Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on January 10, 2018
Steve Hilton tried to shatter view Barack Obama and David Cameron were close
He tore into the former US President for thinking he was the smartest in the room
But David Cameron’s spokesman strongly denied claim of tension between pairDavid Cameron thought Barack Obama was one of the ‘most narcissistic, self-absorbed people’ he had ever dealt with, his former strategy guru has claimed.
While in office the two leaders had a cosy bromance and were pictured high-fiving and playing rounds of golf and ping pong together.
But Steve Hilton tore into Mr Obama for thinking he was ‘smarter’ than everyone else in the room.
And he claimed that his old boss Mr Cameron would get wound up by the ex President’s self absorption.
Hilton, who was Mr Cameron’s adviser when he entered Downing Street but later parted way with him and moved to Silicon Valley where his wife, Rachel Whetstone was working first for Google, then Uber, and now Facebook as a communications executive.
Hilton is also hosting a Fox News show on Sundays called The Next Revolution and used it to jump into the aftermath of the publication of the explosive book Fire and Fury, on Donald Trump’s time in the White House.
The former Downing Street adviser was highly critical of Mr Obama and said: ‘My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he’d ever dealt with.
‘Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else.
‘This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.’
But the claims were immediately slapped down by a spokesman for the former Prime Minister who said they do not reflect his views.
Mr Hilton made the shocking claim as he railed against ‘elitists’ for criticising Donald Trump and claiming he is unfit to hold office.
He said: ‘For them, it’s all about style and tone, not substance and results. Donald Trump offends the elites aesthetically, like a piece of art that’s not to their taste.
‘They can afford to do that because they live in a world of booming neighbourhoods, delightful hipster eateries and everyone they know employed in the virtual world of the knowledge economy.
‘They don’t see what’s going on in the actual economy. Whatever his mental state, [Trump] has achieved more for working Americans in one year than his predecessors did in eight, or 16, frankly.’
The viewpoint pushed by Hilton on Sunday is one he has been aggressively putting forward for months.
On Sunday he said: ‘Every supporter of President Trump should understand one thing about this book, the argument that Donald Trump is mentally unfit is not Michael Wolff’s opinion, it’s the opinion of some of the people closest to the president.
‘I said back in the summer when I first learned what these aides and hangers-on were saying to Wolff, that the president is surrounded by too many two-faced self-serving Muppets who say one thing in public and another behind the president’s back.’
That was an apparent dig at Steve Bannon, who until the publication of the book in which he openly attacked the White House, had been close to Mr Trump – rather similar to Mr Hilton’s relationship to Mr Cameron.
Mr Cameron and Mr Obama had been understood to get on well together while in office, and were pictured together playing ping-pong and watching a basketball game.
The former Tory leader once said of the the President: ‘Yes, he sometimes calls me bro.’
But their special relationship deteriorated and Mr Obama later criticised Mr Cameron for failing to do enough to intervene in Libya saying he had been ‘distracted by a range of other things’.
Mr Hilton fell out with Mr Cameron during the EU referendum campaign after the strategist announced he was backing Brexit.
A spokesman for Cameron said: ‘This does not represent David Cameron’s opinion at all and could not be further from the truth.
‘David Cameron’s views on President Obama – whether in public or in private – are the same: he considers Barack Obama a hugely accomplished president, a great partner for Britain and a good friend to our country and to him personally.’
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.“
This’s exactly what we see these days; Steve Bannon betraying President Trump, David Cameron and Barack Obama, who were brothers in arms during the Libyan genocide of Black Africans, calling names like school pupils. Everywhere, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. I wish we could see the reunion of Cameron & Obama inside a wrestling ring for a cage fighting! Politicians are all psychopaths and narcissists, yet they betray each other at some point. A pathetic world!
