THESE PARASITIC LAWYERS WHO GAME IT TO PUT IT INTO THEIR BOTTOMLESS POCKETS!
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump.
JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST CORRUPT LIST
President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. JUDICIAL WATCH
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
During his presidency, Obama bragged that his administration was “the only thing between [Wall Street] and the pitchforks.”
In fact, Obama handed the robber barons and outright criminals responsible for the 2008–09 financial crisis a multi-trillion-dollar bailout. His administration oversaw the largest redistribution of wealth in history from the bottom to the top one percent, spearheading the attack on the living standards of teachers and autoworkers.
The Republican staff of the US House Committee on Financial Services released a report Monday presenting its findings on why the Obama Justice Department and then-Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to prosecute the British-based HSBC bank for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.
“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”
“Judicial Watch’s records request is designed to expose how California state legislators are wasting tax dollars to take care of another corrupt politician – Eric Holder – under the guise of resisting the rule of law on immigration and other matters,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “His record at the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons.”
Elizabeth Warren says she wants to get rid of corruption, but not once have I heard her complain about the massive corruption during the Obama years or at her precious CFPB, so she really doesn't care. JACK HELLNER
And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. RYAN COOPER
A new book savagely attacks Obama from the left
Something has changed lately on the left. Democrats should be riding high now because they control the federal government: they've got the White House; the House; the Senate (sort of, with the filibuster the fragile thread keeping them from total control); and a Supreme Court that, while ostensibly conservative, has a closet leftist chief justice and two remarkably cowed new "conservative" justices. Nevertheless, they are an angry, fractious party. Last week, the knives came out for Kamala Harris. This coming week, a new book launches a scathing attack on that former secular saint, Barack Obama.
Since 2008, Barack Obama has been the Democrat party. He was the president who could do no wrong. Every political attack against him was discounted as "racism." He was more charming, more intelligent, more emotionally attuned, more effective, and more just everything good than any man who had ever occupied the White House, including Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln combined. (All of them were racists.)
When Trump came along, the Democrats and their media shills weren't merely offended by his politics. In many ways, the gravest offense was that this loud, combative, conservative-governing orange man dared to step into a White House made hallowed by the presence of a man once hailed as a "magic negro" or another crucified Jesus.
Both Biden and Kamala got reverential treatment, but it was nothing like Obama. Biden was grandfatherly, experienced, kind, and stable, and he'd learned his White House politics under Obama's aegis. Kamala was brilliant, multi-racial and multi-cultural, female, and compassionate. Kamala was sold especially hard because everyone understood that Biden, no matter what he said, wasn't in it for the long haul. She was obviously going to be the real president, even before Biden inevitably withdrew and she got sworn in.
But as noted, something's been happening with the Democrats. They should be a jubilant party joyously imposing Marxism on the land, but, instead, they're angry, and they're starting to turn on each other. Just last week, Edward-Isaac Dovere, a longstanding author at The Atlantic, published a nasty attack on Kamala, although one phrased in polite terms.
Through anecdotes and quotes, Dovere reveals that Kamala is anti-social, socially awkward, bland, ineffective, unfocused, platitudinous, uninteresting, hostile to reporters, paranoid (she has an enemies list), and unable to hold onto her employees. None of this surprises me. My decades living and working in the Bay Area meant I'd heard rumors for years saying everything that Kamala offered politically came through her relationship with Willie Brown, a brilliant California politician. Without Brown, she's nothing.
For The Atlantic, one of the most politically loyal outlets in America, to publish such this attack on someone who should be a Democrat darling was surprising. More surprises arrived on Friday when the Daily Mail revealed that Edward-Isaac Dovere is back, this time with a new book describing Obama as a "parasite" sucking the Democrat party dry and leaving it with nothing. Although the book is ostensibly about the 2020 campaign, it's Obama who springs into focus:
Barack Obama was a 'parasite' on the Democrat party who sucked it dry for his reelection and left it saddled with debt, a new book claims.
The former President used the party structure as a 'host' for his 2012 campaign for a second term then treated it like a 'husk' to be discarded with $2.4million in debt.
Obama's aloof demeanor and professorial detachment masked the reality that he was full of 'self-assured self-regard.'
He oversaw the 'pilfering of talent, money, resources, and purpose' away from the Democratic National Committee to his own reelection team.
[snip]
In a scathing portrait, Dovere, a journalist with The Atlantic, claims that Obama was so arrogant he believed that if he could have run in 2016 for a third term he could have beaten Trump.
Obama's ego was on full display on the golf course and he bragged that his Tweet sent after the Charlottesville far right rally in 2017 was liked more than anything Tweeted by Donald Trump.
[snip]
He writes that Obama's hubris peaked in 2015 when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, his signature healthcare law, and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages.
[snip]
In actual fact, despite his 'beatification among Democrats', Obama 'inadvertently helped usher in what followed him', meaning Trump.
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the damage he did to the Democrat brand is yet more evidence that America supported Trump, not Biden, in 2020.
The book is Battle for the Soul: Inside the Democrats' Campaigns to Defeat Trump, and it may end forever the Democrats' Obama worship.
Image: Arrogant Obama. YouTube screen grab.
The moral decay of the US comes in part from the media
By Jack Hellner
When President Obama was elected, he pledged
to remake America. It is a shame he did so
much damage to the fabric of America in eight
short years.
The Obama/Biden was the most corrupt, criminal
administration any of us has ever seen, yet the
media cheered or covered up all the abuse of
power, obstruction of Justice and other crimes.
by Jack Cashill (Author)
Jack Cashill’s Unmasking Obama By Thomas Lifson
To my surprise, Jack Cashill's new book, Unmasking Obama, couldn't be more relevant to the political struggle facing us today. In 2020, as in 2008 (and throughout the two Obama presidential terms), the key to political power is what must be called "information warfare" (my term, not Jack's) between the mighty establishment media and the feisty conservative alternative media, which Jack likens to the samizdat underground commentary in the old Soviet Union. It is the process of the unmasking of the phony propaganda peddled by the all-powerful establishment by the resource- and prestige-poor "Lilliputians" (an appropriation of Jonathan Swift's work that the satirist surely would approve of) that is the heart of the book. The narrative history presented in Unmasking Obama is captivating. Jack takes readers along with him as he was both a participant in the warfare and a historian of it, digging up parts of the elusive truth about the real Barack Obama in the face of derision and obstruction that came his way. But Jack is far from the sole hero of the story of the warfare. Because of his literary detective work, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Bill Ayers wrote the autobiographical book, Dreams from My Father, that first established Obama as a serious intellect, Jack enjoyed access to many of the most formidable truth-tellers about Obama. The book's prologue, in fact, begins with a phone call Jack received in 2011 from a then little-known lawyer named Michael Cohen, acting as a lawyer for Donald Trump. Unmasking Obama takes the reader through the major aspects of the fraudulent picture of Obama that was painted by the media and political establishments and details how the truth was uncovered and often partially suppressed by the retaliatory efforts launched in response. It often resembles detective fiction in the drama of the struggle to get at the truth and the struggle to prevent that. I hesitate to call it beach reading, for it is not in any sense fluff, intended to while away time. But it is vastly entertaining and thought-provoking, and the 218 pages fly by rapidly. Today, exactly the same struggle is underway between the Lilliputians seeking to uncover who really is running the front-man candidacy of Joe Biden and the shadowy movement that is looting and destroying our cities and the coordinated might of the mass media that spends 95% of its time pushing a party line that Trump is an unprecedented threat to human civilization and Joe Biden an amiable and pragmatic centrist. Future historians, if there are any left still interested and able to dispassionately understand how America came to the current point of crisis, will find the story told in Unmasking Obama a very helpful guide. If journalism is the "first draft of history," Unmasking Obama is a well considered second draft, adding crucial perspective and assessment of the consequences of the real-time reports. You don't have to wait that long, though. It went on sale last week, and is well worth your time.
BAN LAWYERS, LIKE FELONS, FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE. THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CLASS MORE CONTEMPTUOUS OF LAWS THAN THESE PARASITIC LAWYERS WHO GAME IT TO PUT IT INTO THEIR BOTTOMLESS POCKETS!
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump.
JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST CORRUPT LIST
President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. JUDICIAL WATCH
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
During his presidency, Obama bragged that his administration was “the only thing between [Wall Street] and the pitchforks.”
