We see that congressional Republicans’ constipation has flared up again. It’s a chronic, though voluntary, distress. Joe Biden (GAMER LAWYER), Merrick Garland (GAMER LAWYER), and Alejandro Mayorkas (GAMER LAWYER) are begging to be impeached, yet Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other bunged-up House Republicans refuse to extrude
Let’s set aside the sinister Merrick Garland and the plodding, lying apparatchik Alejandro Mayorkas. They can be impeached another day. Joe Biden needs to be impeached, ASAP. One needn’t qualify that Biden is, “perhaps, the most crooked president in history,” because, hands down, he’s the biggest, dumbest scoundrel to occupy the Oval Office. Bill Clinton (GAMER LAWYER) isn’t dumb; he’s wily, but runs a close second in the scoundrel department, as does his semi-estranged wife, the nefarious Hillary (GAMER LAWYER). As Peter Schweizer explained, Bill and Hill were slicker stashing the cash.
Impeach Biden, Make Democrats Sweat
We see that congressional Republicans’ constipation has flared up again. It’s a chronic, though voluntary, distress. Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and Alejandro Mayorkas are begging to be impeached, yet Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other bunged-up House Republicans refuse to extrude. It’s time to -- well, you know what -- or get off the flippin’ pot. True justice -- unfashionable among most “progressives” -- demands action. And politics -- a dirty word to dainty Republicans -- also demands action.
Let’s set aside the sinister Merrick Garland and the plodding, lying apparatchik Alejandro Mayorkas. They can be impeached another day. Joe Biden needs to be impeached, ASAP. One needn’t qualify that Biden is, “perhaps, the most crooked president in history,” because, hands down, he’s the biggest, dumbest scoundrel to occupy the Oval Office. Bill Clinton isn’t dumb; he’s wily, but runs a close second in the scoundrel department, as does his semi-estranged wife, the nefarious Hillary. As Peter Schweizer explained, Bill and Hill were slicker stashing the cash.
Joe is like a psychopathic crook, practically flaunting his crimes. For decades, he’s exhibited his compulsive lying. It knocked him out of the 1988 Democrat presidential nominating contest. But being an inveterate liar isn’t a disqualifier in politics. It’s only doing it stupidly in ways that harm comrades that busts anyone.
So, a bad mark only waylaid Joe briefly. D.C. gave Joe a second chance.
Barack Obama (GAMER LAWYER), the nation’s black George Washington, picked Joe to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Some wags have suggested that Barack picked Joe because Joe made Barack look good by comparison. But it’s more like a birds of a feather thing. Obama is corrupt in his way. Mark Levin made this keen observation about Barack a few years ago.
Of course, Joe famously bragged about strongarming Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to sack prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, which precocious Hunter Biden was a principal. Joe was Barack’s veep when the strongarming occurred.
Jim Jordan and House Republicans are compiling a bookful of evidence linking Joe to influence-peddling, pay-to-play, and whatever other schemes involving Ukraine, China, Russia, and Timbuktu, for all we know. Hunter was merely the doped-up, sexed-out bagman.
Jordan and the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has taken testimony from Devon Archer, Hunter’s onetime business partner and pal. Tucker Carlson interviewed Archer for his “Tucker on Twitter” podcast. The beans are being spilled. Then there are the IRS and FBI whistleblowers. Hunter Biden is the gateway to getting Joe. The conspiracy to get Hunter off the hook to protect Joe isn’t some fluoridated water conspiracy jive. It’s vividly real.
McCarthy has done a lot of bloviating about crooked, ol’ Joe. It amounts to nothing.
CNN gives an insight into McCarthy’s reluctance to lower the boom, July 25:
The House speaker has previously resisted right-wing calls to impeach Biden over concerns that doing so could imperil the party’s slim majority in the House, especially because such a pursuit would go nowhere in a Democratic-led Senate.
House GOP caucus conservatives are pushing for Biden’s impeachment -- or at least some of them are pushing for an inquiry to begin. The real head 
scratcher is that House Freedom Caucus members have the leverage to force McCarthy into an impeachment inquiry leading to an impeachment. The Republican majority is razor-thin in the House. HFC can grind McCarthy’s agenda to a halt.
But they may share McCarthy’s reluctance. Republicans holding vulnerable seats could lose in 2024 thanks to an impeachment. Moreover, Republicans want to flip House seats in blue states. Justice for Biden likely takes second place to retaining the House GOP majority. That’s how garden variety pols calculate.
Yet it’s a gamble that needs to be taken. It needs to be shown that a president with an abundance of evidence piling up against him is held accountable for his actions. Not only is the GOP’s America First base demanding justice, the nation needs to see that Republicans are striving to do justice and are working to eliminate double standards.
Elites game the system with impunity and get off the hook for their crimes. Crypto king Sam Bankman-Fried recently had campaign finance charges dropped. Reported MarketWatch, “Bankman-Fried donated $46.5 million to the Democrats in 2022, making him the party’s second-largest donor behind George Soros that year.”
Bankman-Fried claims he gave a lot to Republicans to cover his bases. Maybe he did. But it was Biden DoJ prosecutors who moved to drop the contribution charges against Bankman-Fried. The appeal was made to Clinton appointed judge Lewis Kaplan, who, in the last few days, dismissed Trump’s counter-defamation suit against E. Jean Carroll. Could it be that the uniparty doesn’t want any of Bankman-Fried’s money rocks lifted to see what’s underneath?
Biden is dirty in both petty and big ways. Not only has he lined his pockets as the kingpin of his family’s influence-peddling operation, he’s weaponized the government to destroy his chief rival, Donald Trump. The federal indictments, led by DoJ hatchet man Jack Smith, were, are, and always will be persecutions, ginned up to take the heat off Biden, who appears slimier with each passing day, and to deny Trump the presidency.
Trump would have won a legitimate election in 2020. As we know, the Democrat-led multipronged dark campaign just barely denied him reelection. Biden winning in a squeaker was too nerve-wracking, though, for Silicon Valley doyens, NYC money manipulators, and creaking, dirty Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
Democrats and their establishment backers don’t want any close calls in 2024. Trump is to be ruined well before those phony mail-in ballots are bundled on pallets and trucked to Democrat-controlled polling places.
Justice and politics demand that Biden be impeached. With the most consequential presidential election looming, House Republicans have an obligation to take the fight to Democrats. A longish impeachment inquiry followed by an impeachment are in order. No sham charges against blathering, ol’ Joe. No stretching the law like taffy to make charges appear semi-plausible. Just fact-based, documented charges of criminal conduct while Biden occupied the second highest office in the land.
Biden won’t be removed from office, of course. There aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to do so. And deteriorating Mitch McConnell, like every other establishment Republican, opposes impeaching Biden, anyway, claiming impeachment needs to be “rare.” One supposes that a vice president selling his office to the Chinese and Russians doesn’t qualify as rare. And one supposes that President Joe isn’t compromised now. Then again, McConnell and the uniparty probably don’t want Biden rocks lifted because theirs may be next.
Let’s add an article of impeachment to Joe’s list of dirty deeds. The U.S.-Mexican border has been obliterated to serve the Democrats’ political and ideological interests. Flooding the country with seven-plus million illegals isn’t a blunder or a result of gross incompetence. It’s part of Democrats’ scheme to transform America into an unrecognizable, vast Third World barrio. Slums and dystopic cities are Democrats’ prowling grounds.
An article directed at Joe’s debauching of the border is likely to win plaudits among independents and some Democrat rank-and-file voters. Regardless, national security and the welfare of the nation compel Republicans to address Joe’s border ploy in an impeachment.
Ultimately, McCarthy and his ilk may discover that a thorough impeachment inquiry and a well-planned and smartly executed prosecution of Joe will be seen favorably by voters, most importantly independents. Plenty of Hispanics have had enough of Joe’s antics, too. Illegals are ruining their communities.
And a shrewdly done impeachment may help Trump return to the presidency, even in the teeth of the election shenanigans to come. RINOs loathe that prospect as much as Democrats. But conservatives must insist. Trump deserves a break. So does America.
J. Robert Smith can be found regularly at Gab @JRobertSmith. He also blogs occasionally at Flyover. He’s recently returned to Twitter. His Twitter handle is @JRobertSmith1
Image: Ted Eytan
Obama’s Self-Made Myths Still Stand
"When the truth collides with a legend, print the legend."
[Make sure to order Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
The media deification of Barack Obama has really never ended. His election to the presidency in 2008 was treated as a milestone, like man landing on the moon. Allegedly objective journalists lined up in every studio and on every front page to do him homage.
It wasn’t journalism. It was more like idolatry. It was like Bryant Gumbel harshly replying in 1989 to new information about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s adultery. He said, “When the truth collides with a legend, print the legend.”
This line came to mind in reading a recent Tablet magazine interview with liberal historian David Garrow, a King specialist. Garrow’s massive 2017 tome on Obama, “Rising Star,” was blasted by New York Times chief book critic Michiko Kakutani. She argued his epilogue was like a “Republican attack ad.” This is comical, since Garrow’s epilogue recounted quotes from, among others, liberals at the Times and The Washington Post.
David Samuels — who penned an unforgettable piece for The New York Times Magazine revealing that Obama aide Ben Rhodes boasted of creating an “echo chamber” for Obama’s foreign policy in the press — focused Garrow on a woman named Sheila Miyoshi Jager, who Obama asked to marry him twice.
Samuels is amazed at how no one before Garrow really put Jager into focus. That includes David Maraniss, whose 2012 Obama book preceded Garrow in ruling that Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father” was largely fictional, especially Obama turning his girlfriends into a composite white character. He didn’t put Jager in the index. (Jager is half-Dutch, half-Japanese.)
This is the obvious Samuels pull quote: “The idea that the celebrated journalists who wrote popular biographies of Obama and became enthusiastic members of his personal claque couldn’t locate Jager — or never knew who she was — defies belief. It seems more likely that the character Obama fashioned in ‘Dreams’ had been defined — by Obama — as being beyond the reach of normal reportorial scrutiny.”
Samuels suggests Garrow’s book was scorned because it highlighted “a remarkable lack of curiosity” about a man who was “treated less like a politician and more like the idol of an inter-elite cult.” It underlined that as Obama decided he wanted to be president one day, he realized having a white wife would be an obstacle.
Obama’s memoir told a story about taking his composite girlfriend to a “very angry play” by a black playwright and she came out “talking about why black people were angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering — nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said.”
Maraniss reported this couldn’t have been Obama’s girlfriend Genevieve Cook, and Obama admitted “that was not her … that was an example of compression.” Maraniss didn’t pinpoint Jager, whose grandparents helped hide Jews from the Nazis in the Netherlands.
Jager said in the spring of 1988, she and Obama attended the play “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” but she recalls a major fight after they toured an Adolf Eichmann exhibit, and she says what upset her was that Obama wouldn’t condemn vicious antisemitic remarks made by Steve Cokely, then an aide to Chicago Mayor Eugene Sawyer. Solidarity with the established black pols of Chicago came first.
This might seem like fragments of ancient history, but every negative fragment about Obama has the potential to upset the cemented mythology. The Obama of myth never compromises his ideals (or invents personal history) to get ahead. That’s why book critics accuse authors of writing “Republican attack ads” when they throw a negative shadow. “When the truth collides with a legend, print the legend.”
BARACK OBAMA HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CON MAN
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 had 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.
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 had 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 sodomy with men, which would seem to support the many rumors about his sexuality.
When Garrow interviewed Obama over the course of eight hours, Obama 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 sodomy. 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.
The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With Farrakhan In 2005
A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future.
The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.”
“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,” Muhammad said.
Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.”
Reached by TPM on Thursday, Muhammad said a “staff member” for the CBC contacted him “sort of in a panic” after he took the photo at a caucus meeting in 2005. TPM has published the photo above with Muhammad’s permission.
“I sort of understood what was going on,” Muhammad told TPM. “I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan,” the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.
Muhammad said he gave away “the disk” from his camera but “copied the photograph from that day onto a file” on his computer.
“Realizing that I had given it up, I mean, it was sort of like a promise to keep the photograph secret,” Muhammad said.
Muhammad said he did not release his copy of the photograph because he thought it would be perceived as a betrayal of that promise: “I was really, I guess, afraid of them.”
Muhammad said he thought the photograph would be “damaging politically” if it were released and was afraid that someone might “break into his apartment” looking for it, like “that Watergate crap.” He said he “felt a little bit more at ease” after Farrakhan in 2016 claimed that Obama visited his home in Chicago. Muhammad contacted Farrakhan in autumn 2017 with the “final manuscript” for a self-published book containing the photo.
“I sent him a copy of the manuscript suggesting that, showing him the picture, and saying to him, if he did not object, I was going to publish it,” Muhammad said. “He had no objection.”
Muhammad also told TPM that around the time he took the photo, he asked Obama about a perceived resemblance to Farrakhan.
“I asked the senator, ‘Has anyone ever told you that you resemble Minister Farrakhan?'” Muhammad said. “And he said what I thought was the perfect answer: ‘Well, he’s much better looking than I am.'”
TPM learned about the photograph and Muhammad’s upcoming book from a write-up in Richard Prince’s Journal-isms newsletter.
A spokesperson for the Congressional Black Caucus suggested that TPM contact the caucus’ former chair, Mel Watt, who now leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Watt did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.
A spokesperson for Obama referred TPM to remarks he made in 1995 after attending the Million Man March that Farrakhan organized. At the time, Obama said that “anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up” and said the march’s organizers were lacking “a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change.”
Muhammad is the news director at Washington, D.C. radio station WPFW and has served as the head of the Washington offices of the Nation of Islam’s official newspaper, The Final Call.
Farrakhan is a minister who leads the Nation of Islam and has made anti-Semitic remarks. During Obama’s presidential campaign, conservatives pushed multiple apparently racially motivated conspiracy theories about Obama’s religion and supposed ties to Islam.
During the 2008 presidential election, conservatives questioned the indirect ties between Farrakhan and Obama, who attended a church that gave Farrakhan an award. At a 2008 presidential debate in Cleveland, Obama said he had “been very clear” in his “denunciation” of Farrakhan’s remarks.
“I did not solicit his support,” Obama said, referring to Farrakhan’s praise for his candidacy. “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.”
This post has been updated.
No comments:
Post a Comment