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on November 16, 2017
A new CNN investigation has uncovered a network of slave markets operating in warehouses in various cities across Libya six years after NATO-led intervention in the country toppled the government of Muammar Gaddafi in support of US and UK backed rebels. And not only did CNN confirm the presence of slave auctions where human beings are being sold for as little as $400 in “liberated” Libya, but CNN’s crew was actually able to film a live auction in progress, while also gathering the testimonies of multiple victims.
Though CNN’s footage and accompanying report is shocking, such practices have been quietly documented for years, and clear warnings were issued starting in early 2011 that Libya’s black as well as migrant population would be the first to fall victim at the hands of the Islamist Libyan rebels that NATO’s war empowered. From the outset critics of Western intervention in Libya loudly sounded the alarm of a genocide against black Libyans in progress committed by the very rebels the US, UK, France, and Gulf allies were arming – a fact so well-known that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was personally briefed and warned on the matter.
The Dangerous Myth of Gaddafi’s “African Mercenaries”
Among the foremost of these early critics at the time, Maximilian Forte, Associate Professor at Montreal’s Concordia University, published a 2012 book which exhaustively documented racially motivated crimes which came early and often during the armed uprising. His book, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, contains essential summary context laying out the role that international media played in 2011 and after, including CNN itself, in fueling the xenophobic campaign to scapegoat Libya’s over one million strong black population as “pro-Gaddafi mercenaries”.
Racial fear and xenophobia were at the very crux of the first public calls for Western military intervention, and were the basis for the first utterance of the need for a “no-fly zone” … The myth of the “African mercenary” was useful for the Libyan opposition, the NTC [National Transitional Council] and the militias, to insist that this was a war between “Gaddafi and the Libyan people,” as if he had no domestic support at all…
As Patrick Cockburn explained, the insurgents’ “explanation for the large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money.”
Gaddafi’s ‘pan-Africanist’ policies such as aggressive support for the creation of the African Union (in 2002), and a relatively open immigration policy allowing for the influx of sub-Saharan African migrants to work on Gaddafi’s massive building projects, stirred resentment and discontent within broader Arab Libyan society in the decade leading up to the 2011 war. This was the historical background which set the stage for the anti-Gaddafi rebels’ extraordinary claim that sub-Saharan “foreign mercenaries” were being used en masse by Gaddafi to target protesters (later proven false).
QADHAFI in 1998 adopted a decade-long pan-African policy that enabled large numbers of sub-Saharan migrants to enter Libya without visas to work in the construction and agricultural industries. Although sub-Saharan Africans provided a cheap labor source, they were poorly treated and were subjected to periodic mass expulsions. By the mid-2000s, domestic animosity toward African migrants…
Similar to later developments in Syria, the media would uncritically echo whatever the “freedom fighting” rebels would feed it, thus this black foreign mercenary trope became an unquestioned realityspread from rebel propagandists to the Western public. Libyan opposition members even began claiming to be victims of wild attacks by roving bands of machete-wielding pro-Gaddafi blacks wearing tell-tale yellow hard hats – a symbol which also falsely began to be associated with “Gaddafi’s savage mercenaries” – resulting in subsequent mass arrests and executions of innocent black migrant construction workers.
CNN Spread the “Black Mercenary” Lie
The end result would of course be the widespread targeting and scapegoating of an entire ethnic population within Libya. This is demonstrated, for example, in the most well-known example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.
But it is important to remember that CNN itself at the time regularly promoted the false “black mercenary” narrative which helped fuel and excuse such atrocities, even though it is now much belatedly investigating and decrying Libya’s current migrant slave auctions, while leaving out the essential context which enabled such horrors in the first place. For example, the following February 2011 CNN reporting relied on unnamed opposition sources during the earliest days of the conflict to say:
Residents said hundreds of mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa had been killed or captured while fighting for Gadhafi, but much of the army appears to have gone over to anti-government forces.
And a separate CNN article from the same month – though acknowledging that no CNN journalists were even inside the country – still uncritically reported:
Clashes broke out between a large crowd of demonstrators and people who appeared to be African mercenaries in the center of the city, according to an activist.
