The Crime that Dare Not Speak its Name
by David Horowitz, frontpagemag.com
“This was all Obama. This was all Biden. These people were corrupt. The whole thing was corrupt. And we caught them. We caught them.” – Trump.
Perhaps the most troubling – and dangerous – aspect of the current political conversation is the unwillingness of virtually every elected official and every media pundit to confront what “Obamagate” is obviously about, which is treason. Specifically, treason committed by the Obama White House in attempting to block and then overthrow the Trump presidency. Obamagate is about the failed attempt by President Obama and his appointees to use government intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and White House, to concoct a phony accusation of collusion with Russia against the president and then to obstruct his administration and overthrow him.
Semantic deceptions are the currency of political conflicts designed to take the public’s eye off the ball. So it’s no mystery as that Republicans, whom Democrats regularly slander as racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes and deplorables should be cautious around a word as volatile and subject to misrepresentation as “treason.” It doesn’t help that the last individual charged with treason was Tokyo Rose, a Japanese propagandist during World War II. In the intervening years, the ties of national loyalty have been so eroded, the idea of patriotism so demeaned by the political left, that the charge of treason was not filed against the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, or many deserving others.
If all parties remain reluctant to name the threat embodied in Obamagate, it’s not only unlikely but also unreasonable to expect justice to be the outcome. Fortunately, at least one political figure is ready to do this. One can assume it was President Trump who provided Rudy Giuliani, with the license to speak frankly. “They wanted to take out the lawfully elected President of the United States,” Giuliani told talk show host John Catsamatidas, “and they wanted to do it by lying, submitting false affidavits, using phony witnesses — in other words, they wanted to do it by illegal means . . . What is overthrowing government by illegal means? It’s a coup; treason.”
This aggressive statement by the president’s lawyer is a sure guarantee that a reckoning is coming in the days ahead. But first there are the semantics. Responding to Giuliani’s accusation, law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: “No, James Comey Did Not Commit Treason.” According to Turley: “Giuliani is engaging in the same blood sport of using the criminal code to paint critics as not just criminals, but traitors. Where one can dismiss some of these charges as political hyperbole, Giuliani was sure to preface his remarks as coming from ‘an experienced prosecutor.’”
Technically, but in a very limited way, Turley is right. Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution in these words: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
There’s a reason the Founders designed so restrictive a definition of treason. They were all guilty of it for rebelling against their king. This led to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip: “We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately.”
But this legal definition of the crime is only one aspect of the issue, and in the end it is the less important one for understanding the significance of what has happened. There is also the common usage of the words “treason” and “traitor,” which speak to the moral dimensions of the crime. It is these meanings that provide a proper guide to the seriousness and scope of what Obama, Biden, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the others involved actually did.
This is the Merriam Webster definition of treason: “1: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. 2: the betrayal of a trust: treachery.”
“To overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance” –is a pretty precise definition of what Obamagate is about.
Although early on, the outlines of this conspiracy were clear to dogged investigators like Congressman Devin Nunes, they have remained obscure to anti-Trump partisans. This is due to the protective wall created for the conspirators by Obama appointees at the Department of Justice, unprincipled Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and a corrupt news media that has redefined its mission to be that of a propaganda squad for the conspiracy itself. Consequently, it has taken nearly four years to recover the documentary evidence that might persuade an honest critic of the Trump administration of the crime the anti-Trump camp has committed.
Two recent actions have served to demolish the plotters’ protective wall and bring the true dimensions of Obamagate to light. The first was Trump’s appointment of Rick Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Until then the transcripts of the impeachment hearings had been closed to the public by the Intel Committee chairman, Adam Schiff. This allowed Schiff to leak testimony damaging to the president and suppress testimony exonerating him. The full testimonies by high-ranking foreign policy officials had remained under Schiff’s lock and key for over a year. Grenell told Schiff that he would unlock the testimonies if Schiff didn’t, which is how they came to light.
What the newly released testimonies showed was that one Obama appointee after another when questioned by Republicans on the committee had said they had no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion between Trump or the Trump team and the Russians. In other words, from the very beginning of the plot against Trump, the conspirators including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the heads of the intelligence agencies knew that the charge of collusion – of treason – which they had concocted to destroy Trump was fraudulent. Despite this, they went ahead with the $35 million Mueller investigation that tied Trump’s hands in dealing with the Russians and spread endless false rumors about his allegiances, and in the end found no evidence to support the character assassinations the investigation spawned.
