President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are the Guardians of Democracy. Really?

                                                      1

The current political strategy of the Democratic Party is to maintain if former president Donald Trump is re-elected to the presidency, he will become a tyrant and our democratic republic will be changed to an autocracy.  It’s ironic the Dems have made this very claim about the Donald that they have been guilty of ever since Donald Trump and his wife walked down the escalator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy. 

The thought of this bombastic, nevertheless, well-known political outsider, who never held any public office becoming President Trump was laughable to the main-street media and to the elite establishment in both parties.  It was laughable until he started doing well on the debate stage and gained traction in the polls. Now the unthinkable could become a reality.  Progressive democrats, people attached to our security apparatus like the FBI, and some in the media believed they had an obligation to do whatever it took to make sure their nightmare never became a reality. 

Let’s start with the FBI.  It was widely reported that Peter Strzok, an FBI agent, and his girl friend Lisa Page, an attorney for the Bureau, were having an illicit affair, and had exchanged numerous emails about their hatred of Donald Trump.  Furthermore, they would do whatever it took to make sure he never got elected to the presidency. 

Strzok, in his book, writes about his great counterintelligence successes in the early 2000s in Boston where he uncovered Russian sleeper agents who were living in the US. [1]  Russian intelligence operations are “sophisticated and dangerous,” he wrote.   He was worried about George Papadopoulos, a junior aide to the Trump’s campaign, who revealed while intoxicated he was approached by Russian operatives offering help with that year’s election.  Ultimately, Strzok wrote he was just a cog in a machine that was designed so no one individual would have much influence. [1] Unfortunately, I will point out this machine was broad and very powerful. 

The power of this machine goes as far up to President Obama, who was very aggressive in trying to suppress the freedom of the press in his efforts to plug leaks and prosecute leakers.  “In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used”. [2] These records were from personal home and cell phones for reporters and editors. 

[1] Review, ‘Book Reviews’, September 5, 2020

[2] Cato Institute, “Barack Obama’s War on a Free Press”, by Ted Galen Carpenter, February 11, 2021 

      

                                                                                         

                                                                                        

                                        2

In addition to the Associated Press, there was electronic surveillance of both the New York Time’s reporter James Risen and Fox News correspondent James Rosen to identify their sources.  The government named Rosen as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in an espionage case against his sources.  [3]

His administration believed they had the right to prosecute Rosen, but they chose not to do so.  In my opinion, Rosen was a good and dogged reporter, who basically, dropped out of sight after his run in with the Obama justice department.

These incidents were so egregious that a letter of protest to Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid was submitted by 50 news organizations including the New York Times and the Washington Post. It stated they cannot remember an instance where the affected reporters were not given any notice or an opportunity to seek judicial review. {3}  It’s ironic that President Trump was accused of waging a war against the press with his verbiage saying some news organizations are “the enemy of the people,” and yet, President Obama seemed to escape more public, wide-spread opprobrium he deserved for his abuse of power.  

Incidentally, regarding Eric Holder, he was subpoenaed by the House of Representatives to appear before congress regarding the “Fast and Furious” scandal, which he blew off.  Compare this incident to Peter Navarro, a former trade official in the Trump White House.  He was sentenced to 4 months in prison for failing to comply with a subpoena to get records and testimony for the House Select Committee of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Another example of the abuses of power by the Obama administration were all the details surrounding James Comey’s  investigation of General Flynn, who was National Security Advisor for Trump.  Mr. Comey was appointed by Obama and later kept as FBI director by Trump.  He bragged to the press about taking advantage of the Trump administration’s inexperience in order to entrap General Flynn in a so-called casual, off the record, conversation regarding his knowledge of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.  The FBI, based on spied upon recordings, already knew that Flynn spoke to Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington.  Flynn maintained he had numerous  conversations with many people but failed to confirm this conversation and was charged with lying to the FBI.

 

[3] Cato Institute, “Barack Obama’s War on a Free Press,” by Ted Galen Carpenter, February 11, 2021 

                                                                                          3

General Flynn, a distinguished war veteran, was treated horribly by the FBI. The legal fees he needed to defend himself put him in financial jeopardy, and according to reports by Fox news, the FBI threatened to go after his son. [3a]  Therefore, he decided to sign a plea agreement admitting in a federal court that he lied to the FBI and resigned from his post.

It is interesting to note when Trump announced his candidacy, many in journalism were openly hostile toward him.  In fact, the New York Times actually reported that some in the press believed they had an obligation to discard objective journalistic standards of reporting the news regarding Trump.  They believed he represented such a potential danger to this country, it was their duty to make sure he never became president.  We realize journalists like all of us suffer with human frailty and will be jaded sometimes in their commentary.  However, it was unheard of to have reporters write candidly about discarding objective journalistic standards.

Unfortunately, Trump “derangement syndrome” is a term which aptly describes an almost psychosis that afflicts not only the news media, but as I previously pointed out, the FBI as well. There was an overarching concern that Trump consorted with the Russians and was a secret Russian operative.  This idea was promulgated by the Steele dossier.  

Christopher Steele headed the Russian desk of British Intelligence MI 6, and had worked with the FBI in the past as a credible source.  He became a private investigator, who gathered information for Fusion GPS, a company that specializes in opposition research.  This is a euphemistic term for getting dirt on political opponents.  He brought a fabricated story to the FBI that Trump was involved with Russia to overturn the 2016 election.  It appears that the FBI should have realized this story was a fabrication since it was never corroborated.   Furthermore, despite the fact that it was reported the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS to spin this tale, the FBI decided to start an investigation of Trump called, “Crossfire Hurricane”.

Now, it became obvious there were two tiers of justice in the Obama justice department, one regarding the Trump investigation and the other pertaining to the Hillary Clinton investigation.  Prosecutors had to ascertain whether she kept government-classified information on her private server. 

[3a] Fox News, “Unjust Flynn prosecution shows Obama administration shattered rule of law” by Ben Shapiro, May 13, 2020

                                                                                 4  

This is a “violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities”. [4]  

The Justice Department used the same FBI investigators for both investigations. She and her chief of staff received immunity for their testimony, and Hillary was not prosecuted for destroying subpoenaed emails and her phone. In addition, why didn’t the FBI charge Hillary for interfering with the election due to her part in the fabricated Steele dossier?

FBI director James Comey was an arrogant grandstander who was finally fired  by President Trump.  It was amazing at no time did Comey inform Tump that he was under investigation.  After his firing, Comey arranged for a friend to leak to the press a memo he had written after a February 14, 2017, private meeting with the President, which said Trump had asked him to stop the investigation of Flynn.  The firing of Comey and his subsequent memo caused a furor resulting in the decision by deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to name Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel to take over the FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.

The Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller began investigating Trump and many of his supporters like Paul Manafort, who at one time ran the Trump campaign.  He tried to link him and Trump with Russian collusion influencing the presidential election.  After 22 months of this investigation, he was unsuccessful in this regard.  Mueller concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. [5] However, Manafort was later charged with tax and bank fraud and was put into solitary confinement, which is unheard of for a white collar crime.  While these charges are significant, what was the probable cause to investigate him other than his affiliation with Trump?  

Furthermore, John Durham was appointed special counsel by then Attorney General William Barr to review the investigation of President Donald Trump.  After four years of his probe, he concluded the FBI investigation was “seriously flawed” with no basic evidence of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.  Also, he maintained US intelligence and law enforcement did not possess any “actual evidence” of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia prior to starting the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe.  He also accused the FBI of treating Hillary Clinton’s investigation differently than the 2016 Trump probe. [5]

[4] FBI News July 5,1016 [An official website of the U.S. Gov’t]

[5] Reuters, “US Special counsel faults FBI handling of 2016 Trump-Russia probe,” by Sarah N. Lynch May 15,  2023

                                                                                       

     

                                        5

She received defensive briefings about being the possible targets of foreign interference, and Trump got no such briefings. [5]

Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House of Representatives  were not satisfied with this outcome and continued to harass President Trump with two impeachments.  I used the word harass since no American president was ever impeached twice, which is suspicious in and of itself.  

The first impeachment resulted from a call he made to President Volodumyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine in which he asked him to proceed with two investigations.  The first was to investigate Biden, his political opponent, about corruption. The second into  unsubstantiated allegations that entities within the Ukraine interfered with the 2016 presidential election.   

When Joe Biden was Vice-President he bragged to the press he had the prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma fired by threatening to withhold a billion dollars that was promised to the president of Ukraine.  

Burisma was a large energy company in Ukraine that paid Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, a substantial monthly fee as a consultant.  Hunter had no energy expertise, which raised a lot of questions about what service he was providing to warrant an exorbitant amount of money.  

Why would this call by President Trump to Volodumyr Zelenskyy be considered unlawful and an impeachable offense? The President of the U.S. is, basically, our chief law enforcement officer.  He appoints the Attorney General, who oversees the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI.  

In the second impeachment, Trump was charged with inciting an insurrection at the Capitol building.  A riot ensued where the Capitol building was breached.  Some police were hurt, and the Senate proceedings were temporarily postponed. Since none of the rioters had guns, it seems to be an exaggeration to call what happened an insurrection. 

These two impeachments of a sitting president had all the markings of government overreach.  Alan Dershowitz, the famous constitutional law professor, has argued in the Washington Journal February 12, 2021, C-Span that the framers of the constitution required “high crimes and misdemeanors and other crimes” be the criteria for impeachment of a sitting president.  He also pointed out, “High crimes and misdemeanors refer to treason and bribery and other crimes refer to crimes like treason and bribery.”   

[5] Reuters, “US Special counsel faults FBI handling of 2016 Trump-Russia probe,” by Sarah N. Lynch May 15, 2023

                                                       

                                                         6

Furthermore, he made the point that dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, and maladministration are not covered in the Constitution.

The incident at the Capitol raised a number of unanswered questions.  Why wasn’t the National Guard called up in the first place since the Capitol Police force was ill prepared to handle this incident?  When Christopher Wray, the FBI director, was questioned at a followup congressional hearing by Rep. Clay Higgins he parsed his words very carefully.  He stated, “If you’re asking whether the violence that day at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, was part of some operation orchestrated by the FBI sources and /or agents…the answer is an emphatic no.” However, he failed to categorically deny that FBI informants might have been involved in the rioting. [6] 

Moreover, Ashli Babbit, a retired Army veteran, who was unarmed, got shot and killed by a member of the Capitol Police.  This was an unnecessary use of force that was quietly, insufficiently investigated and swept under the rug.  In fact, Judicial Watch filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government on behalf of the family.  

In addition, there was video footage of some parts of the Capitol breach showing police peacefully escorting people into the rotunda.  It looked like a grandma selfie party. 

Nevertheless, ex-President Donald Trump was ill advised to stage a protest during the certification process of the presidency taking place in the Senate.  It had all the markings of a situation that could  get out of hand, which is exactly what happened.  The optics were extremely politically damaging to President Trump and the Republican Party, which the Democratic Party used as cannon fodder.   Democrats screamed like their hair was on fire.  We didn’t hear those Democrats, defenders of democracy, criticizing Hillary Clinton when she denied Trump was a legitimate winner in the 2016 election or when 31 Democratic House members attempted to stop the certification of Ohio’s electors on Jan. 6, 2005, to deny President George W. Bush’s re-election. [7]

It is interesting to note, regarding constitutional reasons for impeachment, President Joe Biden is in the crosshairs of the Republican Congress.  This is not tit for tat since there is plethora of evidence to be investigated.

[6] C-Span, “FBI Director Rejects Claim that Agents Orchestrated January 6 Violence,” Nov. 15, 2023

[7] WSJ Review & Outlook, “NBC’s Ronna McDaniel Tantrum” dated March, 28, 2024

                                                       7

For instance, why was a number of limited partnerships created for Joe’s family to receive money from various international sources like the Chinese government.  Nevertheless, President Biden says he has nothing to do with his son’s business affairs. 

However, Biden’s claim appears to be in conflict with the testimony of Hunter Biden’s business associates, Devan Archer and Tony Bobulinski before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees.  While Archer revealed, on about 20 occasions, Hunter put his father on a speakerphone to exchange pleasantries with Hunter’s business associates, he never discussed business.  However, Archer said it was all part of Hunter’s plan to leverage his father’s brand.  He also said, “My only thought is that I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it.  That’s my, like, only honest opinion.” [8] 

According to The Wall Street Journal editorial dated February 20, 2024, Tony Bobulinski testified before the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees that he met with Joe Biden, when he was Vice President in early May 2017, in Los Angeles, regarding the CEFC deal.  CEFC is a Chinese energy firm with ties to the Communist Party.  Tony Bobulinski served as a lieutenant in the Navy with high security clearance, making him a credible witness.  Also, he mentioned he has electronic evidence to support his testimony.  Moreover, he said that he approached the FBI with this evidence prior to the 2020 presidential election, which the FBI did not pursue.  

In addition, he gave a C-Span presentation on October 22, 2020, in order to clear his name as he was being accused of being a Russian asset.  He went into elaborate detail about his business dealings with the Biden family.  Unfortunately, from early on, his damaging testimony was not widely covered in the left-leaning, mainstream media.

Another example of abuse of power pertains to how the FBI dealt with its informant Alexander Smirnov and the House Oversight Committee.  At the time an FBI report was made public on July 20, Smirnov was an unnamed informant that said  Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of Burisma, told him he was “pushed” to pay $5 million in bribes to both Hunter and Joe Biden.  This payment was to make sure Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosector investigating his company, gets fired.  He went on to say that Zlochevsky told him, “He did not send any funds directly to the Big Guy,” which the informant believed was a reference to Joe Biden.

[8] Transcript P. 19  Oversight.house.gov

                                                      8

When Republicans heard about this claim, the House Oversight Committee demanded the FBI hand over the informant’s testimony.  However, the FBI initially refused stating, “Their source was too valuable to risk exposing … Repubicans say Director Wray also confirmed the FBI used Mr. Smirnov’s information in investigations until June 2023 [when the bribery claims went public].” [9] 

Conveniently, we are now supposed to believe 

Alexander Smirnov, who was FBI’s confidential informant since 2010 and had been paid roughly $200,000 for information and deemed highly credible, is now accused of lying about his information regarding  these payments.  The lesson here is, according to Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ, “If you are going to lie to the FBI, make sure it is lie it is willing to use.”  Moreover, according to Kimberly, if this is true, it represents a major story that the FBI used this source for 13 years, who it now believes has “extensive ties to Russian intelligence.“ [9]

Another example of a two-tier justice system deals with how Trump was treated compared to President Biden regarding the Presidential Records Act of 1978.  The FBI raided Trump’s home at Mar-a-Largo. He was charged with withholding and conspiracy to conceal top-secret documents he took with him after leaving the White House.  This action was highly unusual since I do not believe any another American president was treated this way.  

Furthermore, the Presidential Records Act of 1978, …“allows the incumbent President to dispose records that no longer have

administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the Archivist of the United States has provided his written views on the proposed disposal.”   In addition, according to ABA Legal Fact Check posted on Oct.17, … “presidents have broad authority to formally declassify most documents that are not statutorily protected while they are in office.”  

All this poses the question, could the prosecutor and the Archivist have worked something out with the former president as opposed to treating him like a common criminal for obvious, political reasons?

On the other hand, Special Counsel Robert Hur found that Biden “willfully” disclosed classified documents from his time as Vice President, but concluded that no charges were warranted. 

[9] WSJ “Sifting the FBI’s Garbage” by Kimberly A. Strassel Feb. 22, 2024

                                                       9

His conclusion not to charge President Biden was startling since he stated the following, “We have also considered that at a trial Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury as he did during our interview of him as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. [10]   

In other words, his testimony would demonstrate he was a confused old man, who could not be successfully charged due to his mental lapses.  President Biden is not fit to stand trial but he is mentally fit to be President.  That statement is a non sequitur. 

The most recent damaging bombshell regarding abuses of power was released in a report in ‘News Substack’ by Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Alex Gutentag regarding the President Obama era.  Jessie Watters, on his show ‘Jessie Watters Primetime,’ covered the report extensively, reporting John Brennan, CIA director under President Obama, placed 26 Trump-linked supporters improperly under surveillance without predication before the 2016 presidential election. These targeted individuals  could be “bumped” or intentionally encountered to get incriminating evidence against them.  The report stated that an intel consortium called the “Five Eyes,” composed of the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, were asked to share intelligence they acquired with U.S. agencies regarding the 26 people that were placed under surveillance. 

According to Taibbi, the alleged cooperation with this consortium lies in a 10-inch binder in the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Va. If this is true, Taibbi maintained, “Espionage and election-related laws were broken.” 

In still another example of abuse of power, we also know, presidential candidate Joe Biden’s assertion, in his first debate with Donald Trump that more than 50 former, senior intelligence officials have signed onto a letter stating, … “the disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden have all the earmarks of Russian disinformation,” was a complete fabrication.

The emails were contained in Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was left on a Mac shop in Delaware.   The owner said he brought it to the attention of the FBI, who was given a copy of the laptop’s hard drive.  The FBI had this information for years and did nothing with it.  Also, what is reprehensible, former CIA directors: John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell signed this letter. [11]  No one got punished or to my knowledge lost their security clearance as a result of being a signatory. 

10] Special Counsel Robert Hur’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Mar 12, 2024

11] Politico, “Hunter Biden story is Russian Disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say,” by Natasha Bertrand  Oct.19 2020

                                                                                          10

The final insult to Trump and democracy pertains to all the court cases brought against him, which look very politically motivated in order to hamper his campaign and prevent him from running.  There is no doubt in my mind that none of these cases would 

have occurred if he was not running for the presidency.

For example, Attorney General for New York, Letitia James ran her campaign primarily based on promising her voters she would go after Trump.  He wasn’t convicted of any crime at that time other than being Donald Trump, who was vilified by the mainstream, liberal media.  That campaign pledge alone should have disqualified her from bringing this court case claiming he lied about his net worth in order to get favorable interest rates on his loans.  In spite of the fact there were no victims, all the banks were paid on time and made money on these loans, he lost this civil case.  He was fined $464 million, which he will have to pay while pending his appeal, and he cannot do business in New York.  

Moreover, Jonathan Turley, a distinguished law professor, maintained this judgement was “extremely confiscatory,” making it difficult for Trump to appeal this decision” [12]  

However, the New York Appellate Court recently ruled that former President Trump does not have to come up with $464 million to appeal the Judgment against him in his civil fraud trial, but now he can post a bond of $175 million.

In another civil case, which he lost, he was accused of molesting E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room in 1990, and when he denied her claim she sued him for defamation of character and was awarded $5 million. In a second defamation case she was awarded $83 million. He has appealed both cases; nevertheless, he must post a bond of 

$91.6 million by March 9. [12] 

Her alleged molestation took place in 1990, and she conveniently brought this case up in 2023. It is very suspicious since she was caught whooping it up on the Rachel Maddow show {which is well known for her propagating the falsehoods about Trump’s involvement with Russia to subvert the 2016 election} about how she was going to enjoy spending all of this money.  Furthermore, I don’t see how Trump could get a fair trial in New York under the current political climate.

[12] The Atlantic, March 4, “The Cases Against Tump: A guide”, by David A. Graham

                                                      

                                       11

Also, in March 2023, Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg 

was the first prosecutor to bring criminal charges against a current or former American president, when a grand jury indicted Donald J. Trump. [12a]  It was alleged Trump falsified business records as part of a scheme to pay hush money to women who said they had sexual relations with him.  This case will face some hurdles like the statute of limitations, and a questionable key witness is Michael Cohen, who has faced criminal charges in the past.

Another case is in Fulton County, Georgia, where Fani Willis, District Attorney, brought a huge racketeering case against Trump and 18 others, alleging conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidential election. Filing a racketeering judgement in this type of case is very usual since it is generally reserved for racketeers and criminals.  It is a very complicated case and getting a jury to convict Trump will be a challenge. [12]  

Willis hired an attorney, Nathan Wade, as a prosecutor, who had limited experience in such high-profile cases.  She also had an illicit affair with him and was caught lying about when this affair began.  She maintained the relationship began when this case first started.  However, there is enough evidence like phone records and text messages to prove it began well before this case started. 

Meanwhile, even after her getting caught in a lie, Judge Scott McAfee ruled she will not be disqualified when Nathan Wade is dismissed from the case.  

The case that could have had the most egregious outcome affecting our democracy was Trump v. Anderson.  In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump Violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies candidates to run for office who have engaged in insurrection. [13]

If the lower court was not overruled by the Supreme Court, future Presidential elections would be in total disarray.  Could you imagine if each state court reached different conclusions as what constitutes an insurrection?  It would violate the Constitution’s established principles regarding states dealing uniformly with federal laws and institutions. [13]

[12a] Trump Hush-Money Case, “Who Is Alvin Bragg, the D.A. Leading the Prosecution of Trump?” by Michael Gold and Jonah E. Bromwich  April 13, 2023

[12] The Atlantic, March 4, “The Cases Against Tump: A guide”, by David A. Graham

[13] WSJ, Feb. 8, 2024, “Colorado Can’t Disqualify Trump,” by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

                                                                                        12

In summary, this report covered questionable and, in some cases, illegal activity and abuses of power by the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, former President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, current President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, the Democratic Party and local and federal prosecutors, all in the name of lawfare.  

All of this overwhelming, politically motivated activity you would expect to see in a banana republic, not in this country.  The sad commentary is much of what took place would have never happened if we had more people in the news media critical of these partisan, undemocratic activities. 

Instead, many in the mainstream media have become prevaricating prevaricators, more concerned about promoting their brand of politics, fabricating the news to generate sales, and are less concerned about uncovering the truth.  This behavior has terrible ramifications for an informed, voting citizenry.  

Today’s democratic party has been overtaken by leftist radicals, not concerned with the rule of law, but are governed by power and control. Whether you like Trump or not is not the issue. The continuation of weaponizing our security apparatus, by either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, applying a two-tier justice system to go after political opponents will destroy our democratic republic. 

Keeping The Faith

President Biden gave a good speech last week, probably one of his best commemorating our fallen heroes at Arlington National Cemetery.  What struck me was the constant refrain he used “keeping the faith” in order to emphasize what is needed to maintain, and sustain our great democracy.   I agree with those sentiments.   Unfortunately, so far, this president’s many actions and policies have been in direct contrast to the ideals that were so eloquently expressed to honor the many people who throughout our history have contributed and sacrificed to improve and keep our wonderful democratic experiment alive.  

This president maintained if elected he would be a healer, more nonpartisan and reach across the aisle in order to unite this country.  In the first 100 days of his presidency, according to CNN, 60 executive orders were passed and 24 of these reversed ex-President Trump’s policies.  When confronted by the press, President Biden said, “I’m not making new law, I’m eliminating bad policy”.  Is circumventing the democratic process and reversing a major campaign promise “keeping the faith”?  

Is he keeping the faith when his rhetoric on many occasions demonized the police and failed to consistently condemn the rioting and violence that took place over the summer by Black Lives Matter and Antifa?  In fact, he maintained Antifa is a concept not a subversive organization.  At least 25 Americans were killed during the protests in 2020.

Is he keeping the faith when he and Vice President Harris stated in speech after speech we have to eliminate institutional racism in this country?  It was only after Senator Tim’s Scott rebuttal to his state of the union address that President Biden had to admit that we are not a racist county.  Unfortunately, that admission was fleeting since in a recent speech this president stated “White Supremacists” are the most important threat confronting our nation according to our intelligence community.   Also, he went on to say our country was heavily influenced by the Ku Klux Klan to create this racist atmosphere.  It is unthinkable and reprehensible  that the President of the United States would make such ridiculous, inflammatory statements and continue to divide this country.  

Furthermore, where was President Biden’s condemnation of the racist language that was used against Tim Scott, a black man, after his address to the nation.  In fact, where was his condemnation of the anti-Semitic and anti-white language expressed on many occasions by the four radical members of the democratic party called the “Squad”.  For example, Rashida Tlaib,  a Michigan Congresswoman and a member of the Squad, said,”There’s kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of the Holocaust”…

Critical race theory, a doctrine that espouses whites are inherently racist and have to be deprogrammed, has infiltrated almost all of our major institutions.  It is being taught in some of colleges and our schools, in corporate America, even in the FBI and the military.  It is incomprehensible, that such a divisive ideology is being promoted today.  It would have been unthinkable not too long ago and laughed at because it is clearly racist.  And yet, it is not being condemned by the Democratic Party and this president.  Is this poisonous identity politics keeping the faith? 

Is this president keeping the faith when we have people pouring into this country from literally all over the world in through our Southern border and he maintains that it is not a crisis?  He said the problem was created by Trump.  Yet, President Biden has reversed all of the policies that Trump put into place to lessen the crisis, such as completing the wall that has already been paid for.  Trump “derangement syndrome” is bordering on a psychosis when all his policies were believed to be bad for this country and needed to be reversed. 

Is the President’s spending initiative and proposed six trillion dollar budget, which will promote trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, keeping the faith for our kids and grandkids that will have to pay for this profligate spending?  Moreover, he is advocating a big government, socialist agenda.  These cradle to grave policies, which he wants to pay for with higher taxes, will undermine economic growth and our capitalist system that has been the cornerstone of our democracy.   According to the Wall St Journal, even the White House admits in the fine print of this budget, economic growth will slow dramatically after 2021 and 2022 and average 1.9% for the next eight years.  This rate of growth is lower than the historical low rate of growth during the Obama years.   Also, the nearly 2% increase in the military budget being proposed may not keep up with inflation.  Is that enough spending to keep the faith to protect our democracy from ChIna’s bellicose policies for world wide domination?  

In addition, his speech lauds the sacrifices our military has made throughout our history to protect democracy and yet, hospital care under the Veterans Administration was a disaster during his tenor under the Obama administration.  Veterans had to wait an inordinate amount of time for care.  It was President Trump that kept the faith when he gave veterans the option to use doctors from the private sector in order to avoid these long delays. 

Finally, this president maintains that having to show proper identification in order to vote is “Jim Crow” and discriminatory against people of color.  In almost everything we do, we have to show some form of proper identification.  You cannot even get a library card without identification.  Does President Biden believe that blacks are walking around with togas and candles and not participating in the things we have to do to live in our society.  That kind of thinking is the definition of racism.  The biggest threat to our democracy is when people start to lose faith in the integrity of our elections.  We have to make sure that confidence is restored.  Let’s keep the faith.

 

President Barack Obama’s Legacy - Hope And Change for the Better?

“Hope and change” was his mantra. What was his hope, and what did he want to change? The first thing he changed as a young adult was his name from Barry to Barack. Why? What was wrong with Barry? It seems he may have had an identity crises. Based on his history, it would be understandable. His white mother married a Kenyan who Barry never knew growing up and finally met for only one week as a young adult. She remarried an Indonesian, and Barack spent time in that country as a youngster attending a Madrassa for several years. In fact, Barack said, as an adult, the sweetest sound he liked to hear was the Imam’s call to prayer. He left his mother and stepfather at a young age and lived with his white grandparents who literally raised him in Hawaii. On the other hand, he may have wanted to change his name to Barack Hussein to give his name a cache that Barry lacked. This would set him apart from an ordinary Barry and make himself mysterious.

This is not the typical background of someone who becomes the President of the United States. When you think about it, where else in the world could this have take place? What was so important to change about this country? It would be impossible to say we have institutionalized racism in this country today since we elected Barack Hussein Obama president twice. He defeated: Hillary Clinton, John McCain, a war hero and a well-known Senator, and for his second-term candidacy Mitt Romney, an ex Governor and a very wealthy business man. Think about it. We elected a black man whose middle name is Hussein that had virtually no experience other than a short term in the Senate. This is an amazing success story and represents a great achievement by Barack. It is a testament to how far we have come as a diverse country.

Therefore, I could never figure out why he seemed to have such a chip on his shoulder, particularly dealing with race relations. So where did this “chip” come from? He no doubt faced many indignities growing up as black man with a white mother since racism was much more endemic compared to today’s environment. Nevertheless, he went to Occidental, a prestigious prep school, Columbia undergraduate and Yale law. Since his grandparents were not wealthy and considered middle class, how could he afford to get into these great schools? In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” he doesn’t mention how he got into these prestigious schools or how well he did. This part of his life has been kept out of public view.

Academia is one place that could have fostered this negative attitude. He attended a school in Indonesia where, according to Pew surveys, they have some of the most unfavorable views of the Jews in the Muslim world. In the early 1980s he attended Columbia. At that time, professor Edward Said was expounding a pro-PLO narrative against Israel. Unfortunately, academia is a bastion of progressive thinking that, in many quarters, seems to emphasize what’s wrong with this country. They promote the idea that we are an evil, racist country based on the exploitation of men of color, and our founding fathers were all rich white slave owners. While we know that slavery was part of our sordid past, we have to put that in some sort of context. The founding of this country and its principles is nothing short of an extraordinary accomplishment. Yes, our founding fathers were not perfect and had their share of foibles. However, their accomplishments far exceeded their drawbacks such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our three branches of government and the formation of our democratic republic that decentralizes federal government power. While we did not invent the concept of slavery, it was finally abolished with the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives during the civil war.

We are an exceptional country based on the genius of our founding fathers who established the bedrock principles that continue to govern this country today. We are a country of laws that protect individuals and property ownership. Title, aristocratic family lineage and wealth are not mandatory requirements in order to govern. This country is a capitalistic, meritocracy. While having an inheritance helps one’s chances to be monetarily successful, capitalism has been the great equalizer that gives anyone that chance. Silicon Valley and all of those entrepreneurs that started in their family basement, like Bill Gates of Microsoft fame, have created billions of dollars of wealth. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, was not wealthy when he amassed his fortune as a great stock investor. Oprah Winfrey, talk-show host, celebrity and marketing genius, is a multibillionaire. She started out very poor. These are just a few diverse examples, and there are too many others to enumerate. For instance, there are 4.8 million millionaires in this country according to the annual World Wealth Report in 2016. This is an astounding number and a testimony to the great opportunities this country can offer.


Another important negative influence on Barack was reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose church he attended for over 20 years. Reverend Wright was a firebrand that spewed anti US and Jewish sentiment. He was a mentor to Barack and married the Obamas. This was a very close affiliation that Barack had to repudiate and disavow in order to win the White House. In addition, according to Ruth R. Wisse, a former professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, Obama had an association with the anti-Zionist hard left in Chicago. The Obama’s house in Chicago was on the same block as Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Black Muslims, a radical, anti-semitic, anti-white organization. In addition, Barack had an affinity for the teachings of Saul Alinsky who developed his theory of political agitation in his famous 1971 book “Rules for Radicals.” This is considered a classic radical, left-wing guide to community organizing. Saul Alinsky was a community organizer in Chicago, and Barack recalled those years as “the best education he ever had”. Furthermore, years later, Barack seemed comfortable talking about Alinskian jargon in 2007 to Ryan Lizza, a reporter for the New Republic. He recalled Barack’s organizing workshops where concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power” were used. You could easily tie in that comment to Reverend Wright who was able to mesmerize his audience with his powerful orations.


More evidence of Barack’s views can be gleaned from his actions and inactions as President. For instance, his commentary on high-profile police shootings of black men were often prejudicial before all the evidence was revealed. The Michael Brown case in Ferguson Missouri is a classical example of this. The officer in this case was exonerated by a jury trial and an intensive Justice Department investigation. The false narrative that Mr. Brown was executed while he had his hands up is still pervasive in the black community. What is completely inexplicable is that Barack had Al Sharpton act as his liaison in this case, and Mr. Sharpton has been at the White House over a hundred times. Another example is his embracing the “Black Lives Matter” movement. The leadership of this organization has not forcefully condemned some of their group’s advocating killing police. Furthermore, this group continues to stir up racial animosity without criticizing black on black crime, which is at epidemic proportions, particularly in Chicago. This lack of balance in this organization’s commentary, in my mind, delegitimizes their purpose and supports a nihilist anti-cop movement.

While I did not vote for Obama, I was hoping race relations would improve under his auspices and unfortunately, in my opinion, they have gotten worse. He has unfairly demonized police when the overwhelming evidence is that blacks are not unfairly targeted since they cause a disproportionate amount of the crime. According to Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, “In 2012, Blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites [excluding homicide] and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks.” Blacks, therefore, had committed 85% of the non-homicide interracial violence while they make up less than 13% of the population. Furthermore, police shootings of black men are rare. A case in point is Chicago, where there were 4,368 shootings in 2017, according to the Chicago Tribune’s crime database. However, more than 99% of those shootings were committed by civilians not cops. What is the most disappointing to me is that he had done nothing to try to stop the killing fields in Chicago. Not only gang members are being killed but innocent children are being harmed as well. People are living in a war zone there, and he focuses his attention on demonizing the police. In high crime black neighborhoods police protection could very possibly be negatively impacted by the “Ferguson effect”. It is a theory named after that community in Illinois that has had policing problems. It postulates that some cops are reluctant to get involved with black crime for fear of being assaulted by blacks then criticized and falsely accused of inappropriate policing.

It is very difficult for me to give President Obama good grades for his presidency, especially looking through the prism of his foreign policy. When he became president, one of the first things he did was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House. This was a good indication that this president was going to view world affairs and our role in it from a different perspective than we had been accustomed to. For example, he went on a world apology tour, even stopping in Venezuela to acknowledge Hugo Chavez, emphasizing our mishaps to other countries. In addition, he was asked about American exceptionalism in an April 2009 press conference. He said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism”. He went on to say he was enormously proud of this country and the role it played in world history, However, these comments appeared inauthentic in view of his world apology tour. In addition, during his administration, he has used the term we should “lead from behind," not a great endorsement from someone who believes we are an exceptional country that should have a strong role in shaping world opinion.

His lack of leadership has resulted in a world lit by fire after his presidency. When he first became president, Iraq was stabilized. He and Vice President Biden actually commented it was a remarkable achievement for a democracy to actually take hold in that country. This analysis gave Barack cover to withdraw the bulk of our forces there against the advice of many of his military advisors in order to keep his campaign pledge. Under his watch, ISIS had spread to many countries, and we have wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. Russia has taken over Crimea, parts of the Ukraine and is now involved in Syria. Also, China is making unstopped incursions in the south-China Sea by constructing islands there. Moreover, Europe is being destabilized due to the flood of millions of immigrants coming from war-torn Syria.

According to some experts, one of his great foreign policy accomplishments was the Iran agreement in order to stop their continued development of a nuclear bomb. However, this was not a treaty since he did not get senatorial approval, which would have formed a more iron-clad agreement. Furthermore, we gave this terrorist nation billions of dollars to come to the table. Moreover, if Iran decides to break the agreement, we lose most of our leverage since we will never be able to easily put back the multi-country embargoes that brought pressure on them in the first place to start the negotiation process.

Unfortunately, his domestic policies were not much better. While it is true that Barack was handed a very extreme financial crisis, it is questionable this was the major reason that the economic recovery was one of the worst on record. After studying 27 recession-recovery cycles since 1882, two economists, Michael Bordo and Joseph Haubrich, showed that recoveries after financial crises are actually sharper than other recoveries. Moreover, Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that the regulatory burdens of the Dodd-Frank law had a burdensome effect on bank lending, particularly community banks, which lend primarily to smaller businesses that are the major growth engine of employment. Employment by small business between 2002 and 2010 created 64% of the net new jobs in the US economy. That source of employment, according to Mr. Wallison, disappeared since the enactment of Dodd Frank. U.S.Economic growth in 2016 grew at 1.6%, which marks the 11th consecutive year that the economy grew at less than 3%, the longest period on record according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In addition, his energy policy did very little to help us become energy independent and help stimulate the economy. He focused solely on renewal sources like wind and solar while excluding fossil fuels. In fact, he derided Sara Palin’s comment of “drill baby drill” to deal with high energy prices. As late as 2012, according to the Wall Street Journal, he called her comment “a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker” but “not a strategy.” In 2006, we imported 12.9 million barrels of crude and petroleum products. In October of 2017 that declined to 2.5 million a day. Furthermore, the fracking boom increased natural gas production by approximately 50% from January 2010 to November 2017. Incidentally, Barack took credit for the reduction in carbon omissions. However, that primarily resulted not from alternative sources of energy but from industry switching from coal to less expensive gas.

One area of strength during Barack’s tenure was the stock market, which had a remarkable run contrary to the poor economic recovery. I believe he deserves credit for maintaining stability at the Federal Reserve Board keeping Bernanke at the Fed and choosing Janet Yellen as his successor. They both seemed to be the only grown ups in the room who recognized the breadth and depth of the economic slowdown by providing the necessary liquidity to keep the economy from going into a deeper tailspin in the absence of appropriate fiscal stimulus. However, it remains to be seen whether the FRB is going to be successful in unwinding the unprecedented amount of stimulus as the economy improves without causing economic dislocations. The irony of the Feds policies was that the rich got richer due to the gains in the stock market, deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. This was contrary to what President Obama wanted to achieve since he claimed to be the champion of the middle class and the underprivileged. Furthermore, under Barack’s egis, the national debt increased by 10 trillion dollars to 20 trillion. This is a huge amount of money that may hamstring President Trump to effectively use fiscal policy to stimulate economic growth. So far, we have been lucky as interest rates have been historically low, making the financing of this debt manageable.


In addition, President Obama should get credit for putting health care front and center on the radar screen despite the failures of Obama Care and the way it was enacted. No other administration has been able to pass comprehensive health care legislation providing health care to millions of people that never had access before. One of the potential hallmarks of the Trump administration is whether he will be able to improve Obama Care and reduce the ever increasing costs to our economy. Nevertheless, health care access to people who cannot afford it is not going away in my opinion. The political fallout of removing those people who have health care for the first time will be untenable.

I believe the most damaging aspect of Obama’s presidency was that major institutions like the IRS and the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI, were weaponized against political opponents. The IRS used inappropriate criteria to screen and disapprove applications for tax- exempt status of names of any group involving: the Tea Party, or patriots, or with a specific policy position, primarily conservative groups. The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration released a critical report entitled, “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review.” Lois Lerner was the director of the Cincinnati-based Exempt Organization of the IRS. When she went before a congressional committee investigating this, she pleaded the fifth. Four days before the critical report of the inspector general was released, she finally publicly acknowledged and apologized for the practice of targeting these groups. Ultimately, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, settled the case with 400 groups who sued. Barack has maintained this was a rogue agent and he knew nothing about her activities. Nevertheless, I would like to know why Lois Lerner received a full pension despite her stonewalling unlawful policies.

The House Intelligence Committee investigation of the FBI is even more damaging than the IRS debacle. The Republican report from the committee claimed that the FBI acted inappropriately to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, a very low level operative in the Tump campaign. They used the Christopher Steele dossier, which was based on Russian intelligence that was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. A memo that James Comey referred to, in Senate testimony many months later, when the FISA warrants were issued, as containing “Salacious and unverified” material. While the democrats believe their memo refutes the republican memo, there are many questions that were not resolved. Why wasn’t the FISA Court informed specifically that Hillary Clinton was the party responsible for obtaining the dossier. In addition, was the Steele dossier the major evidence used to grant these warrants? Furthermore, if FBI head James Comey, an Obama appointee, knew this memo was unverified, why was it used in the first place?

In addition to the FISA warrants controversy, Mr Comey seems to have acted inappropriately during the Hillary Clinton email investigation. It was discovered that he wrote a memo exonerating Hillary before the investigation was completed. Moreover, the language which would have implicated her to be in violation of the law was changed. The phrase “reckless disregard was crossed out and in its place was written she was “extremely careless.” Also,
The Justice Department released very damaging communications between Peter Strzok, a lead FBI investigator on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and his girl friend Lisa Page, a lawyer for the FBI. He also participated in the Russia probe under Robert Mueller, the special counsel, These communications showed their disdain for Donald Trump. Ultimately, he was fired by Mueller for this conflict.

It is hard not to conclude that the fix was in to exonerate Hillary Clinton. Especially, knowing Bill Clinton, during his wife’s investigation, met with Loretta Lynch, who was the attorney general under Obama. After that meeting, Hillary was not put under oath during her FBI testimony. Unfortunately, the majority of the main-stream media is not actively reporting and investigating this huge story, much bigger than Watergate in my opinion. The one saving grace is the inspector general of the Justice Department will be coming out with a report shortly. This should explain, in a nonpartisan way, exactly what happened during the FISA Court warrant process of the Trump campaign. In addition to this report, it is my understanding he will be reporting on the Hillary Clinton email investigation some time in the future.

According to the New York Times, President Obama was rated by historians as one of the top ten presidents. Apparently, he gets high marks for the dignified way he conducted himself. However, what I cannot resolve is how he escaped criticism from the main-stream media, other than Fox, about statements he made that were either incompetent or bold face lies. For instance, he told the American people that his 787 billion dollar stimulus package had “shovel- ready projects.” He gave the impression that a meaningful amount of this money would be committed to infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal reported that only 60 billion dollars was actually spent on infrastructure. Barack had to finally admit there were very few of these projects since it was a lot more complicated to get their approval Furthermore, he and Hillary Clinton told gold-star families that a Christian preacher’s video criticizing Mohammad was the major cause of the Benghazi Embassy raids. This was proved early on to be patently false. To make matters worse, Susan Rice, his national security secretary, went on TV for a week reporting this false narrative. Moreover, in his selling of the Affordable Care Act to the American people, he stated emphatically you will be able to keep your doctor and plan, which was patently false.

In addition, we recently learned from an FBI report that Obama was informed that the Russians were meddling in our elections as far back as 2014. Yet Obama castigated Trump for complaining about Russian interference during his campaigning. Obama said there is absolutely no evidence to support Trump’s statement, and it is virtually impossible for Russia to have any meaningful control over the election process. During one of the debates with Romney he chastised Romney’s assertion that Russia was our main threat. Then according to The Washington Post in March 26, 2012, with an open microphone Obama was overheard talking to acting Russian President Medevev. He said, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this, can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.“ He was referring to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin. Obama also said, “This is my last election”. He interjects, “After my election, I will have more flexibility.”

Finally, a very troubling event that took place, which was widely publicized, was how President Obama permitted Russia to gain control of 20% of our uranium. Through a very convoluted process, Armz a Russian company took over Uranium One, a Canadian company that had uranium mining reserves in the US. All these events, illustrate that President Obama was not very hawkish when it came to Russia and Putin. It’s ironic, that today, we get a steady drumbeat from the media on how Russia interfered with the last presidential election and President Trump colluded with Russia in order to win the presidency. Trump is constantly being criticized for not speaking out more forcefully against Putin and punishing Russia for undermining our democratic process.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that President Barack Obama looked the part as President. He was immaculately attired, a good family man with a encaging demeanor that many people liked. His defenders would say that republican obstructionism was the primary reason for Barack’s lack of success in implementing his policies. In fact, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, at the very beginning of Barack’s first administration said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president “. There is no doubt that the republicans were acting as obstructionists, Nevertheless, Barack had clear sailing for the first two years of his presidency since the democrats controlled both houses of congress. Moreover, it is politics as usual for the opposition party to push back against any sitting president from implementing policies which are fundamentally counter to their philosophy. As an example, when President Ronald Reagan first came into office, he was met by Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, who said, and I am paraphrasing, welcome to the room that we will be conspiring against you. In addition, Obama was no centrist since he represented an extreme wing of his party. Moreover, even the New York Times, a noted liberal supporting newspaper, several years ago featured a very revealing piece in the “Review Section” on President Obama. It stated he lacked the personality to reach across the isle and schmooze with his opponents in order to gain support for his policies.

In summary, based on his lack of accomplishments, his ineffective domestic and foreign policies, his divisive rhetoric on race relations, and the many statements he made on substantive issues that were patently false, it is very difficult for me to believe that future historians will give him high marks. It is a shame, since he had a wonderful opportunity to improve upon the greatness of this country as an important healer for race relations. His very success is a testament to that greatness However, he squandered that opportunity as a result of his misguided views and philosophy regarding our country, which in his opinion needed major change.