Barack Obama’s
back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the
dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask
just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
A Muslim dictatorship like his crony paymasters, the 9-11 invading Saudis who have financed him for decades.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/03/obamas-plotting-for-third-and-fourth.html
“Obama has the totalitarian impulse. After all, he
went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to legalize the
illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them
well?
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College
Admissions Scandal https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/malia-michelle-barack-and-college.html
Michelle was the
next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors
that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League
school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied
to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s
back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the
dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask
just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course, one of the main reasons
the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because
race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was
president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/01/barack-obama-and-racist-anti-semitic.html
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
"But the Obamas are the center of the most delusional
cult of personality that the media has yet spawned. And so we get bizarre
pieces like these." MONICA SHOWALTER
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser
Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation
contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
October 31,
2019
Lloyd
Billingsley
Since his election to the
presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has targeted Donald
Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him from office. Now
comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the previous
president.
“Middleman helped Saudi give to
Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29 report by Alan Suderman and Jim
Mustian, billed as an Associated Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign
nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American
presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed
Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural
through an “intermediary,” Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture
capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans
alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more
narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served as a top
fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs,
including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.” One campaign,
not identified, took donations “in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives”
and a political committee, also unidentified, “took donations from a person
Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged, Zuberi pleaded guilty to
“falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying
high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first brush with
the law.
“Elite Fundraiser for Obama and
Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline on Bill Allison’s August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign Policy. The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are
photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas
tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe
Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is Zuberi a major
fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated between $250,000
and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come under fire for
accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with interests before the
U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted
from “straw donors” set up by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted
of election law violations.
Zuberi also used straw donors in
more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those mysterious
campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani has
“talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of
himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and
their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was taken down
shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt of the FBI’s Los
Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.” Mr. Zuberi
“lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation of U.S.
law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom he
interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a lengthy
period of time.”
According to Suderman and Mustian,
“Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees
vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the writers, “I’m
deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I
don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They might start by looking
in the right place.
Unconventional candidate Donald
Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign. Trump had no
need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and those he
invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing to
anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of” Schiff, as Judge
Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence in plain sight
that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Two
years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is nowhere in sight.
Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the Mueller probe, is
best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal investigation of those who
launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and election officials should be
looking.
Did Clinton Foundation donor Imaad
Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails Hillary Clinton
deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any texts from
Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad smashed up with
hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely careless? And so on.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign intervention, right out
in the open.
Mexican foreign minister Marcelo
Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with voter-registration and
participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida, Chicago, and elsewhere.
As Ebrard told Francisco Goldman of the New Yorker, in 2016 he “decided to get more involved” by working on
get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
A powerful foreign national openly
interferes in an American election, and nobody calls him on it. Now that
Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea, the FEC and DOJ
should look into it.
Congress overrides Obama
veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By Tom Carter
On
Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation
that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families
to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the
involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and
planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and
Obama administrations.
The vote,
97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of Representatives, represents the
first and only congressional override of Obama’s presidency. Under the US
Constitution, the president’s veto can be overturned only by a two-thirds
majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama
administration and the military and intelligence agencies, backed by sections
of the media, including the New York Times, have vigorously denounced the
legislation. Obama personally, together with Central Intelligence Agency
director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all publicly opposed
the bill.
In a letter
to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned that the bill would
“threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States,
including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead
editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly warned that “if the bill
becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own
exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the
world than the United States—with military bases, drone operations,
intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama administration fears that
Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other
words, the bill would set a precedent for families of victims of American
aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims of “targeted
killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US war criminal
in their own countries’ courts.
Obama
denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's an example of why
sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had
done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11
families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for
people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do ... And it was,
you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a
tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, “When first we practice
to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies surrounding the September 11 attacks
continue to unravel, one senses that the American ruling class and its
representatives do not see a clear way out of the dilemma.
Openly
torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Indeed, the
Obama administration, the military and intelligence agencies, and theNew York
Times are publicly working to cover up a crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its
backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an ally of the United States. The
mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill constitutes an admission that the US
government is hiding something with respect to the September 11 attacks.
The
alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, is also fraught
with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of September 11 victims
will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi monarchy, an ally of both
Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11 attacks. This, in turn,
will highlight long and sordid history of American support for Islamic
fundamentalism in the
Middle
East, which continues to the present day in Syria and Libya.
Perhaps
most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of the roles of Saudi
intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks will once again raise
questions about the role of the American state in the attacks. Why did US
intelligence
agencies
ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks, based on Saudi
Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the
US government deliberately cover up the Saudi connection after the fact,
instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state sponsor of terrorism” and that
Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New
York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence of Saudi complicity.
“The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi
Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were
members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But the independent
American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the
Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.”
In fact, at
least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar al-Bayoumi, who was
identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Saudi intelligence agent
with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the hijackers were paid for work in
fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with the Saudi Defense Ministry, with
which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The night before the attacks, three of
the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi
government official.
These and
other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page suppressed chapter of the
2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities
Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. After 14 years of
stalling, the document was finally released to the public this summer.
Yet the New
York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy, the principal financier
and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world, as “a
partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday, is a direct reaction to
these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks, under
pressure from organizations of survivors and families of victims. The law
amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases involving
claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur
inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism, committed
anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although
the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government has threatened
massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in assets out of
the country before they can be seized in American legal proceedings.
This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s
session, many of the statements on the floor of the Senate were nervous and
apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the bill, Republican Senator Bob
Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity
procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this
vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had unintended
consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious
comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling
elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American
political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been
relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,”
warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the
police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying,
death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of
expenditures.
The
collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that American
politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
Pollak: Everything Joe
Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack
Obama’s
Johannes Eisele / AFP Getty
12 Jul 20193
3:48
Everything
former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign
policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out
together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.
In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called
Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet
taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such
alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech.
He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville,
Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people”
hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who
promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to
America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump specifically condemned the neo-Nazis
in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech
was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects
democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited
Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator
Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with
democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi
king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution
in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and
Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more
“flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with
the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he
gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he
abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and
shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish
neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised
them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced
democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise
of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru,
though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On
Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit for Trump’s success in
crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked with Obama “to craft
the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately defeated ISIS.” In fact,
Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was Obama’s point man on Iraq when
the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country, leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled.
He did not object when Obama called the
terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms of solutions to current
foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran nuclear deal had been a
success — on the very day Iran was reportedto have been
cheating all along. He said the U.S. should re-enter the deal once Iran did,
offering no idea how to ensure that it did so. On North Korea, Biden promised
he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever that means.
He said that he would get “tough” with China, which Trump is
already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he
would not do). And
on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea
of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats
have on foreign policy.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior
Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and
Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the
2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author
of How
Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from
Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
No comments:
Post a Comment