The second revelation was the result of an FBI declassification of hitherto hidden documents describing a White House meeting on January 5, 2017 – two weeks before the inauguration of the new president. The meeting was attended by the outgoing president and vice president, the heads of the intelligence agencies, the acting Attorney General and Obama’s outgoing National Security adviser Susan Rice. The subjects of the meeting were the targeting of General Michael Flynn – Trump’s incoming National Security Adviser – and the infamous Steele dossier which the Hillary campaign and the DNC had paid a former British spy to compile with information from the Russian secret police. The dossier was designed to discredit Trump and set up the Russia-collusion narrative. The targeting of Flynn involved unmasking an innocuous conversation with the Russian Ambassador which was then used to smear Flynn and get him fired. Shortly after the meeting the fact that Flynn was under investigation was leaked to the Washington Post – a felony punishable by 10 years in jail. This leak opened a floodgate of public accusations – backed by no evidence – that Trump and everyone close to him were agents of the Russians.
The secret war the Obama White House declared on Trump before he was even elected, was a war on America. Several years prior to the 2016 election, Obama had begun using the intelligence agencies to spy on his Republican opponents. This was a direct attack on the most fundamental institution of our democracy – elections. It was a much more destructive interference in the electoral process than anything attempted by the Russians. The subsequent cynical attempts to frame Trump as a traitor and then to impeach him for concocted offenses is without precedent. Because they were attacks on our democracy itself, Obamagate is the worst political crime committed against our country in its entire history. The culprits involved need to be exposed and prosecuted, so that – in the words of President Trump – this never happens to another American occupant of the White House.
The rise and rise of Richard Grenell.
by Bruce Bawer via frontpagemag.com
If you’d told me a couple of decades ago that leading conservative commentators would one day be celebrating an openly gay man as an American hero, I’d never have believed it. But that’s exactly what’s happening now. The man in question, of course, is Richard Grenell, currently serving both as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany and as the Acting Director of National Intelligence, and hence a member of the Cabinet.
It was under intense pressure from Grenell that the House Intelligence Committee, on May 7, released the transcripts of 53 interviews conducted privately in connection with the probe into President Trump’s alleged Russian ties. In those interviews, former members of the Obama Administration – several of whom had publicly insisted, on cable news shows and elsewhere, that there was firm evidence of collusion between Trump and the Kremlin – swore under oath that they were unaware of any such evidence.
And it was Grenell who, four days later, declassified the list of Obama Administration officials who, in the interval between the 2016 election and the Trump inaugural, requested the “unmasking” of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor, so they could listen in on his phone calls. When Grenell made that list public two days later, he immeasurably aided the effort to get to the bottom of the plot against Trump now known as Obamagate.
“It was a brilliant move,” wrote Stephen Kruiser about Grenell’s decision to release the list. “Grenell ain’t playing. It’s a thing of beauty the way he’s handling the Left….Not all heroes wear capes.” On his podcast, Dan Bongino, author of two definitive books about Obamagate – which he has dubbed “Spygate” – called Grenell “terrific.” On Sebastian Gorka’s radio show, Victoria Toensing, also an expert on Obama Administration perfidy, said, “Thank God for Ric Grenell!” Gorka, who briefly served in the Trump White House, replied: “Bless him, he’s working hard to get the truth out!”
No, it doesn’t matter that Richard Grenell is gay. But at the same time it does. Partly because a few people still need to learn that not all gays are pedophile socialist drag queens, but mostly because the fact that a gay man plays a key role in the Trump Administration drives the left absolutely nuts.
Which results in such laughable excuses for journalism as the lengthy profile of Grenell by Erik Kirschbaum that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on February 25. It focused largely on Grenell’s activities in Berlin, where he’s called on German firms to stop commerce with Iran and pushed Angela Merkel’s government to spend more on defense, take back an old Nazi from the U.S., and ban Hezbollah.
The thrust of the story was that Grenell’s tough posture on these and other issues had ruffled German feathers, which Kirschbaum characterized as unwise because “Germans have long held the United States and U.S. Embassy in high regard.” Ha! You could hardly come up with a more bald-faced lie. Anyone remotely familiar with the situation knows that Germany has long been the most anti-American country in Western Europe; a few months ago, a survey showed that only 35% of Germans view the U.S. positively and that “Germans now have more trust in China than in the United States.” Are we supposed to believe that Kirschbaum doesn’t know this?
To reader this entire article, go to: To read this entire article, go to: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/05/americas-gay-hero-bruce-bawer
Barack Obama was sure that his investigation into Trump would guarantee Clinton’s victory.
Now he’s afraid to face the consequences of his actions.
Barack Obama is horrified how the tables have turned in a criminal scandal.
All the polls predicted that Hillary Clinton would win big against Donald Trump.
What frightened them more than the thought of Trump winning was Trump’s strategy of appealing to the blue-collar workers in the heartland of America.
Obama and Clinton were not just trying to win the election, they wanted to completely destroy Trump.
The accusations of being a Russian asset seemed the perfect way to blacken Trump’s name.
The only problem with their plan was that Hillary Clinton’s underhanded dealings caught up with her and Trump won the election.
It broke last week that the FBI knew that the information in the Steele dossier was “likely corrupt” with Russian misinformation, and yet they used it to get a warrant against the Trump campaign anyway.
This was not a problem Obama was expecting to deal with.
Had Clinton won, the FBI’s wiretapping of Trump’s campaign could have easily been covered up by the Democrats.
Trump said on Sunday that people would soon “find out” what he was going to do with General Flynn, who was convicted by Mueller’s investigation, and that the “tables are turned” against the FBI and the people who started the investigation.
According to The Daily Wire:
“General Flynn was a highly respected person, and it turned out to be a scam on him,” Trump said. “The FBI said he didn’t lie and Mueller’s people wanted him to go to jail. Okay? So what am I going to do? You’ll find out what I’m going to do. I’m not going to say what I’m going to do, but I will tell you the whole thing turned out to be a scam, and it turned out to be a disgrace to our country, and it was a take-down of a duly elected President.
“And these people suffered greatly. General Flynn, I mean what they did to him, and even the FBI said, and they had some, and nobody [is a] bigger fan of the FBI than me at the level of the people that really matter,” Trump continued. “But the top of the FBI was scum, and what they did to General Flynn, and you know it and everybody knows it, was a disgrace. He was in the service for over 30 years. He ends up being a general and respected, respected, and almost his first day in office, they come in with papers. They want to investigate him. Never happened before and now the tables are turned. Investigate the investigators, I guess.”
“These were crooked people,” Trump added. “These are bad people. These are very dangerous people. You know what they are though? They’re scum. They’re human scum.”
There must be consequences for the people who broke laws to make a political attack on Trump.
Obama should be very worried. He was in charge of the FBI when this scandal happened and there is a huge question of whether he knew of the FBI’s corrupt investigation.
The Washington Post, an enormously influential and widely cited publication, fought the good fight. For five solid weeks, it was able to pretend that Tara Reade’s sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden either didn’t exist or were so illegitimate as to be unworthy of any serious attention. For five solid weeks, The Post was able to wait and see which way the political winds might ultimately blow, and to give Ms. Reade some time to realize that she was fighting a losing battle and should just go away.
Consider a few remarkable numbers. On September 15, 2018, The Washington Post published its first story about Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault claims against Brett Kavanaugh. Three weeks later — on October 6, 2018 —the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh. During the 21 days in between, The Post produced approximately 760 news articles and opinion pieces about the Kavanaugh-Ford affair. The vast majority of those stories trashed Kavanaugh and were sympathetic to Ford.
By contrast, Tara Reade went public with her sexual-assault charge against Joe Biden in a podcast interview on March 25, 2020, when she reported that Biden had digitally raped her when she was an employee in his Senate office. During the 21 days after Ms. Reade went public with her story, The Washington Post published a grand total of precisely 4 articles or op-ed pieces about the case. That’s right. The 21-day ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories was 760 to 4 — or, to put it another way, 190 to 1. In fact, the paper did not publish even a single story about Reade’s claims against Biden until April 12.
For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.
The Post’s decision to ignore Reade’s allegations for so long is even more remarkable when we consider the enormously serious nature of the charge she was making. On January 6, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice that FBI Director Robert Mueller — in response to “the voices of survivors, advocates, law enforcement personnel and many others” — had just made an “important change” in how the Bureau defined “forcible rape.”Whereas the definition previously had “only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina,” the new definition would now be this: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
But The Washington Post doesn’t give a damn about the new rape, the old rape, or any other kind of rape — unless the suspected offender is a conservative. Not until April 28 — five weeks after Tara Reade had gone public with her claims against Biden — did The Post even begin to give her case anything more than the barest passing mention. Whereas the ratio for Post coverage of the Kavanaugh and Biden stories had theretofore been about 190 to 1, beginning on April 28 the new ratio was about 8 to 1 — still a shameful, though not nearly as astronomical, discrepancy.
Why the shift at that point? Because by April 28, it was no longer possible for The Post to pretend that Tara Reade didn’t exist. Because by then, other news outlets were reporting that people who knew Reade in the 1990s were now corroborating the fact that she had told them about the assault shortly after it happened. You see, if everyone else is reporting that it’s raining outside, you look rather imbecilic if you lock yourself in a windowless room and keep claiming that it’s a sunny day.
In short, The Washington Post didn’t begin to give the Reade-Biden story anything more than an occasional obligatory glance, until it was absolutely forced to do so. That’s because The Washington Post is not a newspaper. It is a demonstrably worthless, politicized rag whose sole purpose is to propagandize on behalf of Democrats and left-wing politics. Aside from that, it is a paper of considerable utility for anyone who needs to wrap a fish, ignite some kindling, soak up some grease, line the bottom of a bird cage, or swat a cockroach in the bathroom. Certainly, no one can deny that The Post has its uses.
The Post’s Kavanaugh Stories Were Overwhelmingly Anti-Kavanaugh & Anti-Trump….
… Following Ms. Ford’s initial public statement, The Washington Post raced to print the first of what would become more than 760 stories about Kavanaugh and the allegations against him. Below is a sampling of just a few of those stories. Each listing begins with the date of the article or opinion piece, followed by the title in bold italics, followed by a brief excerpt from the text in order to convey some sense of the story’s tone and content…..
If a particular story — however false, far-fetched, or unverifiable — has the potential to harm President Trump or conservative agenda priorities, The Washington Post will devote unlimited financial and manpower resources to keeping Americans’ attention firmly fixed upon it for as long as possible.
By contrast, if another story — however plausible or widely corroborated by credible witnesses — has the potential to harm a key political figure to whom the Democratic Party has hitched its star, The Post will do everything within its power to bury, whitewash, soften, or discredit that story.
It isn’t even debatable. The Washington Post is not a newspaper. It’s a comic book, minus the gravitas.
by: David Horowitz
In this spring season, America’s future is fraught with uncertainties as a result of the pandemic unleashed by communist China’s malicious deceptions about a virus that first appeared in the city of Wuhan.
Will the nation be able to “re-open” as the president desires, or will it descend into a long-lasting depression with millions unemployed? At the same time, a much greater uncertainty haunts the horizon. This uncertainty is a product of the ferocious hate for the president and his supporters ginned up by the political left ever since the 2016 election.
The anti-Trump fervor is so intense that it has divided the nation into two alien camps until there is hardly any longer a national conversation or a united front in the face of the deadly contagion.
For anyone not in thrall to anti-Trump obsessions, the spectacle of Trump hatred is unfathomable. It’s not that the criticisms of President Trump are harsh, but that they veer on the lunatic, making communication with those who voice them impossible. It is why the national conversation and a semblance of national unity in the face of threats seem almost hopeless.
A recent New York Times interview with Bernie Sanders impersonator Larry David highlights the problem. “You know, it’s an amazing thing,” David the Times, “[Trump] has not one redeeming quality. You could take some of the worst dictators in history, and I’m sure that all of them, you could find one decent quality. Stalin could have had one decent quality, we don’t know!”
Where to begin? Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who killed 40 million of his own countrymen – in peacetime. How does such a preposterous comparison even occur to a man as intelligent as Larry David? Here are a few of Trump’s obvious redeeming qualities: Trump went out of his way to give a presidential pardon to free Alice Johnson a 63-year-old African American grandmother sentenced to life without parole for a non-violent drug charge. Johnson had served 21 years of her sentence when Trump freed her. Barack Obama by contrast turned a deaf ear to her appeals.
Trump also shepherded the passage of the First Step Act, something no other Republican would have done, giving thousands of mainly African American prisoners a second chance. Here’s the way far left CNN commentator Van Jones what Trump had done: “[S]omething beautiful is happening … It is happening right now, people coming together to help the people who have nothing. And it is amazing.”
How does one engage a mentality that claims Trump has no redeeming qualities but that historical monsters like Stalin probably do? The New York Times interviewer didn’t even notice, let alone challenge this absurdity.
What is most troubling for the future of our democracy is that the otherwise intelligent people, including those who inhabit its elite opinion institutions, think — or rather don’t think — about Trump and his supporters in the same ludicrous way as Larry David.
In an in the New York Review of Books titled “Vector in Chief,” Finian O’Toole describes Trump thus: “Trump’s narcissism, mendacity, bullying, and malignant incompetence were obvious before the coronavirus crisis and they have been magnified rather than moderated in his surreal response to a catastrophe whose full gravity he failed to accept until March 31, when it had become horribly undeniable.”
False. Trump banned travel from China and declared the virus “a national health emergency” on January 31, two months earlier – actions which caused Democrats like Biden and Pelosi and their lackey press to call him a xenophobe and a racist. O’Toole references to Trump’s March 31 remarks but ignores his earlier on January 31.
O’Toole then concocts a bizarre argument that Trump’s alleged later decision to take the epidemic seriously is merely a self-interested necessity because his supporters are in the category of the most vulnerable to the disease. He , “For we must bear in mind that Trump’s ‘real people,’ the ones who make up his electoral base, are disproportionately prone to the chronic illnesses (the ‘underlying conditions’) that make Covid-19 more likely to prove fatal.”
So even Trump’s good deeds are bad deeds, dictated by his voracious self-interest: People who are sick vote for Trump, while Trump for selfish reasons is forced to protect them.
It gets worse. Since it’s that time of year, let’s throw in some religion: “Trump has acted in relation to Covid-19 like the God who tells the Jews to mark their homes with a sign so that the plagues he is inflicting on Egypt will pass by their doors—with the malign twist that he has instead marked out his own chosen people for special harm.” Get the point? What an evil president we have to lead us.
Fifty-two percent of voters over the age of 45 voted for Trump. In addition to being more prone to illness, these older people have active memories of the disasters of socialism, went to schools that still taught American principles and the American Constitution rather than Rules for Radicals, and also have a healthy understanding of why America needs a strong military rather than the degraded one Obama left as his legacy.
President Donald Trump just trolled MSNBC host Rachel Maddow with a video clip of her claiming a Navy hospital ship would not be arriving in New York to aid in the coronavirus fight.
The clip featured a buzzer sound every time Maddow said something which ultimately turned out to be bogus.
The liberal MSNBC host told viewers on March 20th that the USNS Comfort would not be helping anywhere in the country “for weeks.
The Comfort arrived in New York Harbor just 10 days later.
Accused Trump of Lying
Maddow told viewers that the President’s claim any such ship would be docking in New York is “nonsense.”
It’s unclear where she was getting her information or if she just wanted to delve into conspiracy theories for the sake of making Trump look bad.
“There is no sign that the Navy hospital ships that the president made such a big deal of, the Comfort and the Mercy, there is no sign that they’ll be anywhere on-site, helping out anywhere in the country, for weeks yet,”she argued.
Lies and Conspiracies
Cue the buzzer for that one. Then cue it again …
“The president said, when he announced that those ships would be put into action against the COVID-19 epidemic, he said one of those ships would be operational in New York harbor by next week,”Maddow claimed. “That’s nonsense, it will not be there next week.”
Hope and Solidarity
The USNS Comfort actually arrived in New York Harbor on Monday three weeks ahead of schedule, where it is set to treat non-COVID-19 patients as a means to help relieve the city’s hospital capacity.
“This great ship behind me is a 70,000-ton message of hope and solidarity to the incredible people of New York –a place I know very well, a place I love,”the President said when seeing it off on its journey.
“We’re here for you, we’re fighting for you, and we are with you all the way, and we always will be,”he told New Yorkers.
NY Officials Thank the President
Officials in New York had a generally positive reaction to President Trump’s efforts in bringing the ship to their shore.
“If there is ever a time that we need to work together, it is today,”Governor Andrew Cuomo said. “The president is right –this is a war, and what does this nation do when it’s at war? It comes together and it acts as one.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose downplaying of the severity of the crisis for weeks led to his city being the epicenter of the pandemic in America, thanked Trump.
“My message to the president is, thank you, and we need more help,”he told reporters.
Oh, and that other ship that Maddow said wasn’t coming to aid anybody, anywhere for weeks?
Rep. Maxine Waters accused President Trump of ignoring early coronavirus warnings and suggested he’s“gotten away with a lot of lying.”
The fact that the first part of that sentence is a complete lie is an irony that apparently escapes the California Democrat.
“The early notifications I’m told were ignored,”Waters said during a weekend interview with MSNBC.
Accuses Trump of Lying
Waters then accused the President of lying regarding his implementation of the Defense Production Act.
“I know that the president has gotten away with a lot of lying about what is going to happen with the Defense Act, and he said that he was going to, first of all, invoke it. He did not,”she claimed.
“He waited until the heat was on him, and then he lied on some of the big businesses that he said he had an agreement with that he really didn’t have.”
These are the same people who couldn’t stomach the thought of the President invoking various war powers acts for the last three years, now demanding he does just that.
Trump invoked the Defense Production Act on Friday, compelling General Motors to start making ventilators.
Shut His Mouth
Waters’comments are in line with those she made weeks ago when she called the President of the United States a “liar”and suggested he should shut his mouth on the coronavirus crisis.
“It’s been said over and over again that you cannot trust this president. Not only is he a liar, he does not believe in anything scientific,”she claimed without evidence. “So the President of the United States cannot be relied upon. Someone said he needs to be quiet, he needs to shut his mouth.”
First, she says he needs to keep his mouth shut, then complains that he hasn’t said or done enough.
Maxine Is Lying
It’s never a good idea to accuse somebody of lying while simultaneously doing the same thing.
As we’ve noted, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has repeatedly credited President Trump with saving countless lives through swift action at the very beginning.
Travel restrictions implemented by the administration in late January helped limit the spread of the virus.
What were Waters and her fellow Democrats focused on at that time? The impeachment sham.
Aside from that, she also blamed President Trump for a lack of respirators.
The reality, however, is that it was the Obama-Biden administration that failed to replenish those supplies.
In 2009, the H1N1 swine flu pandemic triggered a massive deployment of respirators and masks.
But the Obama administration never set about replenishing the stockpile, despite warnings from multiple experts and a 2010 report funded by the federal government recommending the repository of masks be restocked for a future pandemic.
“In hindsight, it appears to be shortsighted,”said the senior director of public health preparedness for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
The Obama administration never replenished stocks of N95 respirator masks after the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, leading to the current shortage.
Obama is to Blame for the Shortage!
President Trump has come under fire by Democrats and leftists for supposedly not preparing the country for the coronavirus outbreak.
“Our hospitals are out of gloves, masks, gowns, respirators, protective shoe coverings and basic supplies,”Representative Maxine Waters tweeted on Sunday. “What the hell more is Trump waiting for? Hey stupid, this is the worst case scenario.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden put the blame squarely on the President for supposedly “eliminating”the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense that the Obama administration set up “to prepare for future pandemics like COVID-19,”with no effect to the biodefense staff.
In response, the President has pointed out that he “inherited”an underprepared system, and it looks like he’s right. highlighted reports from the and , which attempted to criticise the President, but buried an important piece of information about the mask shortages. It turns out that the Obama administration is at fault for the current lack of N95 masks, not President Trump.
The Mainstream Media Want to Hide the Truth from You
After 100 million masks were used in the H1N1 outbreak in 2009, the Obama administration was strongly recommended to replete the masks, but the advice was not heeded. Charles Johnson, president of the International Safety Equipment Association, said that“our association is unaware of any major effort to restore the stockpile to cover that drawdown.”The outbreak “caused a 2- to 3-year backlog orders for the N95 variety,”Bloomberg News noted, adding that “the stockpile distributed about three-quarters of its inventory and didn’t build back the supply.”
In neither story did these supposed journalists link the Obama administration to the shortage of masks at all, but repeatedly bashed the President for his current handling of the coronavirus pandemic. You can expect nothing less from the mainstream media–they want to keep you ignorant of the truth.
In mid-March, as America became the nation with the most cases of the coronavirus (if you trust the Chinese statistics), Trump declared himself “a wartime president,”fighting “an invisible enemy,”which he described as the most dangerous enemy of all. But anyone paying attention to the political battlefield recently knows that there are actually two wars engulfing the country, posing dire threats to its future.
The second – visible – war was launched four years earlier by Democrats and their deep state allies to prevent Trump from being elected, then to sabotage his presidency through a vaunted “resistance,”and finally to remove him from office through several failed partisan impeachment attempts.
The first principal of psychological warfare is to attack the moral character and credibility of the adversary’s commander-in-chief. If their leader is convincingly portrayed as being driven by ulterior motives, which have nothing to do with the common good or winning the war, or worse as being a compulsive liar, he is effectively crippled in the task of mobilizing a united front in the war. Most people understand this, which is why there are so many calls for “unity”and working together in America’s current war with the invisible enemy.
Dealing with a viral epidemic is a complex matter for any leader. It requires a balancing act between reassurance and caution. Avoiding panic is one priority; sounding sufficient alarm so that potential targets will take precautions is another; and the two can obviously be in conflict. That’s why in wartime if the nation’s leader mis-speaks, or makes mistakes in assessing the battlefield, his countrymen who are dependent for their survival on his leadership normally rally around him, and hope he will do better. The last thing they do is exaggerate his errors, and do everything in their power to undermine his effectiveness as their leader.
Not so with Trump. The visible war to destroy his presidency by destroying the man has continued unabated throughout this crisis. Trump’s first action against the invisible enemy was his decision in January to ban all travel from China, the epicenter of the contagion. This life-saving move was immediately denounced by his chief political rival, former vice-president Joe Biden: “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia,…and fearmongering.”
Biden’s first presidential campaign ad followed in March, featuring this message: “Crisis comes to every presidency. We don’t blame them for that. What matters is how they handle it. Donald Trump didn’t create the coronavirus, but he is the one who called it a ‘hoax,’who eliminated the pandemic response team, and who let the virus spread unchecked across America. He should stop talking and start listening to the medical experts.”This was Biden’s response to the fact that Trump had shut down travel from China, declared a state of emergency held daily hour-and-a-half briefings at the White House flanked by his scientific team to reassure, caution and guide the public in dealing with the virus and its spread. Every claim Biden made, moreover, was demonstrably false. Trump did not call the virus a “hoax”; he called the campaign to discredit him during the crisis a continuation of the“Russia hoax.”He did not eliminate the pandemic response team; and his chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci is on the record saying that whenever he and the president have disagreed on a matter affecting the virus, the president deferred to the doctor.
When infections reached 100,000 making America the nation with the most cases in the world (assuming one could trust the numbers coming out of China), Trump’s political rival Hillary Clinton tweeted: “He did promise ‘America First.’”
This was a reference to the slogan Trump used to defeat her in the 2016 election –it was, he had said, time to put America First. In using the phrase in this context, Hillary not only mocked the American victims of the virus but insinuated that Trump was responsible for the epidemic. She also denigrated Trump’s remarkably successful effort to revive America’s economy, restore its military, secure its borders, boost the nation’s confidence, and provide a leadership that put the safety and prosperity of Americans first.
In case anyone was uncertain of the priorities of Democrat leaders as to which war and which enemy was of primary importance, Nancy Pelosi was there to remind them. In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on March 29, she accused the president of being responsible for the crisis. “His denial at the beginning was deadly. His delaying of getting equipment to where it is needed is deadly….When did the president know about this, and what did he know?….That’s for an after-action review.”Quoting the key question in the Nixon impeachment inquiry was a not so subtle warning of what a new impeachment inquiry would look like if Democrats retained control of the House the following November.
Like Biden’s, Pelosi’s slanders had no basis in fact. The lack of masks, for example, was the result of the Obama administration’s failure to replenish the nation’s stockpile, which he and Biden had used up t during the H1N1 epidemic and failed to replace. The claim that Trump was in denial at the beginning of the crisis is belied by his swift ban on travel to China and the distortion of his remark that the Democrats’attacks on him –not the virus –were an updated version of the Russia hoax.
A more pertinent question was what were Pelosi and the Democrats focused on as the virus spread from China outward and then to America in December and January 2018. Answer: led by Pelosi, Democrats were entirely focused on impeaching Trump on a partisan basis, and causing the entire nation to focus on that objective as well.
Here’s the timeline:
On December 18, the Democrats in the House impeached the president without a single Republican vote. During the process the House prosecutors defended the unprecedented speed with which they drove the process as a matter of “national security”alleging that Trump had tried to rig the elections once and would likely do so again. For the same reason, Rep. Adam Schiff who was running the prosecution said the 130 million voters scheduled to cast their ballots in the coming elections could not be trusted to decide the president’s fate, which was better kept in the hands of Schiff and the 232 Democrats in the House.
Then, in an unexpected move, Pelosi refused to send the impeachment articles to the Senate for trial. A month later, she changed her mind, sending them on January 15. This was only four days after China’s state media reported the first death from the virus in Wuhan. Five days later the first U.S. case occurred in a man who had traveled to the infected city. On January 23, the Chinese government sealed off Wuhan to stop the virus’spread, even as the House prosecutors opened their case for the removal of President Trump.
On January 30, the World Health Organization declared a “global health emergency”because of the dangers posed by the virus. The next day Trump declared a state of emergency and imposed a ban on travel from China, which Democrats opposed as “racist”and “anti-immigrant.”
Five days later, Trump delivered his State of the Union message to a joint session of Congress. In it he said, “Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the Coronavirus outbreak in China. My Administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.”When Trump’s remarks were over, Speaker Pelosi, who was standing on the podium behind him, tore up the official copy of his speech in front the television cameras, as a gesture of protest and contempt.
The next day the Senate voted to acquit Trump. It was only then that Pelosi’s party finally took up the subject of the virus in the House Foreign Affairs sub-committee on Asia.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the war on Trump –a war that for most Democrats takes precedence over the war on the virus, is how it shapes the attitudes of the media elites who should know better and who in other circumstances would have been critics not allies of self-absorbed, ethics-free Machiavellians like Nancy Pelosi.
Andrew Sullivan is a talented and nuanced writer, who has written sharp and valuable critiques of the ideological left. But when it comes to Trump, Sullivan’s usually astute judgment succumbs to calamitous outbreaks of Trump Derangement Syndrome. In a recent cleverly titled article “Trapped in Trump’s Blind Spot,”Sullivan dismisses Trump’s attempt to find light at the end of the tunnel before the measures to contain the virus kill the economy and leave millions of Americans without jobs to go back to. There were reasons to question Trump’s timetable –he originally proposed Easter Sunday as the day the nation would come back to life. But he has already adjusted the deadline by a month, and it is hard to fault his intention in providing a stricken nation with a ray of hope.
But Sullivan will have none of this. To him, Trump is an egomaniacal menace with no interest in the public good or in anything but himself. The nation is trapped because the Democrats’three-year seditious effort to overthrow him failed. Therefore, since he is still the president, “given the crisis, we have only one option. We need to listen to the experts, rely on governors, trust in Drs. Fauci and Birx, and do our bit. But we also have a more urgent patriotic task: to ignore this president until we can eventually rid ourselves of him. This is too grave a crisis to give him the respect he doesn’t deserve.”(Emphasis added).
In other words, no support for the nation’s leader in his fight against the invisible enemy that has laid the nation low. To Sullivan, Trump’s determination to defeat the virus and revive the economy is “explained entirely by Trump’s reliably rock-solid instinct to preserve himself and his own perceived interests over any kind of rational assessment of the public good, or any measure of internal consistency or coherence.”
This is the typical giveaway that shows we are dealing with an irrational tic rather than a credible analysis. It’s a giveaway because it is refuted by facts so obvious that everyone not so deranged can see them. One would never know from this arrogant dismissal, for example, that while Obama and Clinton made themselves multi-millionaires by exploiting the high offices with which they were entrusted, Donald Trump is the only American president who has donated his entire $400,000 annual salary to the public good, or that he had just given $100,000 –his first quarter paycheck – to the federal government to fight the corona virus decimating his countrymen.
To reduce Trump to such a repulsive caricature one has to ignore how he has dedicated himself against all odds –and opposition across the spectrum – to reshaping America’s trade deals in order to end the fleecing of his fellow citizens to the tune of trillions of dollars over three presidencies. The fleecing was done by foreign powers who took advantage of the laziness of previous presidents both Democrat and Republican who didn’t care enough to make those deals fair for the citizens they were supposed to serve. Truth be told, as a politician dedicated to the public good, Trump has few if any modern presidential rivals.
Ana Navarro is a pundit for CNN, ABC and other anti-Trump channels. Shocked by the fact that one poll was reporting that 51% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the corona virus, while only 45% disapproved, Navarro wrote: “Who are these 51% of Americans who approve of the way this lying, narcissistic, science-denying, petty, partisan, infantile, intellectual wasteland, lame excuse for a President with the vocabulary of a 4 year-old (apologies to 4 year-olds), is mishandling this crisis?”
This was far more typical of media anti-Trumpers. These attitudes led to widespread calls from Democrats like Joe Biden for the president to just “shut up”as a way of helping the fight against the virus. The consensus among the anti-Trump media was that the hour-and-a-half daily press conferences held by Trump and his scientific team were Trump substitutes for the political rallies he could no longer hold because of the nation’s lockdown, and should be terminated for that reason. On the other hand, when the Democrat governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo held similar hour-long pressers about the virus, the response of the CNN-MSNBC-NY Times-Washington Post anti-Trump media was that the virus had caused the unlikely rise of a new “political hero”and would be a contender to replace the inadequate Biden as the party’s 2020 nominee.
Few things could be more telling in revealing the agenda that the anti-Trump Democrats considered more important, or the war that was closest to their hearts. As for the damage they inflicted on a stricken nation by their sabotage of its duly elected leader, that toll was still being counted.