Is Michelle Obama the Eventul Candidate?

For John, BLUF:  For me one of the most interesting question for 2024 is who will be the Democratic Party Candidate for President.  If not Ms Obama, who?  Hunter Biden?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Megyn Kelly says if Michelle Obama launches 2024 presidential run, ‘it’s a whole new ballgame’

From The New York Post, by Shannon Thaler, 10 January 2024, 9:49 a.m. ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

Megyn Kelly said that if Michelle Obama launches a candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, “it’s a whole new ballgame.”

“There’s no question she’s more talented than Joe Biden is politically. No question,” Kelly added during Tuesday’s episode of her SiriusXM podcast, “The Megyn Kelly Show.”

Though Kelly said she’s unsure whether the former first lady would vie for the commander-in-chief role, she called Obama “a powerful Democratic weapon” during her husband’s two terms in the White House.

“Whether it works this time, as a pundit, I remain skeptical,” Kelly said.

The former Fox News personality pointed to Obama’s appearance on Jay Shetty’s “On Purpose” podcast as a hint that she could launch a presidential bid.

My Wife fully agrees with Megan Kelly.

My expectation is that President Joe biden will not be the candidate for President on the November Ballot.  Which leaves us with two questions: Who and When?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Eye for the Long Term

For John, BLUF:  A lot of us go for the quip that captures the moment, but ignores the long run.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It’s time to admit it:  Mitt Romney was right about Russia

From CNN, by Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza, 22 February 2022, 3:42 PM EST.

Here is the lede plus three:

A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.

“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” Romney, who would be the Republican presidential nominee in the 2012 race against President Barack Obama, told Wolf Blitzer in March of that year.  “They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Obama and his team pounced on the comment, insisting that it showed Romney was hopelessly out of touch when it came to the threats facing the US.

In the third presidential debate between the two candidates in October 2012, Obama went directly after Romney for that remark.  “When you were asked, ‘What’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,’ you said ‘Russia.’  Not al Qaeda; you said Russia,” Obama said.  “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

That is the way it is with National Security, with Foreign Affairs.  There are the immediate threats and there are the long term threats, the threats that existed decades ago and will still exist decades from now.  We should remember that 400 years ago China was the world's largest economy and 500 and some years ago China had the biggist "Truasure Fleet", in numbers and in size of ships.  China dismantled that fleet and it is taking a long time to recover.

It is nice to see CNN admit this error of the moment, back a decade ago.

Regards  —  Cliff

CNN Loses the Bubble

For John, BLUF:  Actually, I am not sure CNN knows there is a bubble..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How QAnon's lies are hijacking the national conversation

From CNN, by Reporters Rob Kuznia, Curt Devine and Drew Griffin, 15 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

It started with a Tweet from a QAnon supporter at 2:09 in the morning:  #SubpoenaObama.

Though devoid of context, the cryptic message made sense to anyone in tune with the groundless conspiracy theory that the Obama administration -- prior to leaving office in 2017 -- had taken active measures to undermine the incoming Trump presidency.

Are these three Reporters living in some time capsule, sealed in 2016?  By now all but the most partisan Democrats, and, apparently, news media, know that the Trump campaign, and Administration, faced a "hostile work environment".  From Carter Page to LTG Michael Flynn, to the President himself, under Impeachment, the land mines laid before Inauguration were signs of an Obama Administraition and Deep State resisting the President.  Sure, the President plowed through it, up until 3 November, but it was still there.

I am not a follower of QAnon.  However, neither am I a follower of CNN.  Neither is reliable.  Sadly, each has its followers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pearl Harbor File

For John, BLUF:  Just because I am curious, I would like to know what was going through Ms Susan Rice's mind when she typed her memo of the 5 January 2016 White House meeting on Investigating retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

EXPLOSIVE RICE MEMO DECLASSIFIED

From Powerline, by Mr John Hinderaker, 19 May 2020.

Here is the lede:

We have known for more than two years that, on the day of President Trump’s inauguration and just minutes before she left the White House for the last time, Susan Rice, then President Obama’s National Security Adviser, wrote a memo to herself about “Russia.”  Specifically, she documented the fact, presumably for her later protection should the matter become public, that on January 5, 2017, President Obama had directed her to lie to her incoming counterpart, General Michael Flynn, about the Russia investigation that was then ongoing, in which General Flynn himself was, unbeknownst to him, one of the targets.  This deception violated all historic norms, but it was vital if the Obama holdovers (James Comey et al.) were to be able to continue their “Russia investigation,” a bare pretext for unraveling Trump’s presidency, post-inauguration.

I see this problem at two levels:

• At one level we see harassment of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn because he is a trouble maker, both within the Intelligence Community and, as Director of DIA, with President Obama's Foreign Policy, especially Syria.
• At the second level there is the question of how the Obama Administration handled the handover of power in January 2017, and whether the Obama Administration was prepared to actually turn over to the incoming Trump Administration or whether it was trying to hold some things back for the deep state?

Are we going to just let this pass by and not look into it?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Previous Administration

For John, BLUF:  It appears the previous Administration is still fighting a rear guard action against the current Administration, which has hamstrung it a bit in dealing with ongoing problems.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Barack Obama is Worried About Something, That Is Obvious

From PJ Media, by Reporter Matt Margolis, 11 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

Barack Obama’s decision to comment about the Michael Flynn case has the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board scratching their heads as to “what he’s really worried about.”

“Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn.  Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.”

In the past couple of weeks, evidence that Trump’s former national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn was set up by FBI agents in a perjury trap resulted in his case being dropped by the Justice Department.  Soon after, the release of declassified documents and testimony revealed that Barack Obama was aware that Flynn was being wiretapped and was briefed on the details of conversations he was having with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

In a private call with former members of his administration, Obama weighed in on the DOJ dropping the charges against Flynn, bizarrely claiming that it was unprecedented, and incorrectly claiming that Flynn was charged with perjury.  Audio of the call was leaked to the media.

“The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said.  “And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.  That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.  And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

I can appreciate that the members of the previous Administration wish to save the American People from the follies of the new Administration, but that is the nature of Democracy--As H L Mencken would have it, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."  While the job of the opposition is to oppose, the job of the previous administration is to move on.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Smart Move

For John, BLUF:  With DOJ moving to drop charges against Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Democrats from President Obama to Representative Adam Schiff to Brookings Analyst Benjamin Witten have said DOJ is corrupt  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Judge Halts Justice Dept. Move to Drop Flynn Charges

From The Wash Post, by Reporters Spencer S Hsu and Carol D Leonnig, 12 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

A U.S. judge on Tuesday put on hold the Justice Department’s move to drop charges against Michael Flynn, saying he expects independent groups and legal experts to argue against the bid to exonerate President Trump’s former national security adviser of lying to the FBI.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington D.C. said he expects individuals and organizations will seek to intervene in the politically charged case.

Sullivan’s order came after the government took the highly irregular step last Thursday of reversing its stance on Flynn’s charges and embracing Flynn’s move to dismiss his own guilty pleas.

This seems a smart move.  If you have something to say, say it directly to the Judge.  Don't just give us a tweet or a sound-bite.

As for myself, I say DOJ has finally done the proper thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Russiagate as Fort Sumpter?

For John, BLUF:  Vengeance and Justice are two different things.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Nixon taught Barack and President Trump

Is it a tell that he says "… taught Obama and President Trump"?

From Don Surber, by Retired Reporter Don Surber, 9 May 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

The shadow of President Richard Milhous Nixon was much longer than his aborted presidency.  Nearly a half century after his resignation, he has taught the last 2 presidents very different lessons.

President Donald John Trump learned how to handle the press and the deep state by avoiding the mistakes of President Nixon.

Obama learned that instead of using his campaign people to spy on political opponents, he would just turn the FBI into the KGB and do his evil work.  Obama's thugs lied 17 times to a federal judge to spy on President Trump.  Obama did so realizing there would be no penalty, and to date not even a lowly agent has been indicted.

On Fox this morning, President Trump openly admitted he learned from President Nixon's mistakes.

Our president said, "I study history, and the firing of everybody — I should’ve in one way, but I’m glad I didn’t, because look at the way it turned out.  They’re all a bunch of crooks and they got caught."

I expect this story hasn't played out.  I also expect that half the nation is so entrenched that they can't be convinced one way or another.  This is not a happy outcome.  It is up to the other half to ensure there is justice and mercy "and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Professor Stephen Walt Scores President Trump

For John, BLUF:  There is no doubt that the US Presidency has gained powers over the decades, but I think it is a stretch to think this President is more Authoritarian than say a Woodrow Wilson for Frankly D Roosevvelt.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Is Failing His Dictatorship Test

Here is the sub-headline:

After impeachment, the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism.

(I found those two headlines contradicting each other.  The reason is I misread the main headline.  I thought that if President Trump was failing his "Dictatorship Test" it meant he wasn't showing signs of being a good dictator.  Apparently Professor Walt sees the scoring going the other way.  This is the kind of thing that caused me to be in the bottom half of my class in High School and Undergraduate level college.)

From Foreign Policy, by Professor Stephen M Walt, 14 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, I wrote up a list of the “10 Ways to Tell if Your President Is a Dictator.”  I wasn’t saying Trump was in fact an aspiring autocrat; it was merely a list of warning signs to keep track of as his presidency preceded.  In 2017, I offered an updated assessment and concluded that the danger of creeping autocracy was pretty serious.

Now that Trump has been acquitted by a Republican-controlled Senate that couldn’t even be bothered to interview any witnesses with personal knowledge of his possible high crimes and misdemeanors, it seems appropriate to revisit my list once again.  Spoiler alert:  There are some flashing red lights on the dashboard.

Here are the ten items on Professor Walt's list:

1. Systematic efforts to intimidate the media.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• On the other hand, the media is doing a pretty good job of trying to intimidate the President
• I score a tie.
2. Building an official pro-Trump media network
• Professor Walt gives it a partial RED check, and takes a slam at Rush Limbaugh.
• I don't see any official pro-Trump media (Fox isn't there).  Maybe The Epoch Times.
• I score it meh.
3. Politicizing the civil service, military, National Guard, or domestic security agencies.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• I guess this means that he has never heard of Lisa Page or Peter Stork or James Comey.  Or LTC Alexander Vindman.
• I go with the flashing RED light and award it to President Barack Obama.  As the Tea Party groups understand.  Or maybe Professor Alan Dershowitz knows.
4. Using government surveillance against domestic political opponents.
• Professor Walt gives it a partial RED check.
• Hello, President Obama?  As for Ukraine, I am waiting for the rest of the story.  This could come back to bite Professor Walt.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
5. Using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• If it is about reducing Federal regulations, then it is a good thing, since it seems to mean more jobs and a growing economy.
• I saw a GREEN Check.
6. Stacking the Supreme Court.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• The Professor talks badly about Justice Kavanaugh, not not about the Borking.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
7. Enforcing the law for only one side.
• Professor Walt gives it a flashing RED light.
• Does the Professor applaud the DOJ treatment of Mr Roger Stone?  Not a nice guy, Mr Stone, but the sentence makes no sense, except in the sense that he associates with Republicans.
• I give this a flashing BLUE light.
8. Really rigging the system
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• This is the voting system.  Have you seen where Democrats are calling President Trumps outreach to African Americans and Hispanics as "voter suppression."  I think President Trump is opening up the system.
• I give this a partial GREEN check.
9. Fearmongering.
• Professor Walt gives it a RED check.
• Among the problems listed is North Korea.  President Trump has actually tried to deal with the problem, and in general is playing down external threats.  Remember the take-down of Iranian Terror Leader Major General Qasem Soleimani?  The President has worked to downplay the Iranian reaction, for which he has been belittled.
• I give this a partial PINK check.  (No President is perfect in this area and neither is the IC.)
10. Demonizing the opposition.
• Professor Walt gives it a "Well, Duh".
• And Visa-Versa.  In the last week the Speaker has declared that President Trump was NOT acquitted by the US Senate and that he will be Impeached for ever.  That is demonizing.
• I give this a strong, "Well, Duh".