Yet another broadcast segment from February 2011 – the clip of which appears to have since been deleted from CNN’s site (but which is available on YouTube), asks the question: in Libya “just who is doing the dirty work?” – while answering that Gaddafi imported Chadian and Sudanese mercenaries to crack down on civilian protesters.
And those few examples are but a tiny sampling of CNN’s consistent spreading the dangerous myth throughout the early stages of the conflict – to say nothing of how ubiquitous the false rebel claims became among mainstream media generally.
US-backed Rebels and Ethnic Genocide
One of the few international correspondents to actually report the truth in real time while writing from inside Libya was The Independent’s (UK) Patrick Cockburn. In an August 2011 story he wrote as if attempting to warn the world about the future war crimes to come at the hands of the US-backed rebels:
The rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli, are an ominous foretaste of what might be Libya’s future. The incoming regime makes pious statements about taking no revenge on pro-Gaddafi forces, but this stops short of protecting those who can be labelled mercenaries. Any Libyan with a black skin accused of fighting for the old regime may have a poor chance of survival.
If reporters like Cockburn and even prominent human rights organizations (see Human Rights Watch, September 2011, Libya: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Black Africans) understood what was happening months prior to height of NATO’s military campaign in support of the rebels, which ended in the brutal torture and field execution of Gaddafi, then what did one of the prime US architects of the war, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?
The answer lies in a March 27, 2011, intelligence brief on Libya published by WikiLeaks. The brief, which was made public in 2015 as part of a large batch of Hillary emails released by the State Department, was sent by long time close adviser to the Clinton family and Hillary’s personal intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, and contains clear reference to rebels summarily executing “all foreign mercenaries” – which had already become the common euphemism for black Libyans then being targeted by the US-supported rebels.
Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.
Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troopscontinue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…
Hillary Emails show UK, French, Egyptian special forces were secretly in Libya providing arms to “protestors” https://t.co/SyRhaYeLGI
And further interesting is that the line immediately following the acknowledgement of war crimes against “foreign mercenaries” indicates that a long time CIA supported Libyan exile was then taking command of the very militants committing those summary executions.
At the same time Colonel Khalifa Haftar has reportedly joined the rebel command structure, in an effort to help organization the rebel forces.
Khalifa Haftar has since 2011 become a mainstay in Libya’s post-Gaddafi chaos, heading up one of the three to four governments (at any given time) claiming authority in the war-torn country. Haftar has been widely acknowledged as the “CIA’s man” during his two decade long exile in the US, as a BBC profile explained: “His proximity to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley hinted at a close relationship with US intelligence services, who gave their backing to several attempts to assassinate Gaddafi.”
CIA’s Khalifa Haftar and Mass Executions
Meanwhile, Haftar is currently being eyed by international prosecutors for continuing to commit war crimes in Libya. One month ago The Guardian reported, “Ex-CIA asset Khalifa Haftar, due to meet Italian officials in Rome, ordered soldiers to kill prisoners, according to legal experts.” The Guardian cites video evidence which proves he continues to be “complicit in calling for extrajudicial killings.”
And yesterday Al Jazeera reported that a formal suit has been filed against Haftar at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for “carrying out mass executions and torture.” Another recent Guardian report which details torture and rape being carried out against prisoners held under Haftar’s militia alliance, includes the following eyewitness account of the torture of African migrant detainees:
“There was a black man, a migrant. In the evening, they threw him into one of our cells: ‘You rape this guy, otherwise, you’re dead!’”
Then Secretary of State Clinton understood in early 2011 what was happening concerning the rebel genocidal targeting of black Libyans and African migrants, yet pushed to arm the rebels and overthrow Gaddafi anyway. She was given the intelligence brief which gave evidence this was happening on March 27, 2011. But even without such a classified intelligence report personally delivered to her, such war crimes were so well known that a full month prior on February 28, 2011, Al Jazeera could publish the following story entitled, African Migrants Targetted in Libya:
As nations evacuate their citizens from the violence gripping Libya, many African migrant workers are targeted because they are suspected of being mercenaries hired by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.
Dozens of workers from sub-Saharan Africa are feared killed, and hundreds are in hiding, as angry mobs of anti-government protesters hunt down “black African mercenaries,” according to witnesses.
“No Regrets”
But even years later, as such race-based war crimes have now been exhaustively documented, Hillary has consistently indicated that she has no regrets. Though her beloved Libyan rebels, legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West, were literally killing people based on the color of their skin, not a single one has ever been convicted in a court of law or punished for their crimes.
Moreover, Hillary has never so much as hinted at the problem, though her public stature would allow her a world-wide platform to speak against atrocities at any time, possibly preventing further crimes. Instead, she has simply chosen to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”
My Note: Another perfect example of the Esau & Ishmael alliance for the endless African and Christian genocide. They will all burn in hell! Shame on those Africans who, in any manner, collaborate with these demonic evils!
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on September 13, 2017
ዋይ! ዋይ! ዋይ!
When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was Speaker of the House for four years (2007-2010), at least 709,885 black babies were killed by abortion, which is 35.4% of all the abortions during those years, according to the Abortion Surveillance reports of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC accumulates abortion data every year and publishes the numbers by state and race and other criteria. However, not all states report abortion data to the CDC, and/or do not break it down by race or ethnicity, or do not meet reporting standards, states the CDC.
For example, in 2010, there were only 28 reporting areas; another 24 areas did not report. These included California, Florida, Illinois, Hawaii, Arizona, Maryland, and Massachusetts, among other states. Thus, the number of black abortions or white abortions reported by the CDC is likely much lower than the real number.
shows there were 212,664 black abortions — 36.5% of the total.
In 2008, there were 194,694 black abortions — 34.0% of the total.
In 2009, there were 154,266 black abortions — 35.4% of the total.
In 2010, there were 148,261 black abortions — 35.7% of the total.
In all, that equals 709,885 black abortions — 35.4% of the total — during the four years that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, based upon the areas that reported to the CDC.
There were a total 1,918,419 abortions during those four years.
Blacks make up 13.3% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau.
In 2015, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, presented then-Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) with the Margaret Sanger Award. The award is Planned Parenthood’s “highest honor” and is named for a woman who believed in breeding better humans through eugenics and even promoted her birth control philosophy to female members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on July 7, 2017
Preacher and author Jesse Lee Peterson, who grew up on the Alabama plantation where his ancestors once toiled as slaves, said some black Americans suffer in America today because of the “destruction of the family — not because of “racism” — and that during the eight years of President Barack Obama, life “got worse” for black Americans.
During an interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, July 3, Peterson said liberals have dominated the policies and lawmaking in many major cities for decades and those policies have failed, especially for minorities. But because liberals have no new ideas, they demonize their opponents.
“Because you cannot control a free people,” Peterson told Carlson. “You can’t control moral people. You have to demoralize them in order to control them.”
“[I]f we dealt with the family issue and the lack of character, black American lives would change overnight,” said Peterson. “And they [liberals] don’t want that.”
“Look, we gave them a black president,” he said. “We gave them Barack Obama, a black president. Twice. I didn’t vote for him but he is there. And we got it worse.”
“Black Americans got worse under Barack Obama than any other time in the history of America,” said Peterson. “And so, if it was a race issue, why didn’t it get better, we have a black president.”
The racism made us “more divided as result of Barack Obama,” said Peterson, “because he used them [black Americans] for his own personal gain and didn’t care about them.”
Peterson is the president and founder of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny. It is a religious non-profit dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man.” He hosts a daily radio show and a TV show, The Fallen State.
House Intel Chair Bombshell: Nunes ‘Unmasking’ Report Vindicates Trump Claims on Surveillance
House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) announced on Wednesday that he had learned that members of President Donald Trump’s transition team had been under surveillance by the Obama administration, that individual names had been “unmasked” by the intelligence community, and that those names had been leaked to the media.
Nunes’s information — which he said he would deliver to the White House later — vindicates the bulk of Trump’s claims earlier this month.
Nunes said that while there was no direct “wiretap” by President Barack Obama of Trump Tower, there was indeed surveillance — perhaps collected incidentally — of people close to Trump, possibly including Trump himself.
Much of that had been suspected, on the basis of mainstream media reports, but Rep. Nunes reported something new: that the surveillance did not involve the ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) inquiry into Russia’s alleged involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, none of the surveillance had intelligence value, he said.
“I believe it was all done legally,” Nunes told a press conference. The question, he said, was why names of those swept up in the surveillance had been leaked. The collection of the intelligence appeared to have been legal, but the leaking may have been illegal.
Most of the activity occurred during the transition period from November to January. Furthermore, Nunes said, he did not know whether phone calls — including phone calls involving Trump — were among the communications captured.
Nunez added that the new information had come to light after Monday’s hearing with FBI Director James Comey, when the congressman had appealed to anyone with new information to come forward. He said the new revelations had been “legally brought to me by sources who thought that we should know it.
The new information vindicates earlier reporting by Breitbart News, Mark Levin, and others, and which President Trump may have relied upon in tweeting the wiretapping claim Mar. 4.
Following Monday’s hearing, the mainstream media appeared to celebrate Comey’s statement that there was no evidence of wiretapping at Trump Tower. Politicians, too, piled on — including some Republicans, like Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who demanded that Trump apologize to Obama.
However, the only new revelation at the hearing was that senior members of the Obama administration may have been involved in “unmasking” former General Michael Flynn in intelligence reports.
Wednesday’s revelations by Rep. Nunes confirm earlier media reports of surveillance of Trump aides and associates, with the added twist that the revelations were unrelated to investigations of Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
No evidence of any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has been found, and former Obama administration intelligence officials have said publicly that such evidence does not exist.
Though the media, and the political opposition, had attacked Trump for his claims about wiretapping, he later clarified that he had used the term to refer to surveillance in a general sense. He also suggested that more evidence would soon emerge.
The result is a vindication of Trump’s controversial claims. Questions remain about whether President Obama himself knew of the surveillance, which other Obama administration officials were involved, and whether Trump was monitored directly.
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on March 10, 2017
An Obama has joined the birther movement.
Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, tweeted image of what appears to be Barack’s birth certificate.
Except it’s not from Hawaii, but rather Kenya.
“What’s this?” he tweeted.
The document is from the “Coast Province General Hospital” in Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya, and is for Barack Hussein Obama II, who was born on the “4th day of August, 1961.”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on March 10, 2017
The image: While President Obama was escorting Pope Francis September 23, 2015, cameras captured something subliminal: HORNS
It wouldn’t be the first time it appeared Obama had a set of horns.
A year after Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign, while giving a speech in the White House, it appeared the president had horns coming out of his head:
An Italian archbishop close to Pope Benedict XVI has claimed that the Obama administration may have been complicit in the “tremendous pressures” that led the former pope to resign in 2013.
It is “no coincidence” that some Catholic groups “have asked President Trump to open a commission of inquiry to investigate whether the administration of Barack Obama exerted pressure on Benedict,” said Archbishop Luigi Negri in an interview Monday, citing other revelations by Wikileaks regarding efforts by the Democratic Party to sway the direction of the Catholic Church in the United States.
“It remains shrouded in mystery for now,” he said to news outlet Rimini 2.0, “but I am sure that those responsible will be found out.”
The archbishop was making reference to a letter written by a group of American Catholics to President Trump last January requesting that the administration conduct an investigation into a possible Soros-Obama-Clinton conspiracy behind the resignation of Pope Benedict.
The letter stated specifically that “we have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime change’ was engineered by the Obama administration.”