In fact, Obama handed the robber barons and outright criminals responsible for the 2008–09 financial crisis a multi-trillion-dollar bailout. His administration oversaw the largest redistribution of wealth in history from the bottom to the top one percent, spearheading the attack on the living standards of teachers and autoworkers.
The Republican staff of the US House Committee on Financial Services released a report Monday presenting its findings on why the Obama Justice Department and then-Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to prosecute the British-based HSBC bank for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.
“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”
“Judicial Watch’s records request is designed to expose how California state legislators are wasting tax dollars to take care of another corrupt politician – Eric Holder – under the guise of resisting the rule of law on immigration and other matters,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “His record at the Clinton and Obama Justice Departments demonstrates a willingness to bend the law in order to protect his political patrons.”
Elizabeth Warren says she wants to get rid of corruption, but not once have I heard her complain about the massive corruption during the Obama years or at her precious CFPB, so she really doesn't care. JACK HELLNER
And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. RYAN COOPER
A new book savagely attacks Obama from the left
Something has changed lately on the left. Democrats should be riding high now because they control the federal government: they've got the White House; the House; the Senate (sort of, with the filibuster the fragile thread keeping them from total control); and a Supreme Court that, while ostensibly conservative, has a closet leftist chief justice and two remarkably cowed new "conservative" justices. Nevertheless, they are an angry, fractious party. Last week, the knives came out for Kamala Harris. This coming week, a new book launches a scathing attack on that former secular saint, Barack Obama.
Since 2008, Barack Obama has been the Democrat party. He was the president who could do no wrong. Every political attack against him was discounted as "racism." He was more charming, more intelligent, more emotionally attuned, more effective, and more just everything good than any man who had ever occupied the White House, including Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln combined. (All of them were racists.)
When Trump came along, the Democrats and their media shills weren't merely offended by his politics. In many ways, the gravest offense was that this loud, combative, conservative-governing orange man dared to step into a White House made hallowed by the presence of a man once hailed as a "magic negro" or another crucified Jesus.
Both Biden and Kamala got reverential treatment, but it was nothing like Obama. Biden was grandfatherly, experienced, kind, and stable, and he'd learned his White House politics under Obama's aegis. Kamala was brilliant, multi-racial and multi-cultural, female, and compassionate. Kamala was sold especially hard because everyone understood that Biden, no matter what he said, wasn't in it for the long haul. She was obviously going to be the real president, even before Biden inevitably withdrew and she got sworn in.
But as noted, something's been happening with the Democrats. They should be a jubilant party joyously imposing Marxism on the land, but, instead, they're angry, and they're starting to turn on each other. Just last week, Edward-Isaac Dovere, a longstanding author at The Atlantic, published a nasty attack on Kamala, although one phrased in polite terms.
Through anecdotes and quotes, Dovere reveals that Kamala is anti-social, socially awkward, bland, ineffective, unfocused, platitudinous, uninteresting, hostile to reporters, paranoid (she has an enemies list), and unable to hold onto her employees. None of this surprises me. My decades living and working in the Bay Area meant I'd heard rumors for years saying everything that Kamala offered politically came through her relationship with Willie Brown, a brilliant California politician. Without Brown, she's nothing.
For The Atlantic, one of the most politically loyal outlets in America, to publish such this attack on someone who should be a Democrat darling was surprising. More surprises arrived on Friday when the Daily Mail revealed that Edward-Isaac Dovere is back, this time with a new book describing Obama as a "parasite" sucking the Democrat party dry and leaving it with nothing. Although the book is ostensibly about the 2020 campaign, it's Obama who springs into focus:
Barack Obama was a 'parasite' on the Democrat party who sucked it dry for his reelection and left it saddled with debt, a new book claims.
The former President used the party structure as a 'host' for his 2012 campaign for a second term then treated it like a 'husk' to be discarded with $2.4million in debt.
Obama's aloof demeanor and professorial detachment masked the reality that he was full of 'self-assured self-regard.'
He oversaw the 'pilfering of talent, money, resources, and purpose' away from the Democratic National Committee to his own reelection team.