"It is difference of opinion that makes horse-races."--Mark Twain

It might appear that Professor Walt and I have differences of opinions.  And, in general, I like his work.

This is my last free article from Foreign Policy for this month or this year or for ever.  Sad.

Regards  —  Cliff

Abuse of Authority

For John, BLUF:  I am not sure how far back this kind of thing goes, but maybe back to the early Presidents, although I doubt zG Washington did it.  For sure it needs to be held down.  It is unseemly.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Obama Personally Asked the FBI to Investigate Someone on Behalf of George Soros,' Says Alan Dershowitz

From PJ Media, by Ms Megan Fox, 17 February 2020.

Here is the lede:

In an interview with Breitbart News, Alan Dershowitz claimed he is in possession of documents that will show Barack Obama asked the FBI to investigate an unnamed person on behalf of George Soros.  Those documents, he says, will come out during a lawsuit that will be filed in the future.  Dershowitz said the only difference between Trump and other presidents influencing the Department of Justice is that Trump is open about it while the others "whispered."

I hope this report is wrong, but I am doubtful.  Given the IRS efforts to suppress the Tea Party Movement this would not be out of line with other Obama Administration actions.  take Benghazi, for example.  Abuse of the legal system.

Is there any reason for those outside the DC Beltway to not doubt the integrity (integrity) of the upper echelons of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Are the Democrats in Congress blind?  Or don't they care, as long as Nancy Pelosi can be Speaker.  Her of the "Impeached for Ever."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Executive Orders

For John, BLUF:  It is usually interesting to examine the back story on any assertion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Executive order

On the City Life Show Friday I was challenged by one of the co-hosts a to the fact that President Trump was running the nation by Executive Orders.  I immediately flashed on President Barack Obama and his infamous quote that "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone".

Here is the Wikipedia entry, first three paragraphs:

In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.  The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources.  Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch.  The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.  Some policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.  As the head of state and head of government of the United States, as well as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, only the president of the United States can issue an executive order.

Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their own terms.  At any time, the president may revoke, modify, or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor.  Typically, a new president reviews enforced executive orders in the first few weeks in office.

President Obama issued 276 during his eight years in office.

President Trump has issued 138 Executive Orders so far in a little over years.♠

Here is a partial list of Presidential Executive Orders:

PRESIDENT	EOs	Terms
John F. Kennedy	214	<1
Lyndon B. Johnson	325	1+
Richard Nixon	346	1+
Gerald R. Ford	169	<1
Jimmy Carter	320	1
Ronald Reagan	381	2
George H. W. Bush	166	1
Bill Clinton	308	2
George W. Bush	291	2
Barack Obama	276	2
Donald Trump	140	<1

It appears that President Trump is on track to issue a few more Executive Orders than President Obama, but not out of line with other Presidents.

I guess we could do a year by year trend analysis, but only if someone writes a comment asking for it.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  One Wikipedia page says 138 and one says 140.  We just can't seem to get a consensus on President Trump. (LOL)

Open Government

For John, BLUF:  The rules of conduct the Democratic House Managers are setting for elected officials seem pretty high.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Congress:  Attorney General Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

Here is the sub-headline:

Obama admin blocking congressional probe into cash payments to Iran

FRom The Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Adam Kredo, 28 October 2016.  (Three and a half years ago.)

Here is the lede plus two:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration's secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has "pleaded the Fifth" Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch's behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

I look forward to our new future, when Administration personnel conduct full and open relations with the US Congress, and visa-versa.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impeachment Now and Forever

For John, BLUF:  Now and forever means the Dems must hope and pray they never lose the House with a Democrat in the White House.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Vow To Continue Impeachment Investigations Regardless Of Senate Outcome

From The Daily Wire, by Reporter Ryan Saavedra, 16 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Attorneys representing House Democrats have told a federal court that House Democrats intend to continue impeachment investigations against President Donald Trump after they vote on impeachment this week, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Senate’s impeachment trial.

“In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House’s demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate’s expected impeachment trial next month,” Politico reported. “But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit.”

In the court filing, Democrats accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of essentially engaging in a cover-up to protect Trump, claiming that the DOJ took an “extraordinary position in” the Democrats’ impeachment investigations by not “disclosing grand-jury material needed for the House’s impeachment of President Trump and the Senate’s trial to remove him from office.”

Democrats’ insistence at continuing to investigate the findings of the Mueller probe comes after Attorney General William Barr said last week in an NBC News interview that “there was and never has been any evidence of collusion.”

House Democrats have said in recent days that there is no limit to the number of times that they can impeach the president.

I was hoping for the US Senate to quickly dispose of the Impeachment.  I am thinking repeat Impeachment’s might evoke a real trial, one where there are not just House Managers, but House Members and Staff as witnesses.

Some Democrat told us "Elections have consequences".  Apparently all that was forgotten in 2016.  Apparently the Democrats in the House, and the Media, are willing to throw away our Republic in a fit of pique, a fit of anger.

I have been trying to figure out Speaker Pelosi's plan, assuming she has one, and am not sure I am there yet.  At this point I am leaning toward my Wife's view—Nancy Pelosi wants President Trump to win a second term.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting the Straight Word

For John, BLUF:  Why does the Press elide over Obama Administration data when they publish, as bad, lesser data from the Trump Administration?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

BARACK OBAMA HARDEST HIT

Blog post, 19 November 2019, by Mr Ed Driscoll.

Here is most of the blog post:

Reuters, AFP withdraw stories on UN Study on child detentions.  In their mea culpa, Reuters notes, “A Nov. 18 story headlined ‘U.S. has world’s highest rate of children in detention -U.N. study’ is withdrawn.  The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued.”

Amber Athey of the Daily Caller tweets:

Several things going on here:

– Media largely ignored the immigration crisis under Obama.
– Things that happened under Obama admin have been used to attack Trump (kids in cages, family separation).
– UN’s blind acceptance of detention #’s from China & Russia is concerning. And as one of her followers adds, “Instead of editing the piece to accuse Obama, they deleted the story entirely.”

The bad thing is that people in the media are not embarrassed by this.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Confused Over Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  Yes, Virginia, there is a DeepState, and it is trying to thwart the American People by thwarting their elected President.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Assistance was essential' — Pentagon leaders advised Trump against freezing aid to Ukraine, senior official testifies

From Task and Purpose, by New York Daily News Reporter Chris Sommerfeldt, 12 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

A senior Pentagon official told impeachment investigators that President Donald Trump's freeze on nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine posed a strategic nightmare for the Defense Department and put the American-allied country in a deeply dangerous position, according to impeachment inquiry testimony released Monday.

Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant defense secretary overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine, corroborated key parts of previous impeachment testimony during her Oct. 26 deposition and provided a new window into the Pentagon's role in trying to block Trump's attempt to press Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden's family and other Democrats before the 2020 election.

Cooper said national security officials across the government were confident Trump was wrong in holding up the $391 million in military assistance while pushing for the Ukrainian investigations

And what does President Barack Obama say about giving lethal aid to Ukraine?♠

In the mean time it is turning out that Democratic House Members believe that running for President (or at least for the Democratic Party nomination) exempts one from any investigation of corrupt conduct.

Sad.  Very sad.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  Hint:  He opposed it and thwarted it until the day he turned the Presidency over to Donald J Trump.

Illegal Immigration Is A Long Term Mess

For John, BLUF:  The problems faced by President Trump are those faced by President Obama and President Bush, and President….  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Seven Facts About Obama’s Immigration Record Liberals Refuse to Admit

From PJ Media, by Auth Matt Margolis, 8 July 2019.

Here is the seven:

7. Obama deported a lot of illegal immigrants.

6. Obama kept immigrant children in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

5. Obama tear-gassed immigrants at the border.

4. Immigrants died trying to cross the border into the United States under Obama.

3. Obama let immigrant children into the hands of human traffickers.

2. Obama separated families at the border.