OBAMA AGAIN

Politics latest: Obama arrives in Downing Street for unannounced meeting
Former US president Barack Obama has arrived in Downing Street for an undisclosed private meeting.
Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak has insisted Tory MPs are united following reports of a plot to oust him before the election. Listen to the latest Politics At Jack And Sam's as you scroll.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-obama-arrives-in-downing-street-for-unannounced-meeting-12593360

https://www.israelunwired.com/obamas-vile-move-to-netanyahu-in-a-private-meeting-has-been-revealed/?
OBAMA’S VILE MOVE TO NETANYAHU IN A PRIVATE MEETING HAS BEEN REVEALED 
written by Phil Schneider August 13, 2023 6.5K views
Who were the US Presidents who were the most friendly to Israel, and who were the US Presidents that were the most unfriendly to Israel? There is no question that Harry Truman and Donald Trump seemed to be the US President’s who were the most friendly, at least via their policies.
 But as for the most hostile Presidents to Israel – it was either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. This video may just place Obama as the #1 most hostile President to the State of Israel.
VIDEO
For all of you who still love Obama, please listen to what Michael Oren just said. And if you think Obama never did this, think again.

Jimmy Carter was an unknown politician when he catapulted to the leadership of the Democrat Party and into the Oval Office. He certanly did not have strong foreign policy credentials. At a certain point in his struggling Presidency, he decided to make human rights across the world his signature issue. He was failing miserably with his domestic policies. Both Democrats and Republicans gave him tremendous angst via stiff opposition to his efforts to balance the budget and curb deficit spending. Truth be told, he tried very hard where very few others did, and should probably have been given more support for those efforts. But the pressure from Congress to keep up spending was too strong. So Carter looked abroad where he had more leeway to exercise policy without as much opposition from Washingon.

But Carter simply saw the entire Middle East problem from a squrely anti-Israel perspective. To the end of his life, he has always seen Israel as the aggressor and the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. He viewed Israel as the violator of human rights of Arabs with legitimate claims to a homeland of their own. No matter how much terror Israel endured, he never saw the Arabs as the aggressor. He was flat wrong on everything about Israel.

Carter pressured Begin to give up the entire Sinai in order to achieve “peace” with Egypt. Israel ended up giving in on nearly every demand from Sadat. Israel has not had a warm fuzzy relationship with Egypt since then. But at least, there have been no wars with Egypt in more than 40 years. This should not be underestimated. It was a major and historic accomplishment in the Middle East, and it was the opening to other peace treaties with other countries – Jordan, UAE, Bahrain…

But Barack Obama has done nothing that helped Israel or the Middle East. He cared less about human rights in Iran, and allowed Iran to kill and jail human rights protesters without doing anything substantive about it. He could have squeezed Iran finanically and that may have led to the toppling of the radical Islamic regime in Iran. Instead, Obama chose to put the squeeze on Israel and Netanyahu. ISIS went from a minor annoyance to a major threat to the entire Middle East under Obama’s tenure, and the Syrian Civil War festered for years. Moreover, Obama has brought anti-Israel policies to be the new norm in the Democrat Party for many young and future Congressmen and Congresswomen.

The negative effects of the Obama Presidency will be felt for many years to come in the Democrat Party.

MEETINGMICHAEL ORENNETANYAHUOBAMA

Open in app or online
Obama's third administration?
A Tablet article has struck a nerve and got the Beltway buzzing
MELANIE PHILLIPS
AUG 6
Former US President Barack Obama
US Beltway-watchers have been buzzing over a long conversation in Tablet between David Samuels and David Garrow, author of a biography of Barack Obama called Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama.

Garrow, a prize-winning civil rights historian who specialises in excavating details overlooked by others, became a pariah on the left with his previous book about Martin Luther King in which he revealed from FBI wiretaps evidence of King’s drinking and womanising.

In Rising Star, Garrow effectively took apart Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father. Garrow interviewed a number of people to whom Obama had referred or whom he had quoted. These interviewees gave Garrow a radically different account from the one that Obama had written, leading Garrow to conclude that Obama’s narrative couldn’t be true.

The most explosive claims in Rising Star were made by Obama’s former live-in girlfriend in the 1980s, Sheila Miyoshi Jager.  In Obama’s own book, he described a major row with a girlfriend (who was a composite of various girlfriends) after they had seen a play. He depicted the row as pitting his own black consciousness against the girlfriend’s white liberal universalism — for him, the defining existential struggle.

But Garrow tracked down Jager, who told him that the row that ended their relationship — he twice asked her to marry him, but was turned down — was not about Obama’s black consciousness but his refusal to condemn black antisemitism. ...
https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/obamas-third-administration?

https://worldisraelnews.com/iran-has-friends-from-obama-biden-admins-warns-saudi-scholar/?utm_source=jeeng
Iran has ‘friends’ from Obama, Biden admins, warns Saudi scholar
 August 25, 2022
Iran has ‘friends’ from Obama, Biden admins, warns Saudi scholarThen-VP Joe Biden (l) and former President Barack Obama, Jan. 4, 2017. (AP/Susan Walsh)
 Email  Print 
Tehran has long had sympathizers in the American government, “specifically within the left-leaning Democrat administrations,” says Saudi writer and researcher.

By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News

A prominent Saudi researcher said that high-ranking officials in the Biden and Obama administrations are sympathetic to Iran and willing to look the other way when it comes to the Islamic Republic’s support for terror.

During an interview on Saudi TV channel MBC TV, Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi also said that the Obama administration had viewed a potential handover of power in Arab countries to Muslim extremist groups in a positive light.

“Let’s talk about the Western reactions [to the attack on Salman Rushdie],” the interviewer said while speaking to Al-Otiabi, in an Arabic-language clip translated by MEMRI.

“Why does the West continue to deal with the Iranian religious extremism with such clear double standards?”

The journalist seemed to be implying while the U.S. takes a robust approach towards clamping down on some Muslim extremists, like ISIS, the attitude towards Iranian terrorism is tamer.

“Unfortunately, [the Iranians] have friends in Washington, specifically within the left-leaning Democrat administrations, beginning with the administration of Barack Obama and [including] the administration we have today,” Al-Otaibi responded. “They have far left, liberal political convictions.”

He added that “most of the officials in the current administration worked for [the Obama] administration.”

Expanding on the Obama administration years, Al-Otaibi said the former president’s “views, policies and vision have been made public.”

Obama “believes that he should make peace with the terrorist Iranian regime and to hand over authority in the Arab countries to Sunni terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and similar political Islamic movements. He sees this as the magic solution for the Middle East.”

“We saw how these policies killed the Arabs in Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Some Arab countries managed to get rid of the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ which was, in fact, a dark, blood-soaked, murderous spring,” he said.

https://worldisraelnews.com/iran-has-friends-from-obama-biden-admins-warns-saudi-scholar/?utm_source=jeeng
Iran has ‘friends’ from Obama, Biden admins, warns Saudi scholar
 August 25, 2022
Iran has ‘friends’ from Obama, Biden admins, warns Saudi scholarThen-VP Joe Biden (l) and former President Barack Obama, Jan. 4, 2017. (AP/Susan Walsh)
 Email  Print 
Tehran has long had sympathizers in the American government, “specifically within the left-leaning Democrat administrations,” says Saudi writer and researcher.

By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News

A prominent Saudi researcher said that high-ranking officials in the Biden and Obama administrations are sympathetic to Iran and willing to look the other way when it comes to the Islamic Republic’s support for terror.

During an interview on Saudi TV channel MBC TV, Abdullah Bin Bijad Al-Otaibi also said that the Obama administration had viewed a potential handover of power in Arab countries to Muslim extremist groups in a positive light.

“Let’s talk about the Western reactions [to the attack on Salman Rushdie],” the interviewer said while speaking to Al-Otiabi, in an Arabic-language clip translated by MEMRI.

“Why does the West continue to deal with the Iranian religious extremism with such clear double standards?”

The journalist seemed to be implying while the U.S. takes a robust approach towards clamping down on some Muslim extremists, like ISIS, the attitude towards Iranian terrorism is tamer.

“Unfortunately, [the Iranians] have friends in Washington, specifically within the left-leaning Democrat administrations, beginning with the administration of Barack Obama and [including] the administration we have today,” Al-Otaibi responded. “They have far left, liberal political convictions.”

He added that “most of the officials in the current administration worked for [the Obama] administration.”

Expanding on the Obama administration years, Al-Otaibi said the former president’s “views, policies and vision have been made public.”

Obama “believes that he should make peace with the terrorist Iranian regime and to hand over authority in the Arab countries to Sunni terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and similar political Islamic movements. He sees this as the magic solution for the Middle East.”

“We saw how these policies killed the Arabs in Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Some Arab countries managed to get rid of the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ which was, in fact, a dark, blood-soaked, murderous spring,” he said.

https://rightwingnewshour.com/after-obamas-birth-certificate-is-released-one-supreme-court-chief-justice-drops-major-bombshell-9/?
After Obama’s Birth Certificate is Released, One Supreme Court Chief Justice Drops Major Bombshell
Uh oh…
by Chris Dorsano
June 24, 2022
Barack Obama
Photo Courtesy of Charles McCain via Creative Commons License
There has been a theory going around for quite some time that Barack Obama was not born here in the United States.

That theory has been openly supported by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after Obama’s own brother tweeted out an image that once again brought the issue of Obama being a “birther” into question.

A Big Question
According to Moore, there is more than enough reason to cast doubt on Obama actually having been born in our country.

During an appearance on CNN’s “KFile,” he stated, “My opinion is, there is a big question about that.

“My personal belief is that he wasn’t, but that’s probably over and done in a few days unless we get something else to come along.”

Moore was more than likely referring to the fact nobody really wants to go down this road and anyone that does is openly attacked.

The former Alabama Chief Justice had held this belief for quite some time.

Back in 2008, he stated, “I don’t see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born.

“Obama has the answer.

“He knows where he was born.

“If he tells something that’s untrue that’s another matter.

“It’s not an Obama issue, it’s an American issue.

“It’s about the Constitution of the United States.”

This was also an issue raised by Trump when he was a candidate in 2016 and years before.

Family Betrayal
While the media has regularly spun this as a right-wing attack, that is not exactly true.

Barack Obama’s own brother has added fuel to the fire by tweeting out images of Obama’s birth certificate.

While Barack Obama has always maintained he was born in Hawaii, the image his brother sent out was a birth certificate that appears to have originated in Kenya.

We are three years after Obama’s presidency and yes, people are still talking about it, because many believe that if Obama was not born here, he would not have our best interests at heart.

From the divide he created when he was in office and the divide Democrats continue to cause today, it looks like they were all right.

Former President Barack Obama says UFO sightings appear to be real
(OPINION) ETH – Former President Barack Obama has laughed off rumors that the US government has a secret stash of aliens and their spacecraft — while conceding that there really are UFO sightings that the government can’t explain.
“When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just can’t tell you on air,” the 44th commander-in-chief teased James Corden in a video chat on “The Late Late Show” aired early Tuesday.
Continue reading Former President Barack Obama says UFO sightings appear to be real at End Time Headlines.
Read on » https://endtimeheadlines.org/2021/05/former-president-barack-obama-says-ufo-sightings-appear-to-be-real/

How a Secret Obama Directive Brought Chaos to Our World: PSD11
By F. William Engdahl
WilliamEngdahl.com
February 5, 2021
Obama’s PSD-11 and the Muslim Brotherhood
In 2010 the US Administration under President Barack Obama had developed a top secret blueprint for the most ambitious and far-ranging series of US-backed regime change across the Islamic Middle East since World War I and the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement. It was to set off a wave of wars and chaos, of failed states and floods of war refugees unimaginable to the most cynical veteran diplomat, and beyond the belief of most lay persons in the world.

In August, 2010, six months before Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution was launched by the Washington NGOs including the NED, the Soros Foundations, Freedom House and others, President Obama signed Presidential Study Directive-11 (PDS-11), ordering Washington government agencies to prepare for “change.”  The change was to be a radical policy calling for Washington’s backing for the secret fundamentalist Islamic Muslim Brotherhood sect across the Middle East Muslim world, and with it, the unleashing of a reign of terror that would change the entire world.

According to US Congressional testimony of Peter Hoekstra, former Chairman of the US House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Obama Administration PSD-11 directive–as of March 2017 still classified Top Secret–“ordered a government-wide reassessment of prospects for political reform in the Middle East and of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the process. ” [1]
A Grandiose Task Force
To draft the contents of PSD-11, a top secret task force was established within the Obama National Security Council (NSC), headed by Dennis Ross, Samantha Power, Gayle Smith, Ben Rhodes and Michael McFaul. [2]

The PSD-11 Task Force members were remarkable in many regards. Samantha Power, who would go on to become Obama’s UN Ambassador and lead the demonizing of Russia after the CIA’s Ukraine Color Revolution coup in 2014, was to play an instrumental role in convincing President Obama that Libya’s Mohammar Qaddafi must be militarily removed for what she called  “humanitarian reasons.” [3] Dennis Ross, accused by Palestinian opponents of being “more pro-Israeli than the Israelis,”
MORE https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/no_author/how-a-secret-obama-directive-brought-chaos-to-our-world-psd11/

https://gellerreport.com/2021/01/impeach-obama-for-inciting-black-lives-matter-riots.html/
“Impeach Obama for Inciting Black Lives Matter Riots”
By Pamela Geller - on January 28, 2021
OBAMA
And then impeach him again for spying on a Presidential candidate and another for spying on journalists.
Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.
Impeach Obama for Inciting Black Lives Matter Riots
By Daniel Greenfield, January 26, 2021 (thanks to Inexion);
On May 31st, a violent Black Lives Matter mob burned American flags, threw bottles at police officers, and started a fire in the historic ‘Church of Presidents’ which had been visited by almost every president. Another building was set on fire, and windows across the area were smashed by the rampaging BLM mob wielding baseball bats, bricks, and even more lethal weapons.
Helicopter footage showed the Washington Monument wreathed in smoke from the fires set by the massive BLM assault on the center of our government. But while the BLMers assaulted numerous buildings, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, and had vandalized historical landmarks, including the Lincoln Memorial, the real target of the radicals was the White House.
60 members of the Secret Service and 150 law enforcement officers in total were eventually injured. As the BLM mob assailed the White House, the Secret Service took President Trump and his family to a bunker: an eventuality meant to deal with terrorist or nuclear attacks.
Black Lives Matter mobs didn’t break through to the White House, but they managed to set the White House guardhouse on fire. Instead of condemning this extremist assault on our nation, Democrats supported the rioters and falsely claimed that law enforcement had assaulted “peaceful protesters” for a “photo op”, and demanded the removal of the National Guard.
Democrats and their media allies sneered at President Trump for retreating to a bunker.
Barack Obama, as the first black man to sit in the White House, a D.C. resident, and the politician who had done the most to bolster the racist and radical BLM movement burning American cities, had the opportunity to put out the fires. Instead he poured on more gasoline.
After the White House attack, Obama delivered a speech at his own foundation’s event which made no mention of the assault on the house he had formerly occupied or the threat of violence to his successor. Obama then spoke to Brittany Packnett Cunningham, described as, “one of the most prominent activists behind the Black Lives Matter movement” whom he had appointed to serve on his Task Force on 21st Century Policing after the Ferguson riots.
Obama began his speech by once again accusing America of racism, which he described as an “original sin”, and praised the mobs terrorizing the country. Instead of condemning the violent attack on the White House, he falsely claimed that the violence was the work of a “tiny minority”.
Then, putting the lie to his false claim, he chatted with Brittany Packnett Cunningham who had previously urged attendees to repeat a chant by domestic terrorist Assata Shakur still wanted by the FBI for her role in the murder of a police officer. Shakur is the icon of BLM and while Democrats accuse Republicans of being domestic terrorists, the movement they embraced is built around one of the FBI’s top ten most wanted terrorists from a violent racist hate group.
The month before, she had tweeted Martin Luther King’s quote about a riot being the “language of the unheard” while appending her own text, “Property damage at protests, 101”.
Not only wasn’t the violence coming from a tiny minority, but Obama’s own event was complicit.
Obama’s speech described the turmoil as “profound as anything that I’ve seen in my lifetime”, and urged that, “at some point, protests start to dwindle in size. And it’s very important for us to take the momentum that has been created… and say, let’s use this to finally have an impact.”
Every American man and woman who had been assaulted, robbed, and threatened by Obama’s mobs felt the impact. The police officers in the hospital, the shopkeepers sifting through the rubble, and the dead in the BLM riots felt the impact. Obama could have stopped the violence, instead his political support for the violent racist BLM terrorists helped keep the riots going.
While in the White House, Obama had helped incite the racist BLM movement.
When the Ferguson riots broke out after Michael Brown robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer, Obama and his administration incited violence by spreading false claims without evidence that Brown had been an innocent victim of police racism.
The DOJ attempted to suppress the surveillance video showing Brown’s attack on a minority store clerk, and Democrats refused to stop spreading false claims that he had been murdered.
Recently, Senator Kamala Harris doubled down on the lie, inciting violence by falsely claiming that “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”
Obama claimed that “the anger and the emotion that followed his death awakened our nation”.
The BLM racial terrorist movement, backed monetarily by left-wing foundations and corporations, timed its riots to coincidence with election years. These were not mere race riots: they were and are election riots that exploit the shooting of a criminal to help the Democrats.
The biggest years of BLM and proto-BLM riots in 2014, 2016, and 2020 were election years.
When Obama and the Democrats fed the racial supremacist agenda of BLM, they were engaging in a campaign of political terror to turn out votes and tilt elections in their favor.
In 2016, the BLM riots surged again.
On July 7, 2016, Obama delivered a speech from the Marriott in Warsaw falsely accusing the police of racism against black people. That same day, Micah X. Johnson, who had attended BLM rallies, set out to murder as many white Dallas police officers as he could. He killed 5.
Obama spoke at the funeral of the police officers in defense of the racist hate group that killed them, and continued to incite violence by falsely accusing police officers of “the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota” at a funeral for police officers.
Sterling had raped a 14-year-old girl and was shot by police officers after reaching for a gun.
“Even those who dislike the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter,’ surely we should be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family,” Obama had urged.
Earlier that year, Obama had invited BLM organizers, including Brittany Packnett Cunningham and DeRay Mckesson, as well as Al Sharpton, to the White House. Mckesson had been sued that year by a Baton Rouge police officer who suffered brain trauma and lost teeth after being assaulted by a McKesson organized mob at a BLM protest for child rapist Alton Sterling.
Obama had invited a man accused of having “incited the violence” that crippled a police officer.
The Supreme Court case of Mckesson v. Doe, in which the racist movement was represented by Covington & Burling attorneys, was tossed by the Supreme Court with Justice Thomas, the court’s only black justice dissenting, but it’s already playing a role in the attempt to impeach President Trump over false allegations that he had somehow incited the Capitol riot.
The Democrats would like to continue impeaching President Trump even after he leaves office.
But if a president can be impeached even after he leaves office for supporting protests that turn violent, then Obama’s impeachment should be next. Obama’s long history of supporting Black Lives Matter is a matter of public record. Obama’s defenders will argue that he urged peaceful protests. So did President Trump. It hasn’t stopped Obama’s cronies from impeaching Trump.
The Democrat case against President Trump hinges on using the word, “fight” in his speech.
At Obama’s BLM event at the White House, Brittany Packnett Cunningham had urged, “we have to take the fight everywhere.”
On the campaign trail for Biden in Philadelphia Obama had ranted, “We can’t abandon those protesters who inspired us. We’ve got to channel their activism into action, we can’t just imagine a better future. We’ve got to fight for it.”
A week later, massive riots broke out in Philly that brought out the Pennsylvania National Guard. A curfew was imposed across multiple districts as mobs of thousands rampaged through the streets. Thirty police officers were injured: including a female officer who was hit by a car.
That’s how the “protesters” were fighting for that better future.
The case for impeaching Barack Obama is simple enough. He backed a violent racist hate group. He delivered multiple speeches in support of its extremist cause while falsely claiming that America was racist and that the racist protests were justified. After he used the word “fight” in a speech, devastating riots followed that brought a great American city to its knees.
That’s the same case that the Democrats have made for impeaching President Trump.
If it’s good enough to impeach President Trump, it’s good enough to impeach Obama.
Obama abused his office to support a racist hate group. He invited members of the racist hate group to the White House. Including those accused of inciting violence. He used his office to undermine law enforcement efforts to stop the extremist violence. And the end result has been thousands of injuries, numerous deaths, and billions of dollars in damages across America.
Impeaching Obama won’t fix all of that. But it will offer justice to some of BLM’s victims.

https://www.israelunwired.com/obama-admin-knowingly-funded-terror-linked-group-heres-the-proof/

OBAMA ADMIN KNOWINGLY FUNDED TERROR-LINKED GROUP – HERE’S THE PROOF
written by Phil Schneider January 6, 2021 2823 views
During the first year or two of the Obama administration, many were trying to figure out if Barack Obama was indeed hostile to the State of Israel or if he simply was not pro-Israel. He barely had any political experience to extrapolate his future policies from. But, very quickly, he made good on his pledge to be a transformative president. He did not want to leave the world as it was by the end of his administration. That is indeed what he did. What he did locally with healthcare, his signature policy within the confines of the United States, he did with the Iran agreement, his most controversial policy outside the borders of the United States.

https://rumble.com/vcbaah-obama-admin.-knowingly-funded-terror-linked-organization.html

When Barack Obama realized that he had much more room to maneuver on foreign policy issues than on domestic issues, Obama unleashed his controversial pro-Muslim ideologies on the Middle East. His speech in Cairo made major waves in the entire Middle East. Egypt’s stable non-radical leadership found themselves suddenly under siege by anti-Government protesters – many of whom were radical Muslim brotherhood members. Ultimately, Egypt was led temporarily by a radical Muslim group. Fortunately, that did not last long and Egypt returned to a more moderate mindset. However, in other countries, especially Syria and Iraq became countries filled with radical Islamic militants fighting incessantly against each other. ISIS became the #1 concern of the entire Middle East. The scary part of this video is that it displays the troubling fact that the Obama administration became the leading funder of terror in the Middle East via the Iran agreement.
Of course, Obama explained this away with language filled with appeasement. But, if anyone needs clarification on this issue, let them just listen to the same refrain that Iranian leaders have been saying for years since Donald Trump’s elections – “Get rid of the sanctions.” The Iranian leadership enjoyed the Obama siesta when they were able to get away with more and more of their nuclear plans. If the Trump administration policies are followed up with further appeasement from the Biden administration, then Israel will have to take matters into their own hands once again. Israel will not sit and allow an existential threat to grow and grow without doing anything about it.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/leader-5-year-coup-attempt-puppeteer-barack-obama/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=dlvrit&utm_content=2020-12-21&fbclid=IwAR2wYOiAXimNCPR-gfm-xftvg4pdRz72RTyPUqeVEb40TYJmsY43YsJ_vV0
COMMENTARY WND NEWS CENTER
OPERATION SNOW GLOBE
The leader of the 5-year coup attempt: Puppeteer Barack Obama
Exclusive: Lt. Col. James Zumwalt connects the dots in wake of businessman's claim of bribing Hillary
Lt. Col. James Zumwalt By Lt. Col. James Zumwalt
Published December 21, 2020 at 7:45pm
During a 2003 panel discussion on terrorism, the observation was made that, prior to 9/11, America failed to connect the dots leading up to that fateful day. In today's chaotic world, it is easy to miss isolated dots concerning issues we should be connecting. A story revealed just last week – a firsthand account by a most reliable source, Patrick Byrne, billionaire founder of the Internet furniture retailer Overstock.com – suggests we again have failed to do so.

Byrne's story is most disturbing. It details how Hillary Clinton received yet another "get out of jail card" for previously unknown criminal conduct swept under the rug – and the ominous reason why. His claim, when connected to other dots, lends credibility to his story.

Among the dots are the following:
In modern times, U.S. presidents traditionally retire to their home states, having little desire to remain in Washington, D.C. They recognize their time is up and the present president should not feel uncomfortable by a past president's presence in his backyard. It is kind of an unspoken courtesy observed since Woodrow Wilson left the White House in 1921, although a few departing presidents have lived temporarily in Washington, D.C. Two presidents leaving office who subsequently chose to remain permanently were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Understandably, the Clintons bought a Washington, D.C. home in 2000 as Hillary had been elected to the Senate. However, Obama's decision to rent, and later buy, a home in Washington, D.C., may, if Byrne's story is true, have been driven by a more sinister motive.
In a recent video interview, Obama made a strange revelation. He said he would be fine running a presidency from the basement of his home, with a way to communicate with a "front" person. He shared, "I used to say, if, if, I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man, a front woman and they had an earpiece in and I was in the basement in my sweats … I'd be fine with that." But did he mean during his presidency or after?
Incoming 'Squad' member says 'our current system of capitalism is slavery by another name'
TRENDING: Why so many RINOs have turned on Trump

Earlier this year, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi established a commission to explore the need for Congress to remove a mentally unfit president from office. She said at the time, "This is not about President Trump. … But he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents." With the numerous gaffes, lapses in thought, etc., presidential candidate Joe Biden displayed, suggesting mental deterioration, could it be Pelosi knew Biden would win the election but then be hard-pressed to lead the country?
There were two individuals with enormous impact on the Biden campaign – Obama and Hungarian-born American multi-billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros. According to research reports by the Sturgis-Fellowes Institute, both sought to maneuver Sen. Kamala Harris into the White House in 2020. This was why Obama was hesitant, before Biden emerged as the Democratic Party's winner, to endorse him. Soros especially sought a candidate who, like Obama, had broad appeal. He, in fact, enlisted Obama in the effort "to teach Senator Harris how to be silky smooth in her rhetoric and delivery." Primary voters obviously did not agree with Soros as Harris had to drop out of the presidential race. However, clearly these two men influenced Biden to select her as his running mate. Unsurprisingly, among the first to congratulate her after Biden's selection was Soros' son, Alexander.

When Obama initially chose to rent a Washington, D.C., home, it was with the total expectation he would be followed into the Oval Office by Hillary. (More on this is shared by Byrne below.) However, her surprising loss still left Obama well positioned geographically to establish a shadow government. When Rep. John Lewis made it clear Democrats did not view Trump as a legitimate president because of false allegations of Russian collusion, Michele Obama – in a stealthy but subversive tweet – praised Lewis as a civil rights hero in an effort to embrace the speaker of those words without directly embracing the words themselves. She added that "great leaders" like Lewis should be "our call to action." Meanwhile, Barack Obama, in his own subversive tweet, expressed support for the anti-Trump protesters, saying he was "heartened" by them. Left unmentioned was the fact his political network, Organizing for Action, had played a role in promoting the protests. Situated just 2 miles from the White House, the Obamas worked with other Democrats to destroy Trump's presidency to preserve Obama's legacy.
With this year's presidential election over and Biden supporters confident their man will be sworn in on Jan. 20, a noticeable development has occurred among mainstream media (MSM). Before the election, they would not touch the Bidens' questionable dealings with China; but MSM now seems to focus on covering them. Meanwhile, the only person defending the Bidens at this point is Joe. A national defense analyst suggests this sudden media interest may be foreboding – a sign Democrats are setting Joe up for a fall. If so, it obviously would fulfill the goal set by Obama and Soros to seat their "Wonder Woman" – Kamala Harris – in the Oval Office.
With these dots in mind, the following post-election revelation shared by Byrne about Hillary and Barack connects them.

Not only does Byrne's reputation as a successful businessman give credibility to what he says, but so too does the fact he is by no means a Trump supporter – having voted for him neither in 2016 nor 2020. His story will be detailed in more detail in the long-awaited John Durham investigative report. Durham is the Department of Justice attorney assigned by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI's investigation of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian state agents.

In a recent bombshell interview, Byrne discusses "Operation Snow Globe." He says, "I facilitated a bribe for Hillary Clinton on January 14, 2016 … on behalf of the FBI." He claims the FBI came to him on Dec. 1, 2015, to disclose that Hillary had previously accepted a $20 million bribe from the Turkish government. They told Byrne they had authorization to set Hillary up in a sting and his services were needed to facilitate it. The sting involved an $18 million bribe from another government (ironically believed to be Russia). Byrne's mission was to get Hillary alone for 10 minutes in a room where that government's representative would meet with her. Hillary discreetly did so, making sure she kept the meeting off her official calendar, and accepted the bribe. Byrne says Attorney General William Barr knows about the sting operation as well as Durham.

What Byrne shared next was what made him go public with what he knows and how, after doing so, people will understand what has been going on in America.

Byrne says three days after the sting, the FBI came back and informed him he would have to forget about what happened. Inquiring why, he was told Hillary was clearly going to win the 2016 presidential election and when she did, she would send her own people over to the FBI to bury the evidence of her bribery. Anyone involved in the investigation would be destroyed, including Byrne. He was told the operation had been scrubbed at the highest level.

While Byrne initially accepted this decision, it did not sit well with him. Three weeks later, he made his frustrations known to the FBI. He said there was ample time before the election for him to appear before a grand jury to testify and for Hillary to be indicted. Again the FBI declined. But what they told him next, Byrne explains, is key to understanding what has been happening in America the past five years. He recounts being told the following:

"President Obama has his people across this federal bureaucracy at this point but especially the Department of Justice. Hillary is going to be president for eight years, and nothing is going to change that."

Advertisement - story continues below

Ads by Revcontent
Last Nights Episode Left Viewers Speechless!
Amz
Shockingly, FBI agents then shared Obama's plan to manipulate Hillary:

"… think of her (Hillary) being a Bunsen burner within the Department of Justice. That evidence about the two bribes … is going to be sitting on the Bunsen burner, and the hand on the Bunsen burner is going to be one of Barack Obama's people. If Hillary is a good girl and defends Obamacare, that flame stays low. If she's a bad girl and thinks for herself, it's going to get turned up high. That way Barack Obama is going to manage Hillary for the eight years she is president, and then she's going to step down and Michelle is going to run. … That's the plan. That came out of the lips of a federal agent. It was confirmed to me this spring that … plan was called Operation Snow Globe. That was Brennan and Obama's name for it. They were trying to get Hillary to step into a snow globe … that any time they wanted they could then pick it up and shake for eight years. My bribe was the bait to get her to step into the snow globe. …

"This isn't a theory. … I'm acknowledging I took part in all this. I thought I was helping them conduct federal law enforcement. It turned out that I was helping them set up Hillary Clinton for the Deep State to control her. … And so I'm saying, this entire thing, this last five years has been a coup from Obama against Hillary that when Trump won in a fluke, it got warped into the Russian collusion delusion. … I'm about as involved in this as you can get, and I promise you this is exactly what happened. And what we are seeing here is the last act to play out. …

"I knew in October 2018 that this was going to happen because in 2018 … a federal agent came to tell me, 'Patrick, you need to understand there are billionaires walking around this world that we made and we're prepared to do the same for you. You just have to stay calm. You have to stay quiet through the election.' And, by that election, I knew they meant the 2020 election. So I've known they were going to hijack this election since October of 2018."

Advertisement - story continues below


Connecting the dots tells us Obama remained in Washington's "swamp" to play the role of a puppeteer. He counted on holding the strings of power for what he believed would be an additional 16-year run, courtesy of Hillary and Michelle – with Hillary a willing puppet due to the bribery charges hanging over her head. In view of Trump's election spoiling Obama's Plan A, does Obama's Plan B now involve using the 25th Amendment to remove Biden from office to get his preferred candidate, Kamala Harris, in? And, as far as Hillary's bribery not coming to light before Byrne's tell-all interview, one assumes a Deep State still influenced by Obama kept it buried. Meanwhile, Biden may unknowingly be serving as a puppet in all this – one controlled by master puppeteer Barack Obama. Others may recognize this as recently suggested by CNN reporter Jeff Zeleny's slip of the tongue comment during an interview with Wolf Blitzer, referring to Biden as "President-elect Joebama," before correcting himself.

Obama's comment suggesting he would "be fine" running the White House from his basement with an earpiece enabling him to communicate with "a front woman" takes on special meaning within the context Byrne has provided. If Byrne's allegations are truthful and/or if massive fraud was involved in the 2020 presidential election, sinister forces have been at work in the shadows to destroy our Republic!

No wonder Obama recently and brazenly declared Republicans to be a "minority party." After all, his actions have sought to make America a one-party system.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/barack-obamas-revisionist-history-of-israel?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_12_21_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-12-21
Barack Obama’s Revisionist History of Israel
DEC 20, 2020 10:00 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD10 COMMENTS
In his just-released A Promised Land, Barack Obama describes the Jewish immigrants to  Mandatory Palestine as ready to fight and defeat the Arabs. It’s a fanciful notion. Dov Lipman states:

His [Obama’s] claim that the new immigrants “organized highly trained armed forces to defend their settlements” is also misleading. A more accurate way to describe it would have been: “Because the Arabs in the region mercilessly attacked the Jewish areas, the Jewish refugees had no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves.”

The Jewish immigrants in fact only with great difficulty managed to defend their settlements; the marauding Arabs met little resistance; they attacked Jews before, during, and after World War I. The Jewish Legion – founded by Zev Jabotinsky – which had helped defend Jews from Arab attack during the Palestine Riots of 1920, was disbanded by the British in 1921. It was not until 1938 that the Jews of Palestine could mount an effective defense against the Arabs; this was due to a British officer, Capt. Orde Wingate, who gave Jews military training so that they could join the “Special Night Squads” that did not wait to be attacked by Arab marauders, but went out, at night, to confront them first.

Acknowledging that the Arabs were attacking Jews before there was even a state of Israel is important historical context for understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict….

The Jewish pioneers in Palestine were set upon from their earliest days by violent Arabs intent on driving them from the land. These Arab attacks are scarcely mentioned in Obama’s book; he depicts the Jewish pioneers — who were in fact untrained in war and largely helpless before Arab onslaughts — as powerful, well-organized, and able to prevail against the Arabs; this is the very opposite of the truth.

The description of “Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule” is a clear attempt to justify the Arab refusal of the U.N. Partition Plan. Those poor “Arab nations” that have been suffering due to outsiders colonizing their “nations” simply could not accept another “colonial” entity, the Jews, entering the region.

The Arabs in the Middle East turned down the Partition Plan for one reason: they were not prepared to accept a Jewish state, no matter how pitifully small it might be, on land that had once been, and therefore must always be, part of the Dar al-Islam. As for their supposed memory of colonialism, the Middle Eastern Arabs — unlike those in the Maghreb — had never suffered from European colonialists. Their masters were fellow Muslims – the Ottoman Turks. The British were in Iraq and the Emirate of Transjordan not to colonize these places, but to help the indigenous Arabs prepare for statehood; the French were doing the same for the Arabs in Lebanon and Syria. When Obama writes about “Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule” he apparently is confusing the Mandates system with colonialism; they are different things. The Mandates represented the very opposite of colonialism: they were meant not to subjugate people, as colonialism does, but to help them to create their own independent states.

But the truth is that with the exception of Egypt, which was not colonized, none of the neighboring countries that rejected the partition plan had been established states before World War I. Yes, the post-war mandates of the League of Nations gave control in the region to the British and the French for a few decades, but this was in place of the Ottoman Empire that had controlled the region for centuries. Thus, the image of countries emerging from long-standing colonial rule as a subtle attempt to justify their objection to the Partition Plan is simply false.

The U.N. partition plan was grossly unfair to the Jews, reducing their promised territory further still from what the Mandate for Palestine became, after 78% of its original area – all of Eastern Palestine — was ripped from it by the Mandatory, Great Britain, to become the Emirate of Transjordan. But the Jews in late 1947 were desperate for a state, no matter how small, in order to provide immediate refuge for the many Jews who were still languishing in DP camps in Europe, or who had tried to reach Palestine by ship and been turned back by the British.

Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history: “As Britain withdrew, the two sides quickly fell into war. And with Jewish militias claiming victory in 1948, the state of Israel was officially born.”

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. The two sides didn’t “fall into war” when Britain withdrew; the two sides had been fighting for decades, with the Arabs—who rejected more than half-a-century of efforts to establish a Jewish state in the region—attacking the Jews, and the Jews defending themselves. When the British then left the area in May 1948, the Jews made a very difficult decision to declare their independence based on the U.N. Partition Plan, which gave the right for a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.

There were no “Jewish militias claiming victory.” There was a unified Jewish army that formed the Israel Defense Forces, which knew that the surrounding Arab countries would begin an all-out assault to destroy Israel the moment its Jewish leadership declared an independent fledgling Jewish state. And that is exactly what the Arab armies did. The new State of Israel fought off that assault for months, emerging in 1949 both weakened and fragile….

Obama never mentions that the Arab-Israeli war was not a case of Jews and Arabs who somehow, almost inexplicably and passively, “fell into war.”Arabs had been attacking Jewish pioneers nonstop since World War I. The 1948 war began when the armies of seven Arab states simultaneously attacked the nascent state of Israel, the day after the state of Israel had been declared, attempting to snuff out its young life. The Jewish army, not various“militias,” as Obama mistakenly maintains, managed to defeat and push back all of the attackers save for Jordan’s Arab Legion, which seized, and held onto, those parts of Judea and Samaria that in 1950 the Jordanians renamed “the West Bank” – a renaming intended to efface the Jewish connection to that land.

Obama seems to think that Israel and the Arab states that repeatedly attacked it are somehow equally responsible for the conflict. This defies belief. Three times – in 1948, 1967, and 1973 – Israel had to fight wars for its very survival, as Arab states attacked or were on the verge of attacking Israel; three times Israel won those wars. In 1956, after thousands of Israeli civilians in the Negev had been killed in separate attacks by Egyptian fedayeen from the Sinai, Israel finally seized the Sinai in self-defense. It returned that territory to Egypt in 1957, the fedayeen attacks, although they did not end entirely, went way down.

There were two mini-campaigns that Israel fought in Lebanon, first against the PLO terrorists in 1982, driving them out of the country, and then in 2006, against the terror group Hezbollah. Both mini-wars were begun by the Arab side, with repeated terror attacks by both the PLO and Hezbollah, that finally lead to an Israeli response. There were three campaigns against the terror group Hamas in Gaza: Operation Cast Lead (December 2008-January 2009), which began with ongoing rocket fire by Hamas; Operation Pillar of Defense (Nov. 2012), which was again prompted by Hamas’ rocket fire on southern Israel; Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014), which was started by Hamas after the collapse of American-sponsored peace talks. None of these wars and campaigns are correctly described by Obama who blandly insists that Israel “engaged in a succession of conflicts with its Arab neighbors,” which clearly suggests that all these conflicts were started by the Jewish state.

Obama’s description of the 1967 Six-Day War continues this revisionism: “A greatly outnumbered Israeli military routed the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the process, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.”

Here he fails to address what led up to the war, when all those Arab armies gathered along Israel’s borders and declared their intention to wipe it off the map. He doesn’t describe Israel’s pleading with Jordan not to enter the war, nor that Jordan altogether had no legal rights to the West Bank, which it occupied in 1948 and annexed against international law in 1950.

Obama fails to convey the atmosphere of alarm in Israel in the weeks before the Six-Day War broke out. There was anxiety in Israel as Nasser demanded that U Thant remove the U.N. peacekeeping troops from the Sinai, and then moved 100,000 Egyptian troops and 950 tanks northward in the Sinai toward the border with Israel. Meanwhile, from mid-May on, Nasser addressed cheering crowds in Cairo, telling them of the impending inevitable defeat of the Zionist state. Nasser also declared a blockade the Straits of Tiran, Israel’s maritime lifeline to Asia. He doesn’t mention, either, that the Syrian army mobilized on the Golan Heights, ready to stream into the Galilee when the Egyptians gave the word. Meanwhile France, Great Britain, and the U.S. did nothing to help Israel: no weapons, no diplomatic demarches, and no attempt to enforce the freedom of the seas against Egypt’s claim to blockade the Red Sea. Israel was, in its moment of maximum peril, completely alone. Jordan hesitated to join the Arab coalition, but once the war began, and despite the Israelis pleading with King Hussein not to enter the war, the King was assured by Nasser that the Egyptians were winning and he should join in to share in the victory and the spoils of war. To his great sorrow, the King believed Nasser and sent his troops into battle, where they were trounced by the Israelis, and Jordan lost all of the territory west of the Jordan River that it had occupied since 1948, the so-called “West Bank.” Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were the three aggressors; Israel was only defending its very survival. Obama conveys none of that.

Obama’s Revisionist ‘Promised Land’
Dec 2, 2020
by Dov Moshe Lipman, JNS.orgprint article
Obama’s Revisionist ‘Promised Land’
In his new memoir, the former U.S. president misleads readers in a way that will forever shape their negative perspective of the Jewish state.

I have never criticized former U.S. President Barack Obama publicly – neither during my time in the Knesset nor anywhere else – despite my having disagreed with many of his policies. I am of the strong opinion that Israelis should not engage in or interfere with American politics, and I regularly offer a blanket thank you to all American presidents, including Obama, for their economic and military support for Israel.

However, his memoir, A Promised Land, is filled with historical inaccuracies that I feel the need to address. His telling of Israel’s story (at the beginning of Chapter 25) not only exhibits a flawed understanding of the region – which clearly impacted his policies as president – but misleads readers in a way that will forever shape their negative perspective of the Jewish state.
Obama relates, for example, how the British were “occupying Palestine” when they issued the Balfour Declaration calling for a Jewish state. But labeling Great Britain as an “occupier” clearly casts doubt on its legitimacy to determine anything about the future of the Holy Land, and that wasn’t the situation.

While it is true that England had no legal rights in Palestine when the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, that changed just five years later. The League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, gave the British legal rights over Palestine in its 1922 “Mandate for Palestine,” which specifically mentions “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The League also said that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
 
The former president’s noted omission of the internationally agreed-upon mandate for the British to establish a home for the Jews in Palestine misinforms the reader, who will conclude that the movement for a Jewish state in Palestine had no legitimacy or international consent.

“Over the next 20 years, Zionist leaders mobilized a surge of Jewish migration to Palestine,” Obama writes, creating the image that once the British illegally began the process of forming a Jewish state in Palestine, Jews suddenly started flocking there.

Obama should have portrayed the Jews as they were: a persecuted and desperate people searching for safety; not, as he implies, strong conquerors flooding into Palestine.
The truth is that Jews, who maintained a continual presence throughout the 2,000 years that most were exiled from the land, had already been moving to Palestine in large numbers way before then; considerably more than 100,000 immigrants arrived in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Then, in the 1920s, high numbers fleeing anti-Semitism in Europe could only find safe haven in Palestine due to the United States having instituted quotas in 1924 on the number of Jews who could enter America.

The number of immigrants rose even more in the 1930s when Adolf Hitler rose to power and began his conquest of Europe while the world remained silent.

Historical context is important, and once Obama chose to write about the history, he should have provided the full context and portrayed the Jews as they were: a persecuted and desperate people searching for safety, and not, as he implies, strong conquerors flooding into Palestine.

His claim that the new immigrants “organized highly trained armed forces to defend their settlements” is also misleading. A more accurate way to describe it would have been: “Because the Arabs in the region mercilessly attacked the Jewish areas, the Jewish refugees had no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves.”

Acknowledging that the Arabs were attacking Jews before there was even a State of Israel is important historical context for understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict.

A Promised Land recounts, as well, how the United Nations passed a partition plan for Palestine in November 1947, by dividing the country into a Jewish and Arab state, which the “Zionist leaders,” as he calls them, accepted, but to which the “Arab Palestinians, as well as surrounding Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule, strenuously objected.”

Obama’s use of “Zionist leaders” instead of “Jewish leaders” plays right into the current international climate, in which it is politically correct to be “anti-Zionist,” while unacceptable to be anti-Jewish. (In reality, Zionism is the movement for Jews to live in their biblical and historic homeland, so being against that actually is anti-Semitism, but that’s for another discussion.)

The description of “Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule” is a clear attempt to justify the Arab refusal of the U.N. Partition Plan. Those poor “Arab nations” that have been suffering due to outsiders colonizing their “nations” simply could not accept another “colonial” entity, the Jews, entering the region.

But the truth is that with the exception of Egypt, which was not colonized, none of the neighboring countries that rejected the partition plan had been established states before World War I. Yes, the post-war mandates of the League of Nations gave control in the region to the British and the French for a few decades, but this was in place of the Ottoman Empire that had controlled the region for centuries. Thus, the image of countries emerging from long-standing colonial rule as a subtle attempt to justify their objection to the Partition Plan is simply false.

Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history.
Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history: “As Britain withdrew, the two sides quickly fell into war. And with Jewish militias claiming victory in 1948, the state of Israel was officially born.”

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. The two sides didn’t “fall into war” when Britain withdrew; the two sides had been fighting for decades, with the Arabs – who rejected more than half-a-century of efforts to establish a Jewish state in the region – attacking the Jews, and the Jews defending themselves. When the British then left the area in May 1948, the Jews made a very difficult decision to declare their independence based on the U.N. Partition Plan, which gave the right for a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.

There were no “Jewish militias claiming victory.” There was a unified Jewish army that formed the Israel Defense Forces, which knew that the surrounding Arab countries would begin an all-out assault to destroy Israel the moment its Jewish leadership declared an independent fledgling Jewish state. And that is exactly what the Arab armies did. The new State of Israel fought off that assault for months, emerging in 1949 both weakened and fragile.

Obama’s perspective on the formation of the State of Israel no doubt affected his foreign policy regarding the Jewish state. If one sees Israel as a colonial force occupying the land as a result of its armed militias, then it will be treated as an outsider that wronged others to establish itself as a state. The former president misleads others into believing this, as well.

The most disingenuous sentence of Obama’s history of Israel is in his description of what happened during the 30 years following Israel’s establishment: “For the next three decades, Israel would engage in a succession of conflicts with its Arab neighbors ….”

What? I had to read that sentence many times because I could not believe that a president of the United States could write such misleading, deceptive and damaging words about his country’s close ally.

Israel did not “engage” in any conflict with the surrounding Arab countries. The Arab armies and their terrorists attacked Israel again and again, and Israelis fought to defend themselves.

A straightforward history of Middle East wars involving Israel yields this basic truth. Facts are facts, and the former president’s misrepresentation of Israel as a country that sought conflict instead of peace – one that willingly engaged in wars with the Arabs – does an injustice to peace-seeking Israel and riles up anti-Israel sentiment.

Obama’s description of the 1967 Six-Day War continues this revisionism: “A greatly outnumbered Israeli military routed the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the process, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.”

Here he fails to address what led up to the war, when all those Arab armies gathered along Israel’s borders and declared their intention to wipe it off the map. He doesn’t describe Israel’s pleading with Jordan not to enter the war, nor that Jordan altogether had no legal rights to the West Bank, which it occupied in 1948 and annexed against international law in 1950.

Most significantly, Obama fails to mention Israel’s willingness, immediately after the war, to withdraw from all the areas that it won in its defensive battle in exchange for peace; and by extension, he also fails to tell of the Arab League’s “Three No’s” in response to that offer: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.

This omission serves once again to portray Israel as the aggressive occupier that seeks conflict and not peace.

The former president continues with another outright falsehood, which helps give insight into his policies regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The “rise of the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organization)” was a “result” of the Six-Day War he writes. That makes it seem like the Palestinian liberation movement, including its violent and murderous attacks against Israelis, was only a result of Israel’s taking control over the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

It strengthens the message that if only Israel would vacate these areas, there would be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is what spurs leaders around the world to suggest that Israeli settlements in these areas are the obstacle to peace in the region.

But there is one flaw with this story and logic. It’s not true. The PLO was established in 1964 – three years before Israel was in control of any of those “occupied” areas and three years before there were any settlements.

What exactly was this Palestinian organization liberating at that time? Is there any conclusion other than the liberation of the Jewish state in its entirety? What other option could there be?

This is why the “Free Palestine” movement chants, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They are against the existence of Israel anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They see such a state as a colonial enterprise with armed militias grabbing the land of others, just as Obama leads readers to believe when describing the formation of the state.

The false description of the PLO rising after 1967 serves the narrative that the “occupation” and the settlements are the cause of the conflict, and this, no doubt, had a direct impact on Obama’s “not one brick” policy, including freezing settlement construction, in an effort to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama describes the failed Camp David accords of 2000, in which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of what they were asking for. “Arafat demanded more concessions, however, and talks collapsed in recrimination,” he writes. But the talks didn’t simply “collapse.” Sixty-six days later, Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada, in which 1,137 Israeli civilians were murdered and 8,341 were maimed by Yasser Arafat-funded terrorists who blew themselves up in Israeli buses and cafes.

Don’t trust my word on this. Mamduh Nofal, former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, revealed that following Camp David, “Arafat told us, ‘Now we are going to fight so we must be ready.’”

In addition, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in September 2010 that in the summer of 2000, as soon as Arafat understood that all of his demands would not be met, he instructed Hamas, Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to begin attacking Israel. And Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, has verified that the Second Intifada was pre-planned by Arafat.

Not only does Obama fail to accurately connect the Second Intifada to Arafat’s not receiving everything the Palestinians asked for at Camp David – demands that would have prevented Israel from being able to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism – but he seems to place the blame for the intifada on Israel.

He describes the September 2000 visit of Israel’s opposition leader and subsequent prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as “provocative” and a “stunt” that “enraged Arabs near and far.”

But Obama neglects to mention that Sharon only visited there after Israel’s Interior Ministry received assurances from the security chief of the Palestinian Authority that no uproar would arise as a result of the visit.

In fact, Jibril Rajoub, head of Preventive Security in the West Bank, confirmed that Sharon could visit the sensitive area as long as he did not enter a mosque or pray publicly, rules to which Sharon adhered.

Obama describes the Temple Mount as “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” making no mention that it is the holiest site in Judaism.
Even more incredibly, Obama describes the Temple Mount as “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” making no mention that it is the holiest site in Judaism.

An innocent reader who is unfamiliar with the region and its history reads this and concludes that it was simply wrong for a Jewish leader to walk onto a Muslim religious site. On the other hand, if he or she knew that it is the holiest site for Jews, then they would more likely wonder why there was anything wrong with Sharon’s having gone there – except Obama omits that part, leading anyone to conclude that Sharon was in the wrong.

That omission, together with the exclusion of Arafat’s plans for the intifada right after negotiations at Camp David failed, can only lead one to conclude that Israel was responsible for the five years of bloodshed during the Second Intifada.

Obama’s history lesson continues with the tension between Israel and Gaza. Remarkably, he makes zero mention of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, when Israel pulled out all of its troops from the strip while forcing 9,000 Jewish citizens to leave their homes.

Anyone reading the president’s description of the wars between Israel and Hamas would never know that Israel no longer “occupies” Gaza, and that the Palestinians have been free to build a wondrous “Israeli-free” Palestinian state there for the last 15 years. That omission is glaring.

Finally, Obama’s misleading words describing Israel’s response to Hamas rocket fire on its civilian population only serves to inflame and incite anti-Israel sentiment worldwide. That response, he writes, included “Israeli Apache helicopters leveling entire neighborhoods” in Gaza – Apache helicopters that he identifies as coming from the United States, a subtle or not-too-subtle questioning of whether the United States should be providing Israel with military aid if it is used in this manner.

More importantly, what does he mean by “leveling entire neighborhoods,” other than to imply that Israel indiscriminately bombs Gazan neighborhoods, willfully murdering innocent people? And what human being on Earth wouldn’t be riled up to condemn Israel for such inhumane activity?

The problem is that it’s false. Israel targets terrorist leaders and the rockets that they fire into Israeli cities. Tragically, Hamas leaders use innocent Palestinians as human shields by hiding behind them in civilian neighborhoods, and by launching rockets into Israel from there and from hospitals and mosques.

Israel does its best not to kill innocent people, even airdropping leaflets announcing an imminent airstrike, and calls off missions to destroy rocket launchers or kill terrorist leaders when there are too many civilians in the area. Israel most certainly does not launch retaliatory attacks that aimlessly “level” entire neighborhoods.

I have no problem with criticism of Israel. We can debate the issues in intellectually honest discussions, and in the end, we may have to agree to disagree about Israel’s policies. But no one should accept a book that is filled with historical inaccuracies that invariably lead innocent and unknowing readers to reach false conclusions. Such a devastating book has real-life ramifications and consequences.

It is terribly disappointing. I surely would have expected truth, accuracy and fairness from Barack Obama, America’s 44th president. But the falsehoods and inaccuracies in this memoir only feed the theory that Obama was, in fact, anti-Israel. Now, through A Promised Land, he seeks to convince others to join him.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/11/20/obama-tells-jimmy-kimmel-we-can-always-send-the-navy-seals-to-remove-trump-from-white-house/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20201120
Obama Tells Jimmy Kimmel: ‘We Can Always Send the Navy SEALS’ to Remove Trump from White House
27,123
Former US President Barack Obama speaks at a drive-in rally as he campaigns for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden in Miami, Florida on November 2, 2020. (Photo by CHANDAN KHANNA / AFP) (Photo by CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images)
DAVID NG20 Nov 202020,249
2:18
Former President Barack Obama told ABC’s left-wing late night host Jimmy Kimmel that “we can always send the Navy SEALs” to physically remove President Donald Trump from the White House.

Obama made the remark during an appearance Thursday on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to promote his new memoir A Promised Land. When asked by Kimmel if the White House has any secret spots where “someone could hide” if they don’t want to leave, Obama replied: “Well, I think we can always send the Navy SEALS in there to dig him out.”

Kimmel also asked if it will be weird to call Joe Biden “Mr. President.” “No,” Obama replied, “I’ve already called him Mr. President Elect.”

Earlier in the conversation, Kimmel suggested that it is perhaps too early to assume that Biden won the election. President Trump is contesting the tallies in key swing states and has vowed to fight in court, asserting that there was fraud and that the election was rigged.
“Do you feel that when you congratulated Biden and Senator Harris that you were premature in doing that?” Kimmel asked.
“No, I thought I was right on time,” Obama replied.

Obama also praised former President George W. Bush, whom he called a “patriot.”

“When I came in, we were in the middle of a big crisis, the financial crisis. George W. Bush, he and I had obviously big policy differences, but he’s a good man, he’s a patriot,” Obama said. “And he ordered everybody on his team to work seamlessly with us on the transition. Could not have been more gracious. Could not have been more helpful. And that actually helped us be able to get a head start on trying to stem what could have been a great depression instead of a great recession.”

Jimmy Kimmel recently called for President Trump to be “arrested” after the commander in chief alleged in a November 5 speech that there was voter fraud in battleground states including Pennsylvania and Georgia.

“It was a litany of lies, threats, just a despicable and incoherent attack on democracy in the United States,” Kimmel said. “At the end of that speech, he should have been arrested.”

Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at dng@breitbart.com

Obama Again NWO
Fall Of The Republic 1/14 HQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-WX3xDQJA

Blaze
NEWS AUGUST 02, 2020
Dr. Alveda King rips Obama for politicizing John Lewis' funeral: Leftists will 'grab at any opportunity'
'President Obama, with word play, took us back to the 1960's'
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
 PAUL SACCA
https://www.theblaze.com/news/alveda-king-obama-john-lewis-funeral?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202020-08-03&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days
Former President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy at the funeral of John Lewis in Atlanta on Thursday. While paying tribute to the civil rights pioneer at the famed Ebenezer Baptist Church, Obama utilized the widely-viewed platform to take jabs at President Donald Trump.

POLL: Will Joe Biden still be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate when we get to November?
"As we sit here, there are those in power who are doing their darnedest to discourage people from voting by closing polling locations and targeting minorities…even undermining the postal service in the run-up to an election that's going to be dependent on mail-in ballots so people don't get sick," Obama said of mail-in voting, which Trump has been vehemently against.

"George Wallace may be gone, but we can still witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators," Obama said, referring to the pro-segregation Democratic governor of Alabama in the 1960s.

Dr. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., ripped Obama for politicizing the Lewis funeral service.


"Well, I guess we should have expected that the Left, including President Obama, would take that occasion for a political moment," King said during an interview on Fox News' "Fox & Friends." "They'll grab at any opportunity, that's to be understood."

"I have chosen not to politicize the death of congressman Lewis, but to remember him as a peaceful, nonviolent warrior, and encourage everyone to resolve our conflicts peacefully," King said of Lewis, who at the age of 23 was a keynote speaker at 1963's March on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his powerful "I Have a Dream" speech.

"However, President Obama, with word play, took us back to the 1960's, and that was a time when segregation was still on the books, segregation was still legal, and those in power, some of them were trying to enforce that and keep that," King added. "Today, when the National Guard goes in, sent by the president for example, or the state troopers, they're trying to protect the people of America in every community and to save lives and protect people. There is a totally distinct difference."

"Also implying without calling any names, he was very clever not to call any names, saying that there was an effort to undermine the voting process," King said. "You know, actually President Trump is saying, people, please pay attention, we do want you to vote, use your absentee ballots, go to the polls."

"He's even encouraged, you know, people to be poll watchers and poll workers and that kind of thing. President Trump is not trying to suppress the vote," she continued. "As a matter of fact, you can see in my community, I'm telling everybody, make sure you vote, register to vote, pastors and leaders, encourage your people to vote. We do want people to vote safely and we need the voting process to be fair, and so to politicize the funeral of a peaceful warrior, I mean, I guess they grabbed at an opportunity to be political."

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/06/obama-used-national-security-to-spy-on-americans-opposed-to-islamic-terrorists?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_06_10_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-06-10
Obama Used National Security to Spy on Americans Opposed to Islamic Terrorists
JUN 9, 2020 8:00 AM BY DANIEL GREENFIELD22 COMMENTS
Obamagate redefined opposition to Islamic terrorism as a national security threat.


We know when Obamagate ended, but we don’t know when the policy of spying on Americans began. The tangled roots of the domestic surveillance of political opponents by the NSA predate the alarmism about Russia. Tracing them back into the fetid swamp takes us not toward Moscow, but to Tehran.
The first public revelation that the White House was spying on high level members of the political opposition came in 2015. Members of Congress had been eavesdropped on as part of an operation to sabotage Prime Minister Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran Deal. The Israeli leader and his entire country had earlier been targeted by a massive spy campaign to stop Israel from taking out Iran’s nukes.


But the new wave of surveillance was no longer just against a potential Israeli attack on Iran, but was part of a political campaign to win the domestic argument to aid Iran and legalize its nuclear program.


The Wall Street Journal reported that by 2013, surveillance of Netanyahu was focused on protecting the Iran nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu’s invitation to address Congress caught the White House by surprise and the surveillance was not only directed at Israelis or even pro-Israel Americans, but members of Congress who were skeptical that the Islamic terror regime would ever scuttle its nukes.


The Iran Deal ushered in a surveillance shift from monitoring the former allies that Obama wanted to toss overboard, to monitoring Americans who were friendly to those governments, and then leading members of the political opposition, and finally members of an incoming administration. Obama and his associates had redefined national security as the pursuit of his dangerous foreign policy, and the new national security threats were administration critics who were surveilled in order to entrap them.


Surveillance had morphed from spying on Obama’s political opponents to conspiring to lock them up.


General Flynn had been a key opponent of the Iran policy, as detailed by Lee Smith in How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign. Flynn’s arrival not only threatened the Iran Deal, but the politicized intelligence agencies that had been covering for Iran even during the Bush days. Beyond protecting the Iran Deal and Obama’s legacy, the fake intelligence machine was defending itself.


Flynn had already been forced out once. His return wasn’t supposed to happen and was seen as a threat.


Oubai Shahbandar, who had worked for the DIA and served on the ground in Iraq as a strategic analyst, noted that Flynn had warned Obama that Al-Qaeda in Iraq would make a comeback, “Flynn’s prophetic warnings would play out exactly as he’d warned shortly after he was fired.”


It was bad enough that Obama’s foreign policy vets and intelligence cronies had failed. The prospect of having Flynn return to take advantage of their mistakes and wreck their credibility was unthinkable.


The pretext for taking down Flynn was generated when he called Ambassador Kislyak about an anti-Israel resolution coming up at the UN. The Obama administration had played a key role in generating these shadow resolutions by other countries to pressure Israel. The Jewish State, along with the UAE, the Saudis, and Egypt, and any Trump associates friendly to them, had become targets in a shadow war meant to keep Obama’s foreign policy in place even under the incoming Trump administration.


Obamagate was waged to protect a foreign policy based around Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.


That was why Walid Phares, a Trump adviser, was also investigated by the FBI and the Mueller team for his friendliness to President Sisi’s anti-Islamist government in Egypt. Flynn and Phares were investigated because they posed a threat to Obama’s pro-Islamist foreign policy. That was Susan Rice’s pretext for unmasking the names of Trump officials meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates.


The Obama administration had not only redefined support for Islamic terror states as being in our country’s national interest, but it also redefined opposition to Islamic terror as a national security threat.


Flynn and Phares were targeted because they were critics of the Iran Deal and the Brotherhood.


After Obama and his cronies had dismantled counterterrorism and crippled the military, they took national security into an inverted Orwellian world in which terrorism was national security, and national security was terrorism, and members of the incoming Trump administration were the greatest national security threat because they opposed Obama’s foreign policy of aiding Islamic terrorists.


Flynn and Phares, in their own ways, struck at the twin Islamist hearts of that foreign policy.


The Arab Spring and the Brotherhood’s ascendancy had been crucial to Obama’s vision of a new Middle East. Obama had been pushing regime change in Egypt as early as his 2002 Daley Plaza speech, in which he invoked regime change for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but not, of course, for Iran. The Brotherhood’s collapse across the region had been personally humiliating for Obama and his people hadn’t given up their dreams of a Muslim Brotherhood Reconquista in Egypt. Phares was a threat to those dreams.


Iran was Obama’s last shot at his grand strategy to realign America foreign policy toward Islamist terror states. This was not just one agreement, but a desperate attempt to turn back the clock to the Cairo Speech, before ISIS, the counter-revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, and the growing tilt of the Saudis and the UAE toward Israel and against the Islamists and Iran. Obama’s entire foreign policy was on the line.


Having Flynn on duty risked sabotaging what Obama saw as his only surviving foreign policy success. And when Flynn directly intervened to stop an Obama shadow UN resolution aimed at Israel, his cronies in the intelligence community struck back hard, taking revenge over Flynn’s effort to protect Israel, and marking their territory from Egypt to Iran, while seeking to hijack the incoming Trump administration.


The peaceful transition that traditionally separated the American political system from those of failed states was coming apart as the Obama administration, no longer content with covert eavesdropping or media leaks, actively went to war over foreign policy with the Trump administration. This was not a mere Watergate. It was a civil war being waged within the limited confines of Washington D.C.


The weapons of the national security state were being used to fight a war over who would be able to define national security with intelligence community figures targeting an incoming intelligence community figure. Conflicts that were once conducted with media leaks had gone well beyond them.


But the pattern of media leaks did suggest a link between Obama’s surveillance of members of Congress and the spying on Flynn.


As Smith notes, “Adam Entous was offered the leak of the Dec. 29 call early on”. Entous was also the writer who ‘broke’ the story of Obama’s spying on Congress and pro-Israel activists for the Wall Street Journal while spinning the material in a way that justified this latter-day Watergate. Washington D.C. operatives usually have favored reporters that they leak stories to for the right political spin.


It seems likely that whoever leaked the Congress surveillance story also leaked Flynn’s phone call.


As I noted in 2018, “Spygate was the warped afterbirth of our failure to meaningfully confront Islamic terrorism. Instead, the political allies of the terrorists and the failed watchmen who allowed them to strike so many times, got together to shoot the messengers warning about the terror threat.”


The Obama administration betrayed America. It sold out the soldiers in the field, and then their commanders, and when it lost power, it went to war against the civilian leadership using the tools that had been traditionally reserved for the terrorists that it had refused to take on and defeat.


Obama didn’t just corrupt our national security system to wage war on his successor administration, he did it to protect the Islamist terrorist enemies of this country: Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.


Instead of fighting Islamic terrorists, Obama used the national security state to spy on their opponents, beginning with pro-Israel Americans, and concluding with Trump allies in a horrifying act of treason.


Share this: MORE https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/06/obama-used-national-security-to-spy-on-americans-opposed-to-islamic-terrorists?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_06_10_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-06-10

https://israelunwired.com/covid-19-and-racism-have-nothing-to-do-with-each-other-unless-youre-obama/
COVID-19 and racism have nothing to do with each other – unless you’re Obama
Wow, this is shocking and not so shocking at the same time - that Obama would say something like this. What kind of commencement speech is this, anyway? Ben Shapiro responds perfectly.
Well, Obama made headlines again. He gave a commencement speech for those graduating. And he somehow got on the topic of COVID-19 and…racism?
By Leah Rosenberg - May 24, 2020 
Why Connect COVID-19 & Racism?
It really makes no sense. COVID-19 has nothing to do with racism. Why even connect the two? Why make something about racism when it is most definitely not? Because that’s what some people do to fuel the fire that should never have existed to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=dx_pzAT5yKQ&feature=emb_logo
President Obama Blames Coronavirus Disparities On Systemic Racism; Shapiro Responds
Ben Shapiro responded to former President Barak Obama’s commencement speech perfectly. The commencement speech should have been about something different. Obama had the opportunity to say whatever he wanted, and he chose to badmouth President Trump and talk about racism and coronavirus. There are so many issues with what he did, and Shapiro addresses the problems with the speech.

Lying and saying racism is the reason for coronavirus hitting a certain community harder is not beneficial for anyone – especially not for graduates looking for inspiration for their futures. Instead, it feeds them lies and can breed anger and resentment. There is nothing inspiring and uplifting about that.

Belittling Racism
If you think about it, Obama belittled racism. Because he spread a false narrative about racism and America and created a story about a racist situation where there was none, he undermined situations when there truly IS racism.

How can a former president do such a thing? For people who have experienced real racism, they should be outraged by Obama’s speech. They should really be outraged by Obama in general.


Racism is real. It exists. But America is not a racist country as a whole. And the disparities of those affected by COVID-19 have nothing to do with racism, as Shapiro so brilliantly pointed out.
Let’s all try to make sure we have our facts straight before assuming that a former president is saying something truthful. Because sadly, it seems that his personal agenda is more important than honesty.

https://israelunwired.com/the-biggest-political-scandal-of-our-lifetime/
The biggest political scandal of our lifetime
By Phil Schneider - May 19, 2020 4083 0

Did President Obama and many of his closest advisors and officials actually plan to destroy Mike Flynn during the transition period between President Trump’s election and the actual inauguration? As of now, it seems that this was indeed an intentional plan to blemish the reputation of President Trump. As Kate McFarlane argued, she and Mike Flynn were just the small fish. But in truth, what Barack Obama and his advisors tried to do was to make sure that President Trump’s reputation would be tarnished from the get-go.
Why OBAMAGATE is Such a HUGE Scandal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=etNh2NHJhkM&feature=emb_logo

Donate Today And Promote This Video To Thousands
Is this worse than Watergate, where President Nixon was found to have been aware of an attempt to cheat against the Democrats in the 1972 election? There is definitely grounds to this argument. The Obama administration was an idealistic administration that truly was focused on transforming the United States of America and the whole world. In truth, alot was indeed done in the 8 years under Obama to accomplish this. But when Donald Trump was elected under a platform that was squarely based on undoing most of what President Obama deemed accomplishments, this most certainly bothered Obama and many others.

On the national security front, people like General Mike Flynn, people with seemingly perfect records, were one of the problems that Obama and his advisors saw. They perceived that Donald Trump was building up his reputation based on the credibility of Generals like Flynn. They saw in him the perfect person to take down, and that seems to be exactly what he and his advisors did.


In the end, the Obama administration will probably not be viewed as a corrupt 8 years. It will probably be remembered as the progressive high point of the United States. And where did that bring us? The debates will continue. But the spying on Mike Flynn and the fictional accusation about Russian collusion will probably be judged by Democrat and Republican alike as one big hoax.

Ben Shapiro just made everyone thankful Obama isn't president anymore
shapiro-obama-email
Ben Shapiro exposes the real corruption that happened in the White House. He calls out Obama's bluff. At least someone is willing to call out Obama, and yes - it still matters today! The mainstream media still praises him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=x8QoR6kVRQI&feature=emb_logo

Ben Shapiro Breaks Down #Obamagate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=x8QoR6kVRQI&feature=emb_logo
Ben Shapiro slammed Obama for his complete corruption and hypocrisy. It is really absurd the way Obama “can do nothing wrong.”

Boost this video to reach up to 1000 people
Ben Shapiro Calls Out Obama
Obama and his posse like to criticize President Trump. But who will stand up and call out Obama for all of HIS corruption? Who will condemn the Obama administration for its hypocrisy? Ben Shapiro, of course. The mainstream media might ignore the truth, but Shapiro definitely won’t.

Somehow, Obama can do nothing wrong – the media praised and continues to praise him for everything. 
And President Trump, according to the media and the Left, only does wrong. And obviously, according to Obama he is the worst thing to enter the White House.

But what are the facts? Shapiro does an excellent job at breaking down what really has happened throughout the past few years.

What Has Happened to Politics?
Instead of politics being about the American people, it has turned into a game of who can be better. It has turned into a selfish endeavor to be the most powerful. If Obama and his people really cared about Americans, they would not chase after Trump and everyone in the White House who they disagree with. They do not have to agree with everything that President Trump says and does. But what they do is another level, and it is just wrong.

And then Obama acts like he was a perfect president. It is as if Obama did nothing wrong and all his policies saved the world. And the thing is, that cannot be farther from the truth. Obama endangered everyone: Israel, America, and the free world. His administration did many illegal things, yet they are trying to pin corruption on the Trump administration instead.