Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

The British Are Meddling! The British Are Meddling!

October 11, 2017

It’s increasingly obvious that it’s the British, rather than the Russians, who are meddling in American politics. The British are once again using “fake intelligence” to influence American politics.

After the 9/11 attack the British used fake intelligence about WMD in Iraq to get President George W. Bush to help them invade Iraq. The British treated rumors about WMD as if they were proven facts.

Now they are using fake intelligence to undermine President Donald Trump. Patrick Cockburn in the “London Independent” says the charges about Trump’s alleged association with the Russians are based on information that is at least as unreliable as the claims about Iraq’s WMD.

The British may be trying to oust Trump because they know they cannot manipulate him the way they manipulated George W. Bush and Barack Obama. They used fake intelligence to get Bush’s help in invading Iraq. I don’t know how they tricked Obama into helping them invade Libya. This century is only about 18 years old and the British have already gotten us into two stupid wars. We need to keep the British from using their boy Robby Mueller to force Trump out of office.

Advertisements

Did Pres. Obama and CIA Help Donald Trump Win?

September 8, 2017

News stories about purported Russian hacking in the presidential election continue to omit a very important fact. The Russian government has arrested four of the hackers, including Col.Sergei Mikhailov, and charged them with working for the CIA.

Thus if Russians did any election hacking it was with the knowledge and consent of the CIA and President Barack Obama. The knowledge received would have allowed the Obama administration to prevent any action that could have affected the outcome of the election. If the president knew terrorists threatened to attack, he would assign federal agents to protect those who might be attacked. Wouldn’t a president who thought foreign government hackers threatened an organization assign government computer experts to protect against the attack?

If the hackers tried to help Donald Trump win, it was because someone in the Obama administration wanted Trump to win. It seems unlikely the CIA would have tried to help Trump win without Obama’s approval. Incidentally with an FSB colonel on the CIA’s payroll it would have been easy to have Russians meet with Trump’s associates where the meetings would be noticed. [The FSB is the successor to the KGB.]

Why would Barack Obama want Donald Trump to win the election? Perhaps Obama thought if Trump won, it might be possible to convince Congress to change the Constitution to allow Obama to seek a third term in 2020, particularly if Congress thought Trump was involved with the Russians. That strategy wouldn’t have been possible if Hillary Clinton had won.

I doubt the claim that Russian hackers did anything that affected the outcome of the election. even if they tried to do so. However, if they did then any federal investigation should ask what did the CIA and President Barack Obama know, when did they know it and what did they do with the knowledge? If CIA officials didn’t tell Obama about the Russians, why didn’t they?

Hillary Clinton Acts Guilty in Ambassador Stevens Death

April 26, 2016

There is no question that American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. The question I have been dealing with in two previous posts is whether or not Stevens was placed in Benghazi so he would be killed much like Israel’s King David ordered his general to have Uriah the Hittite assigned to a place in a battle where his death was virtually certain.

I don’t expect to prove who was responsible if Americans assigned Stevens to Benghazi to be killed. Such proof might require the investigative skills of a real life Sherlock Holmes.

Ian Fleming once observed: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Prior to the 2008 presidential primaries two known homosexuals who were acquainted with Barack Obama died violent deaths. In November, 2011, Larry Sinclair who wrote a book claiming to have had an affair with Obama, was killed by a hit and run driver. Chris Stevens who was murdered by terrorists at Benghazi was also a known homosexual.

[Correction: Larry Sinclair is alive. A rumor about his death was posted on the Free Republic possibly as part of a pattern of intimidation reported by Kevin Dujan who had scheduled a radio interview with Larry Sinclair to discuss Sinclair’s allegations about Obama being homosexual and using drugs.]

Stevens wouldn’t be the first high American official whose assassination was approved by someone in the United States government. Military historian Robert Wilcox in his book “Target Patton” claims that in December, 1945, OSS head “Wild Bill” Donovan ordered OSS marksman Douglas Bazata to kill Gen. George Patton because Patton was threatening to expose what Patton considered allied collusion with the Soviets that cost American lives. The World War II era OSS was the predecessor of the CIA.

Some believe Ambassador Stevens might have been killed because he was about to blow the whistle on a questionable “gun running” scheme to send old Libyan government weapons to Syrian “Contras” [or whatever Syrian rebels are called] or some other group. A problem with this explanation is that an attack on Stevens in Benghazi would draw attention to whatever the CIA was doing there. The fact the CIA facility was located so close to the consulate could indicate that the “intelligence” officials involved weren’t very intelligent. If the CIA had an operation going in Libya, locating it in the same city as a diplomatic facility would severely hamper keeping the operation secret. The attack on the CIA compound indicates the terrorists suspected what the CIA was up to. Their abuse of Stevens’ body indicates they knew he was homosexual.

Those who don’t understand government would likely say if the government wanted Stevens dead, President Barack Obama would have ordered the killing. However, unless the situation was similar to the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Obama probably wasn’t involved. Archbishop Thomas Becket was killed in 1170 by followers of King Henry II of England who believed the King wanted him killed. President Harry Truman probably did not know about the killing of General Patton.

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been responsible, but I doubt she’s intelligent enough to come up with such a plot. It would be more likely that she went along with a plan developed. by someone else. Her behavior before and after the incident implies she is guilty of something. Her use of a private email service implies she was doing something improper, if not illegal. Her attempt to avoid responsibility for the incident by inventing a easily disproved story about a riot caused by an anti-Muslim video implies she was covering up something, particularly considering that she came up with the story so soon after the incident.

Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed terrorists to monitor her email. If so they would have known the United States wouldn’t protect its diplomats in Benghazi. They might have also learned Stevens was homosexual which could have provided an added incentive to want to kill him.

If the murder of Stevens was part of a pattern that included the murders of Obama’s homosexual acquaintances, the person in charge was probably someone associated with Obama’s financial backers. They might have assigned someone to “protect their investment” by eliminating those who could pose a threat to Obama’s election chances by raising the homosexual issue.

Before I started this series I thought it was more likely that Stevens’ death was the result of incompetence. Now, I think it is more likely someone wanted him to be killed. I believe the test Sen. Saw Erwin used for President Richard Nixon and Watergate applies to Secretary of State Clinton and Benghazi. If she knew Stevens was likely to be killed she is a crook. If she didn’t she is incompetent.

Were Benghazi Deaths Result of Incompetence or Murder One?

April 17, 2016

After I published the previous post suggesting the Benghazi massacre demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s incompetence I received an email asking about the possibility that Clinton or someone intended for Ambassador Chris Stevens or another American to be murdered. I’m still inclined to believe the best explanation is incompetence, but I recognize the incident could have involved premeditated murder.

The death resembles an ancient murder from Israeli history. King David of Israel had gotten Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers named Uriah the Hittite, pregnant. When an attempt to cover up the situation failed, David sent orders for Uriah to be placed in the hottest part of the battle and have the army pull back so he would be killed. David then married Bathsheba so that most people would think her baby was the result of the marriage. Ambassador Stevens was also placed in a situation in which death was virtually certain.

A potential problem with this scenario is that Clinton had no apparent motive for killing Stevens. However, President Barack Obama could have had a motive if claims about his and Stevens personal lives are accurate. I’m not sure whether or not the claims are true, but believe that those who read this blog deserve the opportunity to make up their own minds.

There are claims that both Barack Obama and Chris Stevens. The claim that Stevens was homosexual seems to be more accepted than claims that Obama is even though the claims that he is homosexual have been made by those who describe themselves homosexuals. Larry Sinclair wrote a tell all book claiming to have had an affair with Obama. Homosexual blogger Kevin Dujan claims that Obama is homosexual.

The mother of Trinity Church choir director Donald Young believes his murder was to protect Obama from Young claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with Obama. There also has been a claim that Trinity Church had a program to help homosexual men avoid exposure. The killing of accuser Larry Sinclair by a hit and run driver is a disturbing coincidence that could support a claim that Chris Stevens was sent to Benghazi to die.

I’m a commentator rather than an investigative reporter. The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens certainly needs further investigation. I still believe the Benghazi incident indicates Hillary Clinton is incompetent, possibly in more ways than one. A competent politician certainly wouldn’t have gotten involved in a situation in which she could be accused of murder.

Conservative organizations have been claiming that Obama is blocking an indictment of Clinton for her violation of security regulations by using a private email service. Perhaps Obama is worried she might expose his involvement in the death of Stevens.

Tired of Whining Homosexuals

April 22, 2014

I feel sorry for homosexuals because they are afflicted with a birth defect they seem unable to understand. However, I’m tired of them and their supporters harassing those who don’t accept their peculiar social views.

A growing body of scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born with the brain of one sex and the body of the other. A homosexual male’s brain is similar to a heterosexual female’s brain. A homosexual female’s brain is similar to a heterosexual male’s brain. In other words the people who think they are homosexuals are really transsexuals. Thus, homosexuality might be treatable with a sex change operation.

New York City and Boston homosexuals recently got upset because the organizers of the St. Patrick Day parades in those cities wouldn’t let homosexuals convert the parades into events celebrating homosexuality. If homosexuals want to celebrate their condition, they should conduct their own parades instead on trying to hijack other people’s parades. I sometimes wonder if the emphasis on “gay pride” is designed to convince us they are happy with their condition, or to convince themselves.

A few months ago the poor little things got all upset because one of the “Duck Dynasty” stars said homosexual behavior was morally wrong. They wanted him to be fired. If people could claim that those of us who were serving our country in Vietnam were doing something morally wrong, then people should be able to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Many religions call homosexual behavior a sin.

I wonder if the reason some homosexuals get upset when people say they are doing something wrong is because they feel guilty about being homosexual. People who believe what they are doing is right don’t worry about “misguided” people who say what they are doing is wrong. I didn’t listen to those who claimed my participation in the Vietnam War was wrong.

Christianity defines many behaviors, in addition to homosexuality, as sinful/ America’s favorite sin is gluttony — eating too much. Many people don’t realize that neglecting the poor is a sin. According to Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”

Cry babies at Mozilla recently pressured newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich into resigning because he didn’t support the childish idea of same sex marriage. The term “marriage” refers to the human mating practice in \which one member of each sex unites to form a unit that contains a complete set of human sexual traits. Traditionally the goal was to produce children, but not as many people are interested in being parents today.

Marriage allows heterosexuals to gain a feeling of completeness by joining with someone who possesses the characteristics of the opposite sex. A husband may refer to his wife as his “better half”. A wife may call her husband her “other half”.
\
No state prevents homosexuals from participating in a marriage to a member of the other sex. But, homosexuals don’t want to attempt the difficult task of having a relationship with someone who is different from them. Homosexuals want to treat a simple relationship with someone who is the same as them as if it were the same as a relationship with someone who is physiologically and psychologically different..

Homosexuals who want to pretend their relationships are “marriages” remind me of little girls playing house. If they cannot find a boy willing to play the daddy one of the girls will play daddy.

Homosexuals who want to play like their relationships are marriages are implying they don’t want to be homosexual. They want to copy a heterosexual relationship because they would prefer to be normal heterosexuals. They don’t understand that they can become heterosexual by having an operation to put their bodies on the same sexual page as their brains.

Newsweek in a May, 2012, cover article dubbed Barack Obama the “First Gay President”. WND says in an article based on confidential interviews of members of Trinity United Church of Christ where Obama is a member that Obama is “Down Low” as many black male homosexuals refer to themselves. Those who are Down Low keep a low profile and marry women, some times without telling them about their homosexuality. I mention this claim because WND isn’t the only source of claims that Obama is homosexual and because online sources have often revealed activities or statements by politicians well ahead of the mainstream media. Amazon even carries a book dealing with an alleged homosexual affair Obama had. The American people deserve to know if Obama is supporting homosexual causes because he is one.

On the other hand, considering Obama’s support for homosexuals on various political issues, wouldn’t he admit he is homosexual? The WND article states that Obama’s pastor arranged marriages between homosexual men and women who were having trouble finding husbands, but Michelle.doesn’t look like a woman who would have trouble finding a husband. Obviously Obama doesn’t consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. Knowing that the President of the United States is homosexual would provide a major boost to homosexuals and would encourage those who are “Down Low” to publicly acknowledge their condition. Maybe he needs some encouragement from homosexuals to come out of the closet. Maybe the mainstream media could help resolve the issue by investigating it.

Obama Acted Like a Beleaguered Dictator

October 19, 2013

President Barack Obama’s use of riot police to deal with WWII veterans wishing to visit their war memorial is the type of action one would expect of a dictator who’s afraid protesters are attempting to overthrow him.

Obama’s obsession with keeping veterans away from their war memorial makes no sense. Why would a sane president do such a thing? Obama’s actions indicate he is a compassion less vindictive individual who doesn’t care about people. He wants to make himself feel important by pushing other people around.

Obama blundered badly in Syria. His proposal to bomb Syria was the political equivalent of jumping into a swimming pool without first checking to see if the pool contained any water.
He lost face and needed some other way to make himself feel important by pushing someone around.

The Honor Flights that take World War II vets to their war memorial are planned months in advance and cannot easily be rescheduled. Any delay in a fight may mean a veteran could die without getting to visit the memorial. Millions of WWII vets, including my father and my uncles, died before the memorial was completed. We owe the remaining veterans the opportunity to visit their Memorial.

WWII was the second most important war against a foreign power in American history. Only the Revolution was more important. Those who served took enormous risks. Thousands could die in a single battle.

the world War II Memorial really belongs to World War II veterans. The government merely takes care of it for them. Closing off access to veterans because of a government shutdown makes no more sense than closing down public roads.

The fall of more than one dictator has begun with an overreaction to peaceful protesters. Overreaction by the dictator can provoke others into joining the protest as has already happened with he World War II Memorial. Overreaction can cause some to decide that violence may be needed to topple the tyrant. This hasn’t happened yet but could happen in the future if Obama doesn’t change his attitude.

Obama needs to decide if he is a President or the 2-bit tyrant he acted like during the recent shutdown. Obama may have a tall body, but there is a little man inside.

Should Cabinet Relieve Obama of Presidential Duties?

October 15, 2013

The 25th Amendment of the Constitution assigns the vice president and members of the president’s cabinet the responsibility to monitor the president’s condition and relieve him of his duties if they determine he has a mental or physical condition that prevents him from effectively exercising the duties of his office. This responsibility is similar to the responsibility senior officers on a warship have to relieve a captain who is not able to effectively exercise his duties.

John F. Harris and Todd S. Purdum are reporting in Politico that: “Across the capital, anxious friends and chortling enemies alike are asking: What’s wrong with Obama?”

“It’s also true, as acknowledged even by sympathetic lawmakers and some former Obama West Wingers in recent background conversations, that his presidency is in a parlous state, with wounds that are lately self-inflicted.”

I’ve been concerned for some time that stresses of the office are adversely affecting Obama’s ability to function.

At times he seems to be losing touch with reality. For example, he seems unable to understand the seriousness of the scandals that are plaguing his administration. The scandals are as real as Watergate, not phony as Obama believes.

His irrational response to the recent chemical attack in Syria raises doubts about his fitness for office. A rational president would have waited for a thorough investigation and then presented evidence to the United Nations and/or the World Court to give them an opportunity to respond. Obama’s call for an immediate violent response before all the facts are in is the type of reaction I would expect from a drunk in a bar, not a president in full command of his mental faculties.

A rational president would realize that he needed to take time to convince Americans that the United States needed to get involved in another Vietnam, Iraq or Libya, etc.

Since Obama announced he wanted to bomb Syria, German intelligence has revealed that communications it monitored indicated that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had refused to authorize use of chemical weapons.

Russia is claiming it has evidence that rebels used the weapons. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time an anti-government force in the region stole weapons from the government or had its personnel masquerade as government forces.

In the movie the “Caine Mutiny” the defense council for the alleged mutineers tells the court that on those on the bridge of the U.S.S. Caine could know if the captain was unable to act effectively in an emergency, Those of us who have to view the president through the filter of the media. Only those on the bridge of the American ship of state know what Obama’s mental state is. Only they know for sure if the nation would be better off if Obama were temporarily removed from office.

Member of the president’s cabinet need to keep in mind that if Obama has been hurt by the stresses of the office and they fail to act, they will be responsible for an disaster that occurs.

25th Amendment: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

Obama Wants Vigilante Type Attack on Syria

September 4, 2013

The important question in Syria isn’t whether Syria used chemical weapons on its own people or should be punished for doing so. The important question is whether the established legal procedures should be used or whether the United States will ignore the law and launch a “lynch mob” style vigilante attack on Syria.

America’s Imperial President Barack Obama has decided he is the Imperial Wizard of Earth and like other Imperial Wizards believes he can decide what punishment to apply for various infractions. Like other Imperial Wizards, he doesn’t believe he needs to seek the approval of the established legal authorities for his actions.

American leaders have long touted the idea of the rule of law in dealing with questionable activities. Law enforcement officials are supposed to act within an established legal framework that regulates how they deal with suspected lawbreakers. For example, they have to present evidence of illegal activity to a judge if they want to search a suspects residence. The courts, rather than law enforcement officers determine what punishment, if any, should be imposed.

Vigilantes don’t bother with using the legal system. If they believe someone has done something wrong they just impose whatever punishment they want.’ A unilateral attack by the United States against Syria would be a vigilante attack unless it is preapproved by an appropriate international body such as the United Nations or the World Court.

Congressional approval of Obama’s vigilante attack would tell the world that the United States is a hypocritical nation. Congress would be saying that the rule of law is good enough for the United States but not the smaller nations of the world. Congress would be saying that the smaller nations have to accept whatever treatment the Imperial United States wants to give them.

Sen. Bill Nelson in Effect Calls President Obama’s Actions Treason

June 11, 2013

I interrupt my discussion of sexual harassment in the military for major breaking news.

Sen. Bill Nelson, Democrat – Florida, in effect said that President Barack Obama committed treason by claiming that Edward Snowden’s revelation of NSA monitoring of American phone calls was an “act of treason”. Nelson served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for six years.

Burgess Everett reports in Politico that Nelson said, “On the issue of if this a whistleblower or is this an act of treason, I think it directly is [treason]. And I think most of the people who served on intel will tell you that,”

“I think he ought to be prosecuted under the law,” Nelson told reporters. “Extradited and prosecuted. We cannot have national security if our secrets can’t be kept on our methods of gathering information.”

If Snowden committed treason by revealing NSA’s program to spy on American phone calls, then President Barack Obama committed treason when he released similar information about how the CIA found Osama bin Laden. After the execution of bin Laden Obama revealed that the CIA had been monitoring al Qaeda phone calls in its efforts to find bin Laden and had used satellite cameras to track bin Laden’s suspected courier.

If Snowden should be “extradited and prosecuted” as Nelson suggests, then Obama should be impeached and removed from office. Obama’s offense was far more serious than Snowden’s. Snowden only revealed NSA is using computers to monitor phone calls. Obama told al Qaeda the United States was able to identify and monitor its calls. Obama went further and told al Qaeda that the United States knew which phone numbers they were using.

I don’t know what Edward Snowden’s motive was in revealing NSA montoring of domestic phone calls. I do know that if his actions qualify as treason then so do Obama’s.

Congress Can Avoid Fiscal Cliff

December 12, 2012

A year and a half ago President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed a suicide pact that they would lead the nation over a “fiscal cliff” if they couldn’t agree on deficit reducing measures by the end of the Mayan calendar. The crackpots agreed to a measure that could impose taxing and spending changes that would be so drastic they could cause economic problems that would INCREASE the deficit by another trillion dollars. [Note: because of Congressional procedures and a desire for a Christmas break, members would need to reach an agreement by the date the Mayan calendar ends in order to get the legislation to President Obama by the end of the year.]

We don’t need to go over the fiscal cliff. Congress cannot pass legislation that Congress cannot change. If there are any sane members of Congress left, they should introduce legislation to repeal the measure requiring a deficit agreement by the end of this year or at least extend the deadline for another year. If past Congresses could violate agreements they reached with the Cherokee and the Sioux, the current Congress can rescind an agreement reached among its members during a period of collective insanity.

The main obstacle to an agreement is that Obama wants to increase taxes and spending and Republicans want to reduce both. Our system is based on compromise. Each side needs to give in on one issue. Obama should agree to let Republicans reduce spending in exchange for Republicans giving Obama a tax increase on those who can afford to pay higher taxes.