Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2020

Barack H. Obama - The Perpetual Carter's Second Term - Politicizes Funeral

On July 30, 2020 in the run-up to the November 3rd, 2020 election for POTUS, former President Barack H. Obama delivers eulogy remarks that paid tribute to Representative John Lewis at his funeral, and called on lawmakers to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks via Screengrab (2020)

Barack H. Obama - The Perpetual Carter's Second Term - Politicizes Funeral


This excerpted and edited from The New York Times -

Read the Full Transcript of Obama’s Eulogy for John Lewis
Mr. Obama praised Mr. Lewis, saying “he as much as anyone in our history brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals.”
By The New York Times - July 30, 2020

Former President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy at John Lewis’s funeral in Atlanta on Thursday, calling Mr. Lewis an “American whose faith was tested again and again to produce a man of pure joy and unbreakable perseverance.”

Here are Mr. Obama’s remarks in full:

James wrote to the believers, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, lacking nothing.”

It is a great honor to be back in Ebenezer Baptist Church, in the pulpit of its greatest pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to pay my respects to perhaps his finest disciple — an American whose faith was tested again and again to produce a man of pure joy and unbreakable perseverance — John Robert Lewis.

To those who have spoken to Presidents Bush and Clinton, Madam Speaker, Reverend Warnock, Reverend King, John’s family, friends, his beloved staff, Mayor Bottoms — I’ve come here today because I, like so many Americans, owe a great debt to John Lewis and his forceful vision of freedom.

Now, this country is a constant work in progress. We were born with instructions: to form a more perfect union. Explicit in those words is the idea that we are imperfect; that what gives each new generation purpose is to take up the unfinished work of the last and carry it further than anyone might have thought possible.

Eulogy Begins In Earnest

John Lewis — the first of the Freedom Riders, head of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, youngest speaker at the March on Washington, leader of the march from Selma to Montgomery, Member of Congress representing the people of this state and this district for 33 years, mentor to young people, including me at the time, until his final day on this Earth — he not only embraced that responsibility, but he made it his life’s work.

Which isn’t bad for a boy from Troy. John was born into modest means — that means he was poor — in the heart of the Jim Crow South to parents who picked somebody else’s cotton. Apparently, he didn’t take to farm work — on days when he was supposed to help his brothers and sisters with their labor, he’d hide under the porch and make a break for the school bus when it showed up. His mother, Willie Mae Lewis, nurtured that curiosity in this shy, serious child. “Once you learn something,” she told her son, “once you get something inside your head, no one can take it away from you.”

As a boy, John listened through the door after bedtime as his father’s friends complained about the Klan. One Sunday as a teenager, he heard Dr. King preach on the radio. As a college student in Tennessee, he signed up for Jim Lawson’s workshops on the tactic of nonviolent civil disobedience. John Lewis was getting something inside his head, an idea he couldn’t shake that took hold of him — that nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience were the means to change laws, but also change hearts, and change minds, and change nations, and change the world.

So he helped organize the Nashville campaign in 1960. He and other young men and women sat at a segregated lunch counter, well-dressed, straight-backed, refusing to let a milkshake poured on their heads, or a cigarette extinguished on their backs, or a foot aimed at their ribs, refused to let that dent their dignity and their sense of purpose. And after a few months, the Nashville campaign achieved the first successful desegregation of public facilities in any major city in the South.

John got a taste of jail for the first, second, third … well, several times. But he also got a taste of victory. And it consumed him with righteous purpose. And he took the battle deeper into the South.

That same year, just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that segregation of interstate bus facilities was unconstitutional, John and Bernard Lafayette bought two tickets, climbed aboard a Greyhound, sat up front, and refused to move. This was months before the first official Freedom Rides. He was doing a test. The trip was unsanctioned. Few knew what they were up to. And at every stop, through the night, apparently the angry driver stormed out of the bus and into the bus station. And John and Bernard had no idea what he might come back with or who he might come back with. Nobody was there to protect them. There were no camera crews to record events. You know, sometimes, we read about this and kind of take it for granted. Or at least we act as if it was inevitable. Imagine the courage of two people Malia’s age, younger than my oldest daughter, on their own, to challenge an entire infrastructure of oppression.

John was only twenty years old. But he pushed all twenty of those years to the center of the table, betting everything, all of it, that his example could challenge centuries of convention, and generations of brutal violence, and countless daily indignities suffered by African Americans.

Like John the Baptist preparing the way, like those Old Testament prophets speaking truth to kings, John Lewis did not hesitate — he kept on getting on board buses and sitting at lunch counters, got his mug shot taken again and again, marched again and again on a mission to change America.

Spoke to a quarter million people at the March on Washington when he was just 23.

Helped organize the Freedom Summer in Mississippi when he was just 24.

At the ripe old age of 25, John was asked to lead the march from Selma to Montgomery. He was warned that Governor Wallace had ordered troopers to use violence. But he and Hosea Williams and others led them across that bridge anyway. And we’ve all seen the film and the footage and the photographs, and President Clinton mentioned the trench coat, the knapsack, the book to read, the apple to eat, the toothbrush — apparently jails weren’t big on such creature comforts. And you look at those pictures and John looks so young and he’s small in stature. Looking every bit that shy, serious child that his mother had raised and yet, he is full of purpose. God’s put perseverance in him.

And we know what happened to the marchers that day. Their bones were cracked by billy clubs, their eyes and lungs choked with tear gas. As they knelt to pray, which made their heads even easier targets, and John was struck in the skull. And he thought he was going to die, surrounded by the sight of young Americans gagging, and bleeding, and trampled, victims in their own country of state-sponsored violence.

And the thing is, I imagine initially that day, the troopers thought that they had won the battle. You can imagine the conversations they had afterwards. You can imagine them saying, “Yeah, we showed them.” They figured they’d turned the protesters back over the bridge; that they’d kept, that they’d preserved a system that denied the basic humanity of their fellow citizens. Except this time, there were some cameras there. This time, the world saw what happened, bore witness to Black Americans who were asking for nothing more than to be treated like other Americans. Who were not asking for special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them a century before, and almost another century before that.

When John woke up, and checked himself out of the hospital, he would make sure the world saw a movement that was, in the words of Scripture, “hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.” They returned to Brown Chapel, a battered prophet, bandages around his head, and he said more marchers will come now. And the people came. And the troopers parted. And the marchers reached Montgomery. And their words reached the White House — and Lyndon Johnson, son of the South, said “We shall overcome,” and the Voting Rights Act was signed into law.

The life of John Lewis was, in so many ways, exceptional. It vindicated the faith in our founding, redeemed that faith; that most American of ideas; that idea that any of us ordinary people without rank or wealth or title or fame can somehow point out the imperfections of this nation, and come together, and challenge the status quo, and decide that it is in our power to remake this country that we love until it more closely aligns with our highest ideals. What a radical ideal. What a revolutionary notion. This idea that any of us, ordinary people, a young kid from Troy can stand up to the powers and principalities and say no this isn’t right, this isn’t true, this isn’t just. We can do better. On the battlefield of justice, Americans like John, Americans like the Reverends Lowery and C.T. Vivian, two other patriots that we lost this year, liberated all of us that many Americans came to take for granted.

America was built by people like them. America was built by John Lewises. He as much as anyone in our history brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals. And someday, when we do finish that long journey toward freedom; when we do form a more perfect union — whether it’s years from now, or decades, or even if it takes another two centuries — John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.

And yet, as exceptional as John was, here’s the thing: John never believed that what he did was more than any citizen of this country can do. I mentioned in the statement the day John passed, the thing about John was just how gentle and humble he was. And despite this storied, remarkable career, he treated everyone with kindness and respect because it was innate to him — this idea that any of us can do what he did if we are willing to persevere.

He believed that in all of us, there exists the capacity for great courage, that in all of us there is a longing to do what’s right, that in all of us there is a willingness to love all people, and to extend to them their God-given rights to dignity and respect. So many of us lose that sense. It’s taught out of us. We start feeling as if, in fact, that we can’t afford to extend kindness or decency to other people. That we’re better off if we are above other people and looking down on them, and so often that’s encouraged in our culture. But John always saw the best in us. And he never gave up, and never stopped speaking out because he saw the best in us. He believed in us even when we didn’t believe in ourselves. As a Congressman, he didn’t rest; he kept getting himself arrested. As an old man, he didn’t sit out any fight; he sat in, all night long, on the floor of the United States Capitol. I know his staff was stressed.

Eulogy Ends - Political Campaigning Begins

But the testing of his faith produced perseverance. He knew that the march is not yet over, that the race is not yet won, that we have not yet reached that blessed destination where we are judged by the content of our character. He knew from his own life that progress is fragile; that we have to be vigilant against the darker currents of this country’s history, of our own history, with their whirlpools of violence and hatred and despair that can always rise again.

[Democrat] Bull Connor may be gone. But today we witness with our own eyes police officers kneeling on the necks of Black Americans [in decades controlled Democrat Political Party cities]. George Wallace may be gone. But we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against [riot fomenting] peaceful demonstrators. We may no longer have to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to cast a ballot [in Democrat Political Party cities]. But even as we sit here, there are those in power are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting — by closing polling locations, and targeting minorities and students with restrictive ID laws, and attacking our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining the Postal Service in the run-up to an election that is going to be dependent on mailed-in ballots so people don’t get sick.

Now, I know this is a celebration of John’s life. There are some who might say we shouldn’t dwell on such things. But that’s why I’m talking about it. John Lewis devoted his time on this Earth fighting the very attacks on democracy and what’s best in America that we are seeing circulate right now.

He knew that every single one of us has a God-given power. And that the fate of this democracy depends on how we use it; that democracy isn’t automatic, it has to be nurtured, it has to be tended to, we have to work at it, it’s hard. And so he knew it depends on whether we summon a measure, just a measure, of John’s moral courage to question what’s right and what’s wrong and call things as they are. He said that as long as he had breath in his body, he would do everything he could to preserve this democracy. That as long as we have breath in our bodies, we have to continue his cause. If we want our children to grow up in a democracy — not just with elections, but a true democracy, a representative democracy, a big-hearted, tolerant, vibrant, inclusive [without any push-back from Constitutional Conservatives in the Republican Political Party] America of perpetual self-creation — then we are going to have to be more like John. We don’t have to do all the things he had to do because he did them for us. But we have got to do something. As the Lord instructed Paul, “Do not be afraid, go on speaking; do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” Just everybody’s just got to come out and vote. We’ve got all those people in the city but we can’t do nothing.

Like John, we have got to keep getting into that good trouble. He knew that nonviolent protest is patriotic; a way to raise public awareness, put a spotlight on injustice, and make the powers that be uncomfortable.

Like John, we don’t have to choose between protest and politics, it is not an either-or situation, it is a both-and situation. We have to engage in [peacefully, without riotous antics, as mentioned in the Constitution of the United States] protests where that is effective but we also have to translate our passion and our causes into laws and institutional practices. That’s why John ran for Congress thirty-four years ago.

Like John, we have got to fight even harder for the most powerful tool we have, which is the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act is one of the crowning achievements of our democracy. It’s why John crossed that bridge. It’s why he spilled his blood. And by the way, it was the result of Democratic and Republican efforts. President Bush, who spoke here earlier, and his father, both signed its renewal when they were in office. President Clinton didn’t have to because it was the law when he arrived so instead he made a law that made it easier for people to register to vote.

But once the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act, some state legislatures unleashed a flood of laws designed specifically to make voting harder, especially, by the way, state legislatures where there is a lot of minority turnout and population growth. That’s not necessarily a mystery or an accident. It was an attack on what John fought for. It was an attack on our democratic freedoms. And we should treat it as such.

If politicians want to honor John, and I’m so grateful for the legacy of work of all the Congressional leaders who are here, but there’s a better way than a statement calling him a hero. You want to honor John? Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for. And by the way, naming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that is a fine tribute. But John wouldn’t want us to stop there, trying to get back to where we already were. Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching to make it even better.

By making sure every American [and illegal/undocumented alien through motor-voter picture ID] is automatically registered to vote, including former inmates [recently released from their full sentences due to COVID-19 fears] who’ve earned their second chance.

By adding polling places, and expanding early voting, and making Election Day a national holiday, so if you are someone who is working in a factory, or you are a single mom who has got to go to her job and doesn’t get time off, you can still cast your ballot.

By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government, including the American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. They are Americans.

By ending some of the partisan [prevalent in decades controlled Democrat Political Party cities & states] gerrymandering — so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians, not the other way around.

And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster [installed by a Democrat Political Party controlled Congress] — another [instilled Democrat Political Party] Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.

And yet, even if we do all this — even if every bogus voter suppression law was struck off the books today — we have got to be honest with ourselves that too many of us choose not to exercise the franchise; that too many of our citizens believe their vote won’t make a difference, or they buy into the cynicism that, by the way, is the central strategy of voter suppression, to make you discouraged, to stop believing in your own power.

So we are also going to have to remember what John said: “If you don’t do everything you can to change things, then they will remain the same. You only pass this way once. You have to give it all you have.” As long as young people are protesting in the streets, hoping real change takes hold, I’m hopeful but we cannot casually abandon them at the ballot box. Not when few elections have been as urgent, on so many levels, as this one. We cannot treat voting as an errand to run if we have some time. We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy.

Like John, we have to give it all we have.

I was proud that John Lewis was a friend of mine. I met him when I was in law school. He came to speak and I went up and I said, “Mr. Lewis, you are one of my heroes. What inspired me more than anything as a young man was to see what you and Reverend Lawson and Bob Moses and Diane Nash and others did.” And he got that kind of — aw shucks, thank you very much.

The next time I saw him, I had been elected to the United States Senate. And I told him, “John, I am here because of you.” On Inauguration Day in 2008, 2009, he was one of the first people that I greeted and hugged on that stand. I told him, “This is your day too.”

He was a good and kind and gentle man. And he believed in us — even when we don’t believe in ourselves. It’s fitting that the last time John and I shared a public forum was on Zoom. I am pretty sure that neither he nor I set up the Zoom call because we didn’t know how to work it. It was a virtual town hall with a gathering of young activists who had been helping to lead this summer’s demonstrations [and riots that burned buildings led by the Democrat Political Party's storm troops in the Marxist Black Lives Matter Movement and ANTIFA calling for the defunding of police departments across the nation] in the wake of George Floyd’s death. And afterwards, I spoke to John privately, and he could not have been prouder to see this new generation of activists standing up for freedom and equality; a new generation that was intent on voting and protecting the right to vote; in some cases, a new generation running for political office.

I told him, all those young people, John — of every race and every religion, from every background and gender and sexual orientation — John, those are your [Communist ideals embracing] children. They learned from your example, even if they didn’t always know it. They had understood, through him, what American citizenship [or coddled non-citizenship] requires, even if they had only heard about his courage through the history books [many that now have been banned and replaced].

“By the thousands, faceless, anonymous, relentless young people, Black and white … have taken our whole nation back to those great wells of [representative - with Electoral College] democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

Dr. King said that in the 1960s. And it came true again this summer.

We see it outside our windows, in big cities and rural towns, in men and women, young and old, straight Americans and LGBTQ Americans, Blacks who long for equal treatment and whites who can no longer accept freedom for themselves while witnessing the subjugation of their fellow Americans. We see it in everybody doing the hard work of overcoming complacency, of overcoming our own fears and our own prejudices, our own hatreds. You see it in people trying to be better, truer versions of ourselves.

And that’s what John Lewis teaches us. That’s where real courage comes from. Not from turning on each other, but by turning towards one another [in individual freedom and ideas acceptance]. Not by sowing hatred and division, but by spreading love and truth. Not by avoiding our responsibilities to create a better America and a better world, but by embracing those responsibilities with joy and perseverance and discovering that in our beloved community, we do not walk alone.

What a gift John Lewis was. We are all so lucky to have had him walk with us for a while, and show us the way.

God bless you all. God bless America. God bless this gentle soul who pulled it closer to its promise.
[Reference Here]

... Carter's Second Term, as the failed efforts at a best practices society through multi-cultural tribalism model, by the Racist and Left-Wing Democrat Political Party, continues.




TAGS: Barack Obama, Representative John Lewis, #BHO44, Democrat Political Party, NYT, Ebenezer Baptist Church, eulogy, John Lewis Voting Rights Act, Carter's Second Term

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Obama's DEEP STATE Unravels & Fails At Every Turn Says Historian Victor Davis Hanson

#DJT45 riding the legacy of the Barack H. Obama Executive Branch tidal wave of political corruption.
Image Credit: Doug Giles via Facebook

Obama's DEEP STATE Unravels & Fails At Every Turn Says Historian Victor Davis Hanson

We find ourselves two years and one month post the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama and its final overt vestiges are finally beginning to implode and end their effectiveness.

Our country, which faced a choice of having a one-party political rule - Democrat Political Party with the strong support of Establishment Republican Political Party protecting the back door - elected blue-collar billionaire Donald J. Trump against all odds and federal government power with the forceful aid of the Left-Wing Media & Entertainment Complex.

Recently, Andrew McCabe, who served as the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from February 2016 to January 2018 and from May 9, 2017, to August 2, 2017, served as the Acting Director of the FBI following James Comey's dismissal by President Donald Trump, was interviewed by 60 Minutes with revelations about the conspiracy within the FBI that is now falling apart.

The attitude held by the Democrat Political Party today. Resistance and division continues to be pursued within the Federal Government and by the political leadership still headed by the former president Barack H. Obama.
Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

This has been a long process initiated by those at the very top of the leadership of the Democrat Political Party and these efforts began well before the election cycle of 2016, and continued in its effort to oust a duly elected opposition President through the following elements analyzed and diagnosed by Victor Davis Hanson:

Preparing the Battlefield - Weaponizing the Deep State - The Mueller Investigation - The Palace Coup

This excerpted and edited from American Greatness by historian Victor Davis Hanson -

Autopsy of a Dead Coup
February 17th, 2019

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.


A Hitch Cartoon. Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

Preparing the Battlefield

No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.


Faked information used to create the illusion of actual muli-sourced verification of real information through leaks to a compliant 4th Estate in order to have permission to spy on a competitive political campaign via the Department Of Justice through the FISA Warrant process. Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

Weaponizing the Deep State

During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.


DEEP STATE friends hire friends to take on the post election effort to oust a duly elected sitting POTUS. Much of the facts that led up to the appointment of a Special Counsel investigation without a crime are detailed in the book by Gregg Jarrett, The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.
Image Credit: Barnes and Noble  

The Mueller Investigation

The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.


Listing of the 58 Democrat Political Party representatives in the House Of Congress that voted to oust the 45th President Of The United States, Donald J. Trump - a Nay vote equaled a yes vote to impeach.
Image Credit: Facebook Timeline

The Palace Coup

All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.
[Reference Here]

We, at Carter's Second Term (the #BHO44 Administration which seems to never end), have this (these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning) as our over-riding hope, but know that the tentacles of those in Federal Government power will do everything to keep this power at all costs, even at the destruction of the founding documents of our grand experiment in human self-reliance and individual power over mob rule that allows the United States to remain that shining city on the hill.




TAGS: Victor Davis Hanson, VDH, Coup, DEEP STATE, FBI, DOJ, CIA, Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, John Brennan, John Podesta, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Carter's Second Term

Monday, June 18, 2018

Will The 44th Presidency's, Carter's Second Term, FBI Ever Be Trusted Again?

Former FBI official: the Bureau has become corrupted by ideology and ego... and there's growing discontent among the rank and file (VIDEO). Image Credit: Tucker Carlson via FB (2018)

Will The 44th Presidency's, Carter's Second Term, FBI Ever Be Trusted Again?

MAYBE ... never ...

... include the whole of the Department Of Justice (DOJ) now that they just issued their Inspector General (IG) Report and it followed the exact template that then FBI Director presented nearly 2 years ago when he, Comey, went through the laundry list of law-breaking by Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) then ending with the conclusion that NO PROSECUTOR would take HRC to trial.

The DOJ IG Report went through nearly 500 pages of descriptions of Political BIAS, over-reaches in power, deviance of FBI procedure, and unequal justice - then ending with the concluding ruling that NO Provable Political BIAS existed in the illegal HRC private email server investigation.

These people distort process in order to pursue their collective progressive political ego and personality. Ego and emotion rules the day as these bureaucracies pile Bias upon Bias in order to undo the fair election of a 45th President that is anybody but Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The FBI was rigging an election for President of the United States on behalf of one political party over the other.

We, at Carter's Second Term, see Bias upon Bias along with Fix upon Fix "being placed in" to insure a Clinton Presidency using a two-tiered justice system where anybody but Hillary Clinton would be arrested for the countless felonies in the mishandling of classified information on her illegal private email server.

If the FBI will ever be trusted again, the rank and file will have to step forward and become the face of  - first, justice - then proper process over ideology and ego. 



TAGS: DEEP STATE, James Clapper, John Brennan, Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, #BIAS, #corruption,#ego, #BHO44, MAXINE

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Threats To Freedom Left By Carter's Second & Third Terms ... The 44th Presidency


Thursday, January 30, 2014

Just Who ... Is President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama (L) will meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Palm Springs next month. Image Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

Just Who ... Is President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama will host King Abdullah II of Jordan for talks in Southern California next month, according to reports.

The White House says the Feb. 14 meeting will take place at the Sunnylands estate near Palm Springs, the Associated Press reported.

Fresh off of performing in front of Congress and the nation by delivering his fourth State of the Union address reporting on his deeds, the 44th President still insists that he is the person who has the ideas to bring our country back to the great power it once was. This position comes as Barack Obama enters his sixth year of implementing policies that expand government into the lives of all citizens which has created the worst United States economy since the Great Depression.

Just who is President Barack Obama?

The following Audio/Video is an interview and exploration of this very question by Mark Levin of Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the book, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor."


(ht: Daily Rushbo)

For decades, many liberals and progressives defended and shielded communists (as “The Communist” shows)—either because they approved of what communist dictatorships did, or because they believed so strongly in communism’s professed ideals that they were willing to overlook the crimes committed in its name. Kengor’s book is timely, because the main issue for today’s progressives is similar: Are the ideals professed in Barack Obama’s rhetoric noble ... even though his policies against economic success have retarded economic recovery?

Will the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, whose life Paul Kengor has so masterfully reconstructed in “The Communist,” continue to haunt America through his ideological godson, the president?

Mark Levin is the perfect person to interview Dr. Paul Kengor, author of, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor" to find out just who ... is fulfilling Carter's Second Term through its second stint.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the White House briefing room in Washington, Monday, Aug. 20, 2012. Image Credit: AP via Washington Wire

The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care. 

This version has been UPDATED with strike throughs / updated inserts to reflect our current historical perspective now nearly eleven (11) years later.
 
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz / Samantha Power and Susan Rice and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove / David Axelrod to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein / Bashar Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam / Bashar poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush / 44th Presidency? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
(ht: npr.org)
ENDS

Welcome to the world firmly rooted in the policies initiated during the 39th Presidency with the added element of gross hypocrisy and child-king megalomaniac-like assertions.

EXAMPLE:

Yesterday, The 44th President, Barack Obama, said the following during a press conference held while he visited with Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

This excerpted and edited from the New York Times - 

Obama Says ‘World Set a Red Line’ on Chemical Arms
By PETER BAKER - September 4, 2013 

“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference here in Stockholm. “The world set a red line.”

He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

[Reference Here]

But this does not comport with the facts of statements The 44th President made a little over one year ago when he said:

This excerpted and edited from The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire -

Flashback: ‘Red Line’ in Syria — What Obama Said in 2012 Remarks
Washington Wire - September 4, 2013

Q (Chuck Todd, NBC News) Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?

I also want to follow up on an answer you just gave to Nancy.  You said that one of the reasons you wanted to see Mitt Romney‘s tax returns was you want to see if everybody is playing by the same set of rules.  That actually goes to the question she asked, which is this implication, do you think there’s something Mitt Romney is not telling us in his tax returns that indicates he’s not playing by the same set of rules?

THE PRESIDENT:  No.  There’s a difference between playing by the same sets of rules and doing something illegal.  And in no way have we suggested the latter.  But the first disclosure, the one year of tax returns that he disclosed indicated that he used Swiss bank accounts, for example.  Well, that may be perfectly legal, but I suspect if you ask the average American, do you have one and is that part of how you manage your tax obligations, they would say no.  They would find that relevant information, particularly when we’re going into a time where we know we’re going to have to make tough choices both about spending and about taxes.

So I think the idea that this is somehow exceptional, that there should be a rationale or a justification for doing more than the very bare minimum has it backwards.  I mean, the assumption should be you do what previous presidential candidates did, dating back for decades.  And Governor Romney’s own dad says, well, the reason I put out 10 or 12 years is because any single year might not tell you the whole story.  And everybody has, I think, followed that custom ever since.

The American people have assumed that if you want to be President of the United States, that your life is an open book   when it comes to things like your finances.  I’m not asking him to disclose every detail of his medical records — although we normally do that as well — (laughter.)  You know?  I mean, this isn’t sort of overly personal here, guys.  This is pretty standard stuff.  I don’t think we’re being mean by asking him to do what every other presidential candidate has done — right?  It’s what the American people expect.

On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue.  I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down.  So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people.  The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition.  But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.

What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far.  And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating — or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.

The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights.  And that consultation is taking place.

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.

Q  (Todd)  So you’re confident it’s somehow under — it’s safe?

THE PRESIDENT:  In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident.  What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully.  We have put together a range of contingency plans.  We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.  That would change my calculations significantly.

All right, thank you, everybody.

[Reference Here]

No statements were ever made linking action toward Syria and decades old accords that sit at the United Nations and no United States Congressional leader or World leader, other than this 44th President, ever evoked the term of RED LINE as it relates to actions concerning Syrian unrest.

Welcome to Carter's Second Term ... but it is way more dangerous and corrupt than we expected. Oh, and the damage to the economy due to Government spending and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act/ObamaCare has yet to get underway in earnest.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Democrat Political Party Leadership On Invasive Keystroke Surveillance


If you thought the National Security Agency's collection of Verizon phone-call data was bad, wait until you hear about the seven-year-old, previously undisclosed classified government program that works with nine very major U.S. Internet companies to secretly scrape your online life and has become "the most prolific contributor" to President Obama's daily intelligence report and is "increasingly" important to the NSA. Caption Credit & Image Credit: theatlanticwire.com

Democrat Political Party Leadership On Invasive Keystroke Surveillance

At what point in time does having the ability to have a private life cease to be viable in a Bill-Of-Rights, Rule-Of-Law, Constitutionally protected society?

The answer can be found when a Government becomes so big and fearful of its citizens that it violates the trust between the institutions of Government and the citizens these institutions were established to serve on behalf of the citizens.

Yesterday, a United Kingdom news service, The Daily Guardian, issued a second in a series of information articles about the United States Government’s information gathering programs run by the National Security Agency and other government institutions under the mission of curbing terrorism.

The first information based article highlighted that Verizon was turning over, wholesale, all phone call information it had on its hundreds of millions calls per day, to the NSA for the Government to use however it saw fit to use. The information included phone numbers, time of call, location of both phones on the call, duration, an other key digital data that was associated with the call in a practice that has been termed by some as a DRAGNET.

The information in the second article in as many days from the UK’s Guardian (where are the American news services on this exposure and investigation of this information?) highlights that this Democrat Political Party led Government was also collecting EVERY KEYSTROKE a person types on the internet in order to communicate the who, what, when, where, and why they are.

This excerpted and edited from The Guardian -

NSA snooping on massive amounts of personal data from major U.S. Internet companies
By Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian – Thursday, June 6, 2013


The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
(Reference Here)

T R U E   C O L O R S !!

The Bush Administration first found folks to be suspicious of … then asked for phone record information about these individuals … and followed the trail.

The Democrat Political Party led Obama Administration uses this post 9/11 law – the Patriot Act – to cast a net on ALL individuals, assuming that ALL of us are potential terrorists. 

After using information to target Obama Administration questioners through the power of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), does anyone believe that this broad net information would be used for your personal good??? – THIS is why the United States HAS a Constitution and a Bill-Of-Rights backed with a Rule-Of-Law.

Senator Barack Obama ran for President saying that the Bush Administration practice was un-American and that his government would do away with these snooping practices – in practice, however, he lied to each and everyone of us and is collecting information on each and everyone of us – WITHOUT DUE CAUSE OR SUSPICION!

President Barack Obama’s T R U E   C O L O R S !!!


**Article first published as Democrat Political Party Leadership on Invasive Keystroke Surveillance on Technorati**

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Reasons 91-100 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

It is time for a 45th Presidency - To this end, Hugh Hewitt has come up with 100 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama and these series of posts will highlight ten (or so) points to consider for your vote to have a 45th President elected come November 6, 2012. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks

Reasons 91-100 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

On Monday, September 24, 2012, Constitutional and environmental issues Lawyer/Professor, nationally syndicated afternoon issues talk show host, Hugh Hewitt delivered a tour de force presentation for three hours on the reasons why we need a change in executive leadership in the United States. This change can happen with our vote for president in the 2012 elections which early voting has already started in many states, but will officially take place November 6, 2012.

*** Hewitt's reasons 91-100 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This edition explores reasons 91-100 which highlight: The Obama Administration has increased the budgets of all of the departments of Government by 20% while our economy only grows under 2% with the policies that they have enacted. Barack Obama promised to cut government programs and in four years this Administration has not been able to find just one department out of existance. The EPA's expansion of new regulations on business, especially carbon-based energy has cost this country and increased the cost of energy by 100% since Obama took office. Unemployment has remained above 8% for ovsr 42 months straight ... thi in the face of nearly 2 Trillion dollars between the Stimulus and Omnibus spending bills that passed in 2009 with Obama's insistance that he needed to spend this money to cap unemployment at 6% or less. Mitt Romney has stated that he will slash the size of the Federal Government and address entitlement reform. The Government spends way too much due to its size against the taxes it brings in. It is a spending problem, not a taxation problem. Mitt Romney has committed to restoring our Naval strength by maintaining a fleet of 340 ships. Lastly, Mitt Romney will address the economic aggression and foul play of China.

In a presentation which Hugh Hewitt titled 100 reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama, Hugh proceeded point by point with full explanation and in no particular order 100 specific reasons Mitt Romney would make a better president to lead our country mixed in with the specific reasons why Barack Obama has not been a successful leader in the more than 1,000 days he has been president.

Since a three hour presentation of dense information may be a little hard to chew on in one session, here is one of ten postings that breaks up the 100 reasons in approximately 10 reason apiece chunks that can be savored and digested upon which one can become fully informed before making a freedom and country saving vote in this most important election.

Previously Published Audio Links:

*** Hewitt's reasons 1-10 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 11-20 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 21-30 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 31-40 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 41-50 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 51-61 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 62-70 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 71-80 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 81-90 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This excerpted and edited from HughHewitt.com -

100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:12 PM


After yet another dispiriting Browns' performance yesterday, I decided to redeem the day by listing 100 reasons to either vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama. I turned that list into a three hour monologue on today's show -- the first such in 12 years of radio.

It wasn't hard to do. Not hard at all. Which is why I think Romney will win going away. The president is a failure, on every level and by every measurement. Americans don't endorse failure.
[Reference Here]

As the "Chicago Way" Democrat Political Party is fond of saying ... "Vote Early, and Vote Often" ... but most importantly, vote informed and reviewing all of Hewitt's 100 reasons to vote for Romney and against Obama 2012 may at least allow one to open up a discussion with themselves, and others, as to what issues might be the most important in this upcoming 2012 election.

Reasons 81-90 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

It is time for a 45th Presidency - To this end, Hugh Hewitt has come up with 100 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama and these series of posts will highlight ten (or so) points to consider for your vote to have a 45th President elected come November 6, 2012. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks

Reasons 81-90 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

On Monday, September 24, 2012, Constitutional and environmental issues Lawyer/Professor, nationally syndicated afternoon issues talk show host, Hugh Hewitt delivered a tour de force presentation for three hours on the reasons why we need a change in executive leadership in the United States. This change can happen with our vote for president in the 2012 elections which early voting has already started in many states, but will officially take place November 6, 2012.

*** Hewitt's reasons 81-90 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This edition explores reasons 81-90 which highlight: This Administration's ability to cope with international economics and the problem of the Chinese Government's manipulation of their currency is a prime example. President Obama continues to lie about the facts surrounding the Benghazi, Libya 9/11 terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, one of them, a respected Ambassador. This 44th President hides from open questioning by ALL of the media and other open question town-hall settings. Obama will not appear on any Sunday or radio talk show venues (unless he gets snookered as he did with Univision Network last month). Barack Obama obstructs the path to school reform through his backing the NEA and its activities. GM stock is worth less than half of what this 44th Presidency paid for it with our tax money ... General Motors is still not a success with the potential of 10's of billions dollars still owed to the taxpayer.

In a presentation which Hugh Hewitt titled 100 reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama, Hugh proceeded point by point with full explanation and in no particular order 100 specific reasons Mitt Romney would make a better president to lead our country mixed in with the specific reasons why Barack Obama has not been a successful leader in the more than 1,000 days he has been president.

Since a three hour presentation of dense information may be a little hard to chew on in one session, here is one of ten postings that breaks up the 100 reasons in approximately 10 reason apiece chunks that can be savored and digested upon which one can become fully informed before making a freedom and country saving vote in this most important election.

Previously Published Audio Links:

*** Hewitt's reasons 1-10 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 11-20 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 21-30 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 31-40 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 41-50 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 51-61 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 62-70 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt's reasons 71-80 of 100 - LISTEN HERE>>

This excerpted and edited from HughHewitt.com -

100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:12 PM


After yet another dispiriting Browns' performance yesterday, I decided to redeem the day by listing 100 reasons to either vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama. I turned that list into a three hour monologue on today's show -- the first such in 12 years of radio.

It wasn't hard to do. Not hard at all. Which is why I think Romney will win going away. The president is a failure, on every level and by every measurement. Americans don't endorse failure.
[Reference Here]

As the "Chicago Way" Democrat Political Party is fond of saying ... "Vote Early, and Vote Often" ... but most importantly, vote informed and reviewing all of Hewitt's 100 reasons to vote for Romney and against Obama 2012 may at least allow one to open up a discussion with themselves, and others, as to what issues might be the most important in this upcoming 2012 election.