Back in late September, I talked about the bombshell Senate report that spared no detail about the business dealings of the Bidens and the overall corruption of the Obama/Biden administration with regard to Ukraine and Burisma Holdings.
Well, a recent New York Post article drops another bombshell in the form of recovered emails between Hunter Biden and a top Burisma executive named Vadym Pozharskyi.
The details of this one are pretty juicy and Twitter thought them so damaging that they outright have been banning people that simply TALK about it, which only serves to bring more attention to a story which otherwise might not have led very many people to care about it (particularly as some people will vote for Biden no matter what).
According to the NY Post: “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.”
This goes against something that Joe Biden had been claiming for a long time now, that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” We all knew for a long time now that that was an utter lie, but this only goes to further prove it, particularly as according to Politico, “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule.”
For context, the Biden campaign had responded to the NY Post’s piece, obviously lambasting it, but only claiming that the former VP never officially met with the Burisma executive, meaning that the two had met in secret in an informal setting. This, suffice to say, does not look good for Biden at all, and I think this can somewhat be considered an October Surprise, but aimed at the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans.
At any rate, returning to the uncovered emails (which were not hacked, as some on the Left might claim. They were in a computer taken to a repair shop which was never claimed and the shop owner tried contacting the owner multiple times before looking through the contents of the hard drive, as the computer could now be claimed as his own, and found these emails. He then made a copy of the hard drive and set it to various places such as the FBI and Rudy Giuliani’s lawyers), we find some truly juicy stuff.
An April 17, 2015 email from the Burisma executive reads: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure. As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to you [sic] office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to airport. Best, V.”
Like I said, that email points to Joe Biden having met with an executive from Burisma, which Joe had been lying to people about for years.
Less than a year after that particular email, Joe Biden coerced the Ukrainian president and Prime Minister into firing the country’s top prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma Holdings’ executives, which naturally included Hunter Biden. This is something else that Joe is now lying about, despite the fact that there is video proof that he has outright BRAGGED about what he did, saying to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”
“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
Another email from Pozharskyi, which is a lengthy one so I will share the most important details, reads as follows: “Dear Hunter and Devon,… As previously pointed out on a number of occasions, the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him… After unsuccessful attempts to receive funds from our side, they proceeded with concrete actions… We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions…”
A few things need to be made clear about this. First of all, this was an email sent to Hunter and his business partner Devon Archer (whom I’ve talked about at length in that other article) on May 12th, 2014… the same day that Hunter Biden, at least officially, joined the Burisma board.
I see Burisma didn’t take too much time to use their newly acquired influence.
Secondly, this was a bit of a murky period in Ukraine. The Revolution was still ongoing and President Viktor Yanukovych had fairly recently been removed from office in February. The country wouldn’t have elections until May 25th, in which Poroshenko succeeded the former president. So it’s a bit of a strange period and I do not know exactly who was in charge of the country in between the time Yanukovych was removed and Poroshenko was installed (which was in June). However, someone obviously was in charge and their short-lived administration clearly wanted some money from this “N. Z.” fellow, who is most likely Burisma’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky, as he is an oligarch with plenty of money and his name “Mykola” is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”
It is a bit strange that Pozharskyi would refer to Zlochevsky as “N. Z.” instead of “M. Z.” since they are both Ukrainians, but given the context of those initials in Pozharskyi’s email, I can’t think of whom else he could possibly be referring to, as he talks about “the gaz [sic] production business of N. Z. …”
At any rate, the New York Post also noted that this email was sent on the same day that Burisma announced (and has since redacted) Hunter Biden’s addition to the board of directors, though they also say that “Hunter Biden actually joined the board in April 2014, according to multiple reports.”
So that is another possible lie from the Bidens in general, as Hunter was reportedly a part of the board of directors of the gas company a good bit before his official announcement. I wonder what else happened in between the time that he actually joined the board and the time that the announcement was made official.
There is more to this story in the New York Post, though I do not think many other details are all that relevant for me to share here, other than an email written by Pozharskyi and forwarded to Hunter by Archer about a proposed tax law which would have been detrimental to Burisma, but I did not get too much out of that exchange.
Like I said in my previous article regarding the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, I want you to imagine the outrage from the Left if any person on the Right, such as Don Jr. or Eric Trump, or anyone from the Pence family, had been caught doing the things that Hunter was doing.
Hunter has taken millions of dollars from Burisma simply in exchange for his family name and the position of his father, has taken millions of dollars from other foreign sources such as the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, and has a detailed record of corruption. If a right-winger had done even one of the things Hunter has done, that would be all we’d be talking about for weeks, and all the way to the election.
But because it’s a story which damages the Democrat nominee, it has to be pushed back against and censored on social media, which like I said, only serves to draw more attention to the story. Some people might not care about the actual story involving Hunter Biden and the implications of Joe’s lying butt, but they will care about social media censorship and will want to look into exactly why it is that big tech giants are trying to suppress this story so badly.
Despite the fact that I imagine a decent number of Biden voters have already voted for the guy, I hope some people who were considering voting for Biden but have yet to do so change their minds about it after this. Stories which display the Bidens’ corruption would be shut down every single time if Biden were to win. Even now, we see that happening in large part because big tech bribes Republican congresspeople so that they can get away with this crap.
Here’s hoping this story will help a good amount of people recognize how utterly awful Joe Biden is and how important it is to keep him as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
2 Peter 2:15
“Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing…”
We are less than 40 days away from the 2020 presidential election, but even today, we are still finding out new things relating to the corrupt Mueller probe and the attitude of many (though not all) who were a part of said probe.
Well, I say “new” things rather liberally here. They are not new things, but more like new details that were previously unknown. We all knew perfectly well that the Mueller team’s primary objective was to just “get Trump” as one FBI agent suggested. The way it was formed was more akin to how investigators in a banana republic work as opposed to a constitutional republic.
Time and time again, I have pointed out that the Mueller team was not given a particular crime to investigate, but rather, were given a target to investigate to see what crimes were possibly committed. Actual, legitimate investigators look into crimes to find the suspect(s); they don’t look at the suspect(s) to find the crime.
Lo and behold, that concept is further reinforced by an FBI agent who was a part of Crossfire Hurricane, and Crossfire Razor, which specifically investigated Gen. Michael Flynn.
During an interview with U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen, who is at the head of a DOJ review of the case against Flynn, FBI agent William Barnett noted that “he saw little reason to investigate Michael Flynn and that he believed that members of the special counsel’s team prosecuted the former national security adviser in order to ‘get Trump’,” reported The Daily Caller, who reported on a recently released memo.
The memo reads: “BARNETT thought the TRUMP Campaign may have been aware the Russians were attempting to impact the election, but that was far different from the TRUMP Campaign and the Russians having a deal and/or working together ‘quid pro quo,’”
The memo also notes that Barnett believed there was little reason to carry an investigation into General Flynn, and once theories of collusion began to float around, Barnett told Jensen that such a theory was “opaque” with no real evidence to suggest illegality.
Barnett mentioned that one basis for the investigation into Flynn was a speech that the former General had given in Moscow which was hosted by Russian news outlet RT back in December of 2015, in which Flynn was seated right next to President Vladimir Putin. The FBI agent said that he believed such a trip was “ill-advised” on Flynn’s part, but that there was nothing to suggest that he had committed any criminal acts.
The memo specifically pointed out that “BARNETT did not understand the point of the investigation.”
Interestingly, on the day of the election, Nov. 8, 2016, specifically at 5:42 p.m., Barnett wrote in a message to colleagues that FBI officials ordered Crossfire Razor to be shut down. However, the FBI heads changed their minds when it became clear that Trump had won, and the investigation remained ongoing.
I say this is interesting because it shows just how corrupt and perverse these people are. Had Hillary been an actually decent candidate and won, the FBI would have dropped their investigation into Flynn. They had nothing and at no point did they have anything that showed criminality and a reason to continue to investigate the guy. The ONLY reason they didn’t drop the matter is because Trump won and would subsequently name Flynn to a cabinet position.
Again, they had nothing and at no point did they get anything. They thought they might have gotten something following the revelation of Flynn’s call with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, but that had nothing either and yet, they still kept on going.
Of course, eventually, they pressured Flynn enough (aka threatening to send his son to jail) to get him to plead guilty to lying during an interview with the FBI at the White House (an interview that Flynn did not think he could get into trouble for the things he said and for which he did not have a lawyer present. Not to mention the FBI agents interviewing him never suggested it was an official interrogation and Comey even admitted he did not think Flynn lied in that interview, only that he misremembered some things, but I digress) and now, Flynn is fighting against the Deep State which has ruined his life and is still in pursuit of him.
By the way, the only reason we even know about this memo, and the only reason it exists, is because the Flynn case is still being pursued not by the DOJ but by a corrupt judge seeking to destroy Flynn for political reasons. That memo was written because of the attorneys looking into the Flynn case, which is still ongoing. With the matter dropped, this would not have come out and we would not have gotten such a clear picture of how utterly disgusting and corrupt the Obama DOJ was (not that we needed this to know that, but the details help paint the picture better).
And God bless Agent Barnett, one of the actually decent people in the FBI (who is relatively high up, as I suspect most people in the FBI are patriotic Americans, save for the ones at the very top). The memo noted that he wanted out of Crossfire Razor, noting that it was “problematic” and even pointed out an agenda-driven investigator in the Mueller Special Counsel who goes by the name of Jeannie Rhee, who seemed to be convinced Trump colluded with Russia (and really wanted to get him and everyone in the Trump administration).
Barnett told Jensen that he believed Rhee “was obsessed with Flynn and Russia and she had an agenda.” Not even a little bit surprising, but it is interesting to see that not everyone in the Mueller investigation was on the same boat about trying to destroy Trump. It was easy to assume every last one of them was on that counsel because they were in agreement that they would look into whatever they could to charge Trump with something and get him kicked out of office, but it seems that at least one of them was reasonable enough to recognize that there wasn’t much out there to suggest that Trump colluded with Russia.
The Obama administration is easily the most corrupt administration this country has seen, at least as far as I can tell. It worked to undermine, at every step, the incoming Trump administration and sought to make irrelevant the results of the 2016 election. To them, we, the People, should never have been able to elect Donald Trump as President of the United States. We were supposed to pick Hillary and continue on with their evil dominion over us. We never were supposed to have an actual say as to who inhabits the White House.
Unlikely as it is, I do hope and pray that before Trump leaves office for good (in 2025), that all of these evil bastards are sentenced for their criminal acts. What they committed was treason against the United States. They ought to serve the due punishment for such a crime.
But for now, let’s focus on winning 2020 and ensuring that another remnant of that corrupt Obama administration does not get the chance to set foot in the White House as POTUS.
“For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”
Despite the details I will share with you today which show just a fraction of how utterly corrupt Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the Obama administration are/were, this is not a story that will at all be covered by the likes of the mainstream media.
No, they will instead choose to cover things related to either RBG or Roe v. Wade, or literally anything at all that could pass as news in order to avoid reporting on the things that I will share with you.
As I share these things, I ask you to perform a bit of a mental exercise. For every line item I share from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the Committee on Finance’s report regarding the various business dealings of Hunter Biden, as well as in relation to the Obama/Biden administration, please picture the fake news media’s reaction had any member of the Trump family, even up to Donald himself, done any one of the things detailed on the report.
Picture the headlines, the fake horror and dismay, if anyone on the Right had done any of the following things:
Two months after massive protests in Ukraine regarding people’s desire to integrate into western economies and get rid of systematic corruption in the country, which led to the killing of 82 people during the protests, a number of significant events regarding the Bidens unfolded in the span of less than a month.
According to the report: “On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the ‘public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.’ The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”
Later, in early 2015, former Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent, reported concerns to officials in then-VP Joe Biden’s office about what he considered to be a conflict of interest regarding the anti-corruption mission the U.S. was reportedly pushing in the former Soviet state and the fact that Hunter Biden, the VP’s son, had a role on Burisma’s board. According to the report, “Kent’s concerns went unaddressed.” In an email Kent sent to his colleagues in September of 2016, he wrote: “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”
In October of 2015, another state official, Amos Hochstein, raised concerns regarding Hunter’s role with Burisma to Joe Biden himself as well as Hunter Biden. He argued that Hunter’s position with the Ukrainian company enabled “Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine,” according to the report.
Those two individuals, George Kent and Amos Hochstein, raised concerns regarding Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma, at least as far as the Committees are aware of.
Hunter’s role with Burisma was very well known to state department officials, including then-Secretary of State John Kerry, though he falsely claimed in a town hall event on December 8th, 2019, that he “had no knowledge about any of that. None. No.” Section V of the report shows that to have been a lie.
Without going into too much detail for one particular section in a lengthy report, there is plenty of evidence that shows John Kerry was lying in that town hall. He did, in fact, have knowledge, and plenty of it, about Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma.
According to the report: “On May 13, 2014, the day after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz – who was also Hunter Biden’s business partner – emailed to inform Kerry’s chief of staff, and to distance himself, from that decision. Moreover, in May 2014, Secretary Kerry’s chief of staff, David Wade, briefed him about press inquiries specifically relating to Heinz, Hunter Biden, and Burisma. Separately, State Department officials wrote that they sent the secretary articles with the headlines, ‘Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas company’s board,’ ‘Biden’s son joins Ukrainian gas producer board,’ and ‘White House says no issue with Biden’s son, Ukraine gas company.’”
John Kerry knew possibly as early as THE DAY AFTER Hunter joined Burisma’s board and definitely no later than whenever that particular briefing occurred in May of 2014. Kerry was lying about this as late as December of last year.
Going further with the report, the key findings also show that George Kent had told the Committees that Zlochevsky, Burisma’s owner, was an “odious oligarch.” However, in December of 2015, well after British officials had seized over $20 million dollars from Zlochevsky’s bank accounts in London, Vice President Biden’s staff had advised him to not comment anything regarding Zlochevsky, instead, recommending he simply say: “I’m not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.”
To remind you, the “mission” of the U.S. in Ukraine was to weed out corruption. It’s not surprising, really, how poorly such a “mission” went with regards to achieving that goal when you have an equally corrupt administration running that “mission.” Clearly, the Bidens used that as an excuse to enrich themselves in a country which was already fraught with corruption.
Moving on, another key finding is so incredible that I will directly quote it to you in full: “Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to ‘shut the case against Zlochevsky.’ Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the Resident Legal Advisor reported this allegation to the FBI.”
Unsurprisingly, the insane levels of corruption don’t end there. According to the report, Hunter Biden was a U.S. Secret Service protectee while he was on Burisma’s board. Also, Obama administration officials repeatedly met with former Ukrainian official Andrii Telizhenko, described in the report as “the Democrats’ personification of Russian disinformation,” and Telizhenko was often contracted by a Democrat lobbying group as recently as summer of 2019.
Furthermore, apart from the over $4 million that Burisma paid to both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, Archer “received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.”
Hunter Biden got an even nicer payout from Elena Baturina, wife of a former Moscow mayor, in the form of $3.5 million. Hunter also opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong in order to fund a $100,000 global spending spree with James and Sara Biden, so now, the Chinese are also involved (not that it’s surprising that the Bidens are in bed with China).
Hunter also had business dealings with Ye Jianming, the aforementioned Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals who are obviously linked to the CCP and the People’s Liberation Army. According to the report, “those associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow.”
And the cherry on top of the disgusting cake of lies, deceit and malignant corruption is that Hunter Biden, according to the report, also “paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an ‘Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.’”
Remember how ballistic the Left and fake news media got when it was discovered that Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with no actual ties to the Kremlin? Or how the media would not stop talking about the debunked Steele dossier claiming that Trump had hired Russian hookers to urinate on the Obama’s hotel bed?
Remember how the deep state tried to cover up their attempt at cheating in the 2016 election by alleging that Trump had colluded with Russia to become President of the United States?
Again, imagine for a moment the kinds of headlines we would be reading, the unending news coverage from the fake news media, if any member of the Trump or Pence family, or just anyone on the Right, had reportedly done any one of the things that Hunter and Joe Biden are accused of having done.
The Left will allege that Trump is a corrupt dictator when their literal last choice of a nominee is DEEPLY embedded in corruption schemes that would make Al Capone look like a chump.
This, obviously, won’t be covered by the fake news media. If at all, they will allege that these are “old” or “debunked” “lies” in order to cover for a presidential candidate who is comparable to the Clintons in his level of corruption and greed.
But it’s out there for anyone to find and read. And unlike the Mueller report, which was chockfull of allegations made by the fake news media with no real substance (and which ultimately had to admit they found NOTHING that even remotely suggested that Trump had colluded with Russia), this Senate Committee report brings plenty of evidence for all of the things they are alleging.
The Bidens (and by extension, the Obamas) are corrupt. In other news, the sky is blue.
2 Peter 2:19
“They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”
With the Democrat National Convention underway, the Left is trying its best to hype up Biden and prop him up as the clear answer to Republican President Donald Trump. However, despite this, former President Barack Obama is less than enthused about Biden’s run against Trump.
Now, while I have already talked about how Trump’s real opposition isn’t Biden but mail-in voter fraud, the fact remains that Biden still needs to campaign, to one extent or another, even if the farthest he goes is his front porch. He still has to give interviews and talk to people and do the things most regular presidential nominees have to do, even in this unique election.
In this campaigning, Obama points out that one shouldn’t “underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up,” reported a recent Politico article which was surprisingly harsh towards Joe Biden at points.
Throughout this Politico article, the general theme seems to be that Joe Biden felt he didn’t get much, if any, respect from Obama or those around him, not too dissimilar to Fredo Corleone, the aloof and clearly mentally-challenged older brother of Michael Corleone, the smart and tactful son of Vito who ended up succeeding him as the titular Godfather of his mafia family.
I imagine the following scene from The Godfather Part II is something Joe can relate to:
Fredo: “I’m your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!”
Michael: “That’s the way Pop wanted it.”
Fredo: “It ain’t the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I’m smart! Not like everybody says… like dumb… I’m smart and I want respect!”
Apart from the sentiment that Joe is not a very intelligent fellow, I think he can relate to Fredo in that he, too, was basically “stepped over.” Fredo was passed over as Don of the family, following the death of Sonny and Vito, making Michael the head of the Corleone family, despite being younger than Fredo. Similarly, Joe was passed over as the “heir” of the Obama administration’s legacy, with the Democrats choosing Hillary Clinton, who was at least relatively smarter and had the same Ivy League education and background that many Leftist elitists favor.
In fact, that sentiment of being passed over as Obama’s heir was a major topic in the Politico article as well:
“… behind all the BFF bonhomie is a much more complicated story – one fueled by the misgivings the 44th president had about the would-be 46th, the deep hurt still felt among Biden’s allies over how Obama embraced Hillary Clinton as his successor, and a powerful sense of pride that is driving Biden to prove that the former president and many of his aides underestimated the very real strengths of his partner,” according to Politico.
If this doesn’t scream “Fredo Corleone” to you, I don’t know what does.
Leon Panetta, Obama’s secretary of Defense, recalled: “[Biden] was loyal, I think, to Obama in every way in terms of defending and standing by him, even probably when he disagreed with what Obama was doing. To some extent, [Biden] oftentimes felt that that loyalty was not being rewarded.”
The Politico article then went on to point out the way in which “Young White House aides frequently mocked Biden’s gaffes and lack of discipline in comparison to the almost clerical Obama. They would chortle at how Biden, like an elderly uncle at Thanksgiving, would launch into extended monologues that everyone had heard before.”
Even the infamous Ben Rhodes, a key part of the Iran nuclear deal, wrote in his memoir that “in the Situation Room, Biden could be something of an unguided missile.”
A particularly bad quote came from Obama himself, apart from his “don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up” quote, where he reportedly told one 2020 Democrat candidate, speaking of the then-current Democrat electorate in Iowa, “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”
Whether he meant the ability to win or to run things smoothly or what, I don’t know, but that hardly matters. He clearly doesn’t have much, if any, confidence in Joe Biden and has unenthusiastically supported Biden because he just kinda has to.
This was pointed out in the Politico article:
“But even in victory, Biden and his aides often act like they have something to prove to the Obama team that doubted them. Some Biden allies noted that Obama’s endorsement of Biden, when it finally arrived, lacked the effusiveness of his endorsement of Clinton. ‘I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office,’ he said of Clinton in his video message in 2016. Four years later, in his endorsement video for Biden, he said: ‘I believe Joe has all of the qualities we need in a president right now… and I know he will surround himself with good people.’”
Obama and the Left have run with the narrative that Trump is dividing the country (completely ignoring that THEY are the ones who have been dividing the country with identity politics since HE was president), so it’s not surprising that he would say that Biden has “the qualities we need in a president right now.” Biden is known in the Swamp as being a bit more willing to cooperate with other people, even Republicans, which contrasted with Obama’s egotistical and narcissistic approach to things, believing he knew more than everyone else in whatever room he occupied combined.
That’s not to say Biden would make for a good president at all, of course – he’d be a train wreck and would not actually be in charge, which is why Obama mentioned that second part of Biden surrounding himself with “good people.”
Obama has no trust in Biden’s ability to do much of anything, especially doing things right, and knows perfectly well that if Joe were to “win” (if you read my previous article talking about cheat-by-mail, you know why I put that word in quotation marks), Joe would, at best, be the puppet with the official title of POTUS but someone else, like Kamala, would be the one actually running things and at worst, he would be forced to resign almost immediately to let Kamala be POTUS.
These are things we all knew, and even suspected that Obama saw it the same way, but it’s particularly interesting to see this from POLITICO of all sources. This, suffice to say, does not exactly hype people up to the idea of a Biden presidency. For Politico’s readers, this does not get them excited to vote for Biden, either by mail or by showing up to the polls.
While at some points the article tries to be more positive towards Biden, things like pointing out that Biden repeated the third grade, got all Cs and Ds in his first three semesters in college except for As in P.E., a course in which you would have to royally screw up to get anything less than a C, a B in “Great English Writers”, where he plagiarized in his paper, and an F in ROTC, as well as having graduated 76th out of 85 students at Syracuse Law School definitely do not help paint a pretty or excitable picture of Joe Biden, something he desperately needs.
I find it rather surprising that Politico would publish something like this, knowing full well that these people are largely Democrats. You would think they’d do whatever they could to help Biden win, especially as he is a candidate who NEEDS to be helped by those around him and those who support him.
Maybe they don’t exactly expect Biden to win, after all. Either that or they are so in bed with the Obama camp of the Democrat Party that they would rather try and avoid a disastrous campaign and Biden “presidency” which could tarnish whatever is left of the Obama legacy (which, granted, Biden or whomever controls his strings would get us back into the Paris climate deal and the Iran nuke deal and try to restore basically everything about Obama’s legacy, while trying to destroy Trump’s expansive legacy).
I don’t know the precise reason as to why the people at Politico chose to publish this, though I suppose we are still far enough away from the election that it would not really matter if this was published at all, and the sentiments expressed in the Politico article are sentiments found just about throughout the entirety of the Democrat Party anyway, and they aren’t doing a great job in hiding those sentiments.
At any rate, whatever the reason, I will enjoy the fact that they did and will call back to this whenever the opportunity strikes. Thanks for the ammo, Politico.
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
There are roughly two or three narratives regarding the economy in certain Leftists’ minds. One of them is that the economy is not doing well at all, and that someone has to “fix” it, which is a very clear lie that even contradicts a different narrative that I will cover in a second. Another narrative is that the economy is nothing special and we should not focus on it. That is the narrative many on the Left choose to follow, sort of, because the economy is doing too good for them to realistically argue against it. They would much rather attack Trump’s “racism” or “sexism” or “bigotry” than tackle his successful track record as POTUS because they know they would come up awfully short (especially Michael Bloomberg). But finally, the third narrative is one that only one person would be foolish enough to try: Obama is the one who can take credit for this economy.
And who else to try and peddle this hilarious lie than the former Liar-in-Chief, former President Barack Hussein Obama?
Earlier this week, Obama tweeted: “Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”
In the words of a certain communist former president: “You didn’t build that.”
It is laughable that Obama would try to take credit for this economy (yet again) because we saw nothing of the sort regarding job creation or economic recovery at any point in his presidency.
A Forbes op-ed published in 2016, the last full year of Obama’s presidency, said: “The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in post-war American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions.”
“I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.”
Investor’s Business Daily also pointed out how bad the Obama economy was back in 2018 when the former POTUS also tried to take credit for the Trump economy:
“The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama’s last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one. The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.”
“Real median family income didn’t budge from August 2015 to November 2016, according to Sentier Research. It’s up more than 4% since Trump came into office. Wages are on the upswing. In Obama’s last year, unemployment rate remained basically unchanged – it was 4.9% in Jan. 2016, and 4.8% when Trump took office in Jan. 2017. Now it’s down to 3.9%.”
The National Review also highlighted some of Trump’s economic accomplishments since taking office:
“The census report ten days ago revealed workers’ earnings increasing at 3.4 percent annually, a rate not seen since the best of the Reagan years, and the poverty rate has declined to 11.8 percent, the best figure that has been recorded since the end of the Clinton administration and still resolutely proceeding in the right direction. Unemployment is at its lowest percentage since the Lyndon Johnson administration more than 50 years ago (and the numbers then were helped by having 545,000 conscripts in Vietnam). Minority groups are the principal beneficiaries of the Trump economy; it isn’t trickle-down, it’s surge-up. Average income for female-led single-parent households jumped 7.6 percent last year, well ahead of gains in higher income groups.”
“The poverty rate among female-led households fell 2.7 percent for African Americans, and 4 percent for Hispanics. Industries largely populated by women (and, historically, exploited women), especially hospitality and, to a lesser extent, health care, showed strong earnings gains, even as unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic women fell to under 4.5 percent.”
“Another partisan Democratic falsehood that is exposed by the census is the myth that the middle class is shrinking. The percentage of total families at the lowest economic levels has fallen by over 1 whole percent and the brackets from $50,000 to $150,000 and above $200,000 have both increased by almost 1 whole percent (several million people in each case). There were sharp increases in the incomes of younger families (up to age 34).”
The contrast between the Obama and Trump economies are day and night, with the Obama economy having been absolute garbage and the Trump economy being the best economy we have seen in decades. It’s no surprise that jealous Barack Obama would attempt to take credit for this economy, which he had nothing to do with.
It’s also no surprise that the President’s team (as well as Trump himself and a slew of other people) reacted with mockery or simply telling it like it is in order to set the record straight as to whom should the credit go.
In a statement to Fox News from the Trump campaign’s national press secretary: “President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy. Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history. By contrast, through deregulating, lowering taxes, and supporting free-market policies, President Trump has created the hottest economy on record, with unemployment hitting generational lows and all-time lows for African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, veterans and many other hard-working Americans.”
“Paychecks are growing at the fastest pace in a decade and twice as fast for low- and middle-income Americans. It’s no wonder Democrats seek to take credit for the Trump economy after eight years of betraying blue-collar workers and inflicting pain upon the middle class as Americans everywhere suffered.”
“But the failed days of Democrat stagnation are over, and the soaring Trump economy is here to stay,” added the press secretary.
The President himself reacted to this on Twitter, writing: “Did you hear the latest con job? President Obama is now trying to take credit for the Economic Boom taking place under the Trump Administration. He had the WEAKEST recovery since the Great Depression, despite Zero Fed Rate & MASSIVE quantitative easing. NOW, best jobs numbers ever. Had to rebuild our military, which was totally depleted. Fed Rate UP, taxes and regulations WAY DOWN. If Dems won in 2016, the USA would be in big economic (Depression?) & military trouble right now. THE BEST IS YET TO COME. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”
As previously said, it really is no surprise that Obama would try and steal credit for the good economy. For EIGHT YEARS, he blamed his predecessor for a bad economy. And while that could feasibly work for the first couple of years coming off a recession that began with the previous administration, the economy was TERRIBLE for his entire tenure in both terms.
I remember hearing Bill Clinton trying to give Obama credit for a “great” economic recovery that “even he” could not have orchestrated back during the 2016 election cycle to get people to believe the economy was good and that Hillary would continue Obama’s legacy (which she would have but that isn’t a good thing), but there was no such economic recovery. Things HARDLY got much better and that’s because the only place to go for the Obama economy was up, and even THEN, it didn’t go up by much.
The unemployment rates went down largely because people either stopped looking for jobs, got government contract work or got part-time jobs. Things that make the unemployment rate go down artificially. Trump’s economic recovery is REAL growth for our country, with people finding full-time jobs and there being a virtual SURPLUS of jobs.
The stock market went up during the Obama years largely because companies were buying their own stocks to artificially raise them. The only thing that’s artificial about the Trump economy is the fake news media’s claims that we are headed towards a recession, and even that garbage has largely been dropped because of how virtually IMPOSSIBLE it is for a recession to happen in this economic climate.
Obama was a terrible jobs president, to the point where he openly mocked Trump’s promises to bring manufacturing jobs back, saying “what magic wand do you have?”
Well, this is his magic wand: A REAL ECONOMY WITH A REAL RECOVERY FROM OBAMA’S TERRIBLE TENURE AS POTUS.
An economy so good, most Democrats will go to lengths to avoid discussing it, some Democrats will foolishly and laughably attempt to severely downplay it, and one will attempt to take sole credit for it when such credit is not due to him.
THIS is how you Make America Great Again.
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
NYT: FBI Didn’t Spy On Trump, They Just Had Informants Secretly Ask About Trump-Russia Under False Pretenses
Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
Later in the piece, we read:
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
With the impeachment hearings trotting out nothing for the Democrats or the fake news media to be able to stick with to attack Trump (they went from Quid Pro Quo to bribery to not letting a foreigner into the WH and are circling back to Quid Pro Quo with Sondland, but that’s not working out either), the Democrats and the fake news media are desperate to find something, ANYTHING, to try and hit Trump with, considering how poorly this impeachment sham is going for them.
In comes a U.N. report that tries to utterly tear into the Trump administration. According to the AFP, who wrote a story on the report, “more than 100,000 children are currently being held in migration-related detention in the United States, often in violation of international law, the UN said Monday.”
NPR also ran with the story, claiming that the Trump administration “is still holding more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.”
This story was also circulated among Democrats, with U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) tweeting: “The over 100,000 kids in immigration-related custody are kids the Trump administration has separated from their families, detained in cages, & denied basic necessities & medical care. We can’t let this inhumane treatment continue at any scale.”
Certainly, words of condemnation. And she was far from alone. The Democratic Coalition shared the article and tweeted: “Our National Shame: The United Nations has condemned the United States for having the world’s highest rate of children in detention. #KeepFamiliesTogether #ShitholePresident.”
By the way, I didn’t censor that curse word so you would fully get what it is these people think of President Trump.
In any case, the DNC War Room also tweeted: “This is a disgusting result of Trump’s family separation policies – pushed by Stephen Miller who has cited white nationalist propaganda in promoting his views. It’s also, apparently, a violation of a U.N. treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Ooooh, seems pretty bad. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) also tweeted: “#1 is a slot you want to see… except for when it’s a worldwide ranking of detained children. Not only is it wrong & inhuman to endanger the lives of over 100,000 children in immigration-related custody, but it VIOLATES international law.” In a tweet replying to herself, Rep. Velazquez continued: “I urge each & every member of our #NY7 community to read up & speak out bc this is no mistake – this is a direct result of the Trump admin’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. This is shameful!”
The Latino Victory US, an open borders Leftist organization, echoed Rep. Velazquez’ sentiments: “The United States of America – the richest & most powerful country on the planet – has the world’s highest rate of detained children. Let that sink in. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. This is a direct result of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.”
My God, what is Trump to do?! He is detaining children, holding them hostage and reportedly treating them inhumanely! Oh God! OH GOD WHAT ARE WE TO… hey, is that the author of the U.N. report? What’s he doing? Is he… is he saying that the numbers in the report aren’t accurate for 2018, but are actually from 2015, when Obama was president? Huh.
Yep, the AFP, upon finding out about it, tweeted the following: “AFP is withdrawing this story. The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015. We will delete the story.”
Wait, is it not newsworthy anymore that the U.S. was holding so many children in detention now? I get that the story is not new because the figures aren’t new, but the message of the story was supposed to be to take care of migrant children and be humane towards them, right? Or was it just supposed to be a “gotcha” for the Trump administration?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions because we already know the answer: the fake news media is in collusion with the Deep State to take down Trump and this has been the case since even before Trump won the election.
Reuters similarly deleted their story upon this revelation, Rep. Grace Meng also seemingly deleted her tweet about it, as did the Democratic Coalition upon discovering that, if they had kept the tweet up, they would’ve inadvertently been calling President Obama a “#ShitholePresident”. But you have to ask, if Trump would’ve been considered that bad word if he had done that, why isn’t Obama being considered the “s**thole president”? He’s the one that did it.
Remember all those pictures of kids locked up in cages (like the one above) that the fake news media, like with this story, tried to pass off as Trump’s doing until it was found out that the pictures were from 2014, so it was during Obama’s tenure? Why doesn’t Obama, who was the one that actually kept these kids in these conditions and apparently in violation of international law, get the ire that Trump was getting when these idiots thought it was him?
Again, rhetorical questions, all of them. Rep. Grace Meng said that the Trump administration was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic “necessities & medical care”. Quite a horrible thing had it been Trump who did it, but all of a sudden, it doesn’t matter because it was actually Obama who was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic necessities and medical care?
Was it only “Our National Shame” when it was thought that Trump was keeping these kids in cages but it wasn’t “Our National Shame” when Obama was the one actually doing it? And surely, one cannot blame Trump’s “family-separation policies” when Obama was the one separating the families. Furthermore, apparently it was only “wrong” and “inhuman” to “endanger” the lives of 100,000 children when they thought Trump was doing it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it wasn’t “wrong”, “inhuman” or “endangering” the lives of children.
Apparently, it’s only racist if they think Trump did it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it was perfectly fine. These are all things that the people I mentioned earlier charged Trump with. They said he was endangering kids’ lives, that it was racist, that it was wrong, that it was shameful, that he was denying them basic human rights, and they have no problem levying these false charges against Trump, but the minute they find out Obama was actually the one whom they should be levying these charges, they keep utterly quiet.
For the record, I have come around to supporting the “family separation” policies (as the Left calls them) because these “families”, more often than not, are not actually families but minors being accompanied by total strangers hoping to enter the country with essentially a free ticket. Notice how throughout the story, any point where I said “oohh, seems bad” was entirely sarcastic not only because I knew very well that it was actually Obama doing this, but because even if Trump actually had been the one doing this, I wouldn’t have minded.
Better to keep these kids separated from total strangers who could easily abuse them or sell them off to slavery than keep them with these strangers, running these risks, all for the sake of putting up an act of “keeping families together”.
But regardless of what I think about it, these Leftists have made their own thoughts about it plenty clearly, at least when they think it was Trump. When they think it’s Trump, just about every bad story that can come out is pushed to its extreme to attempt to make him suffer for it. But one comes to find that just about every charge they levy against Trump is actually something that Obama did.
Collusion to rig an election? Obama weaponized the intel community to spy on the Trump campaign and sought the services of Ukraine.
Family separation at the border? Obama kept kids in these cages.
Quid Pro Quo? Biden, with Obama’s blessing, threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a top prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.
OBAMA was the one who was separating families at the border, denying them basic necessities and medical care. OBAMA’S administration is what “Our National Shame” was. OBAMA was the “s**thole president”. OBAMA was the one doing what these people considered wrong. But the minute they find out the truth, they go silent. It wasn’t wrong if OBAMA was doing it.
It’s utterly twisted and the reason as to why I cannot take these fools seriously when they try to claim moral superiority on any and every issue. They are completely IMMORAL to the bone.
To them, right and wrong are entirely subjective. Separating families is wrong when Trump does it but right when Obama does it. Colluding to rig an election is wrong if Trump is accused of doing it but perfectly legitimate when Obama does it. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and it’s pathetic.
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
Looking over topics for me to cover, I came across a Daily Caller article with the following title: “Over 90,000 Sign Petition To Rename Street Outside Trump Tower After Obama.”
The article is short, considering there isn’t much to say about this. It covers the fact that over 90,000 people signed the aforementioned petition “in order to spite President Donald Trump,” according to The Daily Caller.
The article says that “[T]he woman behind the petition told Newsweek that she wants to honor Obama because Osama bin Laden was killed by American forces during the Obama administration.” Elizabeth Rowin, the woman behind the petition, went on to say: “I honestly started it as a joke. I saw a comedian joke about how it would make Trump so mad if it was named after former President Obama and thought why not.”
Rowin went on to tell Newsweek that the New York City Council told her they would pursue the project and she intends to write a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio about it.
While there isn’t an awful lot of detail about this story, considering just how unimportant it is in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit to say about this.
First, I love the fact that Rowin lists bin Laden’s death as the reason for this. It’s almost literally Obama’s only good accomplishment as POTUS. If you asked people to name Obama accomplishments, first and foremost (and quite possibly on its own) would be killing Osama bin Laden. But they would struggle to name other accomplishments. Obamacare is garbage, the economy was horrible when he was in charge, foreign relations were terrible and whatever damage he caused, Trump has been working to fix them.
Even if one were to consider the Iran nuke deal as an Obama accomplishment, that’s been thrown out the window long ago. President Donald Trump is shredding Barack Obama’s legacy and his accomplishments far outweigh and outnumber Obama’s.
And that’s really the irony behind this entire story. Leftists will cheer at the renaming of the street Trump Tower is on after Barack Obama, thinking Trump will fume about it. If he’s half the internet troll (in a good way) that I think he is, he will be delighted about the change.
Why? Because of the symbolism of Trump Tower literally towering over Obama.
Trump can tweet something along the lines of: “So glad New York City changed the name of the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue. A great symbol of my accomplishments (Trump Tower) towering over President Obama’s.”
It would turn the Left’s spiteful intent to rename that street completely against them. There literally would be a massive symbol of Trump’s accomplishments, that being the Trump Tower, being far more important and impressive than Obama’s. At least, that’s what I would say if I were on Trump’s shoes regarding this.
To repeat myself, just about everything Obama did as President of the United States has been eliminated. Obama’s legacy is down to only a few things.
Obamacare is still around, unfortunately, due to either spineless or traitorous Republicans.
The economic stagnation that Obama insisted was “the new normal” for America is far behind us, with record low unemployment across the board, millions of jobs created with Trump’s “magic wand”, the economy growing at 3% annually, paychecks going up, consumer confidence skyrocketing, the cutting of taxes, etc.
The disastrous Iran nuke deal is also gone, at least when it comes to the U.S. funding the world’s lead sponsor of terror.
Relations with North Korea are… peculiar, but not at levels of U.S. bending over backwards to appease them.
ISIS is pretty much destroyed and the last major Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened in late 2017, with the latest Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happening in January of this year (no fatalities, but one injured in a “lone wolf” ISIS loyalist knife attack against a police officer), according to thereligionofpeace.com, a site that tracks Islamic terrorism among other things.
The U.S. is no longer a part of the Paris Climate Accord, so we are no longer wasting hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a boogey man.
The number of people on food stamps is getting lower and lower as more and more people can afford to pay for their own meals.
The U.S. embassy in Israel is now in Jerusalem, something many of Trump’s predecessors promised they would do but never got around to doing it for various reasons.
And most of these accomplishments are just off the top of my head. I could continue with that, adding smaller accomplishments as well, but these are the ones I wanted to cover. The point of this is to highlight the fact that Donald Trump’s presidency has been the total polar opposite of Obama’s: actually good for the country.
In reality, whether the Left will care to admit it or not, Trump has far more accomplishments than Obama, particularly since Trump’s accomplishments include OVERTURNING OBAMA’S LEGACY. The fact they want to rename the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue shows you how petty these people are, but it could really backfire on them spectacularly.
It wouldn’t be a major story by any means, just one of the many episodes relating to Trump’s Twitter wars with others, but in trying to tick the guy off, they could very well end up just symbolizing Trump towering over Obama. And that’s something I would absolutely love to see, even if it’s mentioned for only a moment.
You just have to love it when the Left dunks on itself.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
A few days ago, NBC News ran a story covering Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), talking about how U.S. Census data from the mid 1800s (1850 and 1860 specifically) showed that Sen. McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers were slave owners.
The article, titled “Sen. Mitch McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home” is nothing short of an attempt to smear the guy for the fact the guy’s ancestors FOUR GENERATIONS AGO owned slaves, when plenty of people in America are either descended from slaves or slave owners.
“The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama – all but two of them female, according to the county ‘Slave Schedules’ in the 1850 and 1860 censuses,” reported the article.
The article also mentions the fact that Sen. McConnell is opposed to slave reparations, an issue that was recently brought up to the House and has been talked about at length by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, all of whom support it.
McConnell made the case against reparations the day before the House hearing, saying: “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, when none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea. We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African American president.”
Obviously, for the uber-woke Left, such words are absolutely unacceptable and he must be put to shame. And it’s not like NBC News tried to hide their intentions for reporting on his ancestors. One paragraph states: “The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties…”
It’s likely the discovery of his ancestry, made by these very same people, came not simply in the wake of the hearings, but largely due to his comments regarding reparations, considering the amount of times they point out that he is against reparations.
Still, later down the article, they mention something experts on slavery often say: “descendants of slave owners should not be held personally responsible for the deeds of their forebears.” Despite that, NBC News says that slave experts add that “the families that descended from slave owners, like McConnell’s, are likely to have benefited from the labor of slaves that propped up farm families in earlier generations – a point made by many reparations supporters, who have said that descendants of slaves were never compensated for the economic benefit their forebears made to white families.”
And that “argument” seems pretty idiotic to me for one particular reason: THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! OF COURSE THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES BENEFITED FROM IT! That’s like saying people and their families today benefit from advanced technology. It’s just the way the world worked at the time!
That’s not an excuse to the immorality of the issue, but an explanation as to how and why the families of slave owners benefited from slave ownership. Of course they benefited! Do you think they owned slaves for fun? Slaves were seen as property; as assets. People benefit from assets. Slave owners benefited from the fact they owned slaves. I don’t think that’s an outrageous statement to make, but rather an entirely logical one. Slave owners benefited from the slaves who would work in their fields in a similar manner as to how companies benefit from the work their employees do.
That’s not outrageous, it’s adding 2 + 2 and getting 4. It’s an entirely logical outcome.
Again, that’s not to excuse slavery in the least, but it’s ridiculous to be outraged at slave owners BENEFITING from slavery when it’s what comes naturally FROM OWNING AN ASSET! What is outrageous is the fact that people, any kind of people, are/were subjected to be treated as nothing more than property and stripped of all their human rights. Not the fact that people benefit from something that is very obviously going to be beneficial.
And what exactly is Mitch McConnell supposed to do, then? Burn all his family’s money that he thinks came from ancestral slave ownership? No, I think what he is supposed to do is apologize profusely for daring to challenge the idea that people who didn’t own slaves should be made to pay people who were never slaves themselves.
But that is where the entire issue runs into trouble. Just who is descended from slaves and who is descended from slave owners? Do you want to know who is descended from slave owners as well? 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.
In an article from the Washington Free Beacon, Donald Harris, Stanford University professor of economics and father of Kamala Harris said in 2018 that his grandmother, Christina Brown, was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the man who had an entire town in northern Jamaica named after him (Brown’s Town) and the man who is said to have owned “scores of slaves,” many of whom were brought from Africa, but there were Creole slaves as well.
Barack Obama himself even acknowledges that his mother’s lineage can be traced back to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, his wife Michelle has ancestors who fought for the Confederates and, in 2007, genealogists “traced Obama’s roots and discovered two slave owners in his maternal ancestry,” according to the Washington Post.
What’s more, when Obama ran for President in 2008, he was also opposed to reparations, believing that they would be used as an excuse “not to work on challenges of racial inequality in education, housing and the workforce,” according to the WaPo.
Sen. Mitch McConnell responded to the NBC News article by saying: “You know, I find myself in the same position as President Obama. We both oppose reparations, and we both are the descendants of slave owners.”
Which does bring to light the question as to why NBC News chose to focus on McConnell when Obama was the exact same way and when Harris also had slave-owning ancestors. Of course, that is entirely a rhetorical question. We know why they focus on McConnell, a Republican, over Obama and Harris, Democrats.
But it is always interesting, if sometimes infuriating, to see the double-standard the media sets up. Just looking at the Jeffrey Epstein case, the media is working overtime to cover the connections between the sick pedophile and President Trump when there hardly is anything there (and Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-lago when he got wind of what Epstein was doing there) and when Bill Clinton has far bigger of a connection to Epstein than Trump does.
And when it comes to the issue of slavery, despite the fact that it’s likely people are descendants of slave owners, as McConnell, Obama and Harris all are, only McConnell is focused on for his comments on reparations not aligning with the far-Left’s views on the issue (I’ve decided to start using that term every now and then, since they always label anyone on the Right, or even center, as “far-right”).
Now, I’m no fan of Mitch McConnell personally. I believe he holds at least some of the blame for not working with Trump to get the wall built (the Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate before 2018. Harry Reid’s nuclear option was available to be used but the excuse was “we need 9 Democrats to work with us” which was not really the case). And while it’s entirely possible and likely that the House, under snake Paul Ryan, would’ve struck down any bill to build the wall, McConnell could’ve at least tried to get the ball rolling on building the wall and not give us a pathetic excuse of “we need the Democrats who are never going to agree to do this in order to do this”. We absolutely did not need the Democrats, we just needed Republicans who are not traitorous or spineless.