Approximately a year after an e-mail conversation released by Wikileaks, the authors contended, “we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left.”
In startling revelations last October, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was found to have created phony “Catholic” organizations in order to use Church leaders to push a liberal agenda in congress and to promote the agenda of the Democratic Party.
In the midst of the hundreds of John Podesta’s emails released by Wikileaks, one contained a report by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a faux Catholic association founded by Podesta to provoke a revolution in the Catholic Church.
The executive director of the organization, Christopher J. Hale, referred to the group’s “grueling preparation for Pope Francis’s apostolic trip to the US.”
Along with efforts to infiltrate the Church hierarchy, the organization’s collusion with the Obama administration was also made apparent in Hale’s report.
“I spoke to the White House yesterday and they assure us the media’s moniker calling us ‘God Squad’ isn’t just sweet nothings, but actually a fair assessment of the substantial difference we’re making in this conversation,” he wrote.
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput described a meeting with two members of the other “Catholic” organization that Podesta claims to have founded—Catholics United. In a published essay, the archbishop depicted a methodology eerily similar to that employed by Catholics in Alliance.
Chaput said that the two men were “obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church,” who showed remarkable “talents of servile partisan hustling.”
In a separate statement, the head of the U.S. Bishops Conference, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, issued an indictment of the Clinton team, calling them out for interfering in the Church’s self-governance for “short-term political gain.”
Kurtz suggested that Podesta’s actions in creating “Catholic” lobby groups for the Democratic Party constituted a breach of religious freedom, “one of the founding principles of our republic,” which ensures the right of faith communities to “preserve the integrity of their beliefs and proper self-governance.”
In his interview Monday, Archbishop Negri said he has visited Pope Benedict “several times” since the pontiff’s resignation in 2013. Negri resigned last month as archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio, a post assigned him by Pope Benedict, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.
Archbishop Negri did not lay all the blame for Benedict’s resignation on the Obama administration, but said he was “certain that the truth will emerge one day showing grave liability both inside and outside the Vatican.”
In the interview, Negri was also critical of Pope Francis for failing to answer the dubia—or “questions”—made by four Cardinals regarding certain teachings in the Pope’s letter Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) that seem unclear to many in the Church.
“Amoris Laetitia needs clarification, unfortunately, the current leader of the Church still remains silent,” he said. “I think that the Holy Father should respond, although he seems to have decided to the contrary.”
Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on March 6, 2017
President Trump has been provided the evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation
There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.
The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.
As the news of the potential wiretapping of the Trump campaign has finally found its way into the headlines and the never-ending leaks emanating from the Obama Administration holdovers continue to be exploited, whatever national chaos and retribution that may ensue rests not only on the shoulders of the perpetrators but on enablers in a sycophantic mainstream media and a feckless Republican Party.
Since 1989 and the election of George H.W. Bush, the vast majority of Republicans elected to national office have chosen to worship the twin gods of civility and compromise rather than vigorously defend and promote liberty, free enterprise and limited government. Meanwhile, their political adversaries, the Democratic Party and the Left (now one and the same) had no such compunctions as they were determined to achieve their ends regardless of the means. Among the means were endless intimidation, extortion and ridicule of the Republicans in Congress or either of the two George Bushes. All this without fear of retaliation or even the slightest hint of a vigorous defense or response.
In conjunction with their accomplices in the mainstream media, Democrats quickly ascertained that any outrageous accusation on their part, such as that Republicans are determined to starve children, would eventuate in the near complete surrender of any opposition to their proposed policies — all of which are now embedded in American society. Further, rather than support their colleagues in the Party who were oftentimes the victims of specious and malicious accusations, the spineless elites in the Republican Party sacrificed their members on the altar of civility and faux integrity.
Having experienced so much success with these tactics, it is little wonder that after nearly three decades the Democrats’ overconfidence could be their potential long-term downfall.
That eventual bridge too far may well be the wiretapping of the Trump campaign by the Obama Administration and the putting in place of the apparatus for the subsequent leaking of hitherto confidential information by the Obama holdovers in an effort to delay, marginalize, or destroy the Trump Administration.
Apparently, Barack Obama and his minions were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would win. Or if by any remote chance she did not, the assumption seemingly was that Trump and the Republicans would be their usual spineless selves and succumb to the customary intimidation tactics and would never retaliate once in office. Additionally, the Democrats could count on the mainstream media never exposing their treachery.
Despite all their voluminous opposition research and Trump’s own words, the Obama-Clinton cabal, brimming with overconfidence, refused to accept the reality that he was not a prototypical Republican or someone easily extorted. Any cursory review of his business career and tactics would have disabused them of that mindset. Had Obama not been so arrogant, he would have realized if his administration pushed for the wiretapping of his political rival in a contested election campaign that Hillary had better damn well win or Trump could and would retaliate once in office. As the President of the United States can declassify and make public anything he so chooses, Obama’s allies in the media would not be able to sweep the potential scandal under the rug.
That hypothetical eventuality may have come to pass as President Trump has decided to use the power of his office to expose the potential duplicity and unscrupulous behavior of the Obama Administration in the wiretapping of his campaign. A story first reported last November in an expose by the website Heat Streetand followed up by The Guardian (UK) in January.
There is another component in this intrigue that is part and parcel of the overall Obama deviousness. On January 12, 2017, a week before Trump was inaugurated, in a dramatic reversal of a longstanding policy, Obama issued an executive order allowing the NSA to share with 16 other agencies, filled with Obama holdovers, vast amount of data gathered on private American citizens. Data collected without warrants, court orders or congressional authorizations. Thus, assuring that innumerable leaks, such as those surrounding General Mike Flynn and others in the Trump Administration, could occur.
The wiretapping and the deliberate strategy to undermine one’s successor are perhaps the most egregious political actions by any president in American history, far surpassing Watergate or the Teapot Dome scandals. In fact, they are tactics that would have been applauded by some of the despots of the past century.
Complicit in this skullduggery is the mainstream media. For the past forty years, they have been virtually unquestioning in their dealings with the Democrats while vilifying the Republicans at every turn. They became, in essence, the Praetorian Guard for the Democratic Party, allowing its members to get away with virtually anything. The latest example is the mainstream media’s willfully choosing to ignore the wiretapping reports already in the alternative and foreign media while gleefully accepting the leaks in their collusion with the Democratic Party elites.
There is little doubt that the media in this nation is now more polarized than ever. As its traditional income sources evaporate, the mainstream media is increasingly dependent on web traffic for advertising revenue. Therefore, the incentive is either to produce and promote sensationalism or publish stories tailored for a specific audience regardless of the overall veracity in reporting.
Jonah Goldberg at National Review recently explored this phenomenon (as he noted the following at the Washington Post):
(Ben Domenech) told me the Post has a giant screen on the wall of the newsroom that displays in real-time their web traffic. Ben noted that nearly all the most read stories were anti-Trump. He asked whether we can rely on the press to be objective when market incentives are for Trump-bashing all the time.
The media in the United States is now split between the anti-Trump and pro-Trump venues. During the previous 8years, the mainstream media was almost exclusively pro-Obama primarily because of ideology and today they are almost exclusively anti-Trump primarily because of revenue. As a counterweight, there is now a significant pro-Trump media, chiefly on the internet, which also relies on web traffic for their livelihood. The schism is now a fait accompli and will not be reversed anytime soon. Unfortunately, the anti-Trump media is still dominant but seemingly hellbent on losing that status, as they have tossed to the wind many years ago any pretense of objectivity.
Barack Obama and his henchmen would not have been emboldened in their ostensible machinations to undermine an election and then a presidency if it were not for the fecklessness of the Republican Party and the blind eye as well as the tacit support of the mainstream media.
