+++
I believe we have reached the stage where the "big lie," as a cloud, cannot be grabbed and thus is difficult to refute.
I also believe the WSJ is one of the last remaining traditional newspapers that is pro-capitalism, tends to be objective, reports straight news and this is why I post many of their editorials and op eds. (See below.)
The NYT's smells worse than the fish I wrap in it and Bezos bought WAPO to intimidate politicians who threaten his AMAZON empire. CNN and MSNBC are the NYT"s and WAPO equivalents in the world of media. They are biased beyond belief and are incapable of distinguishing fact from fancy.
This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader and sums up the current scene pretty well.
"This morning, I
realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter
what I say, lives are never going to be the same.
I have been confused by the hostility of family and friends. I look at people I
have known all my life so hate-filled that they agree with opinions they would
never express as their own. I think that I may well have entered the Twilight
Zone.
You can't justify this insanity. We have become a nation that has lost its
collective mind.
We see other countries going Socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a
great plan for us.
Somehow it’s un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in
America.
People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female
President.
Universities that advocate equality, discriminate against Asian-Americans in
favor of African-Americans.
Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were
born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right
now.
Criminals are caught-and-released to hurt more people, but stopping them is bad
because it's a violation of THEIR rights.
People who have never owned slaves should pay slavery reparations to people who
have never been slaves.
It was cool for Joe Biden to "blackmail" the President of Ukraine,
but it’s an impeachable offense if Donald Trump inquiries about it.
People who have never been to college should pay the debts of college students
who took out huge loans for their degrees.
Immigrants with tuberculosis and polio are welcome, but you’d better be able to
prove your dog is vaccinated.
Irish doctors and German engineers who want to immigrate to the US must go
through a rigorous vetting process, but any illiterate gang-bangers who jump
the southern fence are welcomed.
$5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free”
health care is not.
If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into
the country you go to college for free.
And, pointing out all this hypocrisy somehow makes us "racists"!
Nothing makes sense anymore, no values, no morals, no civility and people are
dying of a Chinese virus, but it is racist to refer to it as Chinese even
though it began in China.
We are clearly living in an upside-down world where right is wrong and wrong is
right, where moral is immoral and immoral is moral, where good is evil and evil
is good, where killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is
right.
Wake up America. The great unsinkable ship Titanic America has hit an iceberg,
is taking on water and sinking fast."
+++
WSJ Editorial and op ed's.
The Democrat party reminds me of the CCP and Xi is a slant eyed Asian version of Putin.
Trying Mr.
Trump, Private Citizen
Democrats want to punish the ex-President
but may revive him.
By The Editorial Board
Democrats can’t let go of Donald Trump, even as a former President. So now we have a second impeachment “Trial of the Century” in two years.
Democrats can’t let go of Donald Trump even as a former President, so on Monday House managers walked their article of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Their goal is to banish Mr. Trump from running for office again. The result may instead be his acquittal and political revival.
Democrats have already forced one
impeachment trial, resulting in acquittal and no notable decline in his
political standing. He lost the election due to his handling of Covid and its
consequences. But now Democrats want to do it once more with feeling, after Mr.
Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6 with a goal of
overturning the Electoral College vote for Joe Biden.
***
We’ve said Mr. Trump’s actions—and failure to act to stop the
riot as it unfolded—were an impeachable offense and urged him to resign. But
now he is out of office and no longer the “imminent threat” that House
Democrats said justified their rushed impeachment. The question is what good
purpose a Senate trial will serve, and that isn’t.
The Democratic case is that Mr. Trump must be punished lest any
future President try something similar in his final days. A conviction by
two-thirds of the Senate would also open him to a majority vote barring Mr.
Trump from running for public office again. But what if he is acquitted?
One problem is whether such a trial is even constitutional.
We’ve run op-eds arguing pro and con. The language in the Constitution refers
to impeachment against a President while in office, and Mr. Trump is now a
private citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t seem to believe he needs to
preside over the trial because the Constitution stipulates that role for the
Chief only for a President. Senior Democrat Pat Leahy will preside instead.
On the other hand, the Founders were clearly aware of the
British attempt to impeach Warren Hastings for malfeasance as former
Governor-General of Bengal. In the only relevant precedent, the U.S. Senate
held a trial of a former War Secretary in 1876 after he was impeached and
resigned. But Senators acquitted William Belknap in part because some thought a
trial after resignation was unconstitutional.
The evidence can support either view, but it’s unsettled law and
GOP Senators are lining up to say it’s unconstitutional. Perhaps the House
managers will turn up evidence beyond what we already know that persuades the
17 GOP Senators necessary to convict. But most Democrats are already saying
they need no new evidence since the facts of what Mr. Trump said and did are on
the public record.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump will be able to marshal a defense that he
wasn’t allowed to present in the House. He will have a new megaphone for that
defense during the trial, and you can bet he will make the case that he is the
victim of a sham, partisan show trial. He will mobilize his supporters to
pressure GOP Senators, who will have to make a hard political calculation.
It’s easy for Democrats and the press to claim Republicans
should vote to convict, but most want to run for re-election again. The rushed
House vote—no hearings, no defense—also makes a vote to convict more difficult.
Most GOP voters long ago stopped trusting the mainstream media.
Most of the conservative press opposes conviction. Look at the abuse that Liz
Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, is taking for voting for
impeachment. She made a justifiable vote of conscience. But back-benchers are
trying to oust her from the leadership.
All of this suggests the trial, which will start in earnest on Feb. 9, will end in Senate acquittal. If it does, Mr. Trump will claim vindication, and it doesn’t matter how many times Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims he has been “impeached forever.” Mr. Trump will play it as one more show of elite contempt for the “deplorables” who are his voters. He could emerge politically strengthened.
Perhaps this is what Democrats really want, since they know how
much they have benefited politically from having Mr. Trump as a foil. They may
think they have nothing to lose. If enough GOP Senators vote to convict, Mr.
Trump’s supporters will hold it against Republicans more than Democrats. And
even if he can’t run for office himself, he can still cause much political
mischief.
If they vote to acquit, Mr. Trump can run for the GOP nomination
again or as a third-party candidate. The longer Mr. Trump remains a force in
politics, the longer he will unite Democrats and divide Republicans. If you
think this sounds too cynical, you haven’t met Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
We thought Joe Biden could have benefited from asking Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer to drop the trial now that Mr. Trump has decamped to Florida. Mr. Trump’s Presidency and his election challenge would have ended in infamy with the riot at the Capitol and the loss of two Georgia seats and Senate GOP control. But Democrats and the press are addicted to Donald J. Trump, so America gets to do this all over again.
+++
The world is frightened by Xi and looks to see what America will do. Xi took Hong Kong and , in doing so, sent a chilling message to the world that his avarice for Taiwan motivate him to attack them. Will we go to war to honor our commitment to Taiwan? If we do could we win and/or drive China back?
Xi knows he has the world cowering so he goes to Davos and mouths soothing words. Will Biden become another Chamberlain? Stay tuned.
Xi Jinping Wows
Them at Davos
China’s President sweet-talks liberal
leaders as he threatens Taiwan.
By The
Editorial Board
Chinese President Xi Jinping knows his audience. In his Monday address to the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of global luminaries in Davos, Mr. Xi sounded like a liberal internationalist in good standing. He pulled out all the buzzwords that make Davosians swoon: “inclusive growth,” “green development,” “global governance” and “consensus building.”
The Davos website effused that this was a “historic opportunity
for collaboration.” But Mr. Xi’s People’s Liberation Army told a different
story over the weekend, menacing Taiwan with back-to-back military flyovers of
more than a dozen planes. The provocation is a reminder that while the
government has changed hands in Washington, it hasn’t in Beijing, which still
sees extending sovereignty over Taiwan—possibly by force—as a priority.
Mr. Xi said in his speech that “the strong should not bully the
weak,” but that admonition doesn’t seem to apply to his own government. “We
should stay committed to international law and international rules, instead of
seeking one’s own supremacy,” he added. Tell that to the people of Hong Kong
who were promised autonomy through 2047 in a treaty Beijing signed with Britain
but are now being arrested for even mild political dissent.
Judging from comments by Secretary of State nominee Tony Blinken
and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in their Senate hearings, the new
Administration seems to recognize the importance of Taiwan’s independence and
U.S. predominance in the Western Pacific.
Yet many in the Administration are also true believers in the types of global-governance values Mr. Xi claimed to endorse in his Davos speech, which they see as the best way to solve problems like climate change. Unlike Mr. Xi, they aren’t experienced in using those values as a shield to relentlessly push their own national interest.
The
contrast between Mr. Xi’s Monday sweet talk and the weekend Taiwan incursions
is designed to throw the world off balance. The test for the Biden team is
whether it will be tripped up by the feints toward international norms and
comity that punctuate Mr. Xi’s pattern of regional aggression.
And:
Biden’s Opening
Salvo on Beijing
His administration’s early moves were
aggressive, but will it sustain the pressure?
By Walter Russell Mead
The Biden administration is less than a week old, but its most consequential foreign-policy decisions may already be behind it.
Initiating his China policy with the most aggressive
concatenation of moves against a foreign power that any peacetime U.S.
administration has ever launched so early on, President Biden has thrown down a
gauntlet that Beijing is unlikely to ignore. Besides issuing a formal
invitation to Taiwan’s top Washington representative to attend the inauguration
(the first such invitation since the U.S. established formal relations with
Beijing in 1979), the incoming team has pledged to continue arms sales to
Taiwan and indicated that it wants to delay high-level U.S.-China talks until
it consults with close allies—a stand that China will interpret as a rebuff. As
if this weren’t enough, Secretary of State-designate Antony Blinken announced
that he concurs with his predecessor Mike Pompeo’s finding that China is
engaged in a genocide against its mostly Muslim Uighur minority in Xinjiang
province. Taken with the previously planned dispatch of a naval strike group to
the South China Sea, it all amounts to a stern message to Beijing.
OPINION:
POTOMAC WATCH
These moves must be troubling for those who hoped that Mr. Biden
would “prioritise global issues over great power competition,” as Anne-Marie
Slaughter, who served as the State Department director of policy planning
during the Obama administration, put it in a recent op-ed for the Financial
Times.
It’s not entirely clear how coordinated the new measures are.
The late designation of Chinese behavior as genocide by the Trump-era State
Department in particular put Mr. Biden in a difficult spot. He had called the
repression of the Uighurs a genocide on the campaign trail, but stump-speech
rhetoric has no legal force. Once the State Department weighed in officially,
Mr. Biden couldn’t walk back a designation he was on record as endorsing
without looking weak.
It remains to be seen whether the administration will attempt to
tone down the strong message sent by its early actions. The combination of the
hard line on Taiwan and the genocide designation could be the foundation of a
policy mix that is significantly more provocative than even some China hawks in
the new administration wanted—and far more hawkish than the human-rights
advocates supporting the genocide designation understood.
The ball is now in Xi Jinping’s court. His choices are limited.
He can respond with tough statements but signal a willingness to engage
Washington pragmatically. This would hand Mr. Biden a diplomatic victory at the
start of his administration and tell the rest of the world that China isn’t yet
prepared to take on America. It would also damage Mr. Xi at home, as anything
that looks like a retreat would infuriate Chinese nationalists and undercut
official propaganda about China’s global stature.
Alternatively, Beijing can respond with provocations of its own.
Mr. Xi can order military moves in disputed territories from the Himalayas to
the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. He can also double down on
repressive measures in China. The object would be to call Mr. Biden’s bluff,
forcing Washington to choose between a humiliating retreat or a further
escalation of tensions.
The early signs aren’t encouraging. On Inauguration Day, Chinese
forces attacked Indian positions in Sikkim, across the border from Tibet.
Following 13 Chinese sorties into Taiwan’s southwestern air-defense
identification zone on Saturday, State Department spokesman Ned Price warned
China to cease “its military, diplomatic and economic pressure against Taiwan.”
China responded by sending another 15 sorties the next day. The unifying theme
of Mr. Xi’s speech to the World Economic Forum Monday morning was China’s
staunch opposition to U.S. attempts to isolate China or limit its rise. China
will think carefully before making its next moves, but it’s unlikely to submit
tamely to American pressure.
The crisis in China policy is the most dramatic problem facing
the new administration, but relations with Russia also look tangled. The quick
U.S. response to support the rights of opposition leader Alexei Navalny and his
supporters is noble from a human-rights standpoint, but it will strengthen the
hand of those in the Kremlin (and in Beijing) who argue that Washington’s
ultimate goal in their countries remains regime change. How that will affect
the Biden administration’s hopes for agreements on topics ranging from arms
control to climate change remains to be seen. It will certainly stimulate
efforts in both China and Russia to weaken U.S. power, meddle in American
politics and disrupt Washington’s alliances.
All
this may well be inevitable, and the U.S. cannot abandon either its strategic
interests or its core values. But weaving those sometimes conflicting elements
into a coherent foreign policy is never an easy task. The dramatic first steps
of the Biden administration demonstrate how challenging American statecraft can
be.
And:
America Can
Defend Taiwan
More sensors, missiles and other assets in
the region will help deter China from a costly island invasion.
By Elbridge Colby
The Biden administration faces a stark reality: Over the next four years it’s possible that China will try to take Taiwan. For the first time since 1950, Beijing may reasonably think it has a viable military option to force what it regards as a renegade province to heel. President Xi Jinping has said Taiwan must be part of China—and has signaled he intends to do something about it.
The stakes for America are immense. Keeping Taiwan out of
Beijing’s grip is crucial for denying China’s goal of attaining regional
hegemony and eventually global pre-eminence. The island occupies a pivotal
geographic position. If Taiwan falls, China would have the ability to project
military power throughout Asia. Japan, the Philippines, Southeast Asia and the
Pacific islands would all be more vulnerable to China’s military.
The U.S. has long opposed China’s belligerence toward Taiwan,
and states in the region would read the U.S. response to an attack as a
bellwether of American reliability. Forgoing Taiwan’s defense would seriously
undermine America’s credibility among already nervous Asian allies and
partners. For these reasons, the recently declassified 2018 Indo-Pacific
strategy specifically ordered the Pentagon to implement a defense strategy that
will make the U.S. capable of defending Taiwan.
But can America even defend Taiwan from a China that has become
so powerful? The People’s Liberation Army is growing stronger at an
astonishingly fast rate. The PLA Navy already has more ships than the U.S.
Navy, its air forces are the largest in the region, and Beijing also boasts the
world’s largest missile force. Beijing seeks to reach technical parity with America’s
armed forces by the 2020s, and surpass us by 2030.
Despite all this, the answer is yes. Defeating a PLA attack
would be far from easy or cheap, and being ready to do so will involve
wrenching changes in the U.S. and Taiwanese defense establishments. But it is
doable.
It would be harder than often appreciated for China to bring
Taiwan to its knees. It is true that Taiwan is less than 100 miles off the
Chinese coast. But to subordinate Taiwan, China would either have to invade and
occupy the island or blockade or bombard it into submission. Any of these
courses would be very difficult if China faced a sophisticated and prepared
defense, especially combined with Taiwan’s resolute population that has watched
Beijing bludgeon Hong Kong’s freedoms.
Invasion is Beijing’s cleanest option, especially a fait
accompli that takes the island before the U.S. can mobilize a sufficient
response. In such circumstances, Beijing might gamble that Americans would
judge the costs and risks of ejecting an entrenched PLA as too great. But to
pull this off, China would have to ferry and sustain by sea and air an army
large enough to seize and hold an island with 24 million people. This might be
feasible if the PLA attacks a Taiwan standing alone. But taking a Taiwan backed
up by a well-prepared U.S. military is a far different proposition. Amphibious
invasions against a capable, prepared defense are very hard.
To put it simply, defeating a Chinese invasion would require the
U.S., Taiwan and any other engaged parties to cripple or destroy enough Chinese
amphibious ships and transport aircraft to prevent the PLA from holding the
island. For a country spending more than $700 billion a year on defense, this
is a tractable problem, if America focuses on it.
But the U.S. must do four things, urgently. First, deploy an
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system to monitor Chinese
airfields and ports of embarkation, and to target Chinese invasion forces
should conflict erupt. Second, buy more long-range munitions, especially
antiship weapons, and position them in the region at sea and in places like
Guam, Japan and the Philippines. This would help make the U.S. ready to blunt
the initial waves of the Chinese amphibious fleet and air-assault elements.
Third, have powerful forces further back in the Pacific and beyond ready to
reinforce those blunting forces. Fourth, routinely exercise these three
components together to demonstrate to Chinese military planners that launching
an attack would be unlikely to succeed.
The U.S. can likewise handle a Chinese attempt to blockade or
bombard Taiwan into submission. Especially with American support, the Taiwanese
would be unlikely to buckle under such pressure, even if brutal, since the
alternative is to be swallowed up by Xi Jinping’s China. This is especially
true if Taiwan had stockpiled enough food, energy supplies and other
essentials. A well-prepared U.S. could also conduct a “Taipei sealift” to deliver
the supplies needed to prevent China’s from strangling the island’s populace.
Firm and resolute U.S. action is necessary to prevent Asia from
falling under Beijing’s hegemony. Cutting Taiwan loose would undercut
Washington’s precious credibility in the region while uncorking Chinese power
projection.
Ensuring that the U.S. can defend the island will take focus and
heavy investment from both America and Taiwan. But it can be done. And that
will be a small price to pay to make sure China doesn’t get the wrong idea—with
catastrophic results.
Mr. Colby is a principal at the Marathon Initiative. He served
as deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development,
2017-18.
+++
And who, among the "deplorable" camp, is dumb enough to buy Biden's "unity" BS?
America, It’s
Time for ‘Unity’—or Else
If you were an enthusiastic Donald Trump
supporter, are you ready to enter a re-education program?
By Gerard Baker
Can you feel the unity?
Have you come together to bind the nation’s wounds?
Have you renounced your white privilege? Your unconscious bias
probably hasn’t been eradicated in the last week, so it will need attention.
But don’t worry. If you work in the federal government, you’ll soon have the
opportunity—sorry, obligation—to get that fixed with a series of
bias-elimination sessions. If you work for a large company, you’ve probably
already watched the videos, so you’ve no excuses for continuing not to
recognize that America’s foundational malignity is all your fault.
If you’re a woman, have you shared a restroom with some
strapping-looking figure you’re sure used to be a man but now says she’s all
female? I hope your high-school daughters are doing their part to unify the
country by ceding whatever hope of athletic success they had to the new class
of 6-foot-tall girls with bulbous triceps.
In the service of national unity, you should by now have agreed
to welcome a new influx of illegal aliens into your community. Better yet,
perhaps you’re an immigrant who’s been through the costly, protracted process
to become an American citizen and are looking forward to welcoming those who
opted to take the less “documented” route.
If you work in fossil fuels—maybe you’re employed on the Keystone XL pipeline—aren’t you grateful that your imminent joblessness is bringing the country together?
If you were an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter, are you
ready to enter a re-education program? You may not realize that your
reprogramming is essential to the preservation of democracy, but after
attendance at a series of camps led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a team of
journalists from the Washington Post, you’ll once again be able to contribute—civilly—to
political discourse.
If you expressed doubt online about the reliability of the
presidential election result, your contribution to bringing the nation together
might be an interview with a pair of nice federal agents.
As a commentator on a conservative
platform, I’m ready to do my part for national harmony by being deplatformed by
technology companies the next time I step out of line. But if you’re that rare
thing, a conservative in academia, you might want to make sure your barista
skills are up to snuff, though you probably won’t be welcome in any of
the Starbucks in
Cambridge or Ann Arbor—or anywhere else.
After four years of hateful, divisive leadership that stoked
raging enmities and fuelled murderous bigotries, I hope you’re feeling the
soothing balm of comity as it pours forth from executive orders, presidential
declarations and the various ministries of truth that used to be news
organizations.
In President Biden’s inaugural address—which in its composition
and significance was reminiscent of Lincoln’s second inaugural, Pericles ’
funeral oration and the Sermon on the Mount—he emphasized that the path to
national unity lies not only through our acquiescence to the Democrats’ agenda,
but in a renewed communal asseveration of the
“There is truth and there
are lies. Lies told for profit and for power,” he said. “And each of us has a
duty and responsibility . . . to defend the truth and defeat the
lies.”
It must have been in that spirit that on day one some
administration official told CNN that the Biden team had discovered that their
predecessors had left them a nonexistent coronavirus vaccine distribution plan.
It was presumably heeding the president’s call to defeat lies that the CNN
reporter decided not to challenge the official, given that, with almost 40
million vaccines already distributed, there might have been some plan in place.
Then there was defending the larger truth about Mr. Biden’s plan
to get 100 million doses into American arms in 100 days—a million a day. An ambitious
goal, his team called it. An ambitious goal, the press repeated, helping to
lower the expectations bar for the new president.
Only in the small print did we learn that in the final week of
the Trump administration, doses administered were already up to well over
900,000 a day, on a rapidly rising trajectory. Ambitious indeed.
Truth is attested to by actions as well as words. Wearing a
mask, Mr. Biden has told us, is essential to saving lives. But on inauguration
night, there he was, celebrating, maskless. His press secretary, in a searing
moment of truthfulness, told us it was fine because he had “bigger issues” to
worry about.
That admission, in its own way, was a clarifying one, capturing as it did the real meaning of our new era of truth and unity: the truth is that our unity will be achieved by your doing what we tell you to do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama is taken down several notches by Jeannie DeAngelis.
Food for thought. You decide.
Was Trump Laid Low Just to Satisfy Barack Obama’s Ego?
By
The following story is brought to you courtesy of American
Thinker. Click the link to
visit their page and see more stories.
After
studying the Kenyan Imposter for 14 years, it’s evident the former
president was, and is, a thin-skinned, vindictive, narcissistic, self-obsessed
child. Condescending Barack Obama has proven accolades are his life’s
blood. When accolades turn into differing opinions, the former POTUS soothes
his wounded ego by publicly disgracing his critics.
Barack
Obama thinks so highly of himself disagreeing with anything he says makes
all challengers the target of mockery and ruin.
Take,
for instance, the former president spending eight years sharing his distaste
for what he believes is a “deeply flawed” nation. If critics dared challenge
Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a
Saul Alinsky nightmare, they often met with acerbic pushback.
Throughout
his presidency, Obama consistently admonished or sarcastically insulted his
critics. To punish conservatives, the former president creatively weaponized a
federal agency and sicced the IRS on detractors he referred to as “teabaggers.”
By
articulating his disdain for “bitter” gun-clinging Judeo-Christians, Obama
found a way to openly reaffirm his deep-seated hate for the First and Second
Amendments. Then, in an attempt to make his true feelings known to his
detractors, Obama vilified law enforcement and the U.S. military, censored and
surveilled U.S. citizens, and deprecated right-leaning news anchors. A spiteful
Obama imposed his vision on the rebellious by resettling middle-class neighborhoods
with unvetted putative refugees, destroying jobs, waving thousands of medically
compromised illegals over the border, and insulting Israel by sharing American
wealth with genocidal regimes.
In
other words, if Barry sensed disapproval, detractors could expect to be tacitly
schooled in a backhanded, albeit painful way.
Fast-forward
to 2016, and in the race for the White House, an “America First” non-politician
caused Obama’s Marxist momentum to come to a screeching halt. The election of
Donald Trump symbolized the antithesis of everything the progressive left stood
for. Trump campaigned on reverence for God and respect for the sanctity of
life. He inspired patriotism and had workable plans to create jobs and renew
the economy — all of the things Barack had spent eight years attempting to
destroy.
In one
night, Barry Soetoro’s Marxist takeover was sidelined by a populist billionaire
who dared to disagree with the left’s doctrine. Imagine Obama’s embarrassment —
all that “Hope and Change,” crushed by the weight of a guy with bad hair who
hailed from Queens. Let’s just say that after Hillary lost, she probably wasn’t
the only one smashing vases and sticking pins into voodoo dolls.
Rest
assured: Hillary’s slap-down was most definitely personalized by the touchy
“all about me” narcissist as a total rejection of his anti-American radicalism.
Hence his admitted desire for a “third term.”
Nevertheless,
if “past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior,” after that
crushing loss, Obama most likely invested his time making sure there would be
hell to pay. That’s why, based on the former president’s typical response to
humiliation, from that night forward, Barack likely slept little and planned
much.
Thanks
to orchestrated overkill, some Americans believe Trump lost to a guy with
dementia, was impeached twice, will lose the right to run for a second run, and
might be denied a presidential library. No Twitter, no Facebook, no nothing.
Although
pure speculation, that sort of heavy-handedness indicates it might have
been Obama all along concocting an attack to purge “Orange Man Bad” from the
collective consciousness. In Barack’s sick, twisted mind, the former president
probably is deluded enough to believe he can re-establish his legacy by making
a complete ass out of someone who dared confront the progressive global vision
Obama took mainstream.
With
that in mind, since President Trump took office, it’s hard to not smell Obama’s
obsessive stink all over a calculated effort to destroy a good man.
Of late,
those carefully crafted plans include acrimony and suspicious ACORNish
activity, not to mention a year-long lockdown and Rules for Radicals-style
chaos. Recently, Americans witnessed a sham inauguration and post-inaugural
mischief where every executive order Joe the Automaton signed reeked with the
stench of Obama’s malicious effort to reinstate himself as all-knowing
redeemer.
Lest we
forget, Kamala “I’m Speaking” Harris has had a longstanding relationship with
former president Obama. Thus the reason for her meteoric rise from the shadows
of Willie Brown’s love shack to the vice presidency. Unfortunately for America,
besides having a cackle from hell, “the best-looking” attorney general on the
planet also has Barry’s slimy fingerprints all over her high tops.
Then
there’s the return of the posse of familiar co-conspirators who emerged from
the political ash heap of history to take up where the Obama era left off.
Those throwbacks include the likes of White House press secretary Jen “Pink
Hat” Psaki and domestic secretary Susan Rice, who, on behalf of her old boss,
would be more than willing to rise from a cobwebbed crypt to deliver social and
economic pain to 74 million of Trump’s loyal supporters.
Considering
that, and more, it’s hard to deny that Joe “Marionette” Biden is probably being
“nudged” around by a syndicate of Obama-directed operatives.
Trust
me: since 2016, the former president’s goal has been not only to help Democrats
win back the White House, nor has it been merely to complete the anti-American
job he had hoped Hillary would finish. Oh, no! Based on Obama’s track record of
revenge, with the help of the media and Big Tech, Alinsky’s star agitator may
be the one who instituted a plan to soothe his wounded ego by making sure
Donald Trump, his family, and his supporters are permanently blackballed and
publicly disgraced.
That’s
why, if all goes according to plan, there will be an Obama-inspired,
Pelosi-goaded, RINO-supported impeachment trial designed expressly to put Trump
and his supporters on notice that punitive reprisal awaits anyone who defies
the tenets Barack Obama spent eight years cramming down America’s throat. In
the meantime, the former community organizer is probably stirring a massive vat
of warm tar and plucking bushels full of chicken feathers for the impending
walk of shame he hopes will be the death knell for Donald Trump’s reputation.
Hence,
what the world is witnessing isn’t only an Obama Redux dressed up in a Biden
suit; this is about extracting political blood for an insufferable egomaniac
named Barack Obama, whose thirst for retribution remains unquenchable until all
his critics are destroyed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment