Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

President Trump vs the Obama Regime on Russia

From Free Beacon

During eight years of Barack Obama’s weakness towards Russia, the country invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, propped up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and interfered in the 2016 election.

At the beginning of his administration, Obama and his administration were eager to “reset” the United State’s relationship with Russia. The reset began with the infamous photo of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presenting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red “reset” button in 2009. One of Obama’s first foreign policy decisions was to scrap missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, which prompted celebration in Moscow.

In addition to scrapping missile defense, Obama announced in 2010 a historic Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) treaty with Russia. The agreement was supposed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia by a third. Over the course of the Obama administration, the Washington Free Beacon reported numerous violations of the START treaty by Russia as early as 2012.

……During the 2012 election, Obama mocked his opponent, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, for his comments about Russia being the “number one geopolitical foe” of the United States.

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia … the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said in the third presidential debate.

Democrats and some in the media joined in on Obama’s mocking of Romney’s Russia comments.

From 2014 to 2016, Russia appeared to prove Romney’s comments right. In 2014, Russia-backed separatists invaded Ukraine and Russian President Vladamir Putin annexed the Crimean peninsula. Russia has defended Assad in Syria and even deployed members of its military to the region. Russian forces attacked U.S.-backed rebels and the Kremlin has provided cover for the Syrian government use of chemical weapons.

The Obama administration and Democrats bragged from 2014 to 2016 about removing chemical weapons from Syria with the help of the Russian government, until it was determined the Syrian regime again used chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Obama continued to dismiss the threat Russia posed and called the country a “regional power.” Meanwhile, top military officials testified before Congress, stating Russia was the number one threat to the United States.



A timeline:

In 2008, Russia started its march backward to the old Soviet expansionism by invading Georgia.

It went downhill from there.

March 2009: Obama and Hillary Clinton hit the ‘reset button’ on relations with Russia.

February 2014: Russia annexes Crimea; Obama does nothing to stop them.

March 2014: Putin plowed into Ukraine. Obama did nothing.

August 2013: Russia-backed Syria crosses Obama’s “red line” with a chemical weapon attack on its own citizens; Obama fails to respond.

March 2012: Obama promises Russia flexibility on missile defense in return for “space” during his final election.

The same liberal media that mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia is still a geopolitical foe and Sarah Palin for warning that Putin would invade Ukraine, and has been silent about the predictions that came true.

Hillary’s Clinton Foundation made quite a tidy sum from the Russians to the tune of $145 million in donations from people connected to the Uranium One deal.



Russia viewed Obama’s regime as inept, lacking guts, and incapable of decisive action.

They were right.



Related articles:


Rosenstein Indicts 12 More Russkies for ‘Hacking’ Emails

On the other hand, Rosenstein and the DOJ are stonewalling House investigators’ requests for documents related to the agency’s illegal surveillance of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. But the Russian nothingburger is full steam ahead.

From Fox News

A federal grand jury has indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for allegedly hacking emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party during the 2016 election, the Justice Department announced Friday.

“The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said during a press conference.

All 12 defendants are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency.

The case stems from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. It comes as President Trump plans to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for a summit in Helsinki on Monday.

The indictment amounted to the clearest allegation yet of Russian meddling in the election, blaming Moscow for the email hacking scandal that rocked the 2016 race by revealing embarrassing and politically damaging discussions by major Democrats. The charges swiftly fueled calls from Democratic lawmakers for Trump to cancel his Putin summit.

……By April 2016, according to the documents, the defendants began to release the hacked materials to the public by using fictitious online personas like DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0.

The indictment comes as Mueller’s team has investigated whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign assisted the Russians.

……during his press conference, Rosenstein said, “there is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.”

He also said, “There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result. 

……Russian individuals have previously been indicted as part of the case. In February, Mueller brought a case against 13 Russians and three Russian companies who are accused of setting a “strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.”

In that case, the defendants are accused of spreading derogatory information about Clinton, denigrating Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — and ultimately supporting Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and then-Republican candidate Donald Trump.

This is the just the latest stupidity. Earlier this year, Mueller’s gang of idiots indicted a Russian company that doesn’t exist.  The 13 Russians previously indicted  haven’t been arrested, aren’t even in the country, and oh by the way, two of them were here thanks to visas they got from Obama’s State Department.

Two things:   Hillary’s  corruption and crimes did more to defeat her than any ‘meddling’ by the Russians.  The flood of leaked emails simply showcased the vulgar bigotry and dismissive arrogance of Podesta, the DNC, Hillary, Hillary’s aides, and the lapdog media.

Secondly, The Paki IT tech Imran Awan was allowed access to Dem computers in spite of the fact that he had forged security clearances and falsified vetting. Both he and his wife hacked into the Dems’ congressional computer networks, and it was later discovered that they took money from a Hezbollah-connected Iraq politician and sent sensitive intelligence to the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet Jeff Sessions doesn’t think he broke the law. Why is Awan getting a plea deal?

All this shit is a distraction to justify Mueller’s and Rosenstein’s existence.

The HPSCI /Nunez Report outlines the House Russia Investigation, here:

It also covers FISA abuse, the fake dossier, and the illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign.

Mueller’s been looking under every rock in America for Russian collusion, yet he missed this:



He might also want to scrutinize this:

Former national security advisor Susan Rice issued a stand down order to national security council officials developing aggressive options to respond to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, a new excerpt from Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump reveals.

NSC officials were reportedly alarmed by Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, including the hacking of Democratic National Committee officials’ emails, and those belonging to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Michael Daniel, an NSC official responsible for the Russia portfolio, told to the book’s authors of multiple plans to strike fear in Russian President Vladimir Putin with the aim of ending Russia’s election meddling. These plans included surreptitiously releasing personal information about Putin’s family, which revealed corruption in Putin’s political party, and even crafting a large cybersecurity exercise as a public threat to Russia.

Daniel additionally told the authors that when Rice caught wind of his planning, she called him and berated him.


Related post:

Related article:

Strzok Isn’t Just Corrupt, He’s a Psychopathic Creep

Via Twitchy

For some reason it seems fitting that the long and raucous House hearing with FBI agent Peter Strzok wouldn’t have been complete without inspiring a short video and gif that might make your skin crawl, and sure enough, it was delivered.

Watch video at the link:


He really acts like that. An FBI agent. Let that sink in.

These are his actual facial expressions during the testimony.


He has loose crews that need to be tightened with a pharmaceutical wrench.

Stzrok helped launch an investigation under false pretenses, spy on the Trump campaign, and lied to the  FISA court, but the RINOs don’t think his political animus affected his judgement.

The entire IG Report describes the actions of an out of control politicized government agency rife with bias and corruption.  The behavior and actions of FBI agents, FBI attorneys, and Comey himself outlined in the report, are a blatant demonstration of anti-Trump bias:

We were cognizant of and considered these messages in reaching the conclusions regarding the specific investigative decisions discussed below. In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia Investigation. Nonetheless, the implication in certain Russia-related text messages that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects—for example, the August 8, 2016 text exchange in which Page asked Strzok “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” and Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it”—caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which he was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views.


Strzok didn’t stop Trump, but it wasn’t for lack of trying.

When grilled about the statement in his text, Stzrok got a sudden case of selective amnesia and claimed he didn’t remember.  That’s just one example of perjury he committed throughout the testimony.

The leftwing Deep State really didn’t believe Trump would win the election. As an ‘insurance policy‘ during the campaign, the FBI, James Comey, the Hillary campaign, a reprobate former MI6 agent, and the Obama regime all had a hand in producing and paying for a lurid, fabricated dossier which was then used to secure a warrant from the FISA court under fraudulent claims, to spy on the Trump campaign.

They tried to subvert the election and our democratic republic. They should be in jail.

So, are the Strzok hearings going to result in charges against this little shitbag, or is it just more hot air?

Read Andrew McCarthy’s take:

The principal question before the joint investigation of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees is whether the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement and intelligence arms strained to manufacture an espionage case against the Republican candidate, having buried an eminently prosecutable criminal case against the Democratic presidential nominee.

It should be straightforward to answer this question, provided that the investigative process has the one attribute central to any credible probe: the capacity to compel the production of evidence and testimony, with the corollary power to hold witnesses in contempt for defiance.

The House investigation has devolved into farce because it lacks this feature.

Oh, it exists on paper. There is even a statute making contempt of Congress a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison (and not less than a month). That may not sound like much, but the months can pile up: A separate offense occurs each time a question is ducked or a document is not surrendered. As the Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn explains, Congress has inherent power to enforce its subpoenas unilaterally, or it can seek assistance from the other branches.

But then reality intrudes. The committees pursuing the probe lack either the will or the votes — or perhaps both — to hold witnesses in contempt. This, despite audacious refusals to answer questions and turn over documents that would explain when and why the Trump–Russia investigation commenced.

It is an elaborate game of chicken.

……despite Republican control of the House, the votes may not be there to pass and enforce a contempt citation. Without a credible threat of enforcement, the Justice Department and FBI will continue defying subpoenas, and the FBI lawyers will keep instructing Strzok, Lisa Page, and other key witnesses not to answer questions.

It is not possible to get at the truth that way. A joint committee determined to get at the truth would use its power to gather all the documentary evidence before interrogating witnesses. It would not convene for ten hours to allow 75 legislators five minutes each of TV-camera time with Strzok; it would hire a competent investigator and trial lawyer to spend ten hours walking Strzok through every document — a carefully planned, exhaustive examination in which he is forced to answer tough questions, not make speeches.

That isn’t what’s happening. Instead, Strzok gets to present the story he wants to tell, avoiding the questions he and the FBI do not want to answer. Without access to the full documentary record, the committees have no practical way to cross-examine him.

……The question is not whether the investigator is biased, but whether bias leads the investigator to do illegal or abusive things. In the case of Strzok and his colleagues, the questions are whether they applied different standards of justice to the two candidates they were investigating; whether, with respect to Trump in particular, they pursued a counterintelligence probe in the stretch-run of an election, premised on the belief that he was a traitor, based on information that was flimsy and unverified.



The Dems will never convict one of their own, and the Republicans don’t have the balls.


Related posts:


Related articles:


Dem Insider Shares Stories of Perverse Conferences, Colleagues, and Gender Identity Insanity

A political operative working with the Democratic Party writes about the gender madness on their side of the political spectrum. The following is an excerpt of the letter he wrote to his friend at the American Conservative.

Via The American Conservative

“The rot is even worse than you think. You have no idea how highly this has infected the low and middle levels of the Democratic Party. The mistake people make is on focusing on what the high elites in parties think, rather than what you could call the middle management. Elites are close to retirement, really, and while they do exert pull on the rest of the people, they can’t pull too much.

Middle management, however, controls everything.

Not long ago, when my wife was pregnant, a coworker asked if we knew what we were having. I told this friend, and we were all excited.

Another coworker immediately started lecturing me in front of everyone about how this was grossly cis-heteronormative and that rather than forcing an identity on my child because of genitals, I should cultivate an environment in which the child would be able to flourish and explore the play of gender.

This went on for fifteen minutes. Now, the thing is that people at my work know that I have a hot temper and usually avoid talking to me about something as trivial as whether or not one lunch spot is better than another. Nobody wants to get dragged into it because they all think that I will, in the words of one former colleague, “Go Full Kanye” on them. In spite of this trepidation, a colleague felt that this gender nonsense was important enough to risk my temper and bloviate in front of our staff. The points gained from performed holiness, what we called “being ‘pi’ (short for ‘pious’, but contemptuously)” growing up, were worth the risk of my explosion, possibly, but more terrifying was that this colleague of mine simply didn’t care about the risk of my temper and was so committed to this gender nonsense that she just went for it.

……People elder to me and younger to me in the ranks of the party’s candidate class, campaign staff class, permanent bureaucracy class, etc. are all jumping in on this. Registrations for conferences now require nametags with preferred pronouns. A friend of mine was ejected from a conference for accidentally misgendering someone. Seriously. (This is a guy whose work was featured on Mark Blumenthal’s website before he sold it to HuffPo, he’s not an anonymous schmuck, he’s a big deal.) Manners for introductions on conference calls require that people introduce themselves with names and pronouns. At a time when we could be building a massive blue wave (n.b., I am incredulous of “wave” as a concept as it lacks empirical definition and is instead a qualitative assessment of the magnitude of a victory, but you know what I mean), we are wasting time and leaving positions unstaffed because we are more focused on doing things like rewriting the rules of conduct for email lists and going full Javert. It’s all very #metoo and #forward. #becausescience (try to picture me rolling my eyes right now)

Here is what I would hope that your side are able to do. Instead of being as inflexible as the ideologues that have, granted, through entirely open and legitimate means, taken over the Democratic Party, make a bid for the reasonable people. Think hard about whether it’s more tactically advantageous to have to concede a little to get the advantage of numbers to do more of what you want.

Honestly, if any Republican wanted to do that, I would probably switch sides to help him with that research.

Jeez, I can’t believe I just said that. Dumb pronouns make friends of us all, it seems.


The concocted ‘gender options‘ like the rest of the politics on the Left, get more ridiculous, violent, and batshit crazy by the day.

Welcome to the new liberal reality. If you get fed up enough, #walkaway.

President Trump Confronts NATO Over Defense Spending

America finally has a leader that tells our allies to pony up their fair share of defense spending.


Via Fox News

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

The declaration comes after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders.

Since the election, Trump has criticized NATO countries for not paying their fair share, while suggesting he would only come to the defense of NATO nations that fulfilled their financial obligation.

Trump also has pressed NATO countries to fulfill their goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense by 2024. NATO estimates that 15 members, or just over half, will meet that benchmark based on current trends.

……Via Twitter, he called for members to meet the 2 percent commitment immediately. And in a statement Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump, at the summit, “suggested that countries not only meet their commitment of 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending, but that they increase it to 4 percent. Trump wants to see our allies share more of the burden and at a very minimum meet their already stated obligations.”

Before sitting down for the first official meeting of the day, the president engaged in a testy exchange with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He pressed why the U.S. should continue to pay money to the military alliance while the countries purchase energy from Moscow.

“We are stronger together,” Stoltenberg said, while acknowledging there can be differences among allies.

“But how can you be together when you’re getting energy from the group you want protection from?” Trump responded, using Germany as an example. Trump challenged Stoltenberg to explain why Berlin was getting energy from Russia, and asserted that Germany was “totally controlled” by and “captive to Russia” over a pipeline project.

That pipeline project, Nord Stream 2 pipeline, doubles the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany, while sidestepping transit countries like Ukraine. The project is opposed by the U.S. and some European Union members.

“We’re supposed to protect you against Russia and yet you make this deal with Russia,” Trump said of Germany. “Explain that. It can’t be explained.”

Trump followed up on Twitter: “What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025.”

For decades, the United States has carried most of the financial burden for the protection of NATO allies. It’s time they paid their fair share. If you have skin in the game, help pay for it.


The United States spent more than 3.5% of its GDP on defense in 2017, or about $685 billion, according to a NATO report. While that is down from more than $740 billion in 2011, it’s still well above the outlay of all other members. In 2017, the U.S. is estimated to have spent more than 69% of the cumulative total.

In 2018, the U.S. defense budget is $706 billion.

Meanwhile, NATO members in Europe contributed a total of $249.7 billion to their defense budgets and spent an average of 1.46% of GDP.

Canada only contributed 1.29% of its GDP, while Germany – which has drawn criticism from President Trump – spent 1.24% of its GDP on defense last year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said her government will increase spending to 1.5% of GDP by 2024.

Only three countries aside from the U.S. – Estonia, Greece and the U.K. – are currently spending above the NATO guideline of 2% on defense. Poland’s spending, however, was at 1.99% of GDP.


And of course, the leftie media is beside itself with hysteria:




What a refreshing change from Obama’s pandering, apology tours, and execrable foreign policies.



Related article: