OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
The Democrats are now officially the party of Jew-hatred. This is largely due to the disastrous presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. PAMELA GELLER
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-disaster-of-barack-obama-democrats.html
Abunimah’s piece -- and Obama’s numerous anti-Semitic associations -- got little attention. Throughout his life Barack Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others. PAMELA GELLER
OBAMA AND HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS… Did he serve them well?
Malia, Michelle, Barack and the College Admissions Scandal https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/malia-michelle-barack-and-college.html
Michelle was the next to attend Harvard, in her case Harvard Law School. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in Barack and Michelle, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
GOOGLE WHAT THE OBOMB DID FOR HIS SAUDIS PAYMASTERS
Barack Obama’s back door, however, was unique to him. Before prosecutors send some of the dimmer Hollywood stars to the slammer for their dimness, they might want to ask just how much influence a Saudi billionaire peddled to get Obama into Harvard.
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
BARACK OBAMA and his SAUDIS PAYMASTERS: Did they build his Muslim tower in Chicago?
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/10/swamp-keeper-trump-claims-fake-news-is.html
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, is no stranger to representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA: DEDICATED SERVANT TO THE MUSLIM DICTATORSHIP OF SAUDI ARABIA - BUT THEN THEY BOUGHT AND OWN THE CLOSET MUSLIM
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2022/07/closet-muslim-barack-obama-begs-to-go.html
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE JEWS
The Democrats are now officially the party of Jew-hatred. This is largely due to the disastrous presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. PAMELA GELLER
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-disaster-of-barack-obama-democrats.html
Abunimah’s piece -- and Obama’s numerous anti-Semitic associations -- got little attention. Throughout his life Barack Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others. PAMELA GELLER
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, is no stranger to representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
Al Qaeda Lawyer Neal Katyal Blown Out in Supreme Court Ruling
Unanimous Court rejects Katyal's argument that county can seize old woman's home and take all the profits
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a left-wing lawyer after he tried to convince the justices that a Minnesota county was right to take all the profits from the sale of a home it confiscated from an elderly woman.
Supreme Court justices were unconvinced by arguments last month from lawyer Neal Katyal, who once defended Al Qaeda terrorists. Katyal defended Hennepin County, which contains Minneapolis, after it confiscated an elderly woman's condo and took all the profits from its sale over a small unpaid tax. The county received $40,000 from the sale of Geraldine Tyler's condo after the county seized the property in 2015 over $2,300 in unpaid taxes. Tyler, now 94, owed $15,000 in total with penalties and interest on the unpaid taxes.
The High Court ruled that states that seize and sell private property to make up for unpaid taxes cannot keep more from the sales than what a taxpayer owed.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court's opinion. "The county had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover the unpaid property taxes," Roberts wrote, but added that the county "could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due."
Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former president Barack Obama, is no stranger to representing controversial defendants. He is known as a member of the "al Qaeda 7," a group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration.
In 2020, Katyal appeared before the Supreme Court to defend Nestlé and Cargill, who faced charges of abetting child slavery at cocoa plantations in Africa.
Obama’s threat took two presidential terms to gather momentum; former President Trump temporarily stalled its course, but then Obama managed to get a shot at a third term in 2020 – vicariously through his former Vice President Joe Biden.
JOE BIDEN = BARACK OBAMA'S PATHWAY TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE
Image courtesy of Richard Terrell at TerrellAfterMath.
https://www.americanthinker.com/cartoons/
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Obama lets the cat out of the bag: He's got plans to make Joe Biden his stooge
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2020/12/barack-hussein-obama-will-joe-biden-be.html
Joe Biden, who couldn't even get President
Obama's endorsement during the primaries, now
has word that Obama may well use him as his
marionette stooge for what's in fact a third Obama
term.
Joe Biden, who couldn't even get President
Obama's endorsement during the primaries, now
has word that Obama may well use him as his
marionette stooge for what's in fact a third Obama
term.
DIVIDING AMERICA WAS OBAMA AND GEORGE SOROS' GAMEPLAN FOR OBOMB'S PATH TO A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE.
THERE HAS PROBABLY NEVER BEEN A GREATER DANGER TO AMERICAN THAN OBAMA, UNLESS ONE CONSIDERS JOE BIDEN AND HILLARY CLIONT
“Before Obama,” writes Greenfield, “71 percent of Americans had thought that relations between black and white people were generally good.” A year after the Ferguson riots in 2014, “more than half the country thought relations were bad.” It was the Obama administration that had “started the fires and then led the fire brigade, but instead of water, its hoses were filled with oil.” Upon Obama’s departure from office, Donald Trump inherited a country that wasn’t healed but primed for an even more heated racial conflagration.
Barack Obama’s True Legacy
And how he continues to “fundamentally transform” America.
[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
On the cusp of the 2008 presidential election, then-candidate Barack Obama galvanized an ecstatic crowd at Missouri University by claiming that he and his supporters were “five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Not making America great again, but fundamentally transforming her. This unsettling vow, from the man who would later declare that American exceptionalism was no more valid than British or Greek exceptionalism, promised not restoration, but revolution. It made clear that his incoming administration intended to toss the greatest country in the world onto the trash heap of history to make way for a Progressive utopia centered on social justice and on the dismantling of American power.
Obama’s threat took two presidential terms to gather momentum; former President Trump temporarily stalled its course, but then Obama managed to get a shot at a third term in 2020 – vicariously through his former Vice President Joe Biden. Under the decrepit figurehead Biden, Obama and his muses Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett could accelerate the fundamental change he promised. Indeed, it has been cascading to fruition so rapidly that one is reminded of a Hemingway character’s explanation about how he went bankrupt: “Gradually, then suddenly.”
The Biden administration is already securing its place in history as the most disastrous American presidency to date. In less than two-and-a-half years, the angry Divider-in-Chief Biden has presided over more domestic and foreign policy debacles than Barack Obama could ever have hoped for. As General Michael Flynn catalogs in the foreword to a brand new book titled Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America, our nation now faces
chronic unemployment and inflation, a border crisis, grave threats to our constitutional liberties, increased violence and lawlessness from the leftist groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter, a weakening dollar, the emboldening of our enemies worldwide, and even worse on the horizon… This is the world Barack Obama has made. This is his legacy.
All of this and more is addressed in Obama’s True Legacy, a collection of eighteen original essays edited by FrontPage Magazine’s longtime editor Jamie Glazov, and featuring numerous FrontPage Mag regulars such as Daniel Greenfield, Robert Spencer, Joseph Klein, Matthew Vadum, and Raymond Ibrahim, among other contributors.
“To understand the crisis of the Biden administration, we have to go back to its origins in the Obama administration,” writes Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield in his introduction to the book, because the latter’s “impact is not past tense. It is present tense… [W]e are still living through the Obama nightmare.” And that is what these eighteen essays analyze and illuminate. From political scientist (and former Marxist) John Drew’s fascinating account of his college days with the fellow radical in “Obama: The Young Communist I Knew,” to Knesset member Dov Lipman’s closing critique of the anti-Israel lies in Obama’s memoir A Promised Land, Barack Obama’s True Legacy is the definitive one-volume guide to the catastrophic influence on U.S. and world politics of Barack Hussein Obama.
The anti-colonialist Obama waged war against America on a broad range of fronts, and they are seemingly all covered in this book. New Zealand author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon traces “The Marxist Origins and Goals of Obamacare” and “Obama’s Illegal Marxist Immigrant Amnesty Movement.” Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim explains “How Obama Enabled the Persecution of Christians.” Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer focuses on “Obama’s Enabling of Jihad and Stealth Jihad” in addition to his empowering of the monstrous terror group ISIS and his balance-of-power-altering nuclear deal with Iran. Journalist Joseph Klein exposes “Obamagate: The Coup Attempt Against President Trump” and makes the case for “Why Obama Should Have Been Impeached.”
There is much more in Barack Obama’s True Legacy. Award-winning journalist Matthew Vadum lays bare the damage Obama wreaked on America’s border security. Author and former military intelligence analyst Stephen Coughlin details the “Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the US Under Obama.” Clare Lopez, founding member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, explicates Obama’s “Benghazi Betrayal and the Brotherhood Link.” Political analyst J.R. Nyquist shines a light into the dark corners of “Obama’s Russia collusion.”
No account of Barack Obama’s legacy would be complete without addressing, as Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield puts it, his “enabling of racial strife and domestic terror.” Though Obama surfed into the White House on a wave of hope that the nation’s first black president would bring long-awaited racial healing and unity, Greenfield calls the intentional shattering of race relations in America under his watch “Obama’s true enduring legacy.”
“Before Obama,” writes Greenfield, “71 percent of Americans had thought that relations between black and white people were generally good.” A year after the Ferguson riots in 2014, “more than half the country thought relations were bad.” It was the Obama administration that had “started the fires and then led the fire brigade, but instead of water, its hoses were filled with oil.” Upon Obama’s departure from office, Donald Trump inherited a country that wasn’t healed but primed for an even more heated racial conflagration.
“But Obama wasn’t done once he finally left the White House,” writes Joseph Klein in his essay about the Radical-in-Chief’s “Post-Presidential War on America.” Klein details how the ex-President went on to spread disinformation in an attempt to delegitimize his successor Trump, to foment generational war by nurturing “the next generation of community-organizing Obama mini-mes,” to discredit Fox News – the only mainstream cable outlet that leaned right – and to turn Netflix into his own private propaganda mill, all while hypocritically amassing a personal fortune that contradicted his socialist assertion, “At a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”
Obama’s corrosive impact wasn’t limited to our shores. On an international level, for example, Daniel Greenfield addresses, in “Obama’s Betrayal of Israel,” the breakdown in relations between the United States and our close ally in the Middle East. That alliance fractured thanks to a “total divergence of worldviews” – “moral, cultural, and strategic” – between Obama and Biden on the one hand, and Benjamin Netanyahu on the other. “Previous administrations had viewed Islamic terrorists and the Iranian regime as threats. The Obama administration, however, saw them as victims of American foreign policy… Obama believed that Israel, like America, and other allies in the region, was part of the problem.”
And our current administration, of course, shares and perpetuates that anti-Israel perspective. The result is that the entire volatile Middle East is once again a tinderbox, even as that administration exacerbates tensions in other parts of the world too, such as Ukraine, where we risk tumbling headlong into a world war that could have been averted had Donald Trump been elected in 2020.
But the chaos is all part of the plan. As Robert Spencer reminds us in his epilogue to Barack Obama’s True Legacy, Obama was photographed in 2008 clutching a copy of Fareed Zakaria’s book The Post-American World, a finger keeping his place in the pages. Spencer writes,
Zakaria’s book predicting America’s inevitable decline turned out to be a veritable blueprint for Obama’s presidency. Throughout his eight years in office, as this present book abundantly illustrates, Obama seemed determined to make Zakaria’s “post-American world” a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obama went to work from his first day in office to make Zakaria’s wishful thinking about America’s decline become a reality.
Now, in his de facto third term, the shadowy radical continues to exert his subversive influence on the Constitution, the citizens, and the country he is committed to destroying. Barack Obama’s True Legacy could not be a timelier and more important read. As Spencer concludes,
This book stands as a warning and as a primer on just how devastating Obamaism was for the United States and will be again unless vigilant, courageous, and patriotic American citizens stand, determined to employ all lawful means to defend freedom.
Mark Tapson
Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, focusing on popular culture. He is also the host of an original podcast on Frontpage, “The Right Take With Mark Tapson.”
Reader Interactions
Obama torpedoed U.S. relations with Russia -- to perpetuate lies about Trump, Durham report found
In late 2016, Obama was angry.
Oh, not about the election of Donald Trump, of course, if his public statements were any indication.
He was supposedly angry, so angry, at Russia and its supposed interference in our 2016 election that he got out his pen and phone and expelled 35 Russian diplomats.
Here is what the New York Times reported:
WASHINGTON — President Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election, ejecting 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services.
The administration also penalized four top officers of one of those services, the powerful military intelligence unit known as the G.R.U.
Intelligence agencies have concluded that the G.R.U. ordered the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, with the approval of the Kremlin, and ultimately enabled the publication of the emails it harvested to benefit Donald J. Trump’s campaign.
The Hill reported that it was quite an array of sanctions at the time:
The measures include a slate of economic sanctions, diplomatic censure, and public “naming and shaming.” The president also hinted at possible covert cyber measures but did not provide details. The president also announced that the State Department will expel 35 Russian intelligence operatives and shutter two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russia for intelligence purposes.
The Times added:
Taken together, the sweeping actions announced by the White House, the Treasury, the State Department and intelligence agencies on Thursday amount to the strongest American response yet to a state-sponsored cyberattack. They also appeared intended to box in President-elect Trump, who will now have to decide whether to lift the sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies when he takes office next month.
Obama even amended his own executive order to extend his powers to sanction, with travel bans and asset freezes on some Russian officials.
Just one problem: The Russians didn't do what the embittered Democrats claimed they were doing -- to Get Trump.
Nothing. They didn't hack the DNC and they didn't collude with Donald Trump to get him elected to the presidency. The charges, the expropriations, the sanctions -- were all for innocent people. Even the Russian state was innocent.
That was what Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse found buried at the bottom of the Durham report.
Sundance laid it out with these details:
♦ First, John Durham clearly shows in his 306-page report with a 48-page classified appendix, that Russia did nothing to interfere in the 2016 election. The entire Russian Interference operation was a Clinton fabrication, later enhanced by a Federal Bureau of Investigation who used the fabrication as a cover-up justification to hide their surveillance of the Trump campaign.
♦ Second, accepting the empirical, factual, and inherently true reality of the first point – consider that President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats to retain the Clinton fabrication and FBI lies. Think about this one carefully, the Obama administration expelled Russian diplomats in order to retain a domestic political ruse! President Obama did this *after* CIA Director John Brennan briefed him about the Clinton fabrication.
There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.
♦ Third, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, with the full support of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, indicted 14 Russian entities under completely bogus pretenses. All of that effort was done to assist the Clinton narrative, cover for Obama and then use the special counsel to cover up the Trump targeting operation. The totally bogus construct explains why the fabricated indictments were sealed in the DOJ National Security Division in perpetuity, thereby keeping the fraudulent construct hidden from public review forever.
So Obama's wrath was nothing but a fiction to protect the partisan Democrat narrative that they had been promoting about Trump and the Russians, which originated from the embittered political camp of losing Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.
How would you feel about that if you were a Russian, especially now, reading that it was all a political hoax with you the one chosen to be the whipping boy? You got sanctioned, you got kicked out, you got travel bans, you incurred costs, and some "name and shame" all based on lies.
Might you start thinking of the U.S. as kind of a sleazy, dishonest player on the world scene? Would you have problems trusting them? Might you step up your activities against it? It would seem natural.
The Russians, remember, had already calculated by their own devices that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election and the Kremlin was planning for that, so they were as surprised as anyone that the American voters thought otherwise when the election results came in in November 2016.
That they were blamed for the result and sanctioned for hacking and colluding they didn't do, and knew they didn't do, and knew that Obama knew they didn't do, surely must have made them angry.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially adopted a wait-and-see attitude to see if Trump would set things back to rights, but by March of 2017, three months into his term, Trump had appointed Democrat ally Fiona Hill to be his Russia advisor, and although she was smart enough to generally pooh-pooh the Russia collusion claims in her statements, apparently nothing was done to restore the Russia relations after Obama's partisan fit of pique at Russia's expense.
Net result: By May, Putin expelled 755 American diplomats and staff and expropriated two American properties in retaliation. That was to get the numbers of embassy personnel even, as the U.S had a much bigger official diplomatic presence in Russia than the Russians had in the U.S. That certainly didn't serve U.S. interests to say the least, given that the U.S. must have had a much bigger spy operation going on against Russia than Russia did against the U.S., or, at the least official one which seems most likely.
In other words, how did it serve U.S. interests to falsely accuse and sanction Russia for something it didn't do?
Stuff like that makes countries mad, and fosters considerable distrust. Was that in the U.S. interest? Did that raise our standing and reputation in the world or did it contribute to emerging problems? The Russians were remarkably patient for a while as the accusations were leveled but the lies kept coming and then things got ugly.
It's horrible stuff when we consider the bigger picture, and the picture we see today. Right now, the U.S. and Russia are in a proxy war against one another over Ukraine, with several hideous sideshows involving cowardly and let-the-Americans-do-it allies, as well as huge amounts of money spent at a time of high inflation with little accountability. Our military readiness has been affected just on the supply front. There are odd fires at U.S. food factories over here even as we read reports of strikes at strategic assets inside Russia. The Nordstream II gas pipeline somehow got blown up and somehow nobody knows who did it.
And as this unwelcome, unpopular, and costly entanglement with Russia goes on, China is on the rise, with increasingly aggressive actions amid reports out there that they could beat us in a shooting war. Another inconvenient development: Russia has allied with China.
The worst of this is that it need never have happened. Foreign policy should always be off limits to partisan disputes, but apparently not by Obama. Relations with Russia could have been good and ties friendly. Russia could have advanced economically and moved closer to the West had these sleazy Obama fictions never happened.
Russia has always been torn between leaning east or leaning west, and for most of the 21st century has leaned westward. Keeping Russia friendly to the U.S. would have been a boon for keeping China in check and Russia peaceable. Instead, the Russians were a convenient target for abuse by Democrats and were thrown to the wolves, all to promote the lie that Democrats were "victims" of Russian machinations instead of simply rejected by U.S. voters for their utterly repellent agenda.
That's been an expensive lie for us in the aftermath because any smart superpower should go out of its way to keep as many friends as it can, especially among the those with nuclear weapons. Making Russia an enemy for nothing more than partisan political purposes is not the act of someone who represents America. It's the act of a community organizer, a partisan political hack, a creep who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power, owing to an inability to distinguish the national interest from the partisan interest.
That's the old Obama we know however, and now he's disgraced us on the world stage as a dishonest sleazeball country, not a nation founded on fairness and democracy. His act and the acts of the Deep State were not only detrimental to democracy here, they were very detrimental to foreign policy abroad. False charges open the door to harsher spying, retaliation, and belligerent actions. It was yellow journalism and other schemings on the American side that got us into the Spanish-American war of 1898 when Spain was baselessly blamed for blowing up an American ship in the Caribbean. Any questions as to why Brittney Griner got such a harsh sentence for such a piddly crime in Russia? Or why a young Wall Street Journal reporter sits in some Russian prison on phony espionage charges? What on earth do the Russians think? And how can anyone fail to understand them at least for whatever they are doing with this blotch on our nation's record? Who started this garbage? How do the decent among us make it right?
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License
In late 2016, Obama was angry.
Oh, not about the election of Donald Trump, of course, if his public statements were any indication.
He was supposedly angry, so angry, at Russia and its supposed interference in our 2016 election that he got out his pen and phone and expelled 35 Russian diplomats.
Here is what the New York Times reported:
WASHINGTON — President Obama struck back at Russia on Thursday for its efforts to influence the 2016 election, ejecting 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services.
The administration also penalized four top officers of one of those services, the powerful military intelligence unit known as the G.R.U.
Intelligence agencies have concluded that the G.R.U. ordered the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations, with the approval of the Kremlin, and ultimately enabled the publication of the emails it harvested to benefit Donald J. Trump’s campaign.
The Hill reported that it was quite an array of sanctions at the time:
The measures include a slate of economic sanctions, diplomatic censure, and public “naming and shaming.” The president also hinted at possible covert cyber measures but did not provide details.The president also announced that the State Department will expel 35 Russian intelligence operatives and shutter two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russia for intelligence purposes.
The Times added:
Taken together, the sweeping actions announced by the White House, the Treasury, the State Department and intelligence agencies on Thursday amount to the strongest American response yet to a state-sponsored cyberattack. They also appeared intended to box in President-elect Trump, who will now have to decide whether to lift the sanctions on Russian intelligence agencies when he takes office next month.
Obama even amended his own executive order to extend his powers to sanction, with travel bans and asset freezes on some Russian officials.
Just one problem: The Russians didn't do what the embittered Democrats claimed they were doing -- to Get Trump.
Nothing. They didn't hack the DNC and they didn't collude with Donald Trump to get him elected to the presidency. The charges, the expropriations, the sanctions -- were all for innocent people. Even the Russian state was innocent.
That was what Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse found buried at the bottom of the Durham report.
Sundance laid it out with these details:
♦ First, John Durham clearly shows in his 306-page report with a 48-page classified appendix, that Russia did nothing to interfere in the 2016 election. The entire Russian Interference operation was a Clinton fabrication, later enhanced by a Federal Bureau of Investigation who used the fabrication as a cover-up justification to hide their surveillance of the Trump campaign.
♦ Second, accepting the empirical, factual, and inherently true reality of the first point – consider that President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats to retain the Clinton fabrication and FBI lies. Think about this one carefully, the Obama administration expelled Russian diplomats in order to retain a domestic political ruse! President Obama did this *after* CIA Director John Brennan briefed him about the Clinton fabrication.
There were no Russian diplomats involved; there was no Russian election interference; there was no Russian hacking of the DNC; it was all a fraud created by the intelligence community (IC), FBI and Main Justice to support Hillary Clinton’s lies and then cover their own targeting tracks.
