Tag Archives: Twitter Controlled by FBI and DHS

Aug 22 2020

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption


Justin Trudeau Visits Fantastica Again

Ken Grafton image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 22, 2020

The Neverending Story Of Liberal Corruption

Atroubled boy dives into a mysterious fantasy world, and so begins yet another fantastical tale of Liberal corruption.

WE-Gate was reportedly born of a telephone call between Prime Minister Trudeau and then Finance Minister Bill Morneau on April 5th, during which the two discussed possible ways to throw some non-existent tax dollars at students who would not have summer jobs during the COVID-19 shutdown.

On April 7th, Morneau’s office put out feelers to WE Charity (possibly because WE had sponsored travel for Morneau and his family on previous occasions, and also employs his daughters) and other organizations, trolling for ideas on ways to spend some money. Two days later, WE lobbed in an unsolicited proposal for a youth entrepreneurship program valued at $14M to Morneau, Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Small Business Minister Mary Ng, and the PMO.

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) officials mentioned WE to Finance officials on April 16th, and again to Morneau on April 18th. The following day, ESDC ADM Rachel Wernick contacted Craig Keilburger at WE (for reasons unreported).

On April 20th Morneau’s office contacted WE to discuss the program, and requested a revised proposal with increased scope.

On April 22nd Trudeau announced a $9B student aid package (contributing to the $343B deficit and +$1T debt forecast) which included a volunteer student program – the Canadian Student Service Grant (CSSG) Program. WE submitted a revised proposal to Wernick on the same day. Marc Kielburger said that WE was contacted on April 23rd by the PMO about getting involved; but later back-peddled, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the PMO.

Here the plot thickens further.

On April 26th Morneau speaks with Craig Keilburger (about something, perhaps another free trip for the Morneau family), but later testifies that they didn’t discuss CSSG. This is curious because WE had just submitted a revised proposal four days earlier in response to a request from Morneau’s office.

On May 4th WE submitted a third proposal to ESDC.

On May 5th Chagger recommended WE to a special COVID-19 committee, headed by Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland. Trudeau’s Director of Policy and Cabinet Affairs Rick Theis called WE, and WE commenced work the same day. Interesting call.

According to Trudeau’s testimony before the Finance Committee, he first heard about WE within the context of CSSG on May 8th, and “pushed back” on the decision, asking for due diligence.

On May 22nd Cabinet approved awarding WE a sole-source contract based upon a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) from Chagger arguing “binary choice” (which is highly unusual), and the public service begins negotiating an agreement the following day.

It was reported that although the contract was signed on June 23rd, it came into effect on May 5th (before the PM heard about it). If this sounds fishy, the “backdating” of contracts is generally permissible under Canadian Law…but not however for the purpose of misleading third parties (such as the public) or to circumvent Rules or Legislation (such as the requirement for Cabinet approval).

On August 13th WE registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (following questions regarding why they weren’t registered), disclosing forty-three contacts with six different minister’s offices and government departments in the six months prior to the CSSG deal; including twenty-three with Wernick (who ultimately recommended to cabinet that WE be sole-sourced).

The post mortem on WE-Gate begs numerous questions regarding this feculent Liberal maze of political “back-roomery”, including:

  • Did Morneau’s office request a proposal from WE on April 7th?
  • Were proposals from other entities received?
  • What was the subject of Morneau’s April 26th call with Craig K?
  • Why did WE start work on May 5th, without a contract, before cabinet approval, before the PM even knew about it, seemingly on the basis of a call from Theis?
  • What did Theis say to WE on May 5th? It looks like a $912M oral contract.
  • When was the $30M advance payment made to WE?
  • Why did WE continue working if Trudeau had indeed “pushed back” on May 8th?
  • Why was WE the only option?
  • Why was no due diligence done, if Trudeau ordered it?
  • Who had the horsepower to helm a binary choice MC through to Cabinet?

A Liberal spin doctor nightmare. Trudeau is asking Canadians to believe that his own policy director (Theis) called WE on May 5th (without his knowledge), and awarded a contract worth almost $1 billion over the phone – and WE felt comfortable proceeding on that basis.

Surely, even GTA voters will see that the fix was in.

On August 17th Bill Morneau was replaced by Freeland, the minister responsible for the COVID-19 Committee that approved WE on that fateful day in May, in what many view as a political blunder by a PM trying to distance himself from the fetid taint of WE-Gate. Those Canadians suffering still from USMCA are hoping that former-journalist Freeland knows more about finance than international trade. All Canadians should question the appointment of a minister with absolutely no legal, financial or business credentials (Freeland studied History and Literature) to the Finance portfolio, especially in a time of unprecedented economic devastation.

On August 18th the PM announced that he had received permission from Governor General Payette to prorogue parliament until September 23rd. Ostensibly to “address a long-term COVID-19 recovery plan”, critics see it as a desperate move to avoid continuing investigation of WE-Gate by shutting down the finance committee.

During a press conference on August 19th Shadow Finance Minister and Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre criticized Trudeau for providing heavily redacted documents relating to WE Charity, dramatically tossing largely black-out pages to the floor in front of cameras. ““Why don’t we ask what was in those pages in a parliamentary committee? Well, I’ll tell you why. Justin Trudeau shut down those parliamentary committees. When did he do it? The same day these documents became public! What a coincidence. The Prime Minister goes to the governor general’s office and says “GG, I’m about to release some very damming information. But I’ve covered it in black ink, and if you’ll just shut down parliament for me today, then none of the opposition politicians can force me to remove that ink and reveal the truth. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a cover-up.”“

Good luck to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, the temporarily suspended finance committee, and possibly the RCMP, sorting this mess out.

But…“This is another story, and shall be told another time.”

Stay tuned.

Aug 22 2020

Bill Gates Lies about His Connection to Epstein


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted Aug 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

Aug 22 2020

Will Epstein Case with Maxwell Go Beyond just Sex?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy

Re-Posted Aug 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

The real question is what is going on in this case? Are prosecutors going to limit this to just sex? Or will they look at this for real that Epstein was using the underage girls for the purpose of blackmailing high profile people? The connection of Maxwell’s father to “the club” would open a lot of doors including the attempt to blackmail even Yeltsin. Somehow I suspect that would never happen because it would lead to the Clinton’s deal with the bankers.

Aug 22 2020

Part Eight of “X”, Brennan Spox Delivers Statement Following 8 Hr Discussion With Durham Investigative Unit…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 21, 2020 by 

Former CIA Director John Brennan delivers the following message through his former chief of staff and spokesperson Nick Shapiro.  The statement following an interview today by investigators looking into the background of the fake Trump-Russia conspiracy which John Brennan was promoting heavily in 2016 and 2017.

[Statement Source Natasha Bertrand – Narrative Engineer]

Notice how Brennan is using Mueller and the SSCI as a shield.

Again, for emphasis, the special counsel and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Warner & Burr) were working together to frame and remove President Trump.  Their collaboration is why the special counsel took the FBI investigative file of SSA Brian Dugan and released the content to those entities at risk from the Wolfe leak investigation.  The public FISA release on July 21, 2018, was also from Dugan’s investigative file; it was his equity.

The special counsel and SSCI were working together.  This is why the special counsel tipped-off SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner about the capture of his text message content by FBI agent Dugan.   So when we see Brennan using the special counsel and the SSCI as his defense… well, that is yet another point of evidence about which primary institutions were running the Trump removal operation.

Back to the Durham/Aldenberg investigation… In December 2019 it appeared that Durham investigators were looking for a very specific email written by John Brennan to James Comey.  Comey was identified writing another email saying: ..”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

Do you remember the “crown material“?

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.

Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?

BRENNAN: I don’t.

GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filing, applications?

BRENNAN: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No.

GOWDY: Why not?

BRENNAN: Because we didn’t. It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. Uh … it was not.

.

Video of the exchange [prompted 01:54:28 just hit play]

.

As Victor Davis Hanson wrote at the time:

[…] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into a presidential intelligence assessment—as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of ridiculous stories and fibs?

Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? (read more)

Fox News Maria Bartiromo has followed the Brennan events very closely. On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined the issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:

.

It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this larger effort to include false information say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

CTH previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.

The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.

The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.

(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.

During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)

Questioning the construct of the ICA always looked like a smart direction to take for an origination investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s possible Durham’s team could cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.

Apparently Durham investigators were looking into this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?

The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Weissmann-Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.

If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?

Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]

However, again a note of caution, Bill Barr has warned that he will not allow manipulative politics to be part of his DOJ investigations/releases unless there is an underlying criminal violation.   If there are just political lies; like the intel underpinning to support the false narrative framing against President Trump; I would not expect the DOJ to reveal them.

(Read ICA via pdf)

Aug 22 2020

Part Seven of “X”, UPDATED: Sketchy Business – Clinesmith Agreement Structured to Avoid Scrutiny Upon Special Counsel…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 21, 2020 by 

1. Remember, the Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017, and from then until April 2019 any matter which had anything to do with Spygate or Trump/Russia, was managed exclusively by the Special Counsel team. [Rosenstein testified to this June 2, 2020]

2. The Carter Page FISA warrant of June 29, 2017, was renewed during the tenure of the Special Counsel. They alone ran the FISA process for the third renewal.

3. Kevin Clinesmith’s boss at the FBI during the period for FISA assembly was a supervisory special agent and Trisha Beth Anderson was the lawyer responsible to sign-off on the final assembly. [LINK]

4. The Clinesmith criminal indictment (actually an “information”) informs that, while the Special Counsel was running the DOJ, and Andy McCabe was running the FBI, Clinesmith made this request to another government agency “OGA”:

We need some clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “[digraph] source.”

[LINK]

5. Why is this “digraph” redacted from the Clinesmith information?

6. Clinesmith continued:

“This [the status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

7. Why is the sentence following that critical question redacted from the Clinesmith indictment with “….”?

8. Clinesmith continued:

“To that end, can we get two items from you? 1) Source Check/ Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? 2 ) If he is, what is a [digraph] source ( or what ever type of source he is) ?”

[LINK]

9. Why again is the critical “digraph” source code redacted out of the Clinesmith indictment?

10. The entire issue is that a supervisory special agent is asking Clinesmith to ask the CIA whether Carter Page is any kind of CIA informant. Why redact out that specific material from the Clinesmith indictment, unless the intent is to conceal that material?

11. Why is the specific 2-digit number “digraph” supposedly secret, and why is the “type of source” omitted form the criminal information?  The FISA affiant, SSA, is asking, “what is this kind of ‘source’ is Carter Page? He’s claiming to be a source, so check with the CIA to verify ‘if he is any kind of source.’”

12. Again, despite the redaction of what appears to be critical exchange, the Clinesmith indictment still includes asking for official CIA confirmation about Carter Page, “whatever kind of source he is.”

13. We know from the Clinesmith indictment that (at a minimum) he reported back that Carter Page “was a subsource” for the CIA.

14. So when the DOJ (now run by the Special Counsel) signed the Carter Page FISA renewal [June 29, 2017], we know without question that the FBI Supervisory Special Agent who reported directly to the FBI’s Deputy Director (McCabe) knew that Carter Page was at least a CIA subsource.

15. And we know without question that Clinesmith had been informed by the CIA that the CIA has already informed the DOJ and the FBI about Carter Page’s status, a year earlier, on August 17, 2016.

16. The CIA gave Clinesmith an email with all of that information. [LINK]

17. Without any push-back from the DOJ or FBI, in 2020, in connection with Clinesmith’s guilty plea, he stated that he (Clinesmith) never bothered to read the Carter Page file that the CIA gave to him. [LINK]

18. His boss had asked him specifically to check with the CIA as to the status of Carter Page. The CIA confirmed that Carter Page was some kind of source, and provided the file explaining it all.

19. Clinesmith first reports to his boss that the CIA has confirmed that Carter Page is some kind of a source – a “sub-source,” but we don’t know exactly because the “digraph” code describing what kind of source he was had been concealed out of the indictment.

20. What possible reason is there for the DOJ to redact out that code?

21. When Clinesmith reports to his boss that Carter Page is definitely some kind of CIA source, without question the SSA now knows:

“This [the CIA source status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

22. Yet a few days later, Clinesmith sends an email to his boss evidencing that Carter Page “was never a source.” Yet the DOJ’s indictment redacts the “digraph” code about this.

And…

23. Isn’t it a logical conclusion that the combination of the following highlight a DOJ whitewash: (i) the redactions of the digraph code from the indictment, “(ii) the DOJ allowing Clinesmith, unchallenged, to assert that he “did not recall ever reviewing the documents referenced in the [CIA’s] email” disclosing Carter Page’s informant status with the CIA.

24. And how could a veteran FBI attorney (Clinesmith), in the space of a few days, twist “A” into “B”?

25. Here is “A” the process the FBI started with:

Getting “clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “ [digraph] source… we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal… To that end….[contact the CIA and find out]: (1) Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? and (2) If he is, what is a [digraph] source (or what ever type of source he is)?”

26. What was “B”?

After first telling his boss that Carter Page was a sub-source, Clinesmith changed the official story by then stating that Carter Page “was not a source”, as if there is some distinction between being a CIA-approved “source” versus a CIA-approved “sub-source.”

27. Clinesmith’s boss knew this change of story was a smoking gun of a fix.  How do we know that? Two issues:

28. First, the Clinesmith indictment concedes it, although it is buried.  SSA asked Clinesmith whether the FBI “had it in writing” from the CIA that Carter Page “was not a source.”  That’s not a question in this scenario, that’s an instruction.

29.  Clinesmith knew any written claim that Carter Page was not a source would be untrue, because the CIA had informed them specifically that Carter Page was working with the CIA as a [digraph], and that his role was described in the CIA briefing memo to the Crossfire Hurricane team dated August 17, 2016. [LINK]

30. The Crossfire Hurricane team consisted of many senior members of the DOJ and FBI who eventually overlapped into the Special Counsel [They had to know what was going on with this June 29, 2017 renewal]

31. Clinesmith also knew Carter Page was a source for the CIA. He deliberately falsified the CIA email to try and create a CYA position for the use of the FISA application. For this event he has now plead guilty to a felony.

32. What happened during the four days: June 15, 2017 to June 19, 2017, that caused FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to commit a felony by doctoring an email from the CIA?

33. What happened during the four days June 15 to June 19, 2017, that caused the FBI to pivot from asking about Carter Page’s status with the CIA “in any capacity, and whatever type of source he is” – to later stating something from the CIA they knew was untrue?

34. Trisha Beth Anderson signed-off on the Carter Page FISA application, a title-1 surveillance warrant, under penalty of perjury…. even though we know the application contained materially false information and omissions.

35. Trisha Beth Anderson claims she signed the FISA affidavit(s) because it/they were presented to her in a rather unusual manner. [LINK]

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application.

36. Why did she do this? She disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

37. Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

38. When she signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI

39. Trish Anderson signed-off the prior Carter Page FISA’s because they were presented to her pre-approved and pre-signed by the FBI  and and DOJ leadership.

“The General Counsel [Jim Baker] … personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA, for example,” Anderson said. “The Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”

[…] Anderson stressed that McCabe, Yates, and Baker all played key roles in reviewing the Page FISA. “My approval at that point was really purely administrative in nature. In other words, the substantive issues — the FISA had already substantively been approved by people much higher than me in the chain of command,” Anderson said.

Anderson said it “typically would not have been the case” that people such as McCabe and Yates would sign off on a FISA application before she did.

“That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature,” Anderson said. “In other words, there were smart lawyers, high-level people on both sides of the street who had reviewed and signed off on the application, the details of the application. And so I was simply signaling, yes, this package is ready to go forward.”

Anderson said the seal of approval from such high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials meant that her signature on the FISA application was mostly perfunctory. (more)

40. General Counsel Jim Baker and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was Anderson’s FBI boss when she signed-off on a false affidavit and assembly. Rod Rosenstein was Deputy Attorney General.

41. Additionally, on June 29, 2017, the special counsel was in control of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD. This third renewal was under their authority.

42. Who told/influenced Kevin Clinesmith to change events and paper the file with a false claim that Carter Page was somehow not a CIA asset?

[Transcript Link]

42. AG Bill Barr has known since December 9, 2019, about Kevin Clinesmith’s felony forgery when OIG Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral for the discovery. Why delay the indictment until August 20, 2020.

This thing reeks of another institutional preservation approach. What I suspect is that Barr does not want to touch any material that contacts the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel… however, what took place under the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel is actually more corrupt than any activity that preceded it.

What I also strongly suspect is that Bill Barr is using his oft stated “I will not allow the DOJ to be political” as a crutch in his preservation approach. If nothing from the world or sphere of politics is allowed to enter the world or sphere of the DOJ then what is supposed to happen with all those years of congressional evidence gathering?

If my suspicions are correct; and keep in mind I have made first hand contact with the Durham investigators to confirm their intense alignment with Barr’s directive; then nothing from any embargoed political silo will ever be prosecuted regardless of how it percolates out.

If you read all the material you will see there is clearly no arrangement for Kevin Clinesmith to have provided any other evidence to the DOJ. This is a one-and-done move just like James Wolfe. The parallels are very similar.

Clinesmith Supporting Statement:

Download here
NUMBER 1

Clinesmith indictment/information:

Dowload here
NUMBER 2

Clinesmith Plea agreement:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-0950-dac0-adf5-1bf481a00000

Aug 21 2020

When Barack Obama Went Low, Trump’s Numbers Went Higher


Obama tried to get down and dirty in a desperate attempt to stay relevant with young, far left socialistic party activists

Mitch Wolfe image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

When Barack Obama Went Low, Trump’s Numbers Went Higher

Former President Obama faced a major challenge last night on the third night of the Democratic Convention, in trying to persuade the American people that he sincerely believed his former Vice President Biden was truly up to the task of being president. Recall Obama passed over his VP Biden of eight years in 2016 to support his preferred candidate Hillary Clinton. So obviously Obama did not think that highly of Biden’s political skills at that time in preserving his (Obama’s) political legacy.

Obama also was lukewarm to Biden running for president in 2020. Obama withheld his endorsement until Biden was literally the last man standing.  Or stumbling as the case may be. Clearly, Obama would have preferred someone younger like Senator Booker or Senator Harris or more vibrant and policy-oriented as Senator Warren to preserve his historical legacy.

This was probably Obama’s worst speech of his political career

Let us not forget as reported by Politico, that fairly recently Obama advised a Democratic adviser, “that Biden could still f***eff it up.”

So in light of these known challenges and obstacles, did Obama rise above his realistic concerns about the viability of the Biden candidacy and give the speech of his political life in favor of his former loyal vice president? Interestingly, in Obama’s long 15-minute speech, he devoted relatively little time to speaking in favor of Joe Biden.

Clearly, this was not President Obama’s best speech.  This was probably Obama’s worst speech of his political career.

Firstly, this speech was mostly about Obama and his vision and his supposed oratorical skills, than about persuading people to vote for Biden.

Initially, Obama, talked glowingly about the founders of America, of the US and of US democracy. But it struck me, that as rioters and looters in American cities were tearing down statutes of Jefferson and Washington and throwing the statute of Christopher Columbus in the water and burning police stations and court buildings ( the pillar of American justice) and looting Best Buy for new TVs (Big Screen Smart TVs Matter), Obama stood silent and said nothing.

In fact in his speech, he said nothing of the looting, rioting, and killings in American cities of LA, Portland, Seattle, NY, Baltimore, Detroit and especially his home town of Chicago. He referred to these looters, killers and violent rioters as good young men and women peaceably demonstrating for justice.

Obama also talked about President Trump not being interested in the presidency. What he meant was Trump was not interested in preserving Obama’s horrible policies and legacy.

Trump campaigned on tearing up or withdrawing from NAFTA which trade agreement destroyed thousands of American jobs in middle America. Trump fought for and won a much improved pro America NAFTA 2 or known as the USMCA.

Obama demonstrated the epitome of mendacity and hypocrisy

Remember when Obama pursued the TransPacific trade agreement which Trump, Sanders and even Hillary Clinton opposed.

Obama ignored how China was eating America’s lunch in terms of taking thousands of American jobs and stealing its technology. Trump at least has stood up to China.

Obama’s Iran nuclear deal was a betrayal of American allies in the Mideast including Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia which all opposed Obama’s tilt to the terrorist-funding Iran which was the true enemy of these American allies in the Mideast.

So when Obama talked last night about Trump betraying American allies, no matter how dulcet Obama’s fake words were, Obama demonstrated the epitome of mendacity and hypocrisy.

When Obama waxed eloquent on the freedom of the press, don’t you remember that he weaponized the DOJ and FBI to spy on those in the American press who had the temerity to question and oppose Obama’ views?

One of the foundations of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. Obama violated that by permitting the weaponizing of the FBI and DOJ to illegally spy on Trump, the democratically elected opposition leader and his presidential campaign and then to illegally spy on President-elect Trump and his Administration in transition.

Last night Obama was not a brilliant orator at the top of his game. Obama was a sad pathetic political hack and also- ran, who should have left the public sphere when he was on top.

Instead, Obama tried to get down and dirty in a desperate attempt to stay relevant with young, far left socialistic party activists, who view this grey-haired Obama as tone-deaf and an old, irrelevant has-been and yesterday’s man.

Last night we just watched Obama dig his own political grave with the absolutely worst political speech of his career. My prediction, to paraphrase, Michelle Obama, when Barack Obama, went low in the gutter, Trump’s popularity went high and higher.

Aug 21 2020

Undignified Obama


What an ex-president’s inflammatory and hateful nominating-convention address was made of

Matthew Vadum image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  — Front Page Mag—— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Undignified Obama

Last night Barack Hussein Obama gave what was probably the most undignified, inflammatory, hateful nominating-convention address of a former president in the history of the United States.

“This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win,” he said August 19, puffing himself up with a studied indignation.

This is the same, shameless, Saul Alinsky-worshiping liar who presided over a seditious plot, a rolling coup attempt, to overthrow his successor using the CIA and FBI, the early outlines of which this writer sketched in Obama’s Insurrection.

The real-life conspiracy to oust Trump

The real-life conspiracy to oust Trump, though not (yet) successful, has allowed Democrats and their Deep State allies to practice these dark arts over the past four years that they may soon use to remove the mentally incompetent Joe Biden from the Oval Office to pave the way for Kamala Harris, who is not black despite what her publicists in the media say, to become president.

No one in the media seems to have noticed that the party of LGBT and racial utopia is now headed by a man who is apparently not completely convinced of the rectitude of those causes.

Biden has said homosexuals shouldn’t receive security clearances because “my gut reaction is that they are security risks.”

A friend of segregationists, Biden worried aloud that his children would grow up in “a racial jungle,” and patronizingly observed that Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Another of his legendary race-tinged gaffes went like this: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

This is relevant now that the Indo-Caribbean Harris, is on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

The Wednesday night of the virtual convention highlighted the endlessly expanding thicket of lies, hoaxes, and paranoia upon which the modern Democratic Party is built. It was low-information propaganda for the ignorant and the gullible.

Obama: America is hopelessly, systemically racist, and so are police, the criminal justice system, and the prison system

America is hopelessly, systemically racist, and so are police, the criminal justice system, and the prison system, the audience was told. People with money, the hated rich, run everything and do so with malice towards everyone else. The novel coronavirus that causes the occasionally deadly disease COVID-19 is racist, somehow having a greater impact on visible minorities. Climate change, which human beings are definitely causing, is on the verge of ending life on this planet if we don’t do something very, very expensive right away. Presumably racism is involved. Illegal aliens are the incredibly talented would-be saviors of America and anyone who wants to deport them or enforce the nation’s borders is racist. Donald Trump and the Republicans are shutting down the U.S. Postal Service so Democrats can’t vote.

That’s probably racist, too, come to think of it.

The pandering to Latinos was in full effect.

Illegal aliens showed up. One spoke in Spanish, and an entertainer named Prince Royce sang in Spanish. Michelle Lujan Grisham introduced herself as governor of “Nuevo Mexico,” where, she said, we “embrace our multicultural identity as our greatest strength.”

Gun-grabbers, included former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, made an appearance. She is the gun-control fanatic who had a littoral combat ship, a vessel of war designed to fire weapons that kill people, named after her, the USS Gabrielle Giffords, because a mentally unbalanced man shot her.

But the highlight of the evening was Obama, who continued slamming his successor in unpresidential fashion. It was cheap shot after cheap shot.

And Obama was doing all this for a guy he doesn’t even like.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to # things up.”

Pretending to be a solid supporter, Obama described newly minted presidential nominee Joe Biden last night as a “friend” and a “brother,” even though the 44th president reportedly once said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to # things up.”

Obama said:

“But we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy. We should expect that regardless of ego, ambition, or political beliefs, the president will preserve, protect, and defend the freedoms and ideals that so many Americans marched for and went to jail for; fought for and died for.”

“I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president. I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care.

“But he never did. For close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.

“Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe: 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.”

So many lies.

President Trump didn’t cause COVID-19 and he didn’t fail to act as it spread across the country. The weaponized novel coronavirus came to our shores from Communist China in the form of a biological attack on America. Trump shut down flights from the epicenter of the so-called outbreak. He did this while Democrats bent over backwards early this year urging people to ignore the virus and buy from businesses in the nation’s many Chinatown districts to prove they weren’t prejudiced against Asians.

If America’s democratic institutions are now “threatened like never before,” it wasn’t President Trump’s doing. He didn’t unleash the angry, surprisingly well-organized mobs terrorizing American cities after the death of career criminal George Floyd.

Obama continued fetishizing democracy, even though the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

Obama said the U.S. should be “a nation that stands with democracy, not dictators,” even though he supported the late Islamist strongman in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, and openly seethed with contempt for Israel, the only actual democracy in the Middle East.

Obama continued fetishizing democracy, even though the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Biden and Harris “understand that in this democracy, the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil. They understand that political opponents aren’t ‘un-American’ just because they disagree with you; that a free press isn’t the ‘enemy’ but the way we hold officials accountable; that our ability to work together to solve big problems like a pandemic depend on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up.”

“None of this should be controversial. These shouldn’t be Republican principles or Democratic principles. They’re American principles. But at this moment, this president and those who enable him, have shown they don’t believe in these things.”

No one in the media will challenge Obama’s claim that under Trump the military was deployed against allegedly “peaceful protesters on our soil,” even though Democrat governors and mayors invited anarchy in the streets by refusing to use law enforcement resources available to them to put down the recent riots.

In the White House, Obama frequently bashed those who disagreed with him. He trashed the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address like a Latin American caudillo over its Citizens United ruling while the justices were seated mere feet away.

Obama referred to political adversaries as “enemies,” and demonized Fox News because the cable news network didn’t always depict him as he wanted. A decade before George Floyd’s death, Obama’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, promised to keep his “boot on the neck” of BP after the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Unsurprisingly, Obama whitewashed the Black Lives Matter-Antifa-Democrat riots

As for Obama’s “political props” smear directed at Trump, two uniformed U.S. Army soldiers were used as scenery by the DNC. During the virtual roll call vote, delegates from American Samoa pledged the territory’s delegates for the party’s nominee with the enlisted personnel in-frame. This violates Department of Defense rules. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating the incident.

Obama mentioned the passing of former civil rights leader and corrupt longtime Georgia congressman John Lewis last month, calling him “a giant of American democracy.”

The former president left out the fact that Lewis, who has been lionized in death, played the race card during the Obamacare debate in 2010, falsely claiming that the bill’s Tea Party opponents called him the N-word when he walked past them.

Unsurprisingly, Obama whitewashed the Black Lives Matter-Antifa-Democrat riots after the death of George Floyd, refusing to acknowledge the violence and looting carried out across America by the Left.

“To the young people who led us this summer, telling us we need to be better—in so many ways, you are this country’s dreams fulfilled,” Obama said in a new, wordier iteration of his “yes, we can” mantra.

“Earlier generations had to be persuaded that everyone has equal worth. For you, it’s a given—a conviction. And what I want you to know is that for all its messiness and frustrations, your system of self-government can be harnessed to help you realize those convictions.”

“Messiness” and “frustrations” are Obama’s shorthand for the things known as “law and order” and “police” that prevent the radical street activists he focused much of his presidency on fostering, from forcing unwanted change on society by violence.

After Obama’s address, Kamala Harris’s speech was anticlimactic despite her perky, game show host-like demeanor.

Interestingly, she wore purple attire, just like Hillary Clinton did at her concession speech in 2016.

She rehashed the themes of the convention in uninteresting, politically correct ways.

COVID-19 “touches us all, let’s be honest, it is not an equal opportunity offender,” Harris said.

“Black, Latino, and indigenous people are suffering and dying disproportionately. This is not a coincidence. It is the effect of structural racism. Of inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation. The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system. This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other. And let’s be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We’ve gotta do the work.”

Whatever that means.

Harris wrapped up her address to tepid applause

Harris wrapped up her address to tepid applause from the 20 or so people in the TV studio or whatever it was in Wilmington, Delaware, and then “Work That,” by hip hop artist Mary J. Blige, was played as if to reinforce the politically all-important myth that Harris is black.

No one mentioned how Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii knocked Harris out of contention during last year’s primary debates with a single, devastating colloquy about the senator’s tough-on-crime policies while she was California’s attorney general and San Francisco’s district attorney.

Harris said she was a “progressive prosecutor,” yet in state and local office she did things progressives don’t like, such as defending capital punishment, emphasizing truancy enforcement, and allegedly ignoring those sexually abused by clergy.

Harris’s campaign for her party’s presidential nomination ended when Gabbard said, “I’m concerned about this record of Senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

Gabbard added: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

There was no worthwhile comeback.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s convention speech was a snoozer.

“I wish Donald Trump knew how to be a president because America needs a president right now,” she said.

“As Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders warned us, if Trump is reelected things will get even worse. That’s why we need unity now more than ever.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi uttered bogus statistics, saying “more than 5 million Americans are” –present tense— infected by COVID-19.

According to Worldometers.info, at the very moment she offered that figure, a cumulative total of 5,700,931 Americans had contracted the disease. But Pelosi left out the fact that 3,062,331 recovered from it, which means that only 2,638,600 –or half the number she claimed— now have the disease.

Presumably, Pelosi thought that doubling the number of those currently infected made President Trump look worse.

Mariska Hargitay spoke about domestic violence, even though the audience consisted of the same people who tried to have her long-running television show, “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” canceled in recent months after George Floyd’s death reset the calendar to the beginning of Year Zero.

The Left made an attempt on the show’s life because it portrays police positively. Never forget that the Democratic Party officially endorsed Black Lives Matter and its pro-cop-killing worldview in 2015.

Rolling Stone leftist E.J. Dickson attacked Hargitay in June for daring to portray a good cop on TV, because cops are “embedded … in a system that perpetuates racism and misogyny and brutality.” The character, Olivia Benson, “plays a major role in perpetuating the idea that cops are inherently trustworthy and heroic.”

Even worse, Dickson wrote, “[a] not-insignificant number of police officers have credited the show with their deciding to enter law enforcement.”

The August 19, 2020, episode of the Democratic National Convention was fiction, like the popular police procedural show.

And it’s finished now, just like America will be if the radicals get their way.

Aug 21 2020

Michelle Obama: Can She Lie Just Because She is a Pop Figure?


Cultural icons like Michelle Obama wield a lot of influence on the feelers and reactionaries but have little effect on those who choose to examine the record and do a little honest thinking

Rev. Michael Bresciani image

Re-Post from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Michelle Obama: Can She Lie Just Because She is a Pop Figure?

Starting her speech with a highly dubious remark at the televised Democratic National Convention, Michelle declared that she loved this country very much. But, we remember that until husband Barack Obama ran for president, she declared that she had no reason to love this country.

Which is it Michelle?

Since, she started her speech with a lie, shouldn’t we scrutinize every jot and tittle that follows?

Michelle’s hyperbole

To begin with, we know that in today’s pop culture world of ersatz, glitz, tinsel and hip-hop hype, Americans are very likely to believe anything a pop culture figure has to say.

How many people hung on every word of Oprah Winfrey, even as she took them down the road to authors and guests of her show, who were, in fact frauds.

Concerning Michelle, what American doesn’t remember lines like, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, coming from husband Barack Obama?

Among the qualities Michelle declared a president must have is, a “moral compass”.

Under Obama we broke through the common sense and moral barriers to the place where abortion is enshrined, and men can marry men. If this is a moral compass, we may be better off to be lost at sea without a prayer.

Carrying her husband’s call for audacity to the breaking point, Michelle announced that when Barack and Joe Biden left office, they had brought job creation to a new level. This is beyond false, it is laughable. Sorry dear, but if you want to talk job creation, you’ll have to go with the Trump administration. Facts cannot lie as easily as pop culture icons.

Next, comes the bragging about how Barack staved off the Ebola virus like a knight in shining armor – whereas Mr. Trump has allowed the Covid-19 to ravage the nation.

Wake up,  Michelle, it is a worldwide pandemic, its source is China, not the White House.

Jerry Dunleavy a reporter at the Washington Examiner says it best. “Ebola and COVID-19 are simply not comparable problems and it is dishonest to pretend that they are.”

Dishonest indeed but let us examine the rest of Michelle’s hyperbole.

What Michelle didn’t say while loading full responsibility for covid-19 on the shoulders of President Trump is worthy of note.

Not once did she mention that while a hospital ship and the Javits Center were supplied and outfitted to deal with coronavirus victims by Donald Trump, it was the Democratic Governor of New York that adopted the nursing home policy that cost 6,000 elderly their lives.

Don’t talk about a lack of “empathy” to us Michelle—unless you at least mention the name Andrew Cuomo.

Until you mention his name, we are assured that raising the name of Donald Trump, is purely political and self-serving.

In addition to the hype about racism and the BLM movement there was nothing remarkable about Michelle’s diatribe—it was democratic party rhetoric disguised as impassioned speech for a poor country beleaguered by a president who doesn’t deserve to be in office.

It is a hard sell and it is likely that no one outside of the DNC’s influence has been moved an inch.

Cultural icons like Michelle Obama wield a lot of influence on the feelers and reactionaries but have little effect on those who choose to examine the record and do a little honest thinking.

Donald Trump is the only person in this historic race for the White House, who has given something to America and has, yet, much more to offer.

Aug 21 2020

Kalamity Kamala a Calamity for America


Kamala won’t be Biden’s VP. Biden will be Kamala’s president only if she gets up in a good enough mood to give him permission

Joan Swirsky image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Kalamity Kamala a Calamity for America

Calamity Jane was a frontier heroine in the mid-19th century who during an uprising in 1872, saved a Captain Egan from certain death, whereupon he told her: “I name you Calamity Jane, the heroine of the plains.”

This is in stark contrast to Kalamity Kamala of 21st century America, who would accelerate the downfall of our Democratic Republic in the unlikely event of a Biden-Kalamity win on November 3rd.

Why? Because Biden and Kalamity are promising to resurrect the failed policies of the Obama years, and inflict even more damage on America the Beautiful.

According to author and television host Mark Levin, although the media are rushing to portray California’s junior senator as a moderate, nothing could be further from the truth.
She is the “most extremist radical politician ever to run for high office” in the U.S.A., Levin states, even “farther left than 97% of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate,” even “left of avowed Marxist Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.”

Levin and his guest attorney Mark Pulliam provided several examples. Kalamity Kamala, they said:

  • Rejects a physical wall on the Southern border.
  • Compared ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service) to the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Believes in government-run health care for illegal aliens.
  • Believes in the elimination of private health care.
  • Believes in the Green New Deal which would bankrupt our country.
  • Wants to repeal the president’s tax cuts for the middle class.
  • Wants to massively increase taxes on all Americans.

When it comes to support for Jewish issues in America as well as support for Israel, the estimable Daniel Greenfield in his powerful article, The Democrat Party is Getting Rid of Jews, has a warning:

“Obama and Harris both signed off on Iran’s nuclear program and the flow of money to terrorists.” In addition, “While Harris has been depicted as a moderate, her chief of staff, Karine Jean-Pierre, was the national spokeswoman and senior adviser for MoveOn, the radical group [with] a long history of trafficking in anti-Semitism and attacking the Jewish State.”

And, Greenfield reminds us, Kalamity Kamala is a full-throated supporter of the virulently anti-Semitic members of the so-called “Squad”––Cong. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Cong. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Cong. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Cong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and all the others who avidly support both the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement to destroy Israel economically and to deny foreign aid to America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East.

In a chilling but all-too-credible warning, Greenfield says that “Jewish Democrats who imagine that Israel is the problem are about to learn they’re the problem.”

CENSORSHIP TO THE RESCUE

Clearly, the Democrat Party poohbahs recognize the liability Kalamity Kamala poses to a November victory and so, according to reporter Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon, an active campaign involving Democrat Party operatives like Obama handler Valerie Jarrett, Regressive activists, and all of the predictable media whores are declaring that any criticism of her be off limits.

The long list of words the media is forbidden to use include, among others: “ambitious,” “angry,” “unlikeable,” and “unqualified.” Don’t report on the “heritage” of non-white candidates is another directive, and don’t publish unflattering images.

And to anyone who does these sinful things, the self-appointed guardians of the Biden-Kalamity Censorship Committee are advised to use the magic formula: Cry “racist”––and then throw in “sexist”!

All of us can see the pitiful cognitive decline of Mr. Biden. But wasn’t Kamala chosen to cover for him, to be his pit bull, to prove to people she was capable of taking her seat in the Oval Office––unfortunately when and not if Biden’s rapid decline continues?

Now this committee is telling us that the entire Biden-Kalamity ticket is so vulnerable, indeed fragile, that it cannot withstand legitimate criticism, probing policy and personal questions, and what most of the country continues to cherish as a bedrock American value: Free Speech!

These are today’s Democrats––camouflage the ailing and failing and prettify the ambitious, angry, unlikeable and unqualified––or else!

Yet, laughably, Democrats continue to entertain the conceit that they are tolerant.

A THANK YOU IS IN ORDER

Actually, the Biden-Kalamity Censorship Committee has precedent. In 2007, a leftwing journalist named Ezra Klein formed a group called JournOlist which consisted of 400 equally leftist journalists, ostensibly to discuss politics but in fact to insult, degrade, vilify, marginalize and generally try to destroy anyone who disagreed with their largely radical points of view.

The “O” stood for the man then ascending in the political world who two years later would find himself at the pinnacle of power in the White House. One of JournOlist’s first tasks was to savage anyone who questioned Mr. Obama’s viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Their magic formula was to call anyone who said or wrote anything negative about Obama a “racist.”

JournOlist members continued to hurl “racist” accusations at Obama’s critics for eight long years. What Americans learned from those overwhelmingly false charges was that weak and insecure people cave when people called them names but strong and confident people see the accusations for what they are––transparent attempts to intimidate them into silence.

Multimillions of Americans, including me, have to thank the JournOlist “strategy” because it succeeded in bringing to America the quintessentially strong and confident leader––President Donald J. Trump––who in less than four years has truly transformed our country into a flourishing Democratic Republic.

Why is that relevant today? Because President Trump recognizes that in every law, policy, philosophy, deal and strategy that Obama employed, VP Biden was right by his side, supporting every action and touting it enthusiastically on his globetrotting travels. And worse, with far-far left Kalamity Kamala now by his side, Biden’s plan to resurrect Obama’s policies would be even more extreme.

Keep that in mind when you read this brief review of what Barack Obama inflicted on our country and what President Trump fixed:

  • Obama-Biden eviscerated our military and President Trump reconstituted it to become the strongest military in the world.
  • Obama-Biden had a failed economy and chronically unemployed citizens and President Trump boosted employment to the highest levels in American history––including Black employment, Hispanic employment, women’s employment, and youth employment.
  • Obama-Biden displayed visceral antagonism to our most reliable Mideast ally and President Trump told the entire world that America stands with Israel. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the American embassy there; recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights and now forged the first deal between Israel and an Arab state in 26 years––that of the now-promising partnership between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, with more Arab states coming on board in the near future.
  • Obama-Biden’s genocidal-to-Israel deal with Iran allowed the terrorist state to develop nuclear weapons and President Trump cancelled it, although he couldn’t recoup the $150-billion in cold hard cash that Obama & Co. shipped in pallets to Iran, all while the Mullahs were promising––as they are to this very day––to wipe Israel off the map.
  • Obama-Biden continued America’s decades-long dependence on foreign oil and President Trump made America completely energy independent.

BUT, BUT, BUT…

But Kalamity Kamala is only a Vice Presidential candidate, you may say. It’s the President who formulates the policies, determines the direction of our nation, and makes the decisions. Why such a brouhaha about her?

It is not only because candidate Biden’s handlers have succeeded in moving the once-vital politician to the far left, but because the far-far left is where Kalamity Kamala lives.

In a lacerating profile of Kalamity Kamala, journalist Ixtu Diaz says that after reading thousands of pages about her, she is a woman “who boasts of instilling fear in her opponents, who despises individual freedom, and who rages at half the planet for being men or for not thinking like her.”

“But let’s not fool ourselves,” Diaz continues, “Kamala won’t be Biden’s VP. Biden will be Kamala’s president only if she gets up in a good enough mood to give him permission. She has two big things going for her: that she is a woman and that she is black––a truly extraordinary feat that has never been accomplished by anyone before.

“She certainly deserves an award, although perhaps the vice presidency of a government without a president is excessive.”

Now that would be a true calamity!

Aug 21 2020

Good Grief, Goodyear is Run By Idiots…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Get woke – Go broke, strikes again.  When you consider the scale of the company and the resources available to them on branding and marketing…. one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that Goodyear is run by idiots.

(SOURCE – LINK)

On the positive side, the boycott response -which I fully support, not because of the originating stupid, but rather because I do not want tires from amplified corporate stupid on my vehicles- just shows the scale of economic backlash from average Americans.

There are more of us than them; they just control the mechanisms that allow us to communicate with each other – nothing more.  Remember that !