Archive for the ‘U.S. Presidents’ Category

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING IMPEACHMENT

Thursday, December 12th, 2019

 

The Incredible Shrinking Impeachment

The Democratic grounds for ousting Trump are weak—and damaging to constitutional norms.

By the Editorial Board     December 12, 2019

So that’s it? That’s all there is? After all the talk of obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, bribery, extortion, profiting from the Presidency, and more, House Democrats have reduced their articles of impeachment against President Trump to two: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Honey, we shrunk the impeachment.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will vote as early as Thursday on the text of the two articles they unveiled Tuesday, and then they will rush it to the floor next week. It’s enough to suspect that Democrats understand they are offering the weakest case for impeachment since Andrew Johnson, that the public isn’t convinced, and so they simply want to get it over with.

***

At least Johnson was impeached for violating a specific statute, the Tenure of Office Act, by firing Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. There was wide agreement that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton violated criminal statutes. In this case Democrats don’t even try to allege a criminal act.

(more…)

Share

OBAMA FIRED ALL BUSH APPOINTED AMBASSADORS IN 2008

Saturday, November 16th, 2019

 

Please share far and wide as we can’t let the Left push their false narrative.  By the way, how could a seasoned and supposedly tough ambassador be intimidated by one of Trump’s tweets.  Who would of thought that such a tough lady could be such a “snowflake” !!!   Nancy   Trump 2020 !     

FLASHBACK: President Barack Obama Fired All George W. Bush-Appointed Ambassadors in 2008

Former United States ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified Friday about her dismay upon being fired by President Donald Trump, but it’s actually quite common for presidents to do so after taking office.

The State Department issued a December 2008 notice to Bush-appointed ambassadors to submit their resignations, effective when President Barack Obama took office in 2009, according to the Washington Post.

A State Department official told Agence France Presse at the time that demanding all previously appointed ambassadors resign was routine.

“It’s a normal procedure for ambassadors, career and non-career, to submit their resignations. And what happens is that all of them do,” the official said at the time.

Typically, some career ambassadors are later allowed to stay in place on a case by case basis until they are replaced.

Trump also issued a notice asking all Obama-appointed ambassadors to submit their resignations when he prepared to take office, which created controversy at the time, as it appeared that he would not allow extensions.

Yovanovitch was first appointed by Obama in 2016 and confirmed by the Senate. She was asked by the Trump-run State Department to stay on as an ambassador to Ukraine through 2020, but she was fired in May 2019.

Share

U.S. FINANCING CHINA’S WORLD DOMINATION PLANS

Friday, November 15th, 2019

 

This is an article you have to read as there is so much new information in it regarding China and how our financial markets are being used to finance China’s expansion of their technological and military advances.  Nancy
IMPRIMIS – HILLSDALE COLLEGE

Why and How the U.S. Should Stop Financing China’s Bad Actors

October 2019  • Volume 48, Number 10 • Roger W. Robinson, Jr.

Roger W. Robinson, Jr.
Chairman, Prague Security Studies Institute

Roger W. Robinson, Jr. is president and CEO of RWR Advisory Group and co-founder and chairman of the Prague Security Studies Institute. He earned a B.A. from Duke University and an M.A. from George Washington University. He served as senior director of international economic affairs on President Reagan’s National Security Council, where he was the principal architect of the secret economic and financial strategy that proved decisive to the defeat of the Soviet Union. He later served as chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Prior to his government service, he was a vice president in the international department of the Chase Manhattan Bank.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on September 9, 2019, during a conference on the topic, “Understanding China.”

In the early 1980s, I served on President Reagan’s National Security Council. Prior to my time at the White House, I was a vice president at Chase Manhattan Bank, in charge of its USSR and Eastern Europe division. It was my job to assess the creditworthiness of the countries in that part of the world, and I had come to realize that the Soviet Union had relatively modest hard currency income—and that what little it had came largely from the West.

In 1982, the Soviets had an empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, but their hard currency revenue totaled only about $32 billion a year—roughly one-third the annual revenue of General Motors at the time. They were spending about $16 billion more annually than they were making, with the funding gap—the USSR’s life support—being financed by Western governments and banks.

President Reagan had long believed that the Soviet Union was economically vulnerable, because he knew it lacked the entrepreneurship, technological dynamism, and freedoms that are the prerequisites of a strong modern economy. And when he learned that we in the West were financing its brutal regime, he committed to slowing, and ultimately terminating, that flow of discretionary cash.

Our European allies had a completely different approach. Their belief in Ostpolitik, as the Germans called it, presupposed that commercial bridge-building would lead to geopolitical cooperation. If the West would offer financing and trade with the Soviets, peace and prosperity would result. Meanwhile, the Soviets were using the proceeds of Western loans, hard currency revenue streams, and technological support to build up their military, expand their empire, and engage in anti-Western activities.

The Reagan administration drew the line on a project called the Siberian Gas Pipeline, a 3,600-mile twin-strand pipeline that stretched from Siberia into the Western European gas grid. If completed, not only would it become the centerpiece of the Soviets’ hard currency earnings structure, but Western Europe would become dependent on the USSR for over 70 percent of its natural gas, weakening Western Europe’s ties to the U.S. and leaving the continent open to Kremlin extortion. Moreover, the pipeline was being financed on taxpayer-subsidized terms, since France and Germany viewed the USSR as a less developed country worthy of below-market interest rates.

The U.S. at the time had a monopoly on oil and gas technology that could drill through permafrost—which we had developed for Alaska’s North Slopeand we imposed oil and gas equipment sanctions on the USSR and European companies that were helping to build the Siberian pipeline. At one point, despite the strain it placed on relations with our NATO allies, we closed the U.S. market entirely to companies that continued to supply the pipeline project over our objections. Four of the six affected companies went under within six months, and Europeans woke up to the fact that they could do business with us or the Soviets, but not both.

As a result of these efforts we capped Soviet gas deliveries to Western Europe at 30 percent of total supplies, delayed the first strand of the pipeline by years and killed the second strand, and eventually helped dry up the bulk of Western credits to the USSR. In a secret deal, we also persuaded the Saudis to pump an additional two million barrels of oil per day and decontrolled prices at the wellhead in this country, knocking oil prices down to about $10 a barrel—significant because for every dollar decrease in the price of a barrel, the Soviets lost some 500 million to one billion dollars. In short, the Soviet Union never recovered from these economic and financial blows. It defaulted on some $96 billion in Western hard currency debt shortly before the total collapse of the Soviet empire.

The story with China today has certain similarities, but with one big difference: the U.S. has been playing the role of the naïve Europeans. Since adopting the Kissinger policy of engaging with China in the 1970s, our government has operated on the assumption that economic and financial relations with China would lead Beijing to liberalize politically. And since 2001, when we backed China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, the pace at which we have given China access to our best technology and capital and trade markets has accelerated. Yet China has shown no signs of embracing individual freedoms or the rule of law.

Instead, with our support, the Chinese have launched a massive campaign to become the world’s leading superpower. We know about the “Belt and Road Initiative,” a strategic undertaking to place huge segments of the world under China’s influence or outright control. We know about “Made in China 2025,” a strategy designed to dominate key technology sectors—from artificial intelligence and quantum computing to hypersonic missiles and 5G. We know about China’s practice of forced technology transfers: requiring American companies to share their trade secrets and R&D in order to do business in China. We know about China’s predatory trade practices. We know many of these things only because President Trump has brought them to the forefront of national attention, for which he deserves credit. And the ongoing tariff war is a good thing in the sense that we’ve finally begun to take a stand.

(more…)

Share

THIS IMPEACHMENT SUBVERTS THE CONSTITUTION

Saturday, October 26th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution

It’s nakedly political and procedurally defective, and so far there’s no public evidence of high crimes.

Share

OBAMA’S INCREDIBLE MOVIE MAKEOVER

Monday, September 16th, 2019

 

This is an extremely informative and interesting article about the subject of Obama’s first film that he and Michele  produced with Netflix.  As you will read, the author of this article is very critical of the part that Obama played in the original closing of this GM plant during the 2008/2009 financial crisis which Obama does not mention at all in his movie .  Talk about chutzpah !!!
I have included the official trailer of this movie and a link to view the entire movie at the bottom of this WSJ article.   Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obama’s Incredible Movie Makeover

The former president has produced a film about a factory closing—without mentioning his own role in the drama

By Mike Turner,  Mr. Turner, a Republican, represents Ohio’s 10th Congressional District.  He served as mayor of Dayton , 1994 – 2002
September 14, 2019
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  It’s a fascinating and at times moving film. What’s interesting about it, though, is that it never once alludes to the part Mr. Obama played in diminishing the ability of Moraine’s laid off workers to transfer to other GM plants. The president’s role wasn’t indirect and isn’t a matter of dispute: His administration’s bailout deal for GM included a backroom exclusive agreement with the United Auto Workers. The hypocrisy of this Obama-backed film is astounding. Mr. Obama fails to acknowledge his direct role in creating the hardships the Moraine workers weathered. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the plant’s reopening—that was all the work of state and local officials and community leaders.

To put the point bluntly: If the president had his way, there would have been no plant to make a documentary about. “American Factory” would have been “Abandoned Parking Lot.”

Higher Ground, the production company formed last year by Barack and Michelle Obama in conjunction with Netflix, recently released its first film. “American Factory” is a documentary about a General Motors plant in Moraine, Ohio, a suburb of Dayton. The plant closed in 2008 and was reopened by a Chinese auto glass manufacturer in 2015. The film follows the lives of both the laid-off American workers and the Chinese workers brought in to run the new plant.

It’s a fascinating and at times moving film. What’s interesting about it, though, is that it never once alludes to the part Mr. Obama played in diminishing the ability of Moraine’s laid off workers to transfer to other GM plants. The president’s role wasn’t indirect and isn’t a matter of dispute: His administration’s bailout deal for GM included a backroom exclusive agreement with the United Auto Workers.

How does a nearly two-hour film telling the story of these workers fail even to mention the direct role the co-owner of the film’s production company played in creating their hardships? Did the filmmakers think no one would remember?

A quick refresher. The Obama administration’s auto bailout highly favored the UAW and its members. The GM plant in Moraine was unionized by the IUE-CWA. So—despite being one of the top GM facilities for quality, efficiency and production in the country—it was shuttered, and its employees were put at the back of the line when requesting transfers to other GM plants. Any non-UAW employees looking to transfer were forced to start as new hires, wiping clean any wages, tenure, and benefits built up during careers at other GM plants.

American Factory” documents the UAW’s efforts to unionize the reopened auto glass factory without any mention of the same union’s direct role in the GM plant’s closure. The Dayton community was left out in the cold—thousands of jobs lost, families devastated, longtime GM workers out on the street looking for work.

(more…)

Share

GENERAL FLYNN TURNS TABLES ON PROSECUTORS

Friday, September 6th, 2019

 

Flynn Turns Tables on Prosecutors in Major Legal Blitz

September 4, 2019 Updated: September 5, 2019

Attorneys for former national security adviser Michael Flynn launched a major legal challenge in his perjury case on Aug. 30, by seeking a contempt citation against the prosecutors for hiding exculpatory evidence.

The attorneys allege Flynn was targeted for selective prosecution based on illegal surveillance and claim that the office of the special counsel extorted the guilty plea from Flynn.

Sidney Powell, Flynn’s attorney, filed the paperwork for the motions two months after taking over as the defense counsel on the case, replacing the team that Flynn fired in June. Powell, a vociferous critic of government prosecutors, confirmed to The Epoch Times that she ultimately seeks for the case to be dismissed and for Flynn to be exonerated.

The 14-page filing represents the most significant development in Flynn’s case since he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI more than a year ago. Flynn has postponed his sentencing since the guilty plea in order to complete his cooperation with government investigators, including then-special counsel Robert Mueller.

Should the judge side with Flynn on any of the requests, the repercussions would likely expand beyond Flynn’s case, since the defense is demanding for the prosecution to hand over evidence long shielded by the government. These documents—some which have been long withheld, while others are partly redacted—would shed light on the broader special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, as well as the FBI counterintelligence probe from which it evolved.

(more…)

Share

NO, AMERICA WASN’T BUILT ON SLAVERY, BUT FAITH THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

Wednesday, August 28th, 2019

 

An excellent rebuttal to the NYTimes idiocy of basing the founding of our nation to the year 1619. The year of the first slave to arrive. Russian collusion didn’t work so let’s try to divide the country with racism.
Written by one of Hillsdale’s finest grad student.

No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created Equal

By reframing America’s founding around slavery, the New York Times’ 1619 Project misreads history along with the role Americans played in realizing the ideals of the Declaration.
By Joshua Lawson  Joshua Lawson is a graduate student at the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. He is pursuing a masters degree in American politics and political philosophy.
Joshua Lawson

By Joshua Lawson

It’s there in plain sight. Spelled-out in its mission statement, the New York Times’ 1619 Project seeks to “reframe” American history to mark the year 1619 as the “true founding.” By doing so, the project will “[place] the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center” of the American story.

The year 1619 was chosen for the Times’ “re-founding” to mark when the first slaves arrived in the English settlement of Jamestown. For the Times, this moment irredeemably tainted the nation. Yet viewing the centuries-old actions of men through a 21st-century lens will not solve our present social tensions. Slavery was a heart-wrenching, obstacle during America’s birth, but by no objective analysis was it the central factor of the founding as the 1619 Project claims.

Slavery Is a Blight on All Humanity, Not Just America

Slavery was and is an abomination. The ownership of one man over another is an affront to both natural law and our God-given inalienable rights as human beings. It is an evil part of America’s past—as well as that of nearly every nation on earth. The fact that slavery has a universal heritage does not absolve American slave owners, but it does provide a necessary historical context.

During the 17th century, slavery was, sadly, an accepted part of life throughout the world. By A.D. 1619, slavery had existed for more than 5000 years, dating back at least to Mesopotamia. At the time the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown, the Spanish and Portuguese had been enslaving blacks and native peoples in the New World for more than 100 years. Native American tribes had been enslaving each other for who knows how long before that.

What’s notable about the United States is not that its citizens held slaves, but that the West’s crusade to end slavery began after Jefferson penned the aspirational words of America’s founding document.

America’s Founding Ideals Aren’t Lies

Written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the 7,600-word flagship essay of the 1619 Project asserts that “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written.” Forgiving the fact that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic, what ideals does she mean? The central organizing principle of the American founding was the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Hannah-Jones claims, “white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.” She provides no evidence or examples for this sweeping assertion. Alternatively, we know from numerous primary sources that the Founding Fathers did believe those words.

Jefferson’s original final draft of the Declaration explicitly referred to black slaves not as property but as men and castigated King George III for suppressing parliamentary efforts to prohibit or restrain “this execrable commerce” (referring to slavery). Letters written to John Jay show Alexander Hamilton hoping the Revolutionary War could lead to the emancipation of blacks and appraising them equal to whites in their abilities. Additional examples are plentiful.

Without the Founders’ Compromise, America Wouldn’t Exist

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – MARK LEVIN – POLITICAL CORRECTNESS LIFE, LIBERTY, AND LEVIN SHOW

Monday, August 19th, 2019

 

VIDEO   MARK LEVIN  – LIFE, LIBERTY AND LEVIN   AUGUST 18, 2019

Dr. Charles Kesler joins Mark Levin on “Life, Liberty & Levin” to discuss political correctness and its intolerance for the moral imperfection of fellow Americans.

Charles Kesler is a Claremont Senior Fellow and editor of the Claremont Review of Books.

Share

YOU CAN’T BLAME TRUMP FOR BALTIMORE’S FAILURE

Saturday, August 3rd, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

You Can’t Blame Trump for Baltimore’s Failure

Ineffective and dishonest politicians have used racism as a shield from criticism for half a century.

August 2, 2019   By Fred Siegel        Mr. Siegel is a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Washington’s efforts to revive Baltimore have enriched local politicians but left the city in far worse shape than Mr. Rangel’s Harlem. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the Obama stimulus—poured $1.8 billion into Baltimore with no discernible effect. The 2015 antipolice riots made matters worse.

To make sense of President Trump’s dust-up with Rep. Elijah Cummings, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party, you have to go back to Baltimore in April 1968, when the city was overwhelmed by a riot in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. The National Guard and city police proved unable to contain the situation. Mayor Tommy D’Alesandro III, Mrs. Pelosi’s elder brother, pleaded with President Lyndon B. Johnson to send in federal troops.

In 1968 Maryland hadn’t yet been absorbed by the wealth of Washington. It was still a semi-Southern state, lying below the Mason-Dixon Line. Republican Spiro Agnew—later Richard Nixon’s vice president—had been elected governor in 1966 over a segregationist Democratic nominee. In the black areas of West and East Baltimore, the King assassination triggered four days of rioting and looting.

The conflict was so fierce that the Baltimore police, 500 state troopers and 6,000 National Guardsmen were unable to quell it. Finally the “insurrection” was halted when Johnson deployed nearly 5,000 Army troops at Agnew’s request. By the time it was over, six people were dead. Mr. D’Alesandro, who had considered running for governor, was so humiliated by the rioting in a city where his father has been mayor before him that he decided to withdraw from elective politics.

Earlier that year, the Johnson administration reluctantly released the report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly known as the Kerner Commission. The report wasn’t to LBJ’s liking because it implied that his Great Society was an insignificant down payment on racial redress. The presidential panel—assembled to explain the 1967 race riots in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and Newark, N.J.—should have been called the Lindsay Commission, after its vice chairman, New York Mayor John Lindsay. America’s racial problems, the report claimed, could be singularly attributed to white racism: “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.”

Over time, the Kerner Commission’s view of racism became gospel in the media, academia and the Democratic Party. An intellectual Iron Curtain descended to protect black politicians—including ineffective ones like Mr. Cummings and even con men like the Rev. Al Sharpton—by denouncing their critics as racist.

(more…)

Share

BARACK OBAMA WAS VERY DIVISIVE

Friday, August 2nd, 2019

 

August 1st, 2019

Barack Obama Was Pretty Damned Divisive

It was not Donald Trump who told supporters to take guns to knife fights.It was not Donald Trump who told Hispanic voters that Republicans were their enemies.It was not Donald Trump who encouraged people to report their neighbors for lying about him and his healthcare plan.It was not Donald Trump who built an app to show you if your neighbor was a Republican.It was not Donald Trump who derisively referred to some as clinging to their guns and religion.That was all Barack Obama.It was Barack Obama who divided the nation between us and them. It was Barack Obama who targeted Christians for ridicule and sought to punish nuns and Christian small businesses. It was Barack Obama who targeted Catholic charities. It was Barack Obama who used a strategy of “othering” and division to win the election. It was Barack Obama who tried to shame gun owners and target the Koch Foundation and the NRA.The Obama Administration did this all with ruthlessness that included using the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservatives.

It was not Donald Trump who told supporters to take guns to knife fights.

It was not Donald Trump who told Hispanic voters that Republicans were their enemies.

It was not Donald Trump who encouraged people to report their neighbors for lying about him and his healthcare plan.

It was not Donald Trump who built an app to show you if your neighbor was a Republican.

It was not Donald Trump who derisively referred to some as clinging to their guns and religion.

That was all Barack Obama.

It was Barack Obama who divided the nation between us and them. It was Barack Obama who targeted Christians for ridicule and sought to punish nuns and Christian small businesses. It was Barack Obama who targeted Catholic charities. It was Barack Obama who used a strategy of “othering” and division to win the election. It was Barack Obama who tried to shame gun owners and target the Koch Foundation and the NRA.

The Obama Administration did this all with ruthlessness that included using the Internal Revenue Service to harass conservatives.

To the extent Donald Trump’s administration is doing anything divisive, they learned well from Barack Obama.

It is fully ridiculous to hear news analysts, reporters, and Democrats talk about Donald Trump using the politics of division to win.

That is exactly what Barack Obama did and do not forget it.

Share
Search All Posts
Categories