♦ Third, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, with the full support of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, indicted 14 Russian entities under completely bogus pretenses. All of that effort was done to assist the Clinton narrative, cover for Obama and then use the special counsel to cover up the Trump targeting operation. The totally bogus construct explains why the fabricated indictments were sealed in the DOJ National Security Division in perpetuity, thereby keeping the fraudulent construct hidden from public review forever.
So Obama's wrath was nothing but a fiction to protect the partisan Democrat narrative that they had been promoting about Trump and the Russians, which originated from the embittered political camp of losing Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.
How would you feel about that if you were a Russian, especially now, reading that it was all a political hoax with you the one chosen to be the whipping boy? You got sanctioned, you got kicked out, you got travel bans, you incurred costs, and some "name and shame" all based on lies.
Might you start thinking of the U.S. as kind of a sleazy, dishonest player on the world scene? Would you have problems trusting them? Might you step up your activities against it? It would seem natural.
The Russians, remember, had already calculated by their own devices that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election and the Kremlin was planning for that, so they were as surprised as anyone that the American voters thought otherwise when the election results came in in November 2016.
That they were blamed for the result and sanctioned for hacking and colluding they didn't do, and knew they didn't do, and knew that Obama knew they didn't do, surely must have made them angry.
Russian President Vladimir Putin initially adopted a wait-and-see attitude to see if Trump would set things back to rights, but by March of 2017, three months into his term, Trump had appointed Democrat ally Fiona Hill to be his Russia advisor, and although she was smart enough to generally pooh-pooh the Russia collusion claims in her statements, apparently nothing was done to restore the Russia relations after Obama's partisan fit of pique at Russia's expense.
Net result: By May, Putin expelled 755 American diplomats and staff and expropriated two American properties in retaliation. That was to get the numbers of embassy personnel even, as the U.S had a much bigger official diplomatic presence in Russia than the Russians had in the U.S. That certainly didn't serve U.S. interests to say the least, given that the U.S. must have had a much bigger spy operation going on against Russia than Russia did against the U.S., or, at the least official one which seems most likely.
In other words, how did it serve U.S. interests to falsely accuse and sanction Russia for something it didn't do?
Stuff like that makes countries mad, and fosters considerable distrust. Was that in the U.S. interest? Did that raise our standing and reputation in the world or did it contribute to emerging problems? The Russians were remarkably patient for a while as the accusations were leveled but the lies kept coming and then things got ugly.
It's horrible stuff when we consider the bigger picture, and the picture we see today. Right now, the U.S. and Russia are in a proxy war against one another over Ukraine, with several hideous sideshows involving cowardly and let-the-Americans-do-it allies, as well as huge amounts of money spent at a time of high inflation with little accountability. Our military readiness has been affected just on the supply front. There are odd fires at U.S. food factories over here even as we read reports of strikes at strategic assets inside Russia. The Nordstream II gas pipeline somehow got blown up and somehow nobody knows who did it.
And as this unwelcome, unpopular, and costly entanglement with Russia goes on, China is on the rise, with increasingly aggressive actions amid reports out there that they could beat us in a shooting war. Another inconvenient development: Russia has allied with China.
The worst of this is that it need never have happened. Foreign policy should always be off limits to partisan disputes, but apparently not by Obama. Relations with Russia could have been good and ties friendly. Russia could have advanced economically and moved closer to the West had these sleazy Obama fictions never happened.
Russia has always been torn between leaning east or leaning west, and for most of the 21st century has leaned westward. Keeping Russia friendly to the U.S. would have been a boon for keeping China in check and Russia peaceable. Instead, the Russians were a convenient target for abuse by Democrats and were thrown to the wolves, all to promote the lie that Democrats were "victims" of Russian machinations instead of simply rejected by U.S. voters for their utterly repellent agenda.
That's been an expensive lie for us in the aftermath because any smart superpower should go out of its way to keep as many friends as it can, especially among the those with nuclear weapons. Making Russia an enemy for nothing more than partisan political purposes is not the act of someone who represents America. It's the act of a community organizer, a partisan political hack, a creep who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power, owing to an inability to distinguish the national interest from the partisan interest.
That's the old Obama we know however, and now he's disgraced us on the world stage as a dishonest sleazeball country, not a nation founded on fairness and democracy. His act and the acts of the Deep State were not only detrimental to democracy here, they were very detrimental to foreign policy abroad. False charges open the door to harsher spying, retaliation, and belligerent actions. It was yellow journalism and other schemings on the American side that got us into the Spanish-American war of 1898 when Spain was baselessly blamed for blowing up an American ship in the Caribbean. Any questions as to why Brittney Griner got such a harsh sentence for such a piddly crime in Russia? Or why a young Wall Street Journal reporter sits in some Russian prison on phony espionage charges? What on earth do the Russians think? And how can anyone fail to understand them at least for whatever they are doing with this blotch on our nation's record? Who started this garbage? How do the decent among us make it right?
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License
Tulsi Gabbard: U.S. Government ‘Is Hiding the Truth’ on 9/11 Terror Attacks
Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to the difficulties Chris Ganci and Brett Eagleson, two relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were having in their quest to obtain more information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.
Gabbard accused the federal government of undermining efforts of achieving more transparency, which she said was being done at the behest of Saudi Arabia.
Partial transcript as follows:
CARLSON: This is one of those issues I don’t think is partisan. It doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t be partisan in any sense.
GABBARD: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: It’s an American issue. Why would the U.S. government ever side with the Saudi Kingdom of all countries against our citizens?
GABBARD: This is the real question that’s at stake. This story that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have said, well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally. They’re a partner in counterterrorism, turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re undermining our National Security interests. They are — as you said, they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi extremist ideology.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.
And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own government that is hiding the truth from Chris and Brett and the many other families of those who were killed on 9/11. For what? Where do the loyalties really lie?
CARLSON: So I was thinking in the commercial break that of the number of people I know personally, not abstractly, but have had lunch with in this city who are taking currently money from the Saudi Kingdom or their allies in the Emirates, the Gulf States, and I wonder if that maybe play some role, like a lot of people on their payroll here.
GABBARD: Yes. We talk about the foreign policy establishment in Washington.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: We talk about the political elite, the military-industrial complex. We hear things from some of those people, well, you know, hey, we sell a lot of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So you know, if we burn bridges with them, then who are we going to sell our weapons to? Where are we going to get that money from?
All of these excuses that have nothing to do with the interests of the American people, with our national security interests. And that’s — I’m proud and honored to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with these 9/11 families in demanding this truth because, yes, it is about truth and justice and closure for all of them now as we approach 20 years since that attack on 9/11. It’s also about our National Security.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: Safety and security of the American people.
CARLSON: I’ll never forget right after 9/11, living here in the City of Washington, our airports were closed. All airports were closed in this country.
GABBARD: Yes.
CARLSON: And learning that chartered flights of Saudi citizens had been allowed with U.S. government approval to take off and run back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned by authorities here and thinking you know, if I tried to do that, I’d be in prison. Why are we giving preference to Saudi citizens over our own citizens?
GABBARD: Exactly. It makes no sense if you think about what would happen if we actually had leaders who were putting the interests of our country above all else. You follow the money trail. It goes back to the military-industrial complex.
You look at how many of the think tanks here in Washington who send so-called experts to go and testify before Congress who are funded by Saudi Arabia to spout their talking points.
You saw how the legislation that we passed in Congress. I was proud to vote for legislation that allowed families like Chris and Brett’s to sue Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia trotted out all of their lobbyists to say why that would be so dangerous, so dangerous for our interests, for them to be allowed to seek justice for their families.
This is about standing up for our country. This is about standing up for our principles and our freedoms and for the truth.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to the difficulties Chris Ganci and Brett Eagleson, two relatives of victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were having in their quest to obtain more information about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.
Gabbard accused the federal government of undermining efforts of achieving more transparency, which she said was being done at the behest of Saudi Arabia.
Partial transcript as follows:
CARLSON: This is one of those issues I don’t think is partisan. It doesn’t need to be. It shouldn’t be partisan in any sense.
GABBARD: Absolutely not.
CARLSON: It’s an American issue. Why would the U.S. government ever side with the Saudi Kingdom of all countries against our citizens?
GABBARD: This is the real question that’s at stake. This story that we’re hearing from the families of those who were killed on 9/11 pushes this issue to the forefront where, for so long, leaders in our government have said, well, Saudi Arabia is our great ally. They’re a partner in counterterrorism, turning a blind eye or completely walking away from the reality that Saudi Arabia time and again, has proven to be the opposite.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re undermining our National Security interests. They are — as you said, they are the number one exporter of this Wahhabi extremist ideology.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: They’re a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists, like al Qaeda and ISIS around the world. They’re directly providing arms and assistance to al Qaeda, in places like Yemen, and in Syria.
And as we are seeing here, it is our government, our own government that is hiding the truth from Chris and Brett and the many other families of those who were killed on 9/11. For what? Where do the loyalties really lie?
CARLSON: So I was thinking in the commercial break that of the number of people I know personally, not abstractly, but have had lunch with in this city who are taking currently money from the Saudi Kingdom or their allies in the Emirates, the Gulf States, and I wonder if that maybe play some role, like a lot of people on their payroll here.
GABBARD: Yes. We talk about the foreign policy establishment in Washington.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: We talk about the political elite, the military-industrial complex. We hear things from some of those people, well, you know, hey, we sell a lot of weapons to Saudi Arabia. So you know, if we burn bridges with them, then who are we going to sell our weapons to? Where are we going to get that money from?
All of these excuses that have nothing to do with the interests of the American people, with our national security interests. And that’s — I’m proud and honored to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with these 9/11 families in demanding this truth because, yes, it is about truth and justice and closure for all of them now as we approach 20 years since that attack on 9/11. It’s also about our National Security.
CARLSON: Yes.
GABBARD: Safety and security of the American people.
CARLSON: I’ll never forget right after 9/11, living here in the City of Washington, our airports were closed. All airports were closed in this country.
GABBARD: Yes.
CARLSON: And learning that chartered flights of Saudi citizens had been allowed with U.S. government approval to take off and run back to Saudi Arabia without being questioned by authorities here and thinking you know, if I tried to do that, I’d be in prison. Why are we giving preference to Saudi citizens over our own citizens?
GABBARD: Exactly. It makes no sense if you think about what would happen if we actually had leaders who were putting the interests of our country above all else. You follow the money trail. It goes back to the military-industrial complex.
You look at how many of the think tanks here in Washington who send so-called experts to go and testify before Congress who are funded by Saudi Arabia to spout their talking points.
You saw how the legislation that we passed in Congress. I was proud to vote for legislation that allowed families like Chris and Brett’s to sue Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia trotted out all of their lobbyists to say why that would be so dangerous, so dangerous for our interests, for them to be allowed to seek justice for their families.
This is about standing up for our country. This is about standing up for our principles and our freedoms and for the truth.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Obama-Clinton Fundraiser Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea
Clinton foundation contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
Lloyd Billingsley
Since his election to the presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has targeted Donald Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him from office. Now comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the previous president.
“Middleman helped Saudi give to Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29 report by Alan Suderman and Jim Mustian, billed as an Associated Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural through an “intermediary,” Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.” One campaign, not identified, took donations “in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives” and a political committee, also unidentified, “took donations from a person Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged, Zuberi pleaded guilty to “falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first brush with the law.
“Elite Fundraiser for Obama and Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline on Bill Allison’s August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign Policy. The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is Zuberi a major fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come under fire for accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with interests before the U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted from “straw donors” set up by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted of election law violations.
Zuberi also used straw donors in more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those mysterious campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani has “talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was taken down shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.” Mr. Zuberi “lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation of U.S. law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom he interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a lengthy period of time.”
According to Suderman and Mustian, “Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the writers, “I’m deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They might start by looking in the right place.
Unconventional candidate Donald Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign. Trump had no need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and those he invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing to anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of” Schiff, as Judge Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence in plain sight that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Two years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is nowhere in sight. Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the Mueller probe, is best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal investigation of those who launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and election officials should be looking.
Did Clinton Foundation donor Imaad Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails Hillary Clinton deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any texts from Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad smashed up with hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely careless? And so on. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign intervention, right out in the open.
Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with voter-registration and participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida, Chicago, and elsewhere. As Ebrard told Francisco Goldman of the New Yorker, in 2016 he “decided to get more involved” by working on get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
A powerful foreign national openly interferes in an American election, and nobody calls him on it. Now that Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea, the FEC and DOJ should look into it.
Congress overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do ... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11 attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks, based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy, the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday, is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
Clinton foundation contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.
Lloyd Billingsley
Since his election to the presidency in 2016, the Democrat-Deep State-Media axis has targeted Donald Trump for foreign entanglements they claim should remove him from office. Now comes news of foreign entanglements and foreign cash for the previous president.
“Middleman helped Saudi give to Obama inaugural,” proclaims the headline on the October 29 report by Alan Suderman and Jim Mustian, billed as an Associated Press exclusive. As the authors explain, U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions to the inaugural celebrations of American presidents. As it turns out, the law was violated.
A “Saudi tycoon,” Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani, routed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Obama inaugural through an “intermediary,” Imaad Zuberi. He, in turn, is a “jet-setting fundraiser and venture capitalist,” who has “raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans alike over the years.” Despite the appearance of bipartisanship, Zuberi is more narrowly tailored.
Imaad Zuberi “served as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.” One campaign, not identified, took donations “in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives” and a political committee, also unidentified, “took donations from a person Zuberi invented.” As the DOJ charged, Zuberi pleaded guilty to “falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials,” and it was hardly his first brush with the law.
“Elite Fundraiser for Obama and Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe,” read the headline on Bill Allison’s August 28, 2015 exclusive in Foreign Policy. The calling card of the elite political fundraiser are photographs, “bumping fists with President Barack Obama in front of a Christmas tree at a White House reception. Sharing a belly laugh with Vice President Joe Biden at a formal luncheon,” and posing “cheek to cheek with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
Not only is Zuberi a major fundraiser for her campaign, notes Allison, “he also donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which has already come under fire for accepting money from donors — many of them foreign — with interests before the U.S. government while she was secretary of state.” And as Allison learned, Hillary’s 2008 campaign benefitted from “straw donors” set up by Sant Singh Chatwal and Norman Hsu, both convicted of election law violations.
Zuberi also used straw donors in more recent illegal activity. As to the affiliation of those mysterious campaigns and committees, the AP writers provide a hint.
Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani has “talked about his support of Obama. He posted pictures on his website of himself and his wife standing with Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and their spouses at a 2013 inaugural event.” Alas, “the website was taken down shortly after Zuberi’s plea was made public.”
As Paul Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles office explains, “American influence is not for sale.” Mr. Zuberi “lured individuals who were seeking political influence in violation of U.S. law, and in the process, enriched himself by defrauding those with whom he interacted.” According to the DOJ, that “could send him to prison for a lengthy period of time.”
According to Suderman and Mustian, “Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees vet donors.” And as FEC boss Ellen Weintraub told the writers, “I’m deeply concerned about foreigners trying to intervene in our elections, and I don’t think we’re doing enough to try to stop it.” They might start by looking in the right place.
Unconventional candidate Donald Trump, a man of considerable means, financed his own campaign. Trump had no need to consort with the likes of Zuberi or his dead relatives and those he invents. And because Trump financed his own campaign, he owes nothing to anybody, foreign or domestic.
Adam “sack of” Schiff, as Judge Jeanine Pirro respectfully calls him, claimed he had evidence in plain sight that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Two years and a Mueller investigation later, such evidence is nowhere in sight. Schiff’s current inquisition, perhaps more bogus than the Mueller probe, is best seen a diversion from John Durham’s criminal investigation of those who launched the Russia hoax. That is where DOJ and election officials should be looking.
Did Clinton Foundation donor Imaad Zerubi turn up on any of those 30,000 subpoenaed emails Hillary Clinton deleted? Did Zerubi see any classified material? Were there any texts from Zerubi and his foreign clients on the cell phones Hillary’s squad smashed up with hammers? Was Clinton grossly negligent, or just extremely careless? And so on. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton also enjoyed other foreign intervention, right out in the open.
Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard, a former mayor of Mexico City, had worked with voter-registration and participation groups in California, Arizona, Florida, Chicago, and elsewhere. As Ebrard told Francisco Goldman of the New Yorker, in 2016 he “decided to get more involved” by working on get-out-the-vote campaigns on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
A powerful foreign national openly interferes in an American election, and nobody calls him on it. Now that Clinton Foundation lackey Imaad Zuberi has copped a plea, the FEC and DOJ should look into it.
Congress overrides Obama veto of bill allowing 9/11 lawsuits
By Tom Carter
On Wednesday, the US Congress overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would permit victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and their families to sue Saudi Arabia. Declassified documents released this year confirm the involvement of Saudi intelligence agents in the funding, organization, and planning of the attacks—facts which were covered up for years by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The vote, 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House of Representatives, represents the first and only congressional override of Obama’s presidency. Under the US Constitution, the president’s veto can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress.
The Obama administration and the military and intelligence agencies, backed by sections of the media, including the New York Times, have vigorously denounced the legislation. Obama personally, together with Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford among others, have all publicly opposed the bill.
In a letter to Congress opposing the legislation, Obama warned that the bill would “threaten to erode sovereign principles that protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.”
In a lead editorial on Wednesday, the New York Times similarly warned that “if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States—with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs—the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.”
In other words, the bill would set a precedent for families of victims of American aggression abroad—such as the tens of thousands of victims of “targeted killings” ordered by Obama personally—to file lawsuits against US war criminal in their own countries’ courts.
Obama denounced the vote with unusual warmth on Wednesday. “It's an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard,” Obama declared. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do ... And it was, you know, basically a political vote.”
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave,” Sir Walter Scott famously wrote, “When first we practice to deceive!” As the tangled web of lies surrounding the September 11 attacks continue to unravel, one senses that the American ruling class and its representatives do not see a clear way out of the dilemma.
Openly torpedoing the legislation is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Indeed, the Obama administration, the military and intelligence agencies, and theNew York Times are publicly working to cover up a crime perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its backers in Saudi Arabia, which in turn is an ally of the United States. The mere fact that Obama vetoed this bill constitutes an admission that the US government is hiding something with respect to the September 11 attacks.
The alternative, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, is also fraught with risks. Court proceedings initiated by the families of September 11 victims will inevitably expose the role played by the Saudi monarchy, an ally of both Al Qaeda and the United States, in the September 11 attacks. This, in turn, will highlight long and sordid history of American support for Islamic fundamentalism in the
Middle East, which continues to the present day in Syria and Libya.
Perhaps most dangerously of all, a full public accounting of the roles of Saudi intelligence agents in the September 11 attacks will once again raise questions about the role of the American state in the attacks. Why did US intelligence
agencies ignore the activities of Saudi agents before the attacks, based on Saudi Arabia’s supposed status as a US ally?
Why did the US government deliberately cover up the Saudi connection after the fact, instead claiming that Afghanistan was a “state sponsor of terrorism” and that Iraq was developing “weapons of mass destruction?” Why was nobody
prosecuted?
The New York Times, for its part, simply lied about the evidence of Saudi complicity. “The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis,” the editors wrote. “But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.”
In fact, at least two of the hijackers received aid from Omar al-Bayoumi, who was identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Saudi intelligence agent with “ties to terrorist elements.” Some of the hijackers were paid for work in fictitious jobs from companies affiliated with the Saudi Defense Ministry, with which Al-Bayoumi was in close contact. The night before the attacks, three of the hijackers stayed at the same hotel as Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official.
These and other facts were confirmed by the infamous 28-page suppressed chapter of the 2002 report issued by the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. After 14 years of stalling, the document was finally released to the public this summer.
Yet the New York Times continues to describe the Saudi monarchy, the principal financier and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the world, as “a partner in combating terrorism.”
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed Wednesday, is a direct reaction to these revelations of Saudi complicity in the September 11 attacks, under pressure from organizations of survivors and families of victims. The law amends the federal judicial code to allow US courts “to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of. .. an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”
Although the bill nowhere names Saudi Arabia, the Saudi government has threatened massive retaliation, including by moving $750 billion in assets out of the country before they can be seized in American legal proceedings. This reaction alone confirms the monarchy’s guilt.
During Wednesday’s session, many of the statements on the floor of the Senate were nervous and apprehensive. Casting his vote in favor of the bill, Republican Senator Bob Corker declared, “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote.” More than one legislator noted that if the bill had unintended consequences, it would be modified or repealed.
The anxious comments of legislators and the crisscrossing denunciations within the ruling elite reflect the significance of this controversy for the entire American political establishment. For 15 years, the American population has been relentlessly told that the events of September 11, 2001 “changed everything,” warranting the elimination of democratic rights, the militarization of the police, renditions, torture, assassinations, totalitarian levels of spying, death and destruction across the Middle East, and trillions of dollars of expenditures.
The collapse of the official version of that day’s events shows that American politics for 15 years has been based on a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment