The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!


The next time you hear a Leftist radical – er, I mean Democrat – tell you that Crooked Hillary did not approve Uranium One because she was just one of nine who gave unanimous support OR that President Barry Soetoroer, I mean Barack Hussein Obama – was the greatest President in U.S.; then direct them to this very informative essay by Andrew Benjamin.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Obama Uranium-1 Story even FOX News Won’t Speak About!

 

By Andrew G. Benjamin —— Bio and Archives

November 17, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

 

Midday on November 14th, FOX News talking head Shepard Smith, whom we might charitably label as a liberal non-heterosexual who may not like Donald Trump, meaning his politics have everything to do with his sexual preferences and whom he would vote for, and very little to do with reality, gave the nation a much-needed reality check.

 

Hillary Clinton is innocent of all charges. As Shepard opened his mouth, we saw former FBI Director James Comey’s eyes peeking out.

 

Shepard’s was a monologue over which the liberal press went bananas. Or “ape” if you will.

 

You see, the Clinton-Uranium-1 Story is, according to Shepard and the Kool Aid his media mates at CNN and MSNBC drink, a fairytale. Or given the much overused cliché, “a nothing burger”, a fabrication of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 

The line is the line according to Smith and his media mates on every other channel that would give the death penalty to Team Trump and his family at the earliest opportunity, for the mere outrage of winning an election, with the stories of every Democrat calling for impeachment.

 

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.” said Smith.

 

SHEPARD SMITH YOU TUBE

 

VIDEO: Fox News’ Shep Smith Methodically Debunks Uranium One Conspiracy Theories [Blog Editor: Leftist Shep Hogwash]

 

Smith’s monologue was meant to dispel any suspicion still hanging in with FOX viewers about the Clintons who have, throughout their illustrious careers, only benefited the nation. It was meant to reinforce in liberal minds the fact that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin who made them pull 63 million levers across America for Donald Trump. It is meant to fix in one’s mind the notion that the entire Trump Team is guilty of perjury and even treason. And the idea that Barack Obama colluded with Hillary and the Russians about anything is preposterous, since their suspected collusion is not reported on any channel except for Shepard’s, and therefore does not exist.

 

The gist of Shepard’s historical “innovation” is that Hillary Clinton is wholly innocent of accusations about how and why the $145 million wound up in her family’s slush fund AFTER the sale took place. It is to dispel the notion of a possible RICO (organized crime) investigation into the Clinton Matter. Shepard’s spin suggests that the Clintons are hardly greedy, in fact, never; or self-dealing and treacherous. Donald Trump is, for questioning the Clinton Matter in tweets.

 

The bottom-line of Shepard’s astonishing Aesop’s Fables and the non-contextualization of history (as well as the record of the players), was that there were nine cabinet members of CIFUS, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, who had unanimously, of their free will, approved the “good deal” that was ultimately approved by the president himself. The same president who appointed the self-same cabinet.

 

Clearly, as in law, precedent must rule in this matter, the same as the precedent for the Iran Nuke Deal which was a Good Deal for America (that was the line our past president from some central African nation told us); as the North Korean Nuke Deal was a Good Deal for America (which was the line the husband of the last female Democrat presidential candidate told the nation over two decades ago); as is the Uranium-1 good deal from which ONLY the Clinton Family Foundation profited. It had to be a Good Deal for America, and the $145 million slush fund the Clintons can do with as they will happens to be a sidebar.

 

Every deal from which America’s enemies profit has to be a Good Deal for America.

 

Or charity – if you will.

 

Especially with all the Good Deals in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got involved.

 

For example:

 

  • The BenghaziGate Good Deal in which the United States got run out of North Africa by a band of extremist religious thugs, got Americans killed just to make the deal better, and made certain that that nation was taken over by ISIS.

 

 

  • The Iran Nukes Good Deal which insured that Iran will not only continue to develop IBCM’s – Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles– but in less than eight years arm them with MIRVs – Multiple Re-entry Vehicles tipped with nuclear bombs. that Good Deal was meant to make Americans happy.

 

  • The Eric Holder Fast & Furious Good Deal in which 55,000 Mexicans and some Americans were murdered by weapons seized by Barack Obama and Holder from American citizens, and given to the Mexican drug cartels. Hillary was SecState at the time dealing “diplomatically” with Mexico for America’s benefit.

 

  • The IRS-gate Good Deal in which American organizations and groups with words in their names such as “American,” “Patriot,” “Constitution,” and similar suggesting a faith in law and allegiance to the nation, were targeted for examination – and then deliberately paralyzed from raising funds for political campaigns.

 

  • The DNC-Clinton Primary Fix-Gate Good Deal in which a year prior to the presidential primaries one candidate received, by written agreement from the Party itself, full control of the party, its activities and decision-making, and all the money the party raised. Funds which she promptly redirected to her own campaign and into her own pockets. Clearly, she was never greedy and self-dealing and never had any interest in uranium.

 

Under the greatest president ever, Barack Obama, and his former SecState Hillary, Good Deals for America were almost a daily occurrence and even Settled Science.

 

In 2009 and 2010, in a bid to corner and dominate the global uranium market, Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, was anxious to take over a majority stake in the uranium mining company UrAsia formerly owned by Clinton ally and benefactor, Canadian Frank Giustra.

 

After the board members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States appointed by Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton’s nod approved the sale, as well as managing the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission leadership appointed by Barack Obama at Clinton’s behest, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One in 2013. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with this Good Deal to benefit the American People and put America’s uranium assets in Russian hands.

 

As the CFIUS includes the State Department as one of the regulatory body’s members, Hillary asserted that she had nothing to do with “massaging” the deal because she never had any interest in money, uranium, or even her own agency at State. She kept insisting that a number of agencies had agreed to the good deal for America because they too, had no interest in making the Clintons fabulously wealthy. According to the latest reports from insider sources on the inside speaking anonymously behind closed doors at an undetermined date and place, she did not go so far as to suggest that selling off America’s assets and wealth was also a good deal, but we might presume that she was thinking it.

 

What Shepard Smith failed to disclose is that the “friendly” – as opposed to hostile – Uranium One takeover began in 2005. Meanwhile behind the scenes we presume Hillary Clinton was the senator at the time pushing the deal. And Frank Giustra still owned the company.

 

The Clintons were at his side for no reason at all all this time. For example, no reason like this, reported by the Times:

 

“The $500,000 (speaking) fee (in Moscow)—among Mr. Clinton’s highest—was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin…”

 

Meanwhile, as Team Clinton reportedly spent $1.2 Billion on getting her elected to the presidency mostly so no investigation will ever be launched into the Clinton Good Deals (that $1.2B represents One Thousand Two Hundred times a Million dollars) CNN gave you updates 24/7 for months about the Russians using FACEBOOK to infringe on American democracy and turn an American election in Donald Trump’s favor.

 

With the $6500 that FACEBOOK reported the Russians spent.

An amount that would not buy a used steel, never mind, gold, Rolex.

 

According to the Times:

 

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, (Hillary Clinton) then a senator.

 

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

 

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

 

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming ‚Äúa powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. ‚Ķ The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

 

What Shepard Smith neglected to disclose among all the good deals going down among his media mates at CNN and MSNBC, The NY Times and WashPo, is the timing and the timeline, and that 1 + 1 may actually equal 2. Possibly 3.

 

The Times:

 

“Mr. Telfer’s (the chairman of UrAsia) undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal…..”

 

At least no interest in the deal until a former president who made previous Good Deals that armed North Korea with nukes and ICBMs, came to the rescue with a $500,000 speech that lasted at most 10 minutes, with “guarantees” for millions more to arrive shortly for which no speeches will will [sic] be made. And a box of cigars.

 

Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side in the early years, made sure that the Kahakh mines would become Russian mines. And the American mines become Russian mines. She was SecState at the time, and if you’re seeing a conflict of interest and self-dealing, you are seeing things.

 

It appears Shepard deliberately neglected the obvious for political reasons of his own, in a speech that LeftMedia is now celebrating thinking that FOX News, just like they, are now in the tank with the Clinton narrative. Look, $145 million goes a long way to persuade the reluctant that the sky is not blue.

 

For after all, there are no more deserving people to benefit from all the Good Deals than the ones who made them: Barack Obama and the Clintons.

 

Theirs is the Good Deal that stipulated that:

 

  1. The $145,000,000 that wound up at the Clinton Family Foundation for no reason at all got there for no reason at all.

and

 

  1. That, for no reason at all Barack Obama appointed ALL the voters at CIFUS and the other agencies under his command who approved the Good Deal without ANY dissent. And then Barry approved the sale himself according to Smith.

 

For absolutely no reason at all.

 

Not even the $145,000,000 reason and a genuine replica of the Reset Button.

 

REPORT TO CONGRESS – CIFUS

 

[Blog Editor: Title to PDF of above link: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); By James K. Jackson; Congressional Research Service; 54 pgs.; 10/11/17]

 

_______________

© Andrew G. Benjamin

 

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition team’s Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press.

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

No Tears For Terrorists


Party of Deceit, Spin & Lies

 

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently produced an extremely flawed report that vilified the CIA for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) as torture. American voters must keep in mind ONLY the lame duck Dem majority placed its stamp of approval on this report. The Dems have spent the last 14 years LYING to America (Bush election 2000 – Obama years to the present in 2014). Lying is how Obama was elected in both 2008 and 2012. Obama’s deceptions he has told are scandalous and worse America’s Mainstream Media (NBC News, CBS News, NY Times, Media Matters etc.) have been perpetuating those lies (Townhall.com, WSJ, National Review, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Eagle Rising, etc.).

 

I have listening to Leftists touting this Senate Dem report on EIT as confirmation that prosecutions for crimes should occur. The thing is it’s like I’ve been telling my grandkids: “If a Democrats lips are moving, it is a lie.”

 

Justin Smith provides some facts that refute lying Democrats.

 

JRH 12/14/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

No Tears For Terrorists

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 12/13/2014 4:54 PM

 

The recently released Senate Intelligence report on the CIA detention and interrogation program, created after 9/11, is a poorly done partisan attack on the Agency, and it is marred by errors of fact and questionable motives, as Americans note that this story moved Dr. Gruber, ACA architect, and his “Americans are too stupid to understand Obamacare” remark from the front page of the New York Times to page twenty; however, since the Democrats have mischaracterized the effectiveness of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program and alleged that Islamic terrorists/”enemy combatants” captured on foreign battlefields were “tortured” through waterboarding and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), let’s put this topic to rest, as we also note that waterboarding was prohibited seven years ago.

 

Many progressive Democrats have conflated the issue by stating that Japanese soldiers were hung in 1947 for “waterboarding” U.S. soldiers, when what they actually did is more accurately described as “water-torture”, forcing water into the stomachs of prisoners, our U.S. soldiers, until osmosis ruptured their blood-cells, ending in death. This is not in any manner similar to the minor dunkings that Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists received at the hands of CIA interrogators, which merely gave the subject the illusion of drowning.

 

At the cost of $40 million, the Senate intelligence report, a 524 page declassified executive summary of the 6300 page classified report, accuses the CIA of torture, however, the CIA repeatedly consulted the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel about methods it intended to use. Legal opinions – later discredited and withdrawn due to political pressure from the Obama administration – assured the Agency that ALL of its Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) were lawful and did not constitute torture.

 

It is worth noting here that tens of thousands of U.S. Armed Forces members, Rangers, Special Forces, SEALs, Pathfinders and Recon have voluntarily subjected themselves to waterboarding in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) classes. All intelligence and military personnel exposed to a high risk of capture take SERE training.

 

Now, the very same Democrats, who once fully supported the EIT program, clearly didn’t include any information that did not fit their predetermined conclusions, and these same Democrats charged the CIA with immoral ineffectiveness, after they cherry-picked their way through six million pages of documents in the program that they in fact enabled; in their questionable endeavor, they ignored credible evidence that information gathered in this program led to Osama bin Laden.

 

In a joint response, former CIA Directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden and former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Albert Calland and Stephen Kappes rebut the Senate Intelligence report in a December 10th Wall Street Journal editorial that states:

 

“The (EIT) program in its totality formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation. For instance, the CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.”

 

Senator Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, and five other Republicans wrote a 100 page dissent of the report, which was written solely by Democratic committee staff members. Chambliss, in a later statement, contradicted the principal findings of the Democrats, calling them “erroneous and inflammatory.”

 

Senator Chambliss also presented 766 known cases that represented “sole sourced” intelligence extracted through EIT, which gave advanced warning of terrorist attacks on Heathrow airport and London’s Canary Wharf. Chambliss stated, “There is no telling how many lives this program saved.”

 

Jose Rodriguez Jr., a former CIA official, rejects the Senate Intelligence report’s conclusions that EITs weren’t useful in saving American lives, and he stated: “… that the interrogation program brought no intelligence is an egregious falsehood; it’s a dishonest attempt to rewrite history … I’m bemused that the Senate could devote so many resources to studying the interrogation program and yet never once speak to any of the key people involved in it, including the guy who ran it, that would be me.”

 

One report from the twelve month period in 2004 showed a 92% success rate when EITs were used at GITMO, and even the Senate Intelligence report had to admit that some intelligence was gathered from 82% of detainees subjected to EITs, while in CIA custody. The effectiveness was shown to be only 57.5% with detainees when soft-sell techniques (polygraphs) were used.

 

As a career U.S. military senior interrogator with extensive knowledge of the EITs used by the CIA interrogators on high value detainees, Jason Beale (pseudonym) anticipated the Senate Intelligence report and wrote a 39 page response stating that “under duress the unrehearsed details (of a lie) are the wild-cards that bite you in the ass … I would rather sit across from the most talented interrogator on earth doing a soft-sell than any interrogator doing a hard-sell … the only consequences to my lies come in the form of words. I could handle words. Anyone could.” [Bold Italics Blog Editor’s]

 

Since the creation of the detention and interrogation program, the CIA has reported any allegation of abuse to the Justice Dept. Twenty cases have been forwarded to Justice in all these years, with only one meriting prosecution.

 

If detainees were subjected to “rough takedowns”, stripped, bound, screamed at and slapped, as alleged in this Senate Intelligence report, and hasty decisions made in the chaotic aftermath of 9/11, those CIA agents involved should have been interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee to ascertain the reasoning and logic behind their actions. This should have been placed in proper context. [Bold text Editor’s – NO CIA agents involved in IET were interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee pertaining to this report.]

 

On December 11th, CIA Director John Brennan put this topic in its proper context as he stated:

 

“The events of 9/11 will be forever seared into the memory of Americans … those 77 minutes in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Our Nation ached … It prayed. In Our pain, We pledged to come together … We vowed, NEVER AGAIN.”

 

Americans are now being forced by this report to reflect and ask themselves, “Was America wrong to use these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?”

 

Would anyone really and truly be troubled over waterboarding an enemy combatant, a terror suspect, with the knowledge that thousands of American lives might be at stake?

 

The Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Islamofascist groups that now comprise the Islamic State have routinely tortured, maimed and murdered their prisoners over the last several decades, just as America witnessed nineteen U.S. soldiers dismembered in Somalia and hung from utility poles in 1993 and, more recently, four young Christian children beheaded in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam. And during this time, they have consistently and routinely worked towards successfully striking America in the most destructive and lethal fashion; the bomb plots, the biological and chemical attack plans and their search for nuclear weapons have all increased, and all of this was in the making long before the EIT program, as illustrated by the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

 

Americans reflect on what has brought us to this discussion, and we remember – We remember Islamic terrorists followed the Koran’s mandate to murder non-believers, the infidels, in order to purify the world – taking the lives of 3000 innocent Americans. This is their life’s calling, and America reacted by making it our mission to capture or kill every Islamofascist meaning to bring Her harm, a mission we took seriously; if an Islamic terror suspect or known terrorist gets slapped a few times or has a little water poured over his face, I’ll not be shedding any tears.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________________

Edited By John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Vote Alaska: Begich the Liar or veteran Patriot Sullivan


Mark Megich - Dan Sullivan

Mark Begich – Leftist and Dan Sullivan – Conservative

 

 

By John R. Houk

© November 1, 2014

 

It is my opinion that Move America Forward (MAF) is the USA’s preeminent pro-military organization. MAF’s primary message is to organize material support for the military personnel fighting overseas. That material support is in the nature of care packages that includes both scarce necessities (e.g. toiletries) and to a lesser degree some comforts (perhaps like treats). Here at home MAF acts as a public service for families of overseas military personnel. MAF in its early days began to expose anti-military organizations that tarnished the reputation of the military or actively participated in protests harmful to America’s war efforts which means potentially harmful to overseas military personnel.

 

MAF began to understand that Left Wing attack dogs would thus begin to come out of the woodwork to denigrate MAF efforts. Without investigating the details it is probably a good guess Left Wing individuals and organizations would begin to whine about MAF’s non-profit tax deductible status. Hence the formation of a political wing called MAF Freedom PAC (MAFPAC.org).

 

Keeping all this in mind MAF Freedom PAC supports political candidates for Office that or both Conservative and pro-military in their outlook. One such candidate is the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alaska – Dan Sullivan (MAFPAC.org email below).

 

Sullivan is in a tight race with the Dem Party incumbent Senator Mark Begich. Senator Begich is taking the typical Left Wing path of disinformation, character assassination and downright lying to win reelection:

 

VIDEO: Mark Pryor and Mark Begich scurry from Obamacare questions

 

Published by Jason Mattera

Published: Oct 13, 2014

 

[Blog Editor: Mattera uses video to promote his new book “Crapitalism: Liberals Who Make Millions Swiping Your Tax Dollars”.]

 

Senator Begich is one of eight vulnerable Democrat Senators that are actively distancing themselves from President Barack Hussein Obama’s policies yet when their voting records are examined they voted the Obama agenda 96% or more of the time:

 

Here are where the Democrats and Republicans** on the October edition of Roll Call’s 10 Most Vulnerable Senators of 2014 rank in terms of their roll call voting support for Obama’s agenda:

 

Democrats

 

Mark Udall of Colorado: 99 percent

 

Kay Hagan of North Carolina: 99 percent

 

Jeff Merkley of Oregon: 99 percent

 

Al Franken of Minnesota: 99 percent

 

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire: 98 percent

 

Mark Begich of Alaska: 98 percent

 

Mark Pryor of Arkansas: 97 percent

 

Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana: 96 percent

 

**[Blog Editor: There are two Republican Senators in the list after the Dems I’m excluding them because this is not about Republicans or RINOs – Bold text mine] (Vulnerable Senate Democrats Almost Always Voted With Obama; By Niels Lesniewski; Roll Call; 10/27/14 11:24 a.m.)

 

What a surprise that Begich is lying to his voters, I mean after all he is a Dem, right?

 

A Red State post by Moe Lane lowers Begich’s voting record by 1%, but 97% is still quite high:

 

… 97%. That’s the amount of time Mr. Begich voted with Obama priorities—from ObamaCare to the stimulus to the president’s nominees. Another key number is zero. That’s how many times in his six years he sponsored an amendment that the Senate voted on. The other word you hear from fired-up locals is “endless”—as in the Obama administration’s nonstop assaults on Alaskan mining and drilling, which Mr. Begich has proved incapable of halting. (Here Moe is quoting a WSJ article – Mark Begich: one of the 97%. Also, poised to lose in Alaska, at this point; By Moe Lane (Diary); Red State; 9/5/14 09:00 PM

 

Senator Begich misled Alaska voters by insinuating he had the support of Senator Lisa Murkowski who won her reelection running as an Independent write-in because she lost her Republican Primary to Tea Party endorsed candidate Joe Miller in 2010. (It is my opinion the GOP Establishment sold-out Miller so Murkowski would still caucus as a Republican.) Senator Murkowski has very publicly denied any endorsement of the Dem incumbent Senator Begich.

 

Mark Begich has spent the last month trying to exploit Senator Lisa Murkowski by suggesting that she supports his candidacy (she doesn’t). Begich has repeatedly run ads using Murkowski’s image and likeness – against her will – and now suggests that the only reason she opposes his ads is because she doesn’t like her picture in them.

 

 

Here’s the backstory:

 

·         On August 7, Politico reported: “Representatives for GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski are demanding that her fellow Alaskan, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, take down a campaign ad featuring her image — an unusual instance of two sitting senators from the same state in a public spat. …In a letter disseminated on Thursday, the law firm for Murkowski’s Senate committee skewered a Begich ad in a cease-and-desist missive. The ad in question, “Great Team,” features Murkowski and Begich appearing together, along with testimony from an individual who says he is a lifelong Republican, a Murkowski voter —and also a Begich supporter.”

 

·         On August 11th, Sen. Begich refused to take down the Murkowski ad: Reports made clear: “Mark Begich, Alaska Democrat, said he doesn’t plan to take down a campaign ad showing him working together with his Republican colleague, Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Ms. Murkowski has sent Mr. Begich a cease-and-desist letter to stop playing the television ad, saying that he used her likeness without her permission.”

 

·         On September 28th, Sen. Begich brazenly ran another ad featuring Lisa Murkowski: KTVA reported, “It comes after Murkowski earlier in the campaign called on Begich to stop running a similar ad. And it comes days after Murkowski was featured in an ad endorsing Begich’s GOP rival, Dan Sullivan.”

 

·         On October 24, Mark Begich claimed the only reason that Lisa Murkowski was mad about the ads is because she didn’t like her photo: During a recent debate, Dan Sullivan asked Mark Begich why he repeatedly used Senator Murkowski in his campaign ads against her will. Senator Begich’s obnoxious (not to mention sexist) response? “She didn’t like the photo. That’s what the letter was about, Dan.”

 

… (Mark Begich is a Liar; By News Links; The Minority Report; 10/28/14)

 

Dan Sullivan confronted Senator Mark Begich on penchant for lying:

 

VIDEO: Mark Begich Lies About His 2008 Campaign Attack Ads

 

Published by goprapidresponse

Published: Oct 30, 2014

 

And here is the Washington Free Beacon summarizing the video exchange between Dan Sullivan and Mark Begich:

 

Mark Begich’s Bold Debate Lie Easily Debunked By Anyone With Access to Youtube

 

By Washington Free Beacon Staff

October 31, 2014 10:02 am

Washington Free Beacon

 

Despite overwhelming evidence, Senator Mark Begich (D., Alaska) denied having attacked Republican Ted Stevens in attack ads during the 2008 Senate campaign.

 

The issue came up during a debate Thursday night between Begich and Dan Sullivan. Sullivan questioned Begich regarding wrongful accusations against Stevens and whether Begich regretted running the incorrect attack ads.

 

Begich, presumably hoping no one with access to Youtube was paying attention boldly stated, “I didn’t run attack ads.”

 

Two of Begich’s ads attacking Stevens are still available online here and here.

 

Now I don’t live in Alaska but I gotta tell ya, for an Alaskan voter to actually vote for Senator Mark Begich’s reelection that person must really be dedicated to the Democratic Party, political liars and dirty politicians.

 

JRH 11/1/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************************

Meet Dan Sullivan, Marine, Running for US Senate in Alaska

Sent: 10/30/2014 8:44 AM

MAF Freedom PAC

 

Alaska: Dan Sullivan for U.S. SENATOR

 

Name: Dan Sullivan
Running For: U.S. Senate
State: Alaska
Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
Service: United States Marine Corps & Reserve
Deployments: Afghanistan, Middle East, Africa, Asia


Dan Sullivan as Lt. Col.

Currently running to become the next Senator from Alaska is U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Dan Sullivan. Having previously served as Alaska’s Attorney General, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Assistant Secretary of Economic and Business Affairs, he has had a long career of public service.

Dan joined the Marine Corps in 1993 and has served on Active Duty and Reserves. Lt. Col. Sullivan is still in the Marine Corps Reserves and is the current commander of Alaska’s 6th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company. Before his current post, Dan was commander of the 4th Marine Division’s Anti-Terror Battalion.

The Marine Reserves called Dan to active duty in 2004, 2009, and 2013. He served in Afghanistan for a six-week tour of duty and deployed to various countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. In 2004 he was active duty for a year and a half in the Middle East serving as high ranking staff in the U.S. military Central Command Office (CENTCOM) which oversees all operations in the Middle East. Back in 2004, that meant both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dan has an impressive list of accolades even beyond his sterling military service. Like Tom Cotton, a fellow veteran running for U.S. Senate, Dan went to Harvard where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a degree in Economics. He studied Law at Georgetown which is where he met his wife Julie, also a law student at the prestigious school.

Dan’s experience in the Marines made him a tough-as-nails leader who never backs down and for whom surrender is not an option! He’s fighting a tough race against Mark Begich, a typical Democrat politician who runs to the right during election season, distancing himself from Obama and his liberal views, but as soon as they get elected these liberals always show their true colors.

Begich has shown this in his support for President Obama’s inaction in confronting ISIS. In a recent debate, Begich supported Obama’s policy of a hands-off fight against ISIS, with no troops and only very limited bombing. Sullivan pounced on the opportunity to show how wrong that strategy is.

“Inaction has its own consequences,” Sullivan said, “If we need combat troops to protect personnel, to protect the embassy, to protect ambassadors like we didn’t have in Benghazi, to protect pilots, I would be for it.”

His opponent, Begich, was silent and offered no such commitment to protecting our citizens or our interests abroad.

Lt. Colonel Dan Sullivan is the kind of veteran we need to send to the U.S. Senate, he will stand up for our troops and push for a strong national defense to confront the growing threats from ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.

 

Sullivan needs your help! Donate now to help send Marine Lt. Col. Dan Sullivan to Washington DC!

_______________________

Vote Alaska: Begich the Liar or veteran Patriot Sullivan

By John R. Houk

© November 1, 2014

_______________________

Meet Dan Sullivan, Marine, Running for US Senate in Alaska

 

Paid for and authorized by Move America Forward Freedom PAC – a federal political action committee. MAF Freedom PAC is responsible for the content of this message. This message is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions are not tax deductible for federal tax purposes. No corporate checks are permitted.
www.mafpac.org

Donations by Check Can be Sent To:


Move America Forward Freedom PAC
ATTN: Danny Gonzalez, Dir of Communications
8795 Folsom Blvd. Suite #103
Sacramento, CA 95826

Pundits on Biden-Ryan Debate


VP Debate 2012- Biden or Joker

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2012

 

Last night’s Biden/Ryan debate was a demonstration on how Democrats will shout down an opponent when confronted with the facts of fundamental failure of the Obama Administration.

 

Thus as the day and week moves forward I predict the Dems will say VP Biden won by virtue of blustering and not allowing Rep. Ryan to elaborate on the facts. If you are a Republican VP Biden’s performance was that of an insane person smiling like a creep sometimes and masking shock to condescend to the kid’s facts. Not that Ryan is a kid; he is a man in his forties. But old foot-in-mouth Biden would not give Ryan a chance to stick his foot in his mouth.

 

The Joker - Jack NicholsonI like what William L. Gensert wrote about Biden’s gyrations:

 

His smile was frightening.  For most of the night Joe Biden looked like the Joker — Nicholson not Ledger.

Vice President Joe Biden is the Joker and the current person a heartbeat away from the Office of President.

 

The most even handed news report on the debate that I have found is from Richard Wolf which I found at Portland WCSH News.

 

JRH 10/12/12

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Biden, Ryan clash over economy and terrorism

 

By Richard Wolf, USA Today

Oct 12, 2012 11:00 AM

WCSH6.com

 

DANVILLE, Ky. — A virtually deadlocked race for the White House spreads out to six states over the next few days following a confrontational vice-presidential debate that highlighted huge differences over the economy and taxes, health care, terrorism and the threat of war.

 

Vice President Biden and his Republican challenger, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, quarreled Thursday night over the records of their running mates: President Obama’s stewardship of the economy and foreign policy, and Mitt Romney’s claim that he can do better on both fronts.

 

The debate at Centre College in Danville, Ky., gave Biden a chance to stop Romney’s momentum since his commanding performance in the first presidential debate in Denver last week. It gave Ryan the opportunity to define himself for the American people and continue that momentum as the race enters its final 26 days.

 

Both sides came away pleased. “I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight,” Obama told reporters after the 90-minute debate had concluded. A CNN poll of 381 registered voters who watched the debate showed Ryan the winner, 48%-44%.

 

Throughout the debate, Biden sought to do what Obama had not last week: fight back. He grinned and shook his head continually to show his disagreement with Ryan and interrupted the young congressman frequently. When Ryan accused the administration of “projecting weakness abroad” by not solving problems in Iran, Syria, Libya and elsewhere, Biden shot back, “The last thing we need now is another war.”

 

And when Ryan berated Obama’s economic policies, proposed tax increases and “devastating cuts to our military,” Biden said, “I’ve never met two guys who are more down on America, across the board.”

 

Ryan, new to the national stage and in his first televised debate, was unflappable. “What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” he said, criticizing in particular the assassination of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. “Problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren’t growing here.”

 

Unlike the more formal presidential debate last week in Denver, Biden and Ryan interrupted each other frequently as they sought to separate facts from fiction. When Biden referred to Romney’s statement that 47% of Americans feel they are victims, Ryan quipped, “As the vice president knows, sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

 

The debate served different purposes for the two campaigns. Biden needed to help Democrats recover from Obama’s lackadaisical performance last week; Ryan sought to continue the momentum that Romney’s strong effort produced in national and swing state polls.

 

Before the next presidential debate Tuesday, the candidates and their wives were set to visit six of the nine states still very much in play: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada. The others are Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire.

 
The debate offered a clear generational contrast between a nearly 70-year-old vice president who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and a 42-year-old challenger who was 2 years old at the time.

 

Vice presidential debates have not proven very important in the past — not even in 1988, when Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen famously said of Republican Dan Quayle, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

 

At one point in Thursday’s debate, Ryan said the tax cuts that Republicans want are reminiscent of President Kennedy’s. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” Biden said.

 

VIDEO REPORT

 

USA TODAY

________________________

Sharp barbs but no clear winner in testy Biden-Ryan vice presidential debate

 

By Amie Parnes and Justin Sink

10/11/12 11:10 PM ET

The Hill

 

Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) traded furious blows Thursday night in a highly contentious vice presidential debate.

There was no clear winner in the first and only showdown between the vice presidential candidates, with both sides making strong cases for the running mate at the top of their respective ticket. But perhaps the most prominent feature of the debate in Danville, Ky., was Biden’s incredulous demeanor. The vice president repeatedly dismissed Ryan with laughter, eye-rolling and even an “Oh, god!” in an evening of quips and comebacks.

 

From the outset of the 90-minute debate, Biden sought to portray Mitt Romney and Ryan’s ideas as “malarkey” and depicted his opponent as evasive and untruthful, a theme the Obama campaign has pushed aggressively in recent days.

“With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey,” Biden said. “Not a single thing he said is accurate.”

Biden, clearly looking to rebound from President Obama’s sluggish and subdued performance in last week’s presidential debate, presented a sharp contrast in demeanor and tone from his opponent as they debated topics ranging from Libya to the economy and abortion. The vice president frequently laughed and interrupted his rival as Ryan lobbed criticisms, appearing both confident and dismissive of the Republican nominee.

The Wisconsin congressman battled back with varied success, landing some counterpunches and living up to the earnest and wonky image he has carefully cultivated during his time in Congress. But at other points, Ryan seemed frustrated by Biden’s frequent interruptions.

“I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other,” Ryan said during a discussion of Medicare.

Biden ran a risk with voters, appearing at times condescending and overly aggressive. His dismissive tone drew fire from many Republicans, who suggested the vice president was being rude to his opponent.

“It’s pretty clear who the grown-up onstage is,” Brendan Buck, Ryan’s spokesman, wrote on Twitter halfway through the debate. “Biden bordering on unhinged,” Tim Miller, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, wrote.

But Biden’s aggressive stance pleased some Democrats who felt the Obama campaign couldn’t afford to lose this debate.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala tweeted, “34 minutes into the VP debate, this is the debate Dems needed. God Bless Joe Biden.”

Obama himself was pleased with his running mate, saying he “could not be prouder” of Biden as Air Force One landed at Andrews Air Force base in Maryland after the president’s trip to Florida.

“I’m going to make a special point of saying that I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight,” Obama said. “I could not be prouder of him. I thought he made a very strong case. I really think that his passion for making sure that the economy grows for the middle class came through. So I’m very proud of him.”

He called Biden to congratulate him, according to a White House pool report. Romney also called Ryan to congratulate his running mate.

The tone of the evening was set from the opening question, an inquiry into the recent attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Ryan argued the Obama administration had dropped the ball there, providing inadequate security for the foreign service officers who lost their lives.

“Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him,” Ryan said. “Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place we knew there was an al Qaeda cell with arms?”

Biden fired back, saying the congressman’s characterization of the administration’s response to a terrorist attack was “malarkey” and that “nothing he said was accurate.”

The vice president went on to cite congressional Republicans’ vote to cut embassy security budgets.

“This lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for … So much for the embassy security piece.”

As the debate transitioned to the deficit and debt, it stayed personal, with Ryan pointing out that the unemployment rate in Biden’s hometown of Scranton, Pa., had increased under the Obama administration.

Biden shot back by bringing up the “47 percent” comment that Romney made at a private fundraiser, saying the Republican nominee believed half of Americans were “unwilling to take responsibility of their lives.”

Ryan responded by pointing out Biden’s Achilles’ heel: gaffes.

“I think the VP very well knows the words sometimes don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said.

“But I always say what I mean,” Biden retorted.

In fact, the famously gaffe-prone vice president was mistake-free during the 90-minute debate.

Later, Biden was able to put Ryan on his heels by highlighting the fact that the congressman had requested stimulus dollars for his home district despite criticizing the spending.

“I love that,” Biden said. “This is such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying, ‘The reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs.’ His words.”

But Ryan seemed to pick up momentum later in the debate as it turned to economic questions. Clearly prepared for a tangle on Medicare, Ryan said Republicans would “honor the promises” to seniors on Medicare.

“We would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their Medicare is delivered to them, instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, when, if and where they get it,” Ryan said.

Biden struck back, equating Ryan’s argument to the “death panel” claims made by former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The conversation was dotted with folksy colloquialisms as Biden sought the upper hand, frequently referring to Ryan as “my friend” and joking that if voters believed that Romney truly supported the auto bailout, “I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

The debate again got feisty as the candidates engaged on their tax plans, with the two men frequently shouting over one another while discussing who would be most affected by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to expire.

“Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates and increased growth,” Ryan said, arguing for the Romney tax plan.

“Now you’re Jack Kennedy?” Biden asked incredulously. “This is amazing.”

“Republicans and Democrats have worked together on this,” Ryan said. “I understand you guys aren’t used to bipartisan deals.”

As the debate moved back to foreign policy, Ryan accused Biden of empowering the Syrian government’s violent response to rebels by negotiating through the United Nations.

“Where are we?” Ryan asked. “After international pressure, then President Obama said [Syrian President] Bashar Assad should go. It’s been over a year. He has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people.”

Biden countered, asking, “What would my friend do differently?

“You notice he never answers the question,” the vice president said.

Toward the conclusion of the debate, the candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion. Both Roman Catholics, Ryan and Biden differed on how their faith and public policy should be interwoven.

“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life. My faith informs me how to take care of the vulnerable, how to make sure that people have a chance in life,” Ryan said.

Biden said he accepted his church’s position on abortion “as what we call a de fide doctrine.”

“I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and I just refuse to impose that on others,” Biden said. “Unlike my friend here, the congressman, I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women, they can’t control their body.”

In the debate’s concluding moments, the candidates were asked to comment on the tenor of the presidential contest so far — an apt question, considering the night’s testy proceedings. Debate moderator Martha Raddatz, who was noticeably more firm in shaping the debate than moderator Jim Lehrer a week ago in Denver with the presidential candidates, asked the question in the context of a soldier who had expressed dismay over the political atmosphere.

Biden pivoted into a discussion of the “sacred obligation” of the government to honor the soldier’s service — and hit Ryan again on his running mate’s “47 percent” comment.

“He shouldn’t be thrown into a category of 47 percent who don’t pay their taxes while he was out there fighting,” Biden said.

Ryan similarly turned the question into an attack on his opponent, arguing that “we’re not getting leadership” under Obama.

“What do we have from the president?” Ryan asked. “He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country’s biggest problem. I would tell him we don’t have to settle for this; we can do better than this.”

__________________________

Joe Was the Only One Laughing

 

Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

October 12, 2012

The Patriot Post

 

“If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” –Proverbs 29:9

 

Conventional wisdom says that vice presidential debates don’t move the needle in elections, and last night’s debate was probably no exception. That said, Thursday night’s debate couldn’t have contrasted two more different candidates. Paul Ryan, the respectful, serious and earnest policy wonk, against Joe Biden, who behaved like a drunken clown and a jerk and paid due homage to the mascot of the Democrat Party — the Jackass. (SlantRight Editor: Highlight emphasis mine)

 

VP Debate 2012- Biden-Clown vs Ryan toon

 

On substance, Ryan held his own against Vice President Chuckles, despite having to face a second debate opponent in “moderator” Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Yet on style, whether the subject was the terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy, the ailing economy or abortion, Biden smiled, laughed, sneered, rolled his eyes and strategically interrupted Ryan every time the congressman hit his stride on an answer. And if it wasn’t Biden interrupting, it was Raddatz.

 

Biden is obviously a disciple of Saul Alinksy (sic), who in his “Rules for Radicals,” Rule No. 5, said, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” Clearly, the Obama team decided that the president’s failure last week was that he was “too polite,” and that Biden had to use ridicule to shore up their anxious base. The result was appalling, but then again, Biden has been rehearsing his socialist obfuscation and diversion in Washington for 40 years.

 

With that, here are a few high- and lowlights.

 

Libya: Biden blamed the intelligence community for the ever-changing story coming from the White House, and flat out lied when he claimed ignorance as a defense. “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security” at the embassy, he said.. But the bottom line is READ THE REST

____________________________

Pundits on Biden-Ryan Debate

John R. Houk

© October 12, 2012

___________________________

Biden, Ryan clash over economy and terrorism

 

Copyright ©2012 Pacific and Southern Company, Inc.. All rights reserved.

____________________________________

Sharp barbs but no clear winner in testy Biden-Ryan vice presidential debate

 

© 2012 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

____________________________________

Joe Was the Only One Laughing

 

The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of our readers. The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Copyright © 2012 The Patriot Post.

 

PUBLIUS

The Picture They Painted in Charlotte


Warped BHO picture

 

The Patriot Post refutes the message of the Democratic National Convention. Wait – refute is probably too kind. The Patriot Post repudiates the deceptive and lying Democrats trying to win the hearts of the voters Goebbels type propaganda.

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Goebbels And The “Big Lie,” Jewish Virtual Library)

 

JRH 9/9/12

Please Support NCCR

An Examination of Klein Book ‘The Amateur’


The Amateur bk jk

John R. Houk

© May 19, 2012

 

I received an email from AC2C friend CJ pertaining to Reverend Jeremiah Wright being interviewed by Edward Klein. Wright had told Klein in that interview that Barack Hussein Obama had offered him $150,000 to hold back from any incendiary preaching until after the 2008 election.

 

I have already listened to Liberal pundits that have brushed of these revelations as insignificant. I have heard Left Wing pundits say things ranging from Americans don’t care about the Obama-Wright relationship to Conservatives should keep their hands off of Obama’s personal faith.

 

As to Americans “don’t care,” this is an insinuation that American voters are stupid and wouldn’t care that Obama was deceptive in his 2008 campaign to win the Presidency. As to keep your hands off of Obama’s personal faith, that is a load of crap as Leftist are attacking Mormonism’s Family Values track record which for example would be against abortion and homosexual sin. It is a load of crap to talk about Romney’s Mormonism and ignore Obama’s association with Jew-hating Black Supremacists like Wright, Farrakhan and Pro-Palestinian Israel-haters.

 

Now I am not a big fan of Romney’s Mormonism; however my disdain of Mormonism has nothing to do with Family Values. My disdain is due to my belief that Mormonism is a Gnostic-Christian cult spin-off from legitimate Christianity. Criticizing Romney’s faith but giving Obama’s odd secrecy of his personal faith is the height of Leftist hypocrisy!

 

CJ points to a Sean Hannity radio interview with Edward Klein and to an American Thinker article by Ed Lasky. The Hannity-Klein interview focused on the bribe issue between Obama representatives and Jeremiah Wright. Lasky’s book review focused on some of the damning personality traits of Obama exposed in Klein’s book “The Amateur”.

 

Here is some of the Jeremiah Wright wording courtesy of Hot Air:

 

 In his on-the-record interview with Klein, Wright claims that an Obama ally offered him $150,000 to keep his mouth shut and stop preaching until after the election, in excerpts published by the New York Post today:

 

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

 

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

 

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

 

“He offered you money?”

 

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

 

“How much money did he offer you?”

 

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

 

According to Wright, Obama met personally with his then-pastor to ask him to do the same, although Obama apparently didn’t offer money for his silence.  Wright’s version of the conversation makes it clear that Obama knew very well what his pastor had preached from the pulpit, and what he was likely to do once attention focused on him:

 

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’

 

“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’

 

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’ (Jeremiah Wright claims Obama ally offered $150,000 bribe in 2008 to shut up; by Ed Morrissey; Hot Air, 5/13/12 – READ ENTIRE POST)

 

The big question is: Will the mainstream media step in to report this legitimate news story and force Obama to do more than call Wright a liar? I am certain Obama will paint Wright as bathing in sour grapes. What I want to know is Obama willing to sue Wright for defamation? If not, then Obama is the liar. BUT we all know Obama is a liar.

 

Below is CJ’s post at AC2C which is an amalgamation a Theodore’s World post of the Hannity-Klein radio interview and Ed Lasky’s American Thinker article. I am to going to take the editorial liberty to also include Wild Thing’s Theodore’s World comment not included in CJ’s post.

 

JRH 5/19/12

Please Support NCCR

****************************

“The Amateur”…Revealing book based on a 3 hour taped interview with the Rev. Wright…and naughty Michelle

 

Posted by CJ

Posted May 17, 2012 at 1:00 am

America Conservative 2 Conservative

 

May 16, 2012

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

VIDEO: Ed Klein Wright on Obamas Christianity

 

 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

Here is audio of Edward Klein, author of “The Amateur,” talking with Sean Hannity about his new book and his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Klein interviewed Wright for more than three hours for the book, and says he has much of it on tape.

 

Among other things, he said Wright is “fulminating” at Obama for having “thrown him under the bus” back in 2008 when Wright’s “Godd*mn America” sermon came out. Klein reports that Wright told him that he could not say he “converted” Obama to Christianity, but that “I made it comfortable for him to accept Christianity without having to renounce his Islamic background.” http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2012/05/rev_jeremiah_wright_says_of_ob.html

 

[Wild Thing’s comment…….

 

Like Tom says OBama is a Muslim.

The thing is we have learned that with Isalm (sic) Obama or anyone would be threatened and very possibly taken out if they were Muslim and turned away from their beliefs. They have done it enough times that we should believe them.

IMO Obama would have a very tuff time if he was ever really vetted to prove he was NOT a Muslim. His actions, associations, his administration that is heavy with Muslims and so many things prove it along with what this Rev. Wright has said…imo. ]

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

 

May 14, 2012

 

The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House

 

By Ed Lasky

 

Edward Klein’s new book on Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency — while being weighed down by a small circle of “advisers” who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House.

 

Klein’s book begins with a talisman-like quote uttered by Barack Obama when his recently appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to boost Obama’s ego by telling him, “Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.”  To which Barack Obama responded, “That’s not enough for me.”

 

As all of America knows by now, Obama has aggressively sought to “fundamentally transform” America — one of the few promises he has kept from the days of 2008.  Five trillion dollars of borrowing, ObamaCare passed over the objections of the majority of Americans through legislative legerdemain and special deals made with resistant politicians, failed stimulus, green programs failing left and right as taxpayers are left holding the bag, a recovery that is the most anemic on record, an America that has been sundered by the man who promises to unite us, America weaker abroad and at home — yes, America has been fundamentally transformed.  Mission Accomplished.

 

But how and why did Obama succeed in such a catastrophic way?  That is the question that Klein successfully answers in his extremely readable and enjoyable book, with enough spicy details to satisfy the craving of anyone interested in how President Obama and those closest to him have driven us to the condition we find ourselves in as we approach November.

 

One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama’s sheer level of incompetency.  He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego.  That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit.  And Obama has that trait in abundance.

 

Stories tumble out that reveal a man who believes he is all but omniscient — unwilling to give any credence to the views of others (especially but not limited to those across the aisle).  Experts in management are interviewed who point out that he lacks essential qualities of leadership.  Indeed, the book gets its title from an outburst from Bill Clinton, who was trying to encourage Hillary to take on Obama in the Democratic primary of 2012:

 

Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s…he’s…Barack Obama’s an amateur.

 

But Klein does not rest there.  He delves into associates from Obama’s career in Cook County politics, his stint as a state senator, and his rise to the United States Senate.  There is a common pattern: Obama likes to campaign, but once he is elected and actually starts working, his interest flags, and he starts looking for the next “big thing” — electorally speaking.  He had few if any accomplishments or professional standing in any of his previous positions.  Even when he served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he avoided any encounters with other faculty who enjoyed discussing the law.  His reluctance to engage them is revealing in and of itself, suggesting he had a reason for his lack of confidence.

 

His disdain toward working with others is manifest.  He has gained a reputation over the last few years as being cold and distant, refusing to engage, as have other presidents, in the give-and-take of politics, in the social niceties that help grease the wheels in Washington.  Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently advised him to read Robert Caro’s newest volume on the life of Lyndon Johnson as a primer on how to be president.  Johnson, of course, was a master at pulling levers of power, but he also knew how to persuade individual politicians on both sides of the aisle to work with him on legislation.  But, of course, LBJ also had the common touch and, having risen from humble beginnings, never considered it beneath him to work with those underneath him.  Not so Barack Obama.  He complained to foreign leaders that he had to waste time talking with “congressmen from Palookaville.”  At another time, he switched locales and said he was tired of dealing with people from “Podunk.”

 

His campaign trail comments regarding small-town America as being populated by “bitter” people who cling to guns and Bibles was not a one-off.  They are reflective of his views.

 

But the high and the mighty also come in for the Obama treatment.  Klein reveals dismay among former Obama supporters who feel they have been mistreated, maligned, and thrown under the bus.  Obama’s most generous early donors have been all but ignored; early mentors in the black business community have been sidelined if not completely ditched; people don’t hear from him or his staff unless a fundraiser is coming up.  But there is more: Caroline Kennedy is angry at the way she and her family were used for campaign purposes in 2008 and then summarily dismissed and stored away like so many movie props have been (the latter is my description).

 

Even Oprah Winfrey has been stiff-armed by the Obamas.  According to the book, Oprah took a big risk in supporting Obama in 2008 and campaigning for Obama in Iowa, being a big boost in his campaign.  The ratings for her show weakened significantly (and her new network has been a huge disappointment).  But when she has tried to visit the White House, she has been all but treated as persona non grata.  Apparently, Michelle Obama is a possessive person who fears the influence Oprah may have over Barack Obama (more on this below).  Oprah blames it on Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign.  She is quoted as saying, “Michelle hates fat people and doesn’t want me waddling around the White House.”  Klein digs up a quotation of Michelle Obama’s from a White House source that seems to confirm Oprah’s suspicion:

 

Oprah only wants to cash in using the White House as a backdrop for her show to perk up ratings. Oprah with her yo-yo dieting and huge girth, is a terrible role model. Kids will look at Oprah, who’s rich and famous and huge, and figure it’s okay to be fat.

 

Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Pastor Jeremiah Wright (who merits a chapter), and Obama’s former long-time doctor (who feels Obama is distant and lacks feeling, passion, and humanity) all join a long list of people whom the Obamas have used, abused, and then cast aside once they moved into the White House.

 

A few have survived the winnowing process, of course.  There is Michelle, who might be described as the living and real-life descendant of Lady Macbeth.  The book provides some history of the early days between Barack and Michelle: marked by some tempests, yet also marked by Michelle’s overwhelming push for Barack to win power and wealth.  Insiders are reluctant to tangle with the First Lady, and with good reason.  Michelle, like her husband, has a proclivity to blame others for her husband’s failures.  Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt her sting when it was revealed that Michelle had complained about life in the White House to the then-first lady of France, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.  Gibbs acted to control the damage by arranging for the Élysée Palace to issue a denial.

 

But the response did not come quickly enough for Michelle, and she arranged for Valerie Jarrett — close to the Obamas for years, and who has an omnipresence in the White House that makes the unelected and unconfirmed czar issue seem trivial — to deliver a stern rebuke to Gibbs, who counter-attacked.  Anyone heard from Robert Gibbs lately?

 

The role of Valerie Jarrett has prompted much speculation.  As Edward Klein notes, she has a mouthful of a title —  senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement — that “doesn’t begin to do justice to her unrivaled status in the White House.”  Valerie Jarrett apparently has a role in most major decisions: she often appears in meetings the president has with major political leaders from Capitol Hill and with foreign leaders as well.  She often stays behind to have private discussions with the president.  Obama admitted that he ran every decision by her.

 

That is worrying since, as Klein notes, Jarrett’s own career is not one that would prepare her to assume such a prominent role.  Hers is no rags-to-riches story that would give her the “chops” to have such a Svengali-like influence over the president of the United States.  She was blessed with a wonderful set of advantages — descended from a highly regarded political family in Chicago.  Jarrett was a force to be reckoned with in the Daley administration and then capitalized on her political connections to land a job heading up a real estate company in Chicago where she oversaw, among other developments, properties that under her company’s management degenerated into slums.  Business leaders are aghast that she has such a powerful role in the White House.  A donor is quoted as saying that not only is Valerie Jarrett a liability, but others in the White House concur with his views.  Jarrett has butted heads with Rahm Emanuel, who felt that it was wrong to focus on passing ObamaCare when the economy and jobs should have been higher priorities.

 

Who won that match?  Rahm returned to Chicago and became mayor in 2009.

 

The roles of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett cannot be overstated.  They are symptomatic of a larger problem in the White House decision-making process (one that I noted in “How Obama Makes Decisions“).

 

Barack Obama, to a greater extent than any modern president, refuses to listen to the views of others or consult with experts and advisers outside his own tight and constricted circle from Cook County.  There are many revelations of his faulty decision making uncovered by Klein.  Indeed, one of Jarrett’s roles is to shield Obama from dealing with people who don’t agree with him or who may say something that deflates his ego.

 

When Bill Daley (the chief of staff) realized that the contraception and abortifacient mandates of ObamaCare might offend Catholics, he arranged a meeting without Jarrett’s knowledge between Obama and New York then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan to deal with an issue that would offend many as violating the principle of religious freedom (as well as Catholic beliefs).  Jarrett went to the president and vented her anger.

 

Anyone seen Bill Daley lately?

 

On issue after issue, President Obama remains his insular self, refusing to seek counsel or input from others with more experience.

 

Critics believe he has made a mess of foreign policy precisely because not only does he have a dearth of experience in this area, but because, under our system, foreign policy is one of the few areas where a president enjoys almost unlimited power.  Thus, he is free to formulate his own agenda regardless of the views of others and the damage these policies cause.

 

When pro-Israel Americans met with Obama to discuss his actions toward Israel (that many, including myself, view as being counterproductive) he dismissed the ideas of Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, with the statement “you are absolutely wrong.”  The president, who has no compunction telling people that they are not only wrong, but “absolutely wrong” in public, needs to start feeling some of the empathy he accuses Republicans of lacking.  According to veteran journalist Richard Chesnoff, quoted in the book, “Obama’s problem in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conundrum” comes “from his one-man style and his inflated view of his own leadership talents[.] … [P]erhaps, even more egregiously, he seems to have an exaggerated sense of his own depth of understanding of the Middle East, which is simply not borne out by his background or experience.”  There may be more to it than that to explain the pressure he has put on our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel.  American Thinker published numerous articles in 2008 covering not only Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Junior’s views of Israel as an apartheid state, but Obama’s associations with anti-Israel Palestinians in Chicago, his own suspect language regarding Israel, and his close relationship with Samantha Power (now playing a key role on his National Security Council), who not only has a long anti-Israel history but also made an anti-Semitic remark that was smothered by the media in 2008.  There were good reasons for the Los Angeles Times to run a column during the campaign that “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.”

 

Readers will thoroughly enjoy Klein’s book on Obama.  There are substantive issues raised about Obama’s leadership abilities that are enhanced with interesting digressions regarding life inside ObamaWorld and how those dynamics effect decisions made from the Oval Office.

 

Klein concludes the book with doubt that Obama could ever change his approach toward governing and suspicion that his agenda is to impose a vast redistribution scheme upon America that has worked so well in the decaying and disintegrating European Union.  He wonders if Republicans are up to the task of pointing out to the public the truth about Obama’s agenda, given the overwhelming media bias in favor of Barack Obama.

 

Klein’s book could serve as a roadmap for Republicans.

Read more: American Thinker

______________________

America Conservative 2 Conservative Main Page for this Ning Social Network.