|
Shut up, they explained: Comparing Trump's persecutors to the totalitarians of the 20th century
The fascist far left cannot believe they’ve been accused of acting like the authoritarian collectivists of National Socialist Germany or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that persecuted their political opponents for the ‘crime’ of expressing the wrong opinions, even though they’ve been persecuting their political opponents for the ‘crime’ of expressing the wrong opinions.
Just after President Trump was indicted for the ‘crime’ of wrongthink in a manner reminiscent of the socialist nations of leftists Joesph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The Trump campaign had the unbelievable cheek to say that it was reminiscent of the socialist nations of leftists Joesph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Cue Greta Thunberg spitting out “How dare you.”
Anti-liberty leftists lost it on two levels, exemplified by Jake Tapper of CNN casually stating without evidence:
“Obviously comparing this to Nazi Germany is beyond the pale in terms of offensiveness and ignorance.”
Offensiveness in the sense that the pro-freedom right is never allowed to defend itself from the false charges from the left of being fascist or a National Socialist.
The unwritten edict from the far left is that no one is to ever violate ‘Godwin’s rule’ - unless they do it, especially to attack President Trump. Leftists have gone so far as to claim that you shouldn’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler because It belittles Hitler.
So, while the far left has given themselves full permission to hurl whatever fascism (semi or otherwise) or Nazi mendacities they want at the pro-freedom right. Their convenient little ‘rules’ dictate that it’s offensive to apply the same standards to them, especially when they are projecting on all cylinders. Thus, it was ‘obvious’ that this was offensive since the Trump Campaign’s very appropriate rejoinder ‘violated’ one of the far left’s most cherished and sacrosanct rules.
The irony in the ignorance issue of the Tapper quote points straight at the far left in that their biggest lie is that some collectivist authoritarians magically belong on the pro-freedom right of the political spectrum.
Leftists constantly parrot this lie, but they never back it up with a factual argument. They’ve been trying to gaslight people so long that they probably don’t even know the source of the lie.
We’ve proven the “Nazis were far-right” lie can be traced back 100 years to far-left infighting over ideological minutia no one cares about. This internecine political warfare was seen in the old USSR between the ‘far-left’ Bolsheviks and their rivals they deemed ‘right wing’ or some other disparaging pejorative. The same also took place in the states in the early part of the last century, long before the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party gained prominence.
This eviscerates the rivalry claim and shows that leftists don’t know what they’re talking about when they deny their past.
The New York Times dated May 11, 1920, on Page 3 is a prime example with the headline:
'MILD' SOCIALISTS WIN ON PLATFORM; Conservatives, Led by Hillquit, Defeat Attempt to Name New Committee. FIGHT TO CONTINUE TODAY Ultra-Radicals Denounce the Party Principles Presented as "Lacking Punch." DEMAND PROLETARIAN RULE Planks Offered Include Recognition of Soviet Government and Socialization of All Industries.
The "conservative" wing of the Socialist Party won a victory over the "ultra-radicals" at the second day's Session of the Socialist National Convention at Finnish Socialist Hall, 127th Street and Fifth Avenue, yesterday.
Take note that the New York Times referred to ‘The "conservative" wing of the Socialist Party’ in an article published nearly 19 years before WWII and before the National Socialist German Workers' Party gained prominence. The article refers to rivalries and internal conflicts within what is clearly a leftist socialist organization and yet some are referred to as being on the right. So much for the rivalry talking point of the “Nazis were far-right” lie.
The same holds true with the Bolshevik Revolution of October 25, 1917, the Entente intervention in October 1922 where the Bolsheviks set themselves on the far-left flank, shifting all others to the right, and then repressing, exiling, or executing them:
The Bolsheviks intended to rule alone and did not hesitate to eliminate all other parties and factions that did not share their perspective. Thus, the representatives of other leftist parties and party groups—Mensheviks, Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), Socialist Revolutionaries (SR), anarchists—were repressed, exiled, or executed in the course of the Bolsheviks’ power grab.
The supreme irony in some trying to deny what is obvious, that the National Socialist German Workers' (Nazi) Party was leftist, asserting these claims come from an alleged lack of research or ‘ignorance.’ Reflects badly on the far left since it shows they don’t even know the source of the lies they propagate. They are projecting their own lack of knowledge and they don’t even know it. And that includes some ‘esteemed’ leftist experts who neglect to look at the history of their own ideology.
This shouldn’t be surprising since they can’t even figure out basic biology and what is a woman. Maybe they need to ‘crack a basic science book’ first before lecturing the rest of us.
The Trump Campaign was correct in labelling these persecutions as reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes. Too bad the national socialist media can’t understand that their lies have been exposed and are now blatantly obvious.
D. Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Image: Picryl // public domain
Dirty Cop: Jack Smith has gotten to work with prosecutorial misconduct
You'd think a carefully hand-picked prosecutor, targeted at a former President of the United States, would be a meticulous and precise legal mind so as to bring an airtight case against his target, with little but political objection.
But that's not Joe Biden's special counsel prosecutor, Jack Smith, who's racking up ethics violations like a dirty big city cop, and that's just in the first weeks of his indictment.
According to Breitbart's Joel Pollak:
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz says that under his own “fraud” standard, Special Counsel Jack Smith could be indicted for omitting a key portion of then-President Donald Trump’s speech in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
The indictment charges Trump with four counts, including “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” But in a portion recounting Trump’s speech at the “Stop the Steal” rally, Smith repeats the errors made by House Democrats in Trump’s second impeachment trial: he focuses on Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell,” and omits a sentence highlighted by Trump’s defense team: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Dershowitz told the Megyn Kelly Show podcast on Friday that by his own standard, Smith could be charged with fraud, because of his omission of Trump’s “peaceful” rhetoric.
“Under the indictment itself, Jack Smith could be himself indicted. He told a direct lie in this indictment. He purported to describe the speech that President Trump made on January 6th. And he left out the key words, when President Trump said, ‘I want you to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically. You know, a lie by omission, under the law, can be as serious as a lie by commission.”
So he went the Adam Schiff route, leaving off the part about President Trump urging his followers on January 6 to be peaceful, presenting his evidence against Trump by preenting the opposite of what he said. Just leaving it off like it never happened, obviously to sway a jury his way, and too bad about the defendant.
He also did this, according to Matt Margolis at PJMedia:
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team has acknowledged they incorrectly claimed that they had submitted all the necessary evidence as mandated by the law in the classified documents case against Donald Trump.
That’s basically a euphemism for getting caught committing prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutors “discovered” that a crucial video intended to be presented as evidence had not been appropriately processed and uploaded to the designated platform for the defense to review during the investigation.
This discovery occurred just as they prepared to indict Carlos De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago property manager, for his alleged involvement in a conspiracy with Trump to delete surveillance footage from the estate. Trump denies the allegations and says the videos were “handed over to the thugs.”
“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” Smith’s team admitted in its recent filing.
According to Just The News, “All CCTV footage obtained by the government has now been given to the defendants, according to Smith’s team. The so-called Brady rule requires prosecutors to disclose all evidence and information favorable to the defendant.”
So in other words, he withheld evidence from the other side which might have been favorable to their defense. The 1963 Brady motion says that as a basic matter of fairness, they can't do that, but Smith did it anyway.
This sounds like quite a pattern of corner-cutting from Smith and his office, characteristic of dirty cops in big cities who will cook up anything for a conviction.
Smith's career has been replete with this kind of unethical behavior, as Margolis noted in his piece, from a case against a congressman which involved witness tampering and wiretapping, to his past case against a Virginia governor, which wat thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Obviously, he's all about pulling fast ones on his latest target, President Trump. This tells us a lot about what this legal process is going to be like: Rules for thee, but not for me.
Why he thinks he can get away with this kind of behavior, and still secure a conviction suggests that he thinks the ground is protecting him and he can rig with abandon because the fix is in.
Image: Screen shot from CBS News video, via YouTube
Where there’s smoke, look for fire. Biden came from humble means, never worked in the private sector, but somehow became wildly wealthy. Several of Biden’s family members essentially work in the family business of apparent influence peddling. Does Biden’s frequent refrain, “I never spoke with my son about his overseas business deals” come to mind? It makes one wonder if “never” really means “never!”. Biden has nine relatives receiving millions in foreign cash. What were they talking about when Vice President Biden and his cronies met 80 times at the White House? Veracity is everything when you solicit the public’s trust, and Biden’s persona is wrapped around his supposed trustworthiness. However, the facts here point to a person who uses hyperbole, manipulation, and outright lying to sway public opinion.
ALLAN J FEIFER
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
HOW MANY OF THESE PIGS ARE LAWYERS?
(ALL BUT THREE)
DID you SEE this?
VIDEO:
WHAT TO DO WITH BIDEN?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSEN
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??
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 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
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
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.
Published under: China , Hunter Biden , Joe Biden
Congress Launches Investigation of Investment Firms for Strengthening China’s Military
A congressional committee is investigating top American investment firms for funneling millions to companies flagged by the U.S. government for strengthening the Chinese military and aiding in human rights abuses.
The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party launched probes into BlackRock and MSCI on Monday, according to the Wall Street Journal. A committee review found the firms are facilitating investment in more than 60 Chinese companies flagged by U.S. federal agencies. Five funds managed by BlackRock, for example, have invested more than $429 million in such companies.
Although the activity is legal, U.S. firms are "exacerbating an already significant national-security threat and undermining American values," said committee chair Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.) and ranking member Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D., Ill.) in letters sent Monday.
The investigation comes as the Biden administration remains slow to block American money and technology from fueling Chinese military tech advancement and human rights abuses. President Joe Biden has been planning since June to implement new restrictions on U.S. AI chips sent to China, but the new rules are now expected by mid-August. U.S. chipmakers traveled to Washington last month to meet with White House officials, warning them against tight restrictions on chip exports to China.
The Biden administration also granted Chinese tech company Huawei $60 billion in export licenses earlier this year, despite national security sanctions on the company. Administration officials from the Defense, State, and Commerce departments last month told Congress their departments would seek to prevent the company from receiving American tech. Only the FCC acted to shut off American tech flow to Huawei last week.
The Washington Free Beacon reported last month the top three largest state pension funds in the United States invest millions in Chinese companies blacklisted by the federal government for national security and human rights reasons. Many state pension funds invest in index funds managed by investment firms like BlackRock and MSCI. A similar review of the federal employee pension fund found investments in sanctioned Chinese companies.
The select committee continues to probe ties between the CCP and American companies. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi launched an investigation last month into venture capital firms invested in Chinese AI, semiconductor, and quantum computing companies. Former intelligence official Bill Evanina told Congress Wednesday that a Chinese company trying to build a battery factory in Michigan will "100 percent" bring spies to the United States.
Published under: China
CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINKS
Bidens don't seem to 'cover their tracks' in alleged China money web: Curley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQkbnOO-mbM
SERVING RED CHINA: JOE BIDEN AT WORK
Biden admin is ‘enormously dangerous’ to the survival of America: Newt Gingrich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB8YNrfbD_E
Did Hunter Biden Sleep with a Chinese Spy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn83Uk9pX2k
Hunter Biden faces possible subpoena after missing deadline to turn over docs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6hxjrGHJ8I
My colleague Peter Schweizer’s runaway bestseller, Red Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win, first revealed that the Biden family received some $31 million from the highest levels of Chinese intelligence at the same time Hunter was paying the vice president’s bills. Schweizer believes that there is a slam dunk case to indict Hunter Biden.
VIDEO
CUT AND PASTE YOUTUBE LINK
Watters: I guarantee you Satan went to law school
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Ln2aXLqWw
Breitbart Political Editor Emma-Jo Morris’s investigative work at the New York Post on the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” also captured international headlines when she, along with Miranda Devine, revealed that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter’s businesses, appearing to even have a 10 percent stake in a company the scion formed with officials at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party.
Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.
Hunter has reportedly sold five paintings worth $75,000 each to an anonymous buyer. Hunter’s art dealer, Georges Bergès, has previously boasted he had strong ties to businessmen in Communist China, which has concerned many due to the Biden family’s business ventures abroad.
“We are 95% sure that that artwork went to China,” Comer said. “We don’t know where exactly that went to in China, but we’re going to try to find out when we get subpoena power.”
Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.
Biden family business dealings with China is a ‘national security issue’: Schweizer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hew-Pm1d-0
Peter Schweizer’s new book Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win tells the story of how Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) husband Richard Blum was part owner of a Chinese firm that allegedly sold computers with spyware chips to the U.S. military. The military has never been able to calculate how much sensitive data these computers allowed China to steal.
THE BIDEN KLEPTOCRACY
RIDING THE DRAGON: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets (Full Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmlcEBAiIs
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.
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.
Pollak: Barack Obama Himself Was the Threat to the Rule of Law
10 May 20203860
2:47
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment