Another Obama failure

7 Years Ago Obama Handed Him Over to Iraqis; Now Hezbollah Terrorist With US Blood on His Hands Heads Terror Cell in Syria

Hezbollah recruits

Although Obama promised that the man who executed American troops would face justice in Iraq, Cybercast News Service reports in a 15 March 2019 article that the murderer heads a militia in Syria.

Seven years after the Obama administration controversially handed over to Iraqi custody a veteran Hezbollah terrorist accused of executing Americans – only to see him released a year later – Israel says the wanted man now heads a Syria-based terror cell near its northern border.

According to the Israeli Defense Forces Ali Musa Daqduq, a Lebanese national, heads a terror cell comprised of Syrians, based on the Syrian side of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.

Israel vowed to prevent Iran and its Hezbollah proxy from operating against Israel from Syrian soil. In New York, its ambassador warned U.N. Security Council members that Israel “will not ignore the conversion of Syria and Lebanon to a military front against us and will act with force against the aggression from Tehran.”

Daqduq, who once served as a bodyguard to Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah, was deployed to Iraq in 2005 as part of an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force operation to work with Iraqi Shi’ite militia fighting U.S. troops.

(Read more at CNS)

Here, we learn how the last socialist-leaning president put Islamists back on the battlefield in order to preserve his nuclear deal with Iran.

Now, proclaimed socialists in the Congress want to shut up those who speak against Islam.

What are the Democrats doing to themselves?

Democrats seem intent on destroying their own party


After calling her big bill the “Green New Deal,” AOC ridicules FDR

Fox News reports in a 10 March 2019 article how Ocasio-Cortez, at SXSW, blasted FDR, Reagan and capitalism. Additionally, she puts down opposing Democrats by saying political moderates are “meh.”

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed political moderates at the South by Southwest Conference & Festivals in Austin, Texas, calling their views “misplaced” as she defended her progressive politics in a room full of supporters.

“Moderate is not a stance. It’s just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh,’” the New York Democrat said Saturday during an interview with Briahna Gray, senior politics editor for the Intercept. “We’ve become so cynical, that we view ‘meh,’ or ‘eh’ — we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete when … the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of visions, and the ‘meh’ is just worshipped now, for what?”

The self-declared Democratic socialist also criticized the treatment of minorities throughout American history, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan’s policies, which she said “pitted” white working class people against minorities in order “to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.

(Read more at Fox News)

It’s not odd that none of the presidential candidates at SXSW got any airtime. Every time that this political and economic neophyte opens her mouth, the vacuum inside of her head creates such a rush among the left-leaning “journalists” that it must be akin to standing by Niagara Falls.

Nonetheless, in response to her criticisms of FDR, maybe she should look into how President Roosevelt’s policies took America closer to a socialist state before she denigrates him and suggests her socialist program.

Regarding her comment on Reagan, unless she has a quotation source more extensive than EBSCO, JSTOR, and the plethora of other library databases available through my local university — she must be lying again.

Ilhan Omar Is a “Bridge-Destroyer”


According to a 9 March 2019 Breitbart article covering Thomas Friedman’s statements at CNN, Ilhan Omar is a bridge burner.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman told CNN’s Smerconish on Saturday that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) did nothing to build bridges with Jews and Muslims after her recent antisemitic comments about Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Friedman said that while Omar had the opportunity to “build bridges” between the Jewish and Somali-Muslims who reside in her district, she squandered that opportunity by repeatedly pushing forth antisemitic tropes.

“Ilhan Omar represents, I believe, the biggest Jewish community in the whole upper Midwest,” Friedman told CNN in a Saturday interview. “She represents that community. She also represents a Somali immigrant community that’s come to our city since then and added their voices and their richness and their culture.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

Thankfully, one person on the left (and Mr. Friedman is a constant critic of Trump and anyone on the right) criticizing the anti-Semitic statements made by Omar.

Furthermore, it is good to differentiate between criticism of Israel (which is a part of the debate over our foreign policy) and anti-Semitic comments (which constitute bigotry and is unacceptable for a representative).

Reuters claims that Democrats are dividing over the anti-Semitic charges against Omar


Reuters claims in a 7 March 2019 article that the Democrat party has started to divide over the anti-Semitim charges against Rep. Omar.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a broad resolution condemning bigotry on Thursday after remarks by a Democratic member that some viewed as anti-Semitic exposed an ideological and generational rift in the party.

Some Democrats, including several U.S. senators who are seeking the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, warned that party leaders were playing into Republicans’ hands and had stymied legitimate debate over U.S.-Israel policy.

The House, which is controlled by Democrats, approved the resolution condemning anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim discrimination and other forms of bigotry by a 407-to-23 vote.

The vote came less than a week after Representative Ilhan Omar, one of the two first Muslim women elected to Congress, made statements at a Washington event that were denounced by some as anti-Semitic.

The resolution does not mention Omar by name. But Republicans have seized on Omar’s statements and the resulting intra-party conflict as a sign the Democratic Party is fractured.

Many Democrats, in turn, have said House leaders were cowed by a Republican effort to divert attention from bigotry within their own ranks and that Omar is being held to a different standard.

“Unfortunately, I think the Democratic leadership here has made what I think is a pretty serious mistake in caving to this pressure,” said Democratic strategist Peter Daou, who has advised Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

The disagreement began after Omar, in an appearance at a Washington book store, said she feared that statements she and fellow Representative Rashida Tlaib made about foreign policy and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would be viewed as anti-Semitic because they are Muslim.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association), of fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policies?” Omar said.

Omar’s critics denounced the statement as playing into the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish Americans are loyal to Israel over the United States. Omar said opposing the policies of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not synonymous with anti-Semitism.

(Read more at Reuters)

Although I don’t believe that a civil war of sorts could be occurring among the Democrats (rather, I think that this is a Saturday-night-Wrestling-type event being staged by the press to make the Democrats not seem so racist — except to the racist audiences that Democrats are playing to) – I say we ought to let them go at it in full view of the American public. This should be covered in the nightly news and not just on the second or third opinion pages of a conservative-leaning newspaper.


Ilhan Omar explodes at a reporter who later releases audio proving the reporter right


A Daily Mail article reports on an instance where Ilhan Omar yelled at a reporter who quoted her saying that Obama got “away with murder” on drone strikes because he had a “pretty face.” After the outburst, the reporter released audio proving the journalist to be right.

A day after her comments prompted a House vote condemning anti-Semitism, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar landed herself in a new controversy by claiming a reporter misquoted her bashing former President Barack Obama – and then releasing audio of the interview that appears to back him up.

Omar, 37, told Politico Magazine that while she finds some of President Donald Trump’s initiatives objectionable, Obama escaped the consequences of his own ‘bad policies’ because of his ‘pretty face.’

After the news outlet quoted from the interview, Omar tweeted that the result was ‘[e]xhibit A of how reporters distort words. I’m an Obama fan!’

‘I was saying how Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics. This is why I always tape my interviews,’ she added, along with a winking, tongue-out emoji and nearly two minutes of audio. reviewed and transcribed the recording, which supports what Politico reporter Tim Alberta wrote.

Alberta fired back at Omar in a tweet: ‘Exhibit A of how politicians use the media as a straw man to avoid owning what they said. Your tape…supports what I wrote 100%. So does my longer tape. It’s beyond dispute. Next time, a phone call from your office before the Twitter ambush would be appreciated.’

(Read more at Daily Mail)

First rule of good journalism: have proof of your researched information that does not sit well with the interviewee. Second rule: never pull your punches.

Ocasio-Cortez follows the Hillary Clinton model of political action

Ocasio-Cortez has racked up three major ethics complaints during her first months in Congress

The Daily Caller enumerates in a 8 March 2019 article the accused transgressions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has racked up several ethics complaints since she began her first congressional term.

She has yet to address one of the most damning reports about her campaign team’s actions during the election.

Two watchdog groups have filed ethics complaints against Ocasio-Cortez for misusing her resources as a congresswoman with the Office of Congressional Ethics, while another group filed a complaint with Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging she and her chief of staff set up a million-dollar private slush fund. Ocasio-Cortez’s term officially began in January.

Ocasio-Cortez “improperly converted U.S. House resources to her non-official, personal use by obtaining an official ‘’ e-mail address for her boyfriend, despite the fact he was not employed by her congressional office,” the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation claimed in a complaint Thursday.

She also falsely designated her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a “staff” member to help secure the address, the group noted. The Coolidge-Reagan Foundation’s website champions itself as a first amendment watchdog group that defends, protects and advances “liberty.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

I hope that the FBI, the FEC, and all other law enforcement agencies that might normally have a hand in controlling wayward politicians would learn to prosecute liberals the way that they go after conservatives. I would love to see Fox News staked out at AOC’s place in the way CNN was placed for the Roger Stone raid.

House Democrats vote to water down citizens votes

Democrats defend localities that allow illegal aliens to vote

Fox News reports in a 9 March 2019 article on the provisions of Nancy Pelosi’s HR 1.

U.S. House Democrats passed a sweeping anti-corruption and voting rights bill Friday that they said was intended to make voting easier, as well as strengthen ethics rules, while also rejecting a motion to condemn voting by undocumented immigrants.

The legislation, dubbed the “For The People Act” or “H.R.1,” passed 234-193 along party lines.

The proposal — nearly 700 pages — calls for Election Day to be designated a federal holiday, requires all states to offer automatic voter registration, restores voting rights to convicted felons, institutes independent redistricting commissions to weed out gerrymandering and requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of donors who contribute more than $10,000 in an effort to rein in dark-money groups.

In the broader debate over voter accessibility, House Democrats also voted Friday to defend localities that allow non-citizens to vote in their elections, the Washington Times reported. The 228-197 vote would have almost no effect as noncitizens are barred from participating in federal elections. The GOP-backed measure would have added language to “H.R.1 stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

(Read more at Fox News)

Take this bill into mind the next time you have to choose between a Democrat and any other candidate.

{tweet ]

Proof that America is mostly devoid of journalistic integrity

Obama and the FISA Court

A 2 February 2018 Wall Street Journal article delves into three of the most compelling reasons for accepting the message of the Nunes memo.

First and most importantly, Mr. Freeman delves into the standards of journalism that most papers seem to have lost.

This column is trying to imagine how an editor at The Wall Street Journal would treat a draft article alleging a political campaign adviser was secretly working for a foreign government if the story featured uncorroborated opposition research paid for by a rival campaign. If the writer of the draft article assured the editor that readers would not be told where the information originated, it’s a safe bet this would not increase the chances of publication.

This column is also trying to imagine the conversation that would ensue if a reporter or writer then tried to persuade the editor by appealing to the authority of Yahoo News.

Of course the Journal isn’t the only media outlet that enforces standards. Many organizations strive to ensure basic accuracy and fairness. Can it possibly be true that the evidentiary standards for obtaining a federal warrant allowing the government to spy on the party out of power are significantly lower than in a professional newsroom?

Today the American people are finally able to see the memo from the majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence alleging abuse of government surveillance powers during the last presidential campaign. Many will be appalled that, at least according to the memo, on October 21, 2016 the Department of Justice and the FBI obtained a court order authorizing electronic surveillance on a Trump campaign volunteer without telling the court that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee had paid for at least some of the research presented.

Considering the fact that barely a peep has been uttered by the press regarding Obama’s regular violation of Americans’ rights (from wiretapping Fox News reporters\AP reporters to using the IRS to deny free speech to conservative groups), one would think that the press has lost its journalistic standards and replaced it with a Democrat party membership card.

From this first point, Freeman goes on to refute Orin Kerr’s dubious claim that the process of ascertaining the validity of the dossier was a non-issue. In making this second point, he quotes a former government official with experience in court cases and points out the absurdity of excusing a dishonest FBI just because they are dishonest. So, in opposition to Mr. Kerr’s claim that the court should have expected the information to be politically-slanted drivel because it was provided by Mr. Steele (supposedly known as a biased hack, according to Kerr), we must insist on truth as the only standard for our courts.

Finally, Mr. Freeman ends his excellent article with one final example of Democrat duplicity that demonstrates why we must doubt these double-dealing devils. During the Bush administration, one Democrat complained about the surveillance authority used to locate and track potential terrorists.

In March of 2007, he announced that he was “deeply troubled” by what he called “abuses of authority” by the FBI in acquiring personal information on U.S. citizens. Over the years, he urged various restrictions on the ability of the executive branch to get information on Americans’ phone calls. In order “to protect privacy and increase transparency” he sought in various ways to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—the very court that approved the electronic surveillance of a Trump associate for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

Way ahead of the news, this particular lawmaker specifically introduced the “Ending Secret Law Act” which according to a press release from his office, “would require the Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions, allowing Americans to know how the Court has interpreted” its legal authorities.

This lawmaker said that his legislation “will help ensure we have true checks and balances when it comes to the judges who are given the responsibility of overseeing our most sensitive intelligence gathering and national security programs.”

His name is Adam Schiff, and he is now the ranking member on House Intelligence. But oddly he doesn’t seem to want to take credit for his early concern for civil liberties.

(Read the full article at the Wall Street Journal)

If there were a real journalist in the main stream media, someone other than this one writer at the Wall Street Journal would have mentioned standards in reporting. Someone would have refuted the banality of arguing that the court should have known that the information backing the FISA warrant was created by Democrat hacks. If there were any real journalists, there should be another reference to Rep. Schiff’s hypocritical stance on the workings of the Intelligence committee.

The Nunes memo

For those of us who see the media as a necessary evil, the good people at Politico provided a full-text copy of the Nunes memo on FBI surveillance. That full-text, PDF version of the memo was introduced with:

With President Donald Trump’s blessing, Republican lawmakers on Friday released a classified GOP-drafted memo that alleges misconduct by senior FBI officials investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Trump on Friday declassified the GOP-authored memo. White House counsel Don McGahn sent a letter to the House Intelligence Committee that included a declassified copy of the memo, according to a White House official.

If the press had integrity, they would be asking why Comey signed three FISA warrents related to the Steele dossier. They would demand answers as to why Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein also each signed a FISA warrent for the same Steele dossier.

If the press weren’t just covering for Hillary, they would ask why she violated 2 USC 441e when she accepted the work of Christopher Steele to her campaign.

Text messages between Strzok & Page POTUS (Obama) “wants to know everything”

A 7 February 2018 Fox News article provides links to and commentary on the texts between FBI agents/Democrat activists Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”

The message, from Page to Strzok, was among thousands of texts between the lovers reviewed by Fox News. The pair both worked at one point for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016, about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” According to a newly released Senate report, this text raises questions about Obama’s personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.

In texts previously revealed, Strzok and Page have shown their disdain for Republicans in general, as well as Trump, calling him a “f—ing idiot,” among other insults.

Among the newly disclosed texts, Strzok also calls Virginians who voted against then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife for a state Senate seat “ignorant hillbillys.” (sic)

That text came from Strzok to Page on Nov. 4, 2015, the day after Jill McCabe lost a hotly contested Virginia state Senate election. Strzok said of the result, “Disappointing, but look at the district map. Loudon is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys. Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”

Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

In a 10 February 2018 article by the National Review, the media’s lack of curiosity came center stage.

In a word, the Grassley-Graham memo is shocking. Yet, the press barely notices.

Rest assured: If a Republican administration had used unverifiable hearsay from a patently suspect agent of the Republican presidential candidate to gull the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee’s campaign, it would be covered as the greatest political scandal in a half-century.

Instead, it was the other way around. The Grassley-Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo: The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced, Clinton-campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page, and in doing so, they concealed the Clinton campaign’s role. Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016, the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

With its verification by the Grassley-Graham memo, the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier, the basis of the heinous allegations used by the Justice Department and FBI to get the FISA warrants.

(Read more at the National Review)

The full-text copy of the Grassley-Graham memo

A 6 February 2018 Brietbart article introduced the full-text version of the Grassley-Graham memo by starting with these points.

Trump dossier author Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about his contact with Yahoo News, and the FBI misled a court to obtain a surveillance warrant on a former Trump campaign adviser, according to a less-redacted version of a memo by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Their memo, which was released Tuesday evening after the FBI withdrew some of its previous redactions, also reveals a number of other bombshells, and backs up assertions made in the House Intelligence Committee memo.

A newly-unredacted portion of the memo says that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Graham all saw the FISA warrant application and renewals for a surveillance warrant on Carter Page.

According to the memo, the FBI relied “heavily” on the Steele dossier, and also relied on “numerous” other FBI documents related to Steele, in order to get a surveillance warrant on Page in October 2016, and to continue surveilling him through 2017.

Then-FBI Director James Comey briefed Feinstein and Grassley in March 2017, and told them that the FBI had relied on the dossier “absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation” because Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the FBI.

The House Intelligence Committee memo asserted that the FBI had significantly relied on the dossier to get the warrant, but critics refuted that.

The Grassley-Graham memo also supports the House memo’s assertion that the FBI did not tell the FISA court (FISC) that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were behind the dossier.

The Grassley-Graham memo spells out exactly why the two senators recommended Steele for a criminal investigation, for lying to the FBI.

(Read more at the Brietbart article)

Mueller Charges 13 Russians with Meddling in US Elections

In a 16 February 2018 Politico article, indictments of 13 Russians who purportedly turned America’s free-speech political environment into an opportunity to bend the American political system to at times support certain candidates.

If this article had been written by real journalists, it might have asked why similar indictments haven’t been handed down against foreign national Christopher Steele. More to the point, it would do more than mention of indictments of the other foreigners who contributed to the Fusion GPS dossier.

Nonetheless, it does mention the 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies who have been charged by Mueller. Sad.

Special counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities on Friday with an illegal “information warfare” scheme to disrupt the 2016 presidential election and assist the candidacy of President Donald Trump.

The dramatic indictment reveals a bold covert effort that went beyond the previously-known use of “fake news” and social media misdirection to divide American voters and harm Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

It charges that as early as 2014, Russian nationals physically entered the U.S., and, hiding their true identities, gathered intelligence, organized political rallies — and even paid Americans to assist their political sabotage. The Russians allegedly paid one American in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform and hired another to build a cage to “imprison” the Clinton impersonator at a Florida rally.

The effort was led by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, a notorious online misinformation operation with suspected Kremlin ties, according to the indictment, and involved what the court filing called “unwitting” U.S. citizens and Trump campaign officials.

The indictment concludes that the Internet Research Agency “had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system.” While noting that the operation undermined multiple presidential candidates, including Trump GOP rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the document says that the shadowy Russian agency’s operations “included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump… and disparaging Hillary Clinton.”

No Trump campaign officials or associates are named in the indictment, which does not address the Russian hacking and theft of Democratic emails during the 2016 campaign or the other known contacts between Trump associates and Russians.

(Read more at Politico)

If covering for Hillary and the Democrats were not such a full-time job, Politico might be able to accomplish some non-partisan reporting.

The Mueller case may unravel: Judicial order in Flynn case prompts new round of scrutiny

A 20 February 2018 article at The Hill reports Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has ruled that Mueller must provide Flynn with all information that is favorable to his own defense. This raises the possibility that Judge Sullivan believes that Mueller overstepped legal boundaries in getting the guilty plea to which Flynn has accepted.

The federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn has ordered special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to turn over any “exculpatory evidence” to his defense team.

The development generated immediate attention in conservative circles, with some seizing on the order as a potential indication that Flynn’s guilty plea had been called into question.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan filed the order on Friday, directing federal prosecutors to produce to Flynn’s legal team “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment” in a timely manner.

Sullivan’s order invoked the “Brady Rule,” which requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession to the defense — that is, evidence that could prove favorable to the defendant in negating his guilt, reducing his potential sentence or bolstering the credibility of a witness.

(Read more at The Hill)

FBI and DNC leaders see a shake-up

Top DNC official out after less than a year on the job

According to a 29 January 2018 NBC News article, Jess O’Connell has been caught up in the current kerfuffle.

The CEO of the Democratic National Committee is leaving after less than a year on the job, NBC News has learned.

Veteran Democrat operative Jess O’Connell took the helm of the DNC last May with a mandate to help newly installed Chairman Tom Perez turn around a troubled party organization that was struggling after years of neglect and a brutal 2016 that included accusations of favoritism in the primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the hacking of internal emails, and the loss to President Donald Trump.

O’Connell will leave the party stabilized, if not yet fully recovered, after wins last year in Virginia and Alabama, and her decision to leave is a personal one, a DNC official told NBC News, timed to cause minimal disruption ahead of November’s midterm elections.

But O’Connell’s departure comes just months after the DNC ousted its finance director following a period of weak fundraising, as well as a shakeup last year that reignited tensions with Sanders’ allies. Still, the party has found itself subject to fewer negative headlines of late as fundraising started to improve and vacancies are filled.

(Read more at NBC News)

Something tells me that NBC has not fed us the full message. With the DNC wavering between far-left/socialist dogma and far-far-left/illegal immigrant messaging, it seems to have fallen back to a one-plank platform (as observed by cartoonist A. F. Branco).
Hence, I think that Democrats are really waiting for the FISA-memo shoe to drop. That is, something tells me that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will be the next to depart or disappear. Unless she turns against Imran Awan or maybe the two work out a deal with the FBI, I would not be surprised if they both end in federal prison.

Of course, there has always been a tragic history associated with people who get involved in Clinton shady deals such as Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate, and Billing-gate. Since Andrew and his wife Jill have procured major bits of funding from Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe, maybe the trashing of those outside of the inner Clinton circles will occur again.

Andrew McCabe’s departure from the FBI tied to IG investigation

The Washington Examiner revealed through a 30 January 2018 article how Andrew McCabe’s handling of the Clinton investigation likely led to his departure from the FBI.

Andrew McCabe’s decision to step down as FBI deputy director is reportedly tied to a forthcoming watchdog report on how he agency handled the investigation in Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

FBI Director Christopher Wray alluded in a message to all agency employees Monday night that he has seen information within the Inspector General’s report, and tied that information to his accepting McCabe submitting his intention to retire.

“It would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific aspects of the IG’s review right now,” Wray said in the message obtained by NBC News. “But I can assure you that I remain staunchly committed to doing this job, in every respect, ‘by the book.’ I will not be swayed by political or other pressure in my decision making.”

Wray and McCabe reportedly also met and discussed the IG’s probe.

McCabe, who was appointed by former FBI Director James Comey in January 2016, announced his intent Monday to go on “terminal leave” until he could retire and be eligible for full pension in mid-March.

The IG is investigating how the FBI handling the Clinton probe, and that report’s release is pending.

McCabe drew the ire of both President Trump and Republican lawmakers for being biased because his wife took donations from a Clinton ally while running as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat — though the FBI released internal documents showing there was no conflict of interest for McCabe.

(Read more at Washington Examiner)

It will be interesting to see who else in the Obama FBI took part in twisting the law in regard to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Reports abound concerning McCabe ordering FBI agents to alter records, Strzok ignoring the letter and spirit of the law concerning Hillary’s handling of state secrets, and Page advising all of this. When the dominoes start to fall, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and others will be there — but who else?

McCabe Threatened To ‘Torch The FBI’ If Forced Out Of Bureau Without Pension

A 30 January 2018 Daily Wire article details McCabe’s threats against those in power.

In the days before FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was forced out of his job, he threatened to “torch” the bureau if he was ousted before his full federal retirement benefits kicked in, according to a new report.

“He was unglued,” one FBI source told True Pundit. “Someone should keep an eye on him.”

But McCabe may also have been reacting, in part, to another growing problem beyond the corruption scandals enveloping McCabe’s leadership at the embattled FBI.

An FBI insider with Intel inside the embattled Bureau who has vigilantly worked to uncover systemic corruption inside the FBI, is rumored to be penning a tell-all book that promises to blow the roof off the inner-workings of the FBI’s controversial 7th-Floor.

Well, that’s mighty cryptic.

McCabe on Monday said he would take an ‘indefinite” leave of absence, stepping down from his post months earlier than expected.

McCabe is set to receive a nearly $2 million pension, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. But that taxpayer-funded pension doesn’t kick in until March 18, which is why McCabe decided to take “indefinite” leave. That way, he’ll hit the mark.

His decision came just hours before the House voted to reveal a controversial, GOP-authored memo about FBI procedure alleging that FBI higher-ups, including McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and former FBI Director James Comey abused the the FISA warrantless surveillance program.

McCabe has been a frequent target of President Donald Trump on Twitter since being named the FBI’s interim director (following Comey’s firing) and Republicans have viewed McCabe with suspicion, often questioning why the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, which took place under McCabe, was so poorly administered.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

With threats like this, it sounds like we are due for some great courtroom drama all around Madame Clinton — the woman who could never end her defeat to the presidency.

Were you aware of these Obama acts

Obama allowed Hezbollah to sell cocaine in America to avoid derailing the Iran deal

In a 17 December 2017 Politico exposé, Josh Meyer explained how Obama cut the legs out from under law enforcement agencies that sought to stop the flow of cocaine into America. Moreover, Josh Meyer explained that Obama did this in order that the Iran deal would remain on track.

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Over the next eight years, agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.

They followed cocaine shipments, some from Latin America to West Africa and on to Europe and the Middle East, and others through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States. They tracked the river of dirty cash as it was laundered by, among other tactics, buying American used cars and shipping them to Africa. And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran.

But as Project Cassandra reached higher into the hierarchy of the conspiracy, Obama administration officials threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way, according to interviews with dozens of participants who in many cases spoke for the first time about events shrouded in secrecy, and a review of government documents and court records. When Project Cassandra leaders sought approval for some significant investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions, officials at the Justice and Treasury departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests.

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.

(Read more at Politico)

For Obama to endanger our children by kneecapping law enforcement seems unconscionable. Additionally, to stab our drug enforcement officers just as a opioid epidemic began to form seems worse. Add to that, though, the fact that Obama was playing on our sympathies regarding the DACA “kids” (all of whom entered illegally and many of whom were not kids on entry). So Obama showed a willingness to sacrifice our kids’ safety for the sake of his “Iran deal,” but wanted us to buy his deal for the DACA kids.

Obama destabilized Albania for the sake of the Iran deal

An 8 January 2018 article at the Balkan Post looks into how the de-radicalization institute negotiated by Obama and Kerry never materialized and how the transfer of MEK fighters from Iran to Albania created a new base of operations for MEK.

Residents of Tirana no doubt welcomed news that members of the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq organisation (MEK) have moved out of the capital to a closed camp in Manëz, Durres a few kilometers from Tirana. Citizens had been disturbed by the bizarre, anti-social behaviour of the group’s members and puzzled by their lifestyle.

However, they might not be so pleased if predictions come into play. That is, the arrival of widows and orphans of killed Daesh fighters to occupy the apartment blocks and university campus recently deserted by the MEK.

There is every possibility this will not happen though. The agreement brokered between Sali Berisha’s government and the Obama Administration in 2013 to bring the MEK there included the establishment of an Institute for De-Radicalisation which would have made sure the 3000 radicalized MEK fighters were rehabilitated safely back into normal society.

This did not happen. There is, therefore, no American funded Institute to de-radicalise incoming Daesh members. Instead, the MEK locked down on its control over its own members and has further managed to groom Albanian politicians, officials and mafia heads into cooperating with and supporting them. This latest move to a new base is part of the MEK’s overall survival strategy – hold on to members and promote the MEK’s brand as instigators of regime change against Iran.The building of a new base was first exposed when investigative journalist Gjergji Thanasi uncovered shipments of cement which were not linked to tax or import documents. Further investigation revealed plans to build a terrorist training camp in the Manëz area. The camp has a small-arms firing range, reinforced concrete armoury, 3.5-meter-high walls with lookout turrets to guard the entrance. The entrance is guarded by MEK personnel. Albanian authorities have no jurisdiction inside the camp. It is a de facto extra-judicial enclave.

The MEK, led by Maryam Rajavi from France, keeps its members behind closed doors in a state of modern slavery which neither the UNHCR nor the UN-IOM appear able or willing to deal with. Significantly the camp is named ‘Ashraf Three’ after the MEK’s original military base in Iraq, gifted to them by Saddam Hussein to help his war effort against Iran (1980-88). The newest camp has also been gifted to the MEK by its backers.

With this backing, the MEK feel secure enough in Albania to have conducted several open acts of violence. Two in Tirana and one in the European Parliament. But it is events in Iran which are a greater cause for concern.

Now that the protests and unrest in Iran have been quelled, some facts are emerging which could have serious repercussions throughout the Balkans region. What began as working-class protests against economic hardship and government corruption were quickly politicised by agitators who introduced violence. Security authorities arrested hundreds of protesters who were alleged to have taken part in this violence. Most have since been released pending further investigation. These investigations will look closely into interference by external forces behind the violence. A state of affairs acknowledged in a Security Council meeting on Friday 5th January when the isolated Trump Administration was warned by other members against interfering in Iran’s internal affairs.

(Read more at the Balkan Post)

For the past 16+ years, the American press has railed on the immorality of Bush’s nation building effort in Iraq. Why haven’t they mentioned this incursion by Obama into Albania? If it is bad to introduce democracy into an Islamic dictatorship, what does the introduction of a Islamist power structure into a collapsing power void like Albania constitute?

The Obama administration approved support for MEK when the New York Times argued against it

On 13 August 2011, the New York Times reprinted Elizabeth Rubin’s The Cult of Rajavi from July 2003.

A FEW weeks ago I received an e-mail from an acquaintance with the subject line: Have you seen the video everyone is talking about?

I clicked play, and there was Howard Dean, on March 19 in Berlin, at his most impassioned, extolling the virtues of a woman named Maryam Rajavi and insisting that America should recognize her as the president of Iran.

Ms. Rajavi and her husband, Massoud, are the leaders of a militant Iranian opposition group called the Mujahedeen Khalq, or Warriors of God. The group’s forces have been based for the last 25 years in Iraq, where I visited them shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

Mr. Dean’s speech stunned me. But then came Rudolph W. Giuliani saying virtually the same thing. At a conference in Paris last December, an emotional Mr. Giuliani told Ms. Rajavi, “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace.” I thought I was watching The Onion News Network. Did Mr. Giuliani know whom he was talking about?

Evidently not. In fact, an unlikely chorus of the group’s backers — some of whom have received speaking fees, others of whom are inspired by their conviction that the Iranian government must fall at any cost — have gathered around Mujahedeen Khalq at conferences in capitals across the globe.

This group of luminaries includes two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, Gens. Hugh H. Shelton and Peter Pace; Wesley K. Clark, the former NATO commander; Gen. James L. Jones, who was President Obama’s national security adviser; Louis J. Freeh, the former F.B.I. director; the former intelligence officials Dennis C. Blair and Michael V. Hayden; the former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; the former attorney general Michael B. Mukasey, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

Indeed, the Rajavis and Mujahedeen Khalq are spending millions in an attempt to persuade the Obama administration, and in particular Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to take them off the national list of terrorist groups, where the group was listed in 1997. Delisting the group would enable it to lobby Congress for support in the same way that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 allowed the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi to do.

Mrs. Clinton should ignore their P.R. campaign. Mujahedeen Khalq is not only irrelevant to the cause of Iran’s democratic activists, but a totalitarian cult that will come back to haunt us.

(Read more at the New York Times)

Although I have to admit that I do not trust the often-wrong Times, the details that can be corroborated between this and other sources (e.g., MEK supported Saddam’s Iraqi army against the Iraqi Kurds, the 2004 FBI report on MEK, and other details) make the warning at the end of the quoted material very believable.

One relevant question we have to ask now follows: will Obama hold-overs in the CIA and State Department provide even greater support to MEK in hopes of maintaining the Obama legacy in Albania? Or will they be tempted to further support MEK in place of the current Iranian regime?

Abubakar Shekau Threatens the Elimination of Christians; Trump increases Christian Refugee Arrivals

Boko Haram Leader Resurfaces and Threatens to Eliminate Christians

In a 29 June 2017 article in The Christian Post, the following threat to Christians in Nigeria was repeated.

Abubakar Shekau, leader of Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, has resurfaced in a new video, claiming responsibility for attacks on the army and declaring that there is no room for Christians to live with Muslims in the country as equals.

The terrorist group has been responsible for the deaths of over 20,000 people, including Muslims and Christians, since 2009 and has said in the past that it will seek to kill all Christians and blow up every church.

‘My message is to Islamic clerics in Nigeria who despite their position are giving wrong interpretation to the Holy Koran; you are playing with hell fire. You have to be careful because Koran has divided mankind into three; some are believers, some are hypocrites and some are nonbelievers. There is no way we Muslims in mosques and Christians in churches and you think we can work together,’ Shekau says in his latest message, as reported by the Premium Times on Wednesday.

‘This has never happened before even during the lifetime of all apostles of the prophet.’

The jihadist leader further explains that non-Muslims could be allowed to exist if they ‘remain by the side without interference’ while Muslims are ‘ruling with Sharia,’ which is a position that the democratic government of Nigeria rejects.

Rumors have swirled in the past of Shekau’s death and of Boko Haram’s leadership splintering in two, but the head of the terrorist group, which has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, has insisted he is still in charge.

Shekau said that his fighters were responsible for an ambush of a military-escorted convoy of travelers last week, which ended with the abduction of 16 women.

The police separately said that at least two people, including a police officer, were killed in the attack along Maiduguri-Damboa road.

As Al Jazeera reported in May, Boko Haram’s war with the Nigerian military since 2009 has led to 20,000 casualties, with thousands of people, including many Christians, abducted and forced to marry Islamic radicals.

The terrorist group has bombed churches and government buildings, vowing to drive out all followers of Christ from the country.

In August 2016, reports emerged that Boko Haram elected spokesman Abu Musab al-Barnawi as its new leader, with new threats made against Christians.

‘They strongly seek to Christianize the society,’ al-Barnawi said at the time, airing his grievances. ‘They exploit the condition of those who are displaced under the raging war, providing them with food and shelter and then Christianizing their children.’ “

(Read more in The Christian Post)

Obama barred Christian Syrian Refugees while seeking Muslim Syrian Refugees

Under the First Five Months of Trump, Christian Refugee Arrivals Starts to Outpace Islamic Refugee Arrivals

According to a 12 July 2017 Pew Research study, the Obama policy of favoring Islamic refugees over Christian refugees (to the point of deporting a number of Syrian Christians to their certain death) has ended. The Pew Research study reported:

“More Christian than Muslim refugees have been admitted to the United States in the first months of the Trump administration, reversing a trend that had seen Muslims outnumber Christians in the final fiscal year under President Barack Obama, a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department refugee data has found.

From Donald Trump’s first full day in office on Jan. 21 through June 30, 9,598 Christian refugees arrived in the U.S., compared with 7,250 Muslim refugees. Christians made up 50% of all refugee arrivals in this period, compared with 38% who are Muslim. Some 11% of these arrivals belong to other religions, while about 1% claim no religious affiliation.”

However, this reversal seems more to be a lessening in Obama’s hard-handed forcing of Islam on America than a preference made by Trump. On this note, Pew Research observes:

“It’s not clear why the religious composition of refugees to the U.S. has changed since February. Trump’s revised executive order states no religious preference for refugee admissions. Also, it’s not yet known whether the religious composition of refugee applicants (not arrivals) has shifted during the Trump administration, since it is likely that many refugees admitted from February through June actually applied to the Refugee Resettlement Program before Trump took office (the refugee application process typically takes between 18 and 24 months to complete).

Overall refugee admissions to the U.S. in fiscal 2017 (which ends Sept. 30) are on pace to fall below the 85,000-person ceiling established by the Obama administration for fiscal 2016, a year that saw 84,995 actual refugee arrivals. At the same time, arrivals for the current fiscal year are already nearing the new cap set by Trump in his executive order. As of June 30, the U.S. had already admitted 49,255 refugees. However, under the Supreme Court’s recent order, refugees with close family members in the U.S. may continue to enter the U.S. even after the new cap is reached.”

(Read more at Pew Research)

I, for one, am glad that President Trump does not place as big of a thumbprint on this process as Obama did.

Relevant Tweets






Obama Conflicting Standard #1 Against Christians:

This September 2015 post (never posted) is now being provided in order that we nor forget.

This is not Obama’s double standard against Christians:  it is his octuple standard.
[Click this link to tweet this on your own Twitter account]

A Problem Most Recently Reported in Christian Headlines

As seen in a 23 November 2015 Christian Headlines article, another exercise in hypocrisy has been played out by the Obama administration.

A group of Iraqi Christians is facing deportation from the U.S. while the Obama Administration looks to welcome 10,000 mostly Muslim Syrian refugees.

Christian Today reports that the small group of Iraqi Christians–27 men, women, and children–entered the U.S. from Mexico in April and May of this year after fleeing persecution in their homeland.

The refugees want to join the community of Iraqi Christians in the San Diego area, but 22 of their applications for religious asylum have been denied while they all wait at the Otay Detention Center in San Diego.

The denial of these Christians’ applications and yet the government’s favorable stance toward Muslim refugees has caused some to wonder at the seeming discrepancy in policy.

“These are families who were split up because of religious persecution, and now the government – which we love – is preventing them from being reunited,” said Fr. Michael Bazzi, of St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Cathedral, in El Cajon, California. “We wonder why, for thousands of Muslims, the door is open to America, yet Christians are not allowed to come.”

Supporters of the Iraqi Christians say that they would not be a burden on the U.S. government since they have family in San Diego willing to take them in.

Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York stated that the U.S. should accept the refugees because they will suffer persecution back in their homeland and they don’t pose a threat to national security.

Fox News Mentions the Issue of Christians being Deported as Obama Imports Muslims

In an article published by Fox News on 21 November, Obama’s hypocrisy comes to center stage.  That hypocrisy comes out best in the quote that I bolded in the last paragraph:

Amid Washington’s raging debate over refugees and religion, more than two dozen Iraqi Christians who crossed into the U.S. from Mexico in hopes of joining their friends and families are being deported after their bids for religious asylum were rejected.

A total of 27 Chaldean Christians, driven from their homeland by Al Qaeda and ISIS, entered the country in April and May, hoping to join the thriving Iraqi Christian community in and around San Diego. But the door to America is being slammed on the 17 men and 10 women over what their supporters say are technicalities.

“These are families who were split up because of religious persecution, and now the government – which we love – is preventing them from being reunited,” said Fr. Michael Bazzi, of St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Cathedral, in El Cajon. “We wonder why, for thousands of Muslims, the door is open to America, yet Christians are not allowed to come.

Todd Starnes Speaks Out

In an 18 November 2015 Charisma News article by Todd Starnes, the truth seems to have been available even earlier than the first few articles listed.  In that article, Mr. Starnes made several salient points (emphasis mine in bold and italics below):

The nation was forced this week to endure yet more pious prattling from President Obama, who spent time berating Americans who are worried about Islamic jihadis bent on blowing us all to kingdom come.

When individuals say that we should have a religious test and that only Christians—proven Christians should be admitted—that’s offensive and contrary to American values, the president said—just one day after he called such behavior un-American.

What’s offense and contrary to American values is refusing to properly investigate those wanting to come to our nation—especially those coming from regions that are hotbeds of Islamic extremism.

But the president says such prudence only further inflames the Islamic jihadis.

“ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West,” he said. “When you starting seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting that Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are—in a war-torn land—that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

It’s counterproductive and it needs to stop, he warned.

Those of us who fear that Islamic radicals might be lurking among the refugees have been called every name in the book: bigots, Islamophobes and un-American.

But the cold, hard reality is that Protestants, Catholics and Jews aren’t the ones beheading people. The Lutherans and Nazarenes aren’t gunning down young folks in concert venues.

Nevertheless, the president remains steadfast. The Muslims will come.

“We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” he told journalists from high atop his soapbox.

But that’s not entirely accurate.

Last year, the Obama administration led a fierce legal battle to have a German Christian family thrown out of the United States.

The Romeikes fled their homeland in search of a nation where they could homeschool their children. A judge initially granted them asylum—believing they were escaping from religious persecution.

However, the Obama administration waged a fierce campaign against the Romeike family—demanding they be returned to Germany.

The family lost court battle after court battle—but at the 11th hour, the White House relented and decided begrudgingly to let them stay.

And just a few months ago, a federal immigration judge ordered a dozen Iraqi Christians deported from a facility in San Diego.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson declined to tell The San Diego Union-Tribune why the Iraqi Christians were being sent back to their native land.

So the next time President Obama wants to lecture the nation about religion, maybe he could explain why his administration is importing Muslims and deporting Christians.

World News Daily Reports

In a 30 September World News Daily article, several salient points are made (bolding and italics are mine):

More than half of the 27 Iraqi Christians the Obama administration has been holding for the past six months at an ICE detention center in Otay Mesa, California, are set to be deported in coming weeks, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced earlier this week.

An immigration judge ordered the deportation of 15 of the Christians, ICE spokeswoman Lauren Mack said.

Another five of the Iraqis have been charged with immigration fraud and remain under U.S. Marshal custody at the Otay prison. Seven already have been returned to Europe, where they were living before attempting to enter the United States illegally, said Mack.

Fifteen remain in ICE custody pending their deportation in the following weeks. Five of those are considered “pending cases,” Mack said. Generally, once deportees are given a final removal order by a judge, ICE officials begin making travel arrangements.

If the European nations receiving these Christians decide to send them back to Iraq they will face almost certain death.

The 27 Iraqi Christians — also known as Chaldeans — have been detained in Otay for about six months as their immigration cases proceeded, activists and family members told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Iraq is home to one of the most ancient Christian communities, evangelized by the Apostle Thomas not long after the time of Jesus. It was home to 1.5 million Christians under Saddam Hussein but after the U.S. invaded in 2003, al-Qaida started bombing churches and kidnapping prominent Christian leaders. The attacks became more fierce after al-Qaida in Iraq morphed into ISIS and the country has been virtually emptied of its Christian population since then.

Estimates now range from 200,000 to 300,000 Christians remaining in the country, mostly in Baghdad and in Kurdish-controlled areas to the northeast.

Thousands of Chaldeans have fled Iraq, escaping fierce persecution at the hands of terrorists fighting for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Many of their men who refuse to convert to Islam have been beheaded or otherwise killed while their wives and daughters have been sold into sex slavery. Tens of thousands have been forced out of their homes and live in hiding, afraid to even show up at United Nations’ refugee camps, where they often find themselves the victims of further abuse by Muslims.

Lord George Carey, Britain’s former archbishop of Canterbury, confirmed in published reports last week what WND had previously reported, that persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq are fearful of the refugee camps. Rather than seek refuge there, they are hiding in churches and in the homes of other Christians. The U.S. has large Chaldean Catholic communities in Detroit and San Diego. Chaldean families have held regular demonstrations in support of the 27 detainees, the majority of whom have family who are U.S. citizens, but on Monday they were told by government officials they’d better not comment on the issue.

UK Paper Reports on this Injustice

In the 30 September issue of the Daily Mail, the deportation of Christians was reported.  As with the other articles, there are issues (bolded by me):

Iraqi Christians fleeing persecution at the hands of ISIS are being turned away at the American border despite having family sponsors – as thousands of Muslims are granted asylum.

At least 27 of the targeted minority, known as Chaldeans, have been held in detention in San Diego since entering through the Mexican border this spring.

Now, after months of waiting, 22 have denied asylum and sent back across the Atlantic to Europe, as another five await a verdict.

In total, America had accepted just 727 fleeing Christians at the start of 2015 – a fraction of the 4,200 Muslims granted asylum – and few since.

While statistically there are far fewer Christians than Muslims in the region, Lisa Jones, executive director of Christian Freedom International, told Daily Mail Online the minority group appear to face greater obstacles to reach safety.

‘It makes no sense,’ Jones said.

‘These are people from a Christian culture like our own that needs protection from ISIS. It is harder for Christians to move around Iraq and Syria to even get the chance to seek asylum.

‘While many more Muslims are granted asylum over here, Christians are being systematically exterminated.’

Well Before Obama Made Public His Plans to Import More Muslims

Christianity Today reported in a 22 September 2015 article on the plight of over half of the 27 Christians.  Although the fact that these Christians were held for over 6 months and not released (unlike the 121 Hispanic illegal immigrant murderers released by the Obama administration because they had been held “too long”), the fact that these Christians are being deported because they passed through friendly countries prior to entering the US must be used as a precedent.  Since the Christianity Today pointed out the words of the winning ACLU lawyer, I expect the same (bolded below) to be applied to Muslims:

A federal immigration judge has ordered 15 Iraqi Chaldean Christians deported for immigration fraud.

The Chaldeans have been held for more than six months in detention by Homeland Security. They were arrested earlier this year for using false documents to enter the United States from Mexico, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Five other Iraqi Christians will be tried for immigration fraud. Seven detainees have already been deported.

The Iraqi Christians told US officials that they were fleeing persecution at home. However, most had already been granted safe haven by Germany, Sweden and other European countries before coming to America.

“Asylum is for emergencies only,” Ginger Jacobs, a San Diego attorney, told the Union-Tribune. “There are many, many people fleeing Iraq for bona fide emergency reasons. But if somebody is able to live as a citizen in a country like Germany or the United Kingdom or Australia, then they don’t necessarily deserve an emergency remedy such as asylum.

Many of the reasons it is almost certain Obama illegally tapped Trump’s phones

Thanks for the graphic.

Obama has a history of ill-advised wiretapping

Obama wiretaps leaders of key allies, Snowden exposes

For those who did not keep their own copy of the signaificant Obama administration black eye, refer to the 25 October 2013 article in the guardian to

“The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its “customer” departments, such as the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their “Rolodexes” so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems.

The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately “tasked” for monitoring by the NSA.

The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.

After Merkel’s allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US “is not monitoring and will not monitor” the German chancellor’s communications. But that failed to quell the row, as officials in Berlin quickly pointed out that the US did not deny monitoring the phone in the past.

Arriving in Brussels for an EU summit Merkel accused the US of a breach of trust. “We need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

The NSA memo obtained by the Guardian suggests that such surveillance was not isolated, as the agency routinely monitors the phone numbers of world leaders – and even asks for the assistance of other US officials to do so.”

(Read more at the guardian)

Jim Hoft lists Obama wiretaps

Blogger Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit provided a significant list of times Obama has been caught wiretapping or otherwise spying on Americans and allies of America.

  1. The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
  2. Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
  3. Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
  4. Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
  5. Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
  6. Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
  7. Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
  8. Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.
  9. In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:
  10. In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
  11. Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
  12. Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

The Washington Times lists reasons to believe Obama wiretapped Trump

A 6 March 2017 Washington Times article provides the following reasons not believing the bluster from those downplaying the possibility of Obama’s wiretaps.

“Below is a list of why some Republicans are wary at the Democratic response so far, and why Mr. Trump may have a point.

  1. Wiretapping was essential in retrieving the conversations of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador, which led to Gen. Flynn’s resignation as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.

    According to The New York Times: ‘Mr. Flynn, who served in the job for less than a month, said he had given ‘incomplete information’ regarding a telephone call he had with the [Russian] ambassador in late December about American sanctions against Russia, weeks before President Trump’s inauguration.’

    How was it discovered that Mr. Flynn gave this “incomplete information?” Because either a transcript or actual recording of the call were overheard by FBI officials and leaked to reporters.

    It’s unclear whether the FBI — which uses Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to eavesdrop — had tapped the Russian Ambassador’s phone or Mr. Flynn’s. This is because …


  2. On Oct. 15, 2016, the BBC reported that the U.S. secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks in conjunction with the Trump Organization.

    The BBC report was corroborated by Heat Street, which reported the ‘FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.’

    However, The New York Times and The Washington Post — along with other mainstream outlets — haven’t been able to confirm. But they’ve gotten close.

    According to The New York Times: “In the fall, the FBI examined computer data showing an odd stream of activity between a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s biggest banks, whose owners have long-standing ties to Mr. [Vladimir] Putin. While some FBI officials initially believed that the computer activity indicated an encrypted channel between Moscow and New York, the bureau ultimately moved away from that view. The activity remains unexplained.”

    There is no confirmed evidence — other than the BBC and Heat Street reports — that the FBI got a court warrant to get a wiretap on the Trump Organization or to target specific individuals within Mr. Trump’s campaign, like Mr. Flynn.

    But no confirmed evidence, doesn’t mean it’s not out there, just waiting to be exposed by more mainstream outlets.


  3. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has lied about U.S. surveillance and wiretapping under oath.

    (Refer to the 6 March 2017 Washington Times article for the comparison of Clapper’s lie while under oath to the 2013 documents leaked by Snowden)


  4. Mr. Obama issued a carefully worded non-denial.

    Mr. Obama’s statement just said that neither he or the White House ordered the wiretapping — not that Mr. Trump’s organization wasn’t tapped.

    Here’s Mr. Obama’s statement: ‘A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.’

    David French, at the National Review, pointed out three ways that this non-denial was disingenuous. First, it’s technically the FISA court that orders such surveillance, along with the Justice Department (not Mr. Obama or the White House). The real question is whether Mr. Obama sought such authorization.

    Secondly, Mr. Obama has ordered surveillance against American citizens. Mr. French argues, ‘The notion that Obama would never have an American subject to surveillance is absurd.’ He cites drone strikes overseas.

    Lastly, FISA national security investigations are different than criminal investigations, in that they’re covert and require a presidential sign-off.

    As Mr. French notes: ‘One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing.’


  5. Mr. Obama expanded NSA’s powers in the days before leaving office.

    Mr. Obama, in his final days, allowed the NSA to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s other 16 intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections, The New York Times reported.

    ‘The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws,’ The Times reported. ‘These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.’

    Last week, The Times reported the Obama administration rushed to spread all evidence it collected about Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election and about possible contacts of people within Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, to ‘ to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.’


  6. Journalists readily believe the Trump-Kremlin international conspiracy to rig the U.S. election, but immediately put down the idea the Obama DOJ using FISA against Mr. Trump.

    Unsubstantiated and anonymously sourced reports have continued to trickle in the news media about Mr. Trump’s team’s collusion with Russian officials, without any actual evidence. Mr. Clapper, of whom most journalists are using to vehemently deny any wiretapping on Trump Tower, also said the DNI found no collusion between Mr. Trump’s team and Russia.

    The media, conveniently picking and choosing what they want to report or what leads they want to follow, reeks of media confirmation bias.”

New York Times inadvertently reports Trump was wiretapped

In a 19 January 2017 New York Times article revised to downplay the wiretaps of Trump by Obama, the centrality of the wiretaps still comes out (emphasis mine).

“American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Additionally, a scan of a printed copy of the 20 January 2017 New York Times article shows the original headline to this article centered on the wiretap of Trump and obtained by Obama.

If the New York Times were not trying to cover for Obama, would they have done the following two things:

  1. Would they have initially focused so intently on their story involving wiretaps that they thought tied Trump to Russians?
  2. Would they then have changed the headline associated with the story from “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aids” to “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia?”

Hat tip to Freedom Daily for the captured New York Times front page.

Broadcaster and Lawyer Mark Levin lays out a case explaining Obama’s spying

In a 6 March 2017 Independent Journal Review article, a list of mainstream media quotations compiled by radio broadcaster Mark Levin illustrated the media’s knowledge of the wiretaps they now deny exist.

“Conservative radio host Mark Levin scorched news media outlets by reading off a laundry list of reports on Obama administration spying:

  1. ‘Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.’ (Heatstreet)
  2. ‘The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials.’ (The Guardian)
  3. ‘The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.’ (McClatchy)
  4. ‘The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.’ (NYT)
  5. ‘In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.’ (NYT)
  6. ‘In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.’ (NYT)
  7. Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office (NYT) [“Where’d they get this information?” Levin asks.]
  8. ‘The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communications between Trump campaign officials and Russia. The inquiry involving Mr. Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy adviser in the spring and summer of 2016, one person familiar with the matter said.’ [References Washington Post in video, but actually Wall Street Journal]

‘Keep in mind, this is taking place during a presidential election,’ Levin said, at one point. ‘The sitting president, the incumbent party, is investigating the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and his campaign, to some extent.’

‘The media seems to be confused about their own reporting,’ he also said.”

Obama’s legacy

“Selfie Stick President” just about sums it up.

A legacy of rarely-paralleled narcissism

A summary of Obama’s accomplishments by Richard Weaving


George Will comments on the presidential narcissism

In a 5 January 2017 commentary, Mr. Will provided the following views about the nearly-past president:

“Any summation of Barack Obama’s impact on domestic policy and politics should begin with this: In 2008, he assured supporters, ‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.’ Soon he will be replaced by someone who says, ‘I alone can fix it.’

So, Americans have paid Obama the compliment of choosing continuity, if only in presidential narcissism.

The nation has now had, for only the second time, three consecutive two-term presidencies. (The other was ‘the Virginia dynasty’ of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe.) The first trio culminated in an ‘era of good feelings’ (Monroe was re-elected unopposed). The second not so much.

Obama, who called health insurance reform the ‘defining struggle of this generation,’ was semi-right, in two senses. Because Obamacare demonstrates the perils of trying to micromanage 18 percent of the economy (America’s health care sector is larger than all but four national economies), it might be the last gasp of New Deal/Great Society-style government hubris.

On Jan. 16, 2008, Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal, ‘I want to make government cool again.’ His paragraph in our national epic did not do that.

On the other hand, Obama might have catalyzed a conviction already forming in the American mind, but in any case he leaves a nation that now believes public policy should enable everyone to have access to insurance.

Obama has been among the most loquacious of our presidents, but can you call to mind from his Niagara of rhetoric a memorable sentence or even phrase? If power is the ability to achieve intended effects, his rhetoric has been powerless to produce anything but an empty, inconsequential reputation for speaking well.

He assured congressional Democrats that they could safely vote for Obamacare because ‘you’ve got me.’ He would demonstrate his magic when campaigning for it and for them. Seven years after he said this, it remains unpopular and Democrats are fewer than they were. There are 11 fewer senators and 62 fewer representatives than on Jan. 20, 2009.

A former colleague of Obama’s on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School described him as someone who never learned anything from anyone with whom he disagreed. He also never learned anything from anyone about constitutional etiquette.

He combined progressivism’s oldest tradition and central tenet – hostility to the separation of powers – with a breezy indifference to the Take Care Clause (the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed’) and to the first sentence of the Constitution’s first article (‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress’).

He began pioneering new dimensions in presidential lawlessness when, taking over George W. Bush’s bailout of the automobile industry, he shredded the rights of secured Chrysler bondholders.

He seemed to believe there is an article in the Constitution that says presidents may make or amend laws that Congress will not make or amend. Perhaps this is the mysterious Article XII that his successor has referred to.

Obama’s adventures in green energy produced the $535 million bankruptcy of Solyndra and 60 percent fewer electric cars on the road in 2015 than he had predicted.”

(Read more at the Albuquerque Journal)

If we only consider Obama’s continual crowing on the ACA — the program that was purported by him to lower our expenses by $25 hundred and was going to let us keep our plan and doctor — and then think of what actually happened, only a complete narcissist could ignore the failures on failures and keep selling it to us.  From the multiple failures of the website to the multiple failures of the exchanges to the multiple failures of insurance companies to the program’s failure to reduce the number of uninsured to the numerous other failures, only the hubris of a narcissist could keep selling this to the Democrats who rode the ACA down.

Obama receives the Medal of Honor from his Pentagon

The Washington Post reported in a 5 January 2017 article how Obama accepted the medal from his direct reports at the Pentagon:

“President Obama on Wednesday received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, prompting a backlash from critics that include former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R). But the award is more common than they apparently know, as numerous senior officials have received it, including the last two presidents.

The award was adopted in 1947 and recognizes ‘exceptionally distinguished service of significance to the Department of Defense as a whole or distinguished service of such exceptional significance’ to a part of the Defense Department for their awards to be considered insufficient, according to a Pentagon fact sheet on the award.

‘The service or assistance may have been rendered at considerable personal sacrifice and inconvenience that was motivated by patriotism, good citizenship, and a sense of public responsibility,’ the fact sheet said.

Palin criticized the decision Wednesday night, saying ‘this is what happens when you grow up thinking every kid gets a trophy.’ She shared a Breitbart News Network story with the sarcastic, if incorrect, headline: ‘President Obama awards himself Distinguished Public Service Medal.’

In January 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave outgoing President George W. Bush the award at a similar ceremony. Then-Defense Secretary William S. Cohen did the same with President Clinton in January 2001. “

(Read about the criticisms from others at The Washington Post)

When Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush were given this medal, it seemed a bit narcissistic. It definitely does now.

Obama’s legacy of lying documented in account of farewell address

On 10 January 2017, Ben Shapiro responded to President Obama’s farewell speech in Chicago by identifying the 15 biggest lies (note that the words are his, but the links are mine):

“For 45 minutes, he babbled, fibbed, rehashed the good times and the other good times, the victories and the other victories, told a hackneyed fairy tale about the young prince who arrived in the swamps of Washington D.C. and left it a utopian vision at the mercy of an evil Troll.

And the media wept.

Unfortunately, the speech was chock full of fibs.

Here were 15 of the worst falsehoods.

  1. He Believes Change Comes From Ordinary People. Obama said, ‘I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it. After eight years as your president, I still believe that.’ Really? That’s odd. His signature legislation forced benighted Americans to purchase health insurance and required religious Americans to forego their religious objections to contraceptives and abortion coverage. This is the same fellow who once referred to half the electorate as bitter clingers obsessed with God and xenophobia thanks to their poverty, and labeled the Tea Party as a terrorist entity.
  2. American Exceptionalism Lies In Our Capacity To Change. No, actually, all people are capable of change, if some more so than others. Change may be worthwhile, but that’s not what makes America unique. What makes America exceptional is the foundational principles of individual freedom and limited government enshrined in our founding documents. But Obama said, ‘So that’s what we mean when we say America is exceptional. Not that our nation has been flawless from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change, and make life better for those who follow.’
  3. He Created A Thriving Economy. Obama bragged about ‘revers[ing] a great recession, reboot[ing] our auto industry, and unleash[ing] the longest stretch of job creation in our history.’ Actually, he was responsible for the weakest recovery in American history, he blew out the national debt, and he ensured that trillions of dollars in investment money remained on the sidelines, as well as keeping underemployment at significant highs.
  4. He Fixed Cuba. Obama bragged about ‘open[ing] a new chapter with the Cuban people.’ But the Cuban people are still stuck living under a communist tyranny that has now been significantly enriched and empowered by Obama’s support.
  5. He Disarmed Iran. Obama said he had “shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.” That’s patently untrue. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Obama administration greenlit a shipment of tons of uranium to Iran. Iran has been secretly pursuing nuclear development, and Obama’s been ignoring it, as well as their material support for terrorism.
  6. He Won ‘Marriage Equality.’ Actually, Obama opposed same-sex marriage until his 2012 re-election campaign. It was Anthony Kennedy and his extraconstitutional mandate that ‘won’ so-called ‘marriage equality.’
  7. He ‘Secure[d] The Right To Health Insurance.’ Actually, Obama just mandated that Americans buy health insurance at gunpoint. That’s not securing a right. That’s controlling others with coercion.
  8. He Supports ‘Solidarity.’ There has been no more divisive president in modern history than Obama. Obama has demonized his oppositions, termed them enemies, urged his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight. He has overrun limits on executive power, grandstanded on race, and labeled those who oppose him idiots who just don’t understand the moral arc of history.
  9. Healthcare Costs Are Under Control. Obama said that health care costs are rising at the lowest rate in 50 years. This is a far cry from Obama’s claim that Obamacare would lower the cost of a typical family’s premium by $2,500 per year. Instead, premiums have skyrocketed inside Obamacare, and insurance companies have also raised premiums for employer-based insurance to compensate for the new regulations.
  10. Race Relations Have Improved Under Obama. Obama stated, “I’ve lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were 10, or 20, or 30 years ago – you can see it not just in statistics, but in the attitudes of young Americans across the political spectrum.” It’s true that race relations are better now than they were in 1994. But they have gotten markedly worse by every poll over the last eight years. That’s because of Obama’s insistence that a post-racial America is impossible. And Obama insisted that white people acknowledge that “when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; that when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders promised.” That’s not always true, though. Does it apply when protesters burn Baltimore or Ferguson over baseless claims of police brutality?
  11. Obama Is Anti-Bubble. He said, “we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.” Yes, Mr. President, you’ve made this a habit. And this speech was proof of it.
  12. No Foreign Terrorist Organization Has Planned And Executed’ A Terror Attack. He also said ISIS was under control. Nonsense. His oddly specific formulation about terrorism is ridiculous. We’ve seen multiple major terrorist attacks in the United States under Obama, from Fort Hood to Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino. And we know from audio from John Kerry that the Obama administration allowed ISIS to grow long after Obama realized they were no longer the jayvee squad.
  13. He’s ‘Worked To Close Gitmo, And Reform Our Laws Governing Surveillance.’ Actually, he’s failed to close Gitmo, and his surveillance reform was prompted not by his own desire to protect civil liberties, but by widespread outcry at the extent of surveillance under the NSA as revealed by Edward Snowden.
  14. The American Creed Is ‘Yes We Can.’ No, actually. There are several American creeds, but ‘Yes We Can’ isn’t among them. That was just a cheap slogan. E Pluribus Unum – that’s a creed Obama opposed with his intersectionality. In God We Trust – that’s a creed Obama opposed throughout his presidency. Liberty – nope, he wasn’t a fan. A Nation of Laws, Not of Men – nope. We Are Endowed By Our Creator With Certain Inalienable Rights – well, unless you cross the collective. “

Additionally, I would point to the lie which claimed that Obama had no scandals.  In reply, I would point to:

A legacy of working against others

Obama shows his disrespect by trying to thwart Trump with regulations

In a 30 December 2016 Washington Examiner article, the release of thousands of new regulations during the waning hours of the Obama presidency was discussed:

President Obama‘s lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team’s expansion of federal authority.

While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama’s team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

The 2016 total was the highest annual number of regulations under Obama. Former President Bush issued more in the wake of 9/11.

The proof that it was an overwhelming year for rules and regulations is in the Federal Register, which ended the year Friday by printing a record-setting 97,110 pages, according to the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The annual ‘Unconstitutional Index’ from Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, said that it was much higher under Obama than under former President George W. Bush.

‘The multiple did tend to be higher during Obama administration. Bush’s eight years averaged 20, while Obama’s almost-eight have averaged 29,’ said his report, first provided to Secrets.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Thanks to the Political War Zone

Ben Shapiro exposes Obama’s legacy of enabling scandals on the international stage

Several weeks before Obama’s farewell address, the President commented on his accomplishments.  In a 29 December 2016 response to Obama’s words, Ben Shapiro provided the following rebuttal:

” President Barack Obama likes to see himself as a moral leader. ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ Obama likes to say, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., ‘but it bends toward justice.’ According to Obama, Obama is a genteel representative of decency and good grace, a man pointing America toward a broader vision, a fellow questing for social justice and contextual consideration.

In reality, he’s a narcissistic fool. And like Burgess Meredith’s character in ‘The Twilight Zone,’ he will be left standing in the ruins, bewailing the fates that abandoned him, leaving no worshipful admirers upon whom to lean.

Obama’s legacy is one of failure all around the world. He leaves office with a genocide in Syria on his record – a genocide he pledged to prevent, then tolerated and finally lamented, mourning the fates while blithely ignoring his own cowardice. Libya, meanwhile, remains a full-scale disaster area, with tens of thousands of refugees from that failed campaign swamping Europe, along with those fleeing Syria, and his leftist European allies paying the political price.

Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, stands on the brink of a nuclear dawn, its pockets filled with billions of dollars, its minions ascendant from Tehran to Aleppo to Beirut. Obama made that happen with nearly a decade of appeasement and a willingness to abandon freedom-minded Iranians to the tender mercies of the mullahs.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

In addition to Mr. Shapiro’s fine points, I might have additionally pointed toward Obama’s abandonment of  Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood was forced out.  Additionally noteworthy, Obama has done little to stand beside West Europeans as Islamists attack with increasing regularity.

In the paragraphs following this excerpt, Shapiro points out the disasters of Obama’s habit of ignoring the Russians and Chinese.

A legacy of unintended consequences

The neglect of Obama’s VA produces the Fort Lauderdale shooter

In a 9 January 2017 Los Angeles Times article, the following was noted of Fort Lauderdale Airport shooter Esteban Santiago (emphasis mine):

“Santiago left Puerto Rico several years ago because of the lack of adequate medical services for veterans, particularly mental health care, Nelson Cruz, a senator from Puerto Rico, told the Sun Sentinel newspaper in Florida.

Puerto Rico has a Veterans Affairs hospital and other facilities, but some, including Cruz, say the services are underfunded and understaffed to serve the needs of the island’s veterans.

I believe this could have been avoided if Esteban had access in Puerto Rico to the same services that other veterans have in [other parts of] the U.S.,’ [Puerto Rico Senator Nelson] Cruz said. ‘One of the reasons that he left Puerto Rico was to seek better services [for his mental health issues]. I’ve heard this from other veterans here.’

Santiago was suffering from mental issues when he returned from his National Guard tour in Iraq in 2011. The family said he was hearing voices and sometimes hallucinating, according to Cruz.

(Read more at the Los Angeles Times)

Therefore, had Obama put more emphasis on the VA (possibly by devoting as much to mental health as he used in vacations) maybe this might have been prevented.

Obama’s legacy of nuclear proliferation

A 10 January 2017 post at the Clarion Project had the following to say about the recent sale of nuclear material to Iran and its subsequent aggression toward a US ship:

“Russia is sending a large shipment of natural uranium to Iran in exchange for an Iranian shipment to Russia of nuclear reactor coolant. The shipment of 116 metric tons (130 tons) was approved by the United States and the five other countries involved in orchestrating the nuclear deal with Iran.

United Nations Security Council approval of the shipment is expected soon as a formality.

The shipment is enough to make more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, according to David Albright, an expert with the Institute of Science and International Security, ‘depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.’

Two senior diplomats leaked the information to the Associated Press under the condition of anonymity and said they were not authorized to discuss details of the program.

The Iranian shipment is legal under the terms of the nuclear deal and will be ‘subject to the careful monitoring and inspections that are included in the deal to ensure that Iran is living up to the commitments that they made,’ White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama sold the nuclear deal to the American people on the understanding that the deal would make it more difficult, rather than easier, for Iran to build nuclear weapons.

At the same time as receiving huge Iranian shipments while complaining about alleged U.S. violations of the nuclear deal, the Iranian navy has come close to combat with U.S. ships in international waters in the Straits of Hormuz.

Iranian fast attack vessels closed in rapidly to a U.S. destroyer on Sunday and ignored repeated warnings to slow down. This forced the destroyer to fire three warning shots at the Iranian ships.

(Read more at the Clarion Project)

When you consider the power held within that nuclear fuel along with the aggression shown by the Iranian leadership who sent the fast boats to confront the USS Mahan, you can see that some American president will have to deal with the extreme consequences of Mr. Obama’s problem here.

Obama legacy of non-transparency

According to an 8 January 2017 article in Politico, the transparent president plans to hold an undisclosed number of his papers away from public eyes for 12 years.

“The letter, released to POLITICO on Friday under the Freedom of Information Act, also indicates that Obama is exercising his rights to put many of those records off-limits for 12 years after he leaves the presidency later this month. While the move could be seen as at odds with Obama’s frequently stated commitment to transparency, it’s a step other recent presidents have also taken before leaving the White House.

Recent presidents have eventually eased some of those access restrictions after leaving office.

White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine did not comment directly on Obama’s rationale for imposing the 12-year restrictions on his records, which will be sent in the coming years to his yet-to-be-built presidential library in Chicago.

However, she said Breckenridge is the point person on the White House staff managing transition-related issues, like the transfer of presidential records to federal archivists.”

(Read more at Politico)

What will we later find these papers to reveal? Will they be records of Obama’s deeper involvement in Hillary’s illegal server or the Clinton Foundation fundraising?

Obama’s legacy of over-the-top vacations

As recently as December 2016, this blog posted a commentary on the $85 million spent by the Obama family on lavish vacations prior to the last vacation. Now it seems that the Obamas have broken their own record with the final taxpayer-funded Hawaii vacation by bringing the total to over $100 million (as reported in a 2 January 2017 OneNewsNow article).

“President Barack Obama’s legacy of running up the tab for taxpayers during his family’s exorbitant and frequent vacations is projected to reach an excess of $100 million before the close of his two terms as president – putting a strain on the economy, military and Secret Service.

As the Obamas finish up nearly two weeks of vacation in Hawaii over the holidays – with their White House stay coming to an end – the president’s hypocrisy is becoming increasingly evident.

‘As a candidate in 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama (R-Ill.), vowed he would give up vacations if elected president, in order to completely focus on his job,’ WND reported. ‘Fast-forward to the present, and it is now projected Obama will have spent more than $100 million in taxpayer funds on vacations during his eight years as president.’

A legacy of waste

A government watchdog organization has monitored the Obama’s expenditures since the 44th president’s inauguration eight years ago.

‘[We] received new documents from both the Secret Service and the Air Force relating to Obama travel expenses, bringing the known total over the past eight years to $96,938,882.51,’ Judicial Watch informed.

After filing two separate lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to reveal how much Obama’s travel cost the Secret Service, Judicial Watch was able to tally the numbers.

‘The Obamas notorious abuse of presidential travel perks wasted military resources and stressed the Secret Service,’ Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton asserted. ‘Judicial Watch estimates that the final costs of Obama’s unnecessary vacation and political travel will well exceed $100 million.’ “

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

We can only speculate what this $100 million might have done had it been re-directed to the mental health services that Fort Lauderdale airport shooter Esteban Santiago had sought.

The legacy of a community organizer

An organized America by Steve Breen

Obama’s legacy: the "Cowardly Lion" approach to dealing militarily with Iran

USS Mahan

Obama’s Navy: Damned if you do, sunk if you don’t

As reported in a 10 January 2017 Washington Examiner article, the command of a US destroyer received a reprimand for actions that likely saved the ship from an attack by Iranian swift boats.

“On Sunday, the destroyer USS Mahan was forced to fire warning shots at Iranian fast boats speeding toward it with their weapons manned after audio warnings failed to stop them. The Pentagon deemed the move “unsafe and unprofessional,” and the boats broke off after the shots were fired.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Why reprimand a battleship for protecting itself and resolving a situation without the loss of life?  It almost seems as if Obama wanted the Navy to turn over the destroyer as a replacement for the aging ships that the Iranian Navy received during the days of the shah.  Therefore, can anyone rule out the possibility that this was potentially meant to be an extension of Obama’s nuclear deal with the Iranians?


US sailors in the custody of IRGCN forces.

The effect of Obama’s policies on Naval response

For the liberals who have forgotten 2016, let’s look back at a 30 December 2016 article on the US Naval Institute online magazine.  There, the 12 January 2016 capture of US Naval forces by the IRGCN near Farsi Island were recounted;:

“Early in 2016, ten U.S. sailors strayed into the territorial waters of Iranian-controlled Farsi Island and were captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy forces. They were held for a day before Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated their return with his Iranian counterpart.

The crews from the two riverine boats were returned with their weapons, but not before images of the sailors held at gunpoint were broadcast over Iranian television.

In total, nine sailors were disciplined as a result of the findings, including the leader of the detachment, Lt. David Nartker. Nartker was given a punitive letter of reprimand – likely a career-ender. During the investigation he justified his actions to investigators.

‘We might have all been dead at that point in time. I didn’t want to start a war with Iran either. That was also on my mind. I didn’t want to start a war that would get people killed. My thought at the end of the day was that no one had to die for a misunderstanding,’ Nartker told investigators.”

(Read more at the US Naval Institute)

To me, it sounds as if this young leader might have been fed an unhealthy dose of Obama’s policy that neutered police in the wake of the “hands up, don’t shoot” false narrative.