But despite my negative views on McConnell (and his ties to China are dubious at best), I do have to at least bring forth the utter double-standard of this whole ordeal. Again, Obama and Harris both are descendants of slave owners, but no one is asking them about that connection or trying to shame them about it.
Still, I’m always happy to expose the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left in everything they do.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
One particular quirk about the fake news media that I seriously dislike but sometimes find deliciously ironic and hypocritical is the fact that they will always attack Trump no matter what he does. And late last week, they did that again, regardless of what Trump had been planning on doing or what he actually ended up doing when it came to the situation surrounding Iran.
As I suspect many of you know, late last week, President Donald Trump had originally ordered a strike on multiple different Iranian targets like radar stations and missile batteries, but ultimately decided to pull out of that strike 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
Despite the fact that he decided AGAINST bombing Iran, the fake news media and (perhaps rather predictably) the war-hawks of the NeverTrump movement berated the President for his inaction, with many trying to compare him with Obama and his “red-line” comments regarding Syria and overall inaction against a terrorist group the former POTUS called a "JV team". However, this is, obviously, a very dumb comparison.
Regarding ISIS, Trump was FAR stronger in dealing with them, considering they basically hold no territory anymore compared to the entire caliphate they owned while Obama was President. Trump DESTROYED ISIS, not that you would know if you were watching the fake news media. Even with Syria, Trump actually DID SOMETHING. Remember the missile strikes back in April of 2017? That's what Obama SHOULD have done, but Trump ultimately did.
But attacking Iran would definitely launch us into yet another costly and unnecessary war in the Middle East, which, considering Iran’s alliance with Russia, could also have the potential to escalate into World War III. And for what? Some oil tankers and a drone getting destroyed? No actual casualties in any of the situations?
Like Trump said on Twitter, such a strike against Iran would’ve been disproportionate to the next to harmless acts of Iran. It’d be like beating someone up because they shoved you a little.
Here’s what Trump said following the reporting of his decision to not attack Iran:
“President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran – gave them 150 billion dollars plus 1.8 billion dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to nuclear weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are bust! On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!”
So what is it we are looking at here? Well, first, the President is rightly pointing out the fact that Iran is very much in the position they are today because Obama basically bailed them out and let them have a path to nuclear weapons (which I’m certain they currently have) in a deal that was not constitutional but everyone was too afraid to actually fight Obama on this terrible deal.
This is important to note because one of the arguments being made by the Left and the MSM is that Iran destroyed the oil tankers and the drone because we pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, that’s asinine. If that were the reason, they would’ve attacked shortly after the deal was terminated, not over a year later. If the reason for those attacks were because the Iranians are mad that Trump actually stood up to them and did not let them have their nuclear deal anymore, then this is one hell of a slow reaction to that.
The second thing we are looking at here is the very reason for not striking Iran: 150 people would’ve died in comparison to not a single one on our side. That’s not to say we should wait until someone gets killed by the Iranians to act. But that is to say the actions we partake shouldn’t be rash. Let’s not bomb Iran just because they destroyed a couple of oil tankers and an unmanned drone. Sanctions against Iran have been working pretty well, haven’t they? Like Trump said, Iran is far weaker today than a few years ago. That’s because the U.S. is applying the most sanctions it ever has on a country. And now, they are desperate.
But notice how the media is portraying this: they are comparing him to Obama’s inaction against ISIS, Syria and Russia. Again, it’s nothing like that. But what do you think the media portrayal would’ve been had Trump not called off the strike? Would they have said that he was tougher than Obama because he didn’t pull out of the strike? OF COURSE NOT! They would’ve compared him to Bush and ran the same tired stories about how we were bombing innocent children and families in Afghanistan and comparing this to that. They are convinced Trump is a war-hawk, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact he did not actually strike Iran goes against their narrative.
Trump promised we would not enter a war while he was President. So far, he’s the only president to actually stick to such a promise. Remember when Obama promised he would pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember how he did not do that and almost pulled us into a war with Syria on top of the other two wars we were already having? Trump, unlike Obama, doesn’t really care for the military industrial complex if it means that war is necessary. War is not necessary, for the most part. There are times, yes, when war is necessary. The Revolutionary War, for example. But war is usually unnecessary, especially if the reason for it is a couple of ships and a drone being destroyed but no casualties actually being tallied.
Now, another argument Leftists make is that Trump was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left to ask how many casualties there would be or he was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left until the strike to actually call it off. Both are arguments being made right now and both are equally dumb.
Regarding the first argument, we don’t know if he waited until there were only 10 minutes left to ask how many casualties there would’ve been. We only know that he asked how many there would be and that he called it off 10 minutes before the strike, citing those reasons. My guess is that he asked prior to those ten minutes how many casualties there’d be and he mulled it over, ultimately concluding such casualties would be an overreaction on our part, calling it off as a result.
Now, I know what the Leftists in the audience (if there even are any) are saying: “Well, that’s even worse! He considered killing 150 people but only ultimately decided not to because he has no idea what he’s doing!” To which I say: that’s insanely idiotic. I do think Trump was mulling it over, but likely only because he has war-hawks advising him as to what they ought to do. For as much as I love John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, they are both war-hawks. Sometimes, it’s good to have such people advising you, because they’re likely to offer the best advice if you are looking to be strong in a war. But such people are not very interested in ending one.
Killing 150 Iranians would’ve been an overreaction considering what little Iran did by comparison. When it comes to Iran, we hold all the cards. Getting pulled into a war would dilute that advantage. And while I have no doubt we would win a war against Iran, it’s entirely unnecessary to get into one in the first place.
President Trump isn’t “weak” because he pulled out of striking Iran. Again, he was plenty strong against ISIS and the results show. And he launched strikes against Syrian targets when the Syrian government gassed their OWN PEOPLE. He’s not weak. He’s just a rational person who knows that killing 150 people just because they destroyed two oil tankers and a drone, which can all be replaced, would be a gross overreaction. And even the MSM would’ve said so, had Trump not called off the strike.
Trust me, we are all better off not having attacked Iran over this. If Iran truly wants a war, then they’ll have to throw the first punch. Destroying oil tankers and a drone, and then waiting on forensic evidence to be done to determine who attacked the tankers, not claiming responsibility for it after it happened and claiming they had the right to destroy the drone as it was “over Iranian airspace” is not indicative of a country that really wants a war. If they did, they would’ve claimed responsibility for the oil tankers and would’ve said “so what if we destroyed a drone over international air space? Fight me”. Beyond that, they would’ve done far worse damage than that.
Iran doesn’t want a war. They want to talk to Trump to remove the sanctions and believe attacking U.S. property will give them some leverage in negotiations.
But we’ll see what happens as things progress, of course. I could be totally wrong here and things could escalate to an actual war, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...