[snip]
In a scathing portrait, Dovere, a journalist with The Atlantic, claims that Obama was so arrogant he believed that if he could have run in 2016 for a third term he could have beaten Trump.
Obama's ego was on full display on the golf course and he bragged that his Tweet sent after the Charlottesville far right rally in 2017 was liked more than anything Tweeted by Donald Trump.
[snip]
He writes that Obama's hubris peaked in 2015 when the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, his signature healthcare law, and ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages.
[snip]
In actual fact, despite his 'beatification among Democrats', Obama 'inadvertently helped usher in what followed him', meaning Trump.
There is much more in the Daily Mail article about Obama's destructive arrogance, sense of entitlement, greed, and ego, as well as his obscene rants about Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the damage he did to the Democrat brand is yet more evidence that America supported Trump, not Biden, in 2020.
The book is Battle for the Soul: Inside the Democrats' Campaigns to Defeat Trump, and it may end forever the Democrats' Obama worship.
Image: Arrogant Obama. YouTube screen grab.
The moral decay of the US comes in part from the media
By Jack Hellner
When President Obama was elected, he pledged
to remake America. It is a shame he did so
much damage to the fabric of America in eight
short years.
The Obama/Biden was the most corrupt, criminal
administration any of us has ever seen, yet the
media cheered or covered up all the abuse of
power, obstruction of Justice and other crimes.
Pollak: Barack Obama Himself Was the Threat to the Rule of Law
Former President Barack Obama warned Friday that the “rule of law is at risk” because former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn will no longer be prosecuted.
Obama’s remarks, leaked from a private conference call with members of something called the “Obama Alumni Association,” show a breathtaking lack of self-awareness.
Obama himself was the threat to the rule of law, both during his presidency and as it ended.
As Breitbart News has previously noted, Obama routinely violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, challenging America’s constitutional foundation in a way no president before him had done in peacetime.
“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said, threatening to use — and abuse — his executive power — rather than allow the constitutional process of legislation to proceed.
Here are just a few of Obama’s more egregious violations:
· Refusing to submit the Iran deal to the Senate for ratification
· Declaring the Senate in recess when it was not (struck down, later, in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision)
· Defying the courts when told to renew oil and gas activity in the Gulf of Mexico, or to stop giving amnesty to illegal aliens
· Threatening the Supreme Court after Citizens United, and before the Obamacare decision
· Altering Obamacare’s statutory deadline unilaterally
· Creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs after admitting it was unconstitutional
· Trying to wipe out the coal industry
Moreover, the Flynn investigation itself undermined the rule of law by targeting a man the government knew was innocent of any crime. Similarly, Obama’s own effort to protect Hillary Clinton, and his administration’s attempt to undermine Trump through false allegations of “Russia collusion,” also violated the rule of law.
Last week it emerged that it was Obama himself who told then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about Flynn’s lawful conversation with the Russian ambassador, which set the investigative wheels in motion.
Obama’s phony protest suggests he is feeling desperate as attention turns, finally, to his own role in the affair.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Former President Barack Obama warned Friday that the “rule of law is at risk” because former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn will no longer be prosecuted.
Obama’s remarks, leaked from a private conference call with members of something called the “Obama Alumni Association,” show a breathtaking lack of self-awareness.
Obama himself was the threat to the rule of law, both during his presidency and as it ended.
As Breitbart News has previously noted, Obama routinely violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, challenging America’s constitutional foundation in a way no president before him had done in peacetime.
“I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said, threatening to use — and abuse — his executive power — rather than allow the constitutional process of legislation to proceed.
Here are just a few of Obama’s more egregious violations:
· Refusing to submit the Iran deal to the Senate for ratification
· Declaring the Senate in recess when it was not (struck down, later, in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision)
· Defying the courts when told to renew oil and gas activity in the Gulf of Mexico, or to stop giving amnesty to illegal aliens
· Threatening the Supreme Court after Citizens United, and before the Obamacare decision
· Altering Obamacare’s statutory deadline unilaterally
· Creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs after admitting it was unconstitutional
· Trying to wipe out the coal industry
Moreover, the Flynn investigation itself undermined the rule of law by targeting a man the government knew was innocent of any crime. Similarly, Obama’s own effort to protect Hillary Clinton, and his administration’s attempt to undermine Trump through false allegations of “Russia collusion,” also violated the rule of law.
Last week it emerged that it was Obama himself who told then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates about Flynn’s lawful conversation with the Russian ambassador, which set the investigative wheels in motion.
Obama’s phony protest suggests he is feeling desperate as attention turns, finally, to his own role in the affair.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Kevin McCarthy Delivers Bombshell Impeachment News To Biden - White House In A Panic
DID you SEE this?
everyone will be WIPED out in 1 week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZWnJShcW4
Biden is, and has always been, a pathological liar of the worst kind, the kind who lies to boost his own ego no matter how easy it is to prove his dishonesty PATRICIA McCARTHY
HOW CORRUPT IS OUR GOV THAT THIS COULD HAVE GONE FOR SO MAN YEARS??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZWnJShcW4
Biden is, and has always been, a pathological liar of the worst kind, the kind who lies to boost his own ego no matter how easy it is to prove his dishonesty PATRICIA McCARTHY
HOW CORRUPT IS OUR GOV THAT THIS COULD HAVE GONE FOR SO MAN YEARS??
Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo 7/23/23 | BREAKING FOX NEWS July 23, 2023
The Biden Crime Family Comes Undone
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-crime-family-comes-undone-daniel-greenfield/
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The Biden family is notorious for being the crookedest clan not only in Delaware, but in D.C.
The Biden Crime Family Comes Undone
Say it ain’t so, Joe.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-crime-family-comes-undone-daniel-greenfield/
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The Biden family is notorious for being the crookedest clan not only in Delaware, but in D.C.
The Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
The Essential Impeachment
“There comes a time in the life of every man when he must take the bull squarely by the tail and face the situation.” —W.C. Fields
Our elected representatives in D.C. are faced with just such a circumstance. To impeach Joe Biden or not to impeach Joe Biden. This is almost always presented in an either/or metaphor: Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place, and so on. The essence of these arguments is that impeachment/no impeachment offers no good option. I submit that this is a form of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
Bribery is listed in the Constitution as a cause for impeachment, so there can be no argument that this satisfies the first criterion. But now Democrats will object that there must be evidence of present bribery because Joe wasn’t President when he got paid, and there’s no evidence that he’s getting paid right now. But they leave out a key element of bribery. The person being bribed promises some action in favor of the person bribing. These actions offer occur after the bribe is paid. In the interregnum known as 45, Joe got lots of payola in anticipation of being able to do favors from the White House later. Since those favors are arguably continuing, the bribery continues.
Image: Joe Biden. YouTube screen grab.
We don’t need to rely on that most famous case where Joe bragged on camera about getting rid of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma. That happened while Biden was VP. In the language of the law, it shows a pattern of bribery and impeaches any testimony in his defense. And there’s lots of evidence that his pattern of “favors for fins” is ongoing, particularly with China. And, as the Bard says, “Aye, there’s the rub.” What do we do about it? The Constitution seems to provide for impeachment as the only check on a corrupt President. It’s political act, and legal action can only come after removal from office.
The argument against impeaching Biden is rather simple. We won’t get a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate since Democrats are in the majority, and they won’t convict their guy. So why bother? We’d be wasting time. On the flip side of this are the two Trump impeachments. The Dems knew they wouldn’t ever convict him, but they wanted to throw enough mud at him to make him look dirty in the election. They’ve continued this pattern in New York, Georgia, Mar-a-Lago, and J6. Do I sense a pattern here?
The mantra against impeachment is, “It’s political!” Of course it is. It’s the only constitutional avenue available. But Democrats want that to sound bad, as in, “The only reason you’re pursuing impeachment is that you don’t like Joe.” And lots of low-information voters will hear only that. So, the invertebrates in the “R” caucus will wilt like snowflakes and oppose the inquiry. But let us consider what will result if two things happen.
First, suppose the House does a televised proper inquiry similar to the Watergate special committee. All questioning of witnesses is done by attorneys selected by the two sides. Republicans bring their big guns, and Democrats get a full opportunity to respond in kind. Standard rules of evidence apply, and a retired judge (Justice Anthony Kennedy, perhaps?) sits as the judge on all issues of procedure and propriety. All angles of evidence are presented and cross-examined. Once the process is complete, the matter is put to the House for a vote.
We should note that Donald Trump was not afforded any of this sort of due process in either of his impeachments. Presenting Joe Biden with this degree of legal protection would show that the Republican majority is interested in determining the facts of the matter, not simply rushing forward as Nancy Pelosi did in the second Trump indictment. As you may recall, the House did zero investigation, declaring that none was needed. The optics of that resemble a schoolyard fight.
Having been particularly careful to provide Joe with all legal safeguards, a vote to impeach would begin with a serious presumption of correctness. And since the largest part of the charges would revolve around bribery, Democrats would be unable to hide behind the “high crimes and misdemeanors” term of art. Bribery is a crime at all levels, and it’s very easy for the average citizen to understand. They’ve seen too many TV shows with crooked cops taking dirty money to ignore it when the Chief Executive is directly involved. And this puts Senate Democrats in a bit of a bind.
Democrats clearly have enough votes to block a conviction if they want to. But do they want their vulnerable members to be seen as approving of obvious corruption? There’s a lot of fodder for their opponents in that. If they deep-six Corrupt Joe, they’ll look virtuous to undeclared voters. It’s a win! But that win comes at a price. They elevate VP Harris to the White House, and she’s the most un-serious prominent officeholder in the history of DC. With two or three hysterical cackles, she will fritter away all that Democrat goodwill that came from dropping Joe. On the other hand, if they refuse to send Joe packing, then the undecided middle will see the Dems as the party of official corruption, approved by the party apparatchiks. That’s not a good look for them, either.
It does not matter what the Senate does. The House will have done a very serious job of evaluating the stench from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Having determined that it’s a real sewer and not some whoopee cushion aroma, they will have shown America that at least one party in D.C. does not subscribe to a two-tier system of justice. That would be such a breath of fresh air that many in the middle will decide that it’s time to expand the right side of the aisle.
Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcasts are available on many podcast channels.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
“There comes a time in the life of every man when he must take the bull squarely by the tail and face the situation.” —W.C. Fields
Our elected representatives in D.C. are faced with just such a circumstance. To impeach Joe Biden or not to impeach Joe Biden. This is almost always presented in an either/or metaphor: Scylla and Charybdis, a rock and a hard place, and so on. The essence of these arguments is that impeachment/no impeachment offers no good option. I submit that this is a form of the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
The basic case in favor of impeachment is simply that he should be impeached because the President has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a central conspirator in a bribery scheme between government actors. At this point, the lawyers should sit down, and politicians ought to stand up.
Bribery is listed in the Constitution as a cause for impeachment, so there can be no argument that this satisfies the first criterion. But now Democrats will object that there must be evidence of present bribery because Joe wasn’t President when he got paid, and there’s no evidence that he’s getting paid right now. But they leave out a key element of bribery. The person being bribed promises some action in favor of the person bribing. These actions offer occur after the bribe is paid. In the interregnum known as 45, Joe got lots of payola in anticipation of being able to do favors from the White House later. Since those favors are arguably continuing, the bribery continues.
Image: Joe Biden. YouTube screen grab.
We don’t need to rely on that most famous case where Joe bragged on camera about getting rid of Victor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating Burisma. That happened while Biden was VP. In the language of the law, it shows a pattern of bribery and impeaches any testimony in his defense. And there’s lots of evidence that his pattern of “favors for fins” is ongoing, particularly with China. And, as the Bard says, “Aye, there’s the rub.” What do we do about it? The Constitution seems to provide for impeachment as the only check on a corrupt President. It’s political act, and legal action can only come after removal from office.
The argument against impeaching Biden is rather simple. We won’t get a two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate since Democrats are in the majority, and they won’t convict their guy. So why bother? We’d be wasting time. On the flip side of this are the two Trump impeachments. The Dems knew they wouldn’t ever convict him, but they wanted to throw enough mud at him to make him look dirty in the election. They’ve continued this pattern in New York, Georgia, Mar-a-Lago, and J6. Do I sense a pattern here?
The mantra against impeachment is, “It’s political!” Of course it is. It’s the only constitutional avenue available. But Democrats want that to sound bad, as in, “The only reason you’re pursuing impeachment is that you don’t like Joe.” And lots of low-information voters will hear only that. So, the invertebrates in the “R” caucus will wilt like snowflakes and oppose the inquiry. But let us consider what will result if two things happen.
First, suppose the House does a televised proper inquiry similar to the Watergate special committee. All questioning of witnesses is done by attorneys selected by the two sides. Republicans bring their big guns, and Democrats get a full opportunity to respond in kind. Standard rules of evidence apply, and a retired judge (Justice Anthony Kennedy, perhaps?) sits as the judge on all issues of procedure and propriety. All angles of evidence are presented and cross-examined. Once the process is complete, the matter is put to the House for a vote.
We should note that Donald Trump was not afforded any of this sort of due process in either of his impeachments. Presenting Joe Biden with this degree of legal protection would show that the Republican majority is interested in determining the facts of the matter, not simply rushing forward as Nancy Pelosi did in the second Trump indictment. As you may recall, the House did zero investigation, declaring that none was needed. The optics of that resemble a schoolyard fight.
Having been particularly careful to provide Joe with all legal safeguards, a vote to impeach would begin with a serious presumption of correctness. And since the largest part of the charges would revolve around bribery, Democrats would be unable to hide behind the “high crimes and misdemeanors” term of art. Bribery is a crime at all levels, and it’s very easy for the average citizen to understand. They’ve seen too many TV shows with crooked cops taking dirty money to ignore it when the Chief Executive is directly involved. And this puts Senate Democrats in a bit of a bind.
Democrats clearly have enough votes to block a conviction if they want to. But do they want their vulnerable members to be seen as approving of obvious corruption? There’s a lot of fodder for their opponents in that. If they deep-six Corrupt Joe, they’ll look virtuous to undeclared voters. It’s a win! But that win comes at a price. They elevate VP Harris to the White House, and she’s the most un-serious prominent officeholder in the history of DC. With two or three hysterical cackles, she will fritter away all that Democrat goodwill that came from dropping Joe. On the other hand, if they refuse to send Joe packing, then the undecided middle will see the Dems as the party of official corruption, approved by the party apparatchiks. That’s not a good look for them, either.
It does not matter what the Senate does. The House will have done a very serious job of evaluating the stench from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Having determined that it’s a real sewer and not some whoopee cushion aroma, they will have shown America that at least one party in D.C. does not subscribe to a two-tier system of justice. That would be such a breath of fresh air that many in the middle will decide that it’s time to expand the right side of the aisle.
Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcasts are available on many podcast channels.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY GAMER LAWER TONY BLINKEN, GEORGE SOROS RENT BOY,AS WELL AS CON MAN ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
THE BIDEN KLEPTOCRACY
American people deserve to know what China was up to with Joe Biden, especially when Beijing had already shelled out millions of dollars to Biden family members — including millions in set-asides for “the big guy.” What else is on that infamous Hunter Biden laptop? The conflicted Biden Justice Department cannot be trusted to engage in any meaningful oversight on this issue. We need a special counsel now.
TOM FITTON - JUDICIAL WATCH
American people deserve to know what China was up to with Joe Biden, especially when Beijing had already shelled out millions of dollars to Biden family members — including millions in set-asides for “the big guy.” What else is on that infamous Hunter Biden laptop? The conflicted Biden Justice Department cannot be trusted to engage in any meaningful oversight on this issue. We need a special counsel now.
TOM FITTON - JUDICIAL WATCH
Hunter Biden Bragged Chinese Mogul Loves Him for His 'Last Name'
August 1, 2023
Hunter Biden bragged in a 2011 email to his former business partner Devon Archer about how a Chinese businessman who scored them a deal loved his "last name."
"Your question—‘why does Super Chair love me so much?’ is easily answered. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with my last name," Biden wrote to Archer in September 2011, referring to businessman Che Feng who helped Biden partner with a Chinese firm. Biden's comment, which was revealed by the New York Post, appeared in an email found on his abandoned laptop.
Biden added that another reason for Feng's admiration is that Biden brings "very handsome Aryan godlike men wherever I go."
Archer, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings with Biden, met with the House Oversight Committee on Monday and testified that Biden called his father more than 20 times during business meetings to sell the Biden "brand."
Feng helped Hunter's company score a high-paying deal, the New York Post reported:
Feng — who was referred to as "The Super Chairman" by both Hunter and Archer — helped Biden’s firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and James Bulger’s Thornton Group LLC partner with Jonathan Li’s Bohai Capital and lateral launch Bohai Harvest RST, the emails indicate.
The email chain began two days earlier, when Bulger’s co-founder Michael Lin forwarded Hunter and Bulger the terms of the joint venture fund.
Lin also namechecked Feng as playing a key role in securing favorable terms for the deal.
"Good news from Jonathan after his meeting with Super Chairman in [Hong Kong]…We three’s ownership of the fund management co. 20% while Jonathan’s 10%. (Still very very good for you two and me!)," he wrote.
Hunter forwarded the terms of the deal to Archer and expressed his joy at the prospects of the deal.
"I don't believe in lottery tickets anymore, but I do believe in the super chairman," Hunter said to Archer.
Biden last week admitted in court to accepting Chinese money, despite his father President Joe Biden's repeated denials that his son profited from China.
"I started a company [in 2017] called Hudson West, your Honor, and my partner was associated with a Chinese energy company called CEFC," Hunter Biden said last week in a Delaware federal courthouse.
Biden confirmed a point made by the prosecution that he had made $664,000 from a "Chinese infrastructure investment company," according to the court transcript, reported by Fox News.
"Who was your partner?" the judge in the case asked the first son.
"I don't know how to spell his name, Yi Jianming is the chairman of that company," Hunter Biden said. Yi has disappeared since being taken into custody by Chinese officials in 2018.
The president has made repeated claims that his son did not take money from Chinese entities.
"My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China," Joe Biden said to then-president Donald Trump in an October 2020 debate.
Hunter Biden bragged in a 2011 email to his former business partner Devon Archer about how a Chinese businessman who scored them a deal loved his "last name."
"Your question—‘why does Super Chair love me so much?’ is easily answered. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with my last name," Biden wrote to Archer in September 2011, referring to businessman Che Feng who helped Biden partner with a Chinese firm. Biden's comment, which was revealed by the New York Post, appeared in an email found on his abandoned laptop.
Biden added that another reason for Feng's admiration is that Biden brings "very handsome Aryan godlike men wherever I go."
Archer, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings with Biden, met with the House Oversight Committee on Monday and testified that Biden called his father more than 20 times during business meetings to sell the Biden "brand."
Feng helped Hunter's company score a high-paying deal, the New York Post reported:
Feng — who was referred to as "The Super Chairman" by both Hunter and Archer — helped Biden’s firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and James Bulger’s Thornton Group LLC partner with Jonathan Li’s Bohai Capital and lateral launch Bohai Harvest RST, the emails indicate.
The email chain began two days earlier, when Bulger’s co-founder Michael Lin forwarded Hunter and Bulger the terms of the joint venture fund.
Lin also namechecked Feng as playing a key role in securing favorable terms for the deal.
"Good news from Jonathan after his meeting with Super Chairman in [Hong Kong]…We three’s ownership of the fund management co. 20% while Jonathan’s 10%. (Still very very good for you two and me!)," he wrote.
Hunter forwarded the terms of the deal to Archer and expressed his joy at the prospects of the deal.
"I don't believe in lottery tickets anymore, but I do believe in the super chairman," Hunter said to Archer.
Biden last week admitted in court to accepting Chinese money, despite his father President Joe Biden's repeated denials that his son profited from China.
"I started a company [in 2017] called Hudson West, your Honor, and my partner was associated with a Chinese energy company called CEFC," Hunter Biden said last week in a Delaware federal courthouse.
Biden confirmed a point made by the prosecution that he had made $664,000 from a "Chinese infrastructure investment company," according to the court transcript, reported by Fox News.
"Who was your partner?" the judge in the case asked the first son.
"I don't know how to spell his name, Yi Jianming is the chairman of that company," Hunter Biden said. Yi has disappeared since being taken into custody by Chinese officials in 2018.
The president has made repeated claims that his son did not take money from Chinese entities.
"My son has not made money in terms of this thing about, what are you talking about, China," Joe Biden said to then-president Donald Trump in an October 2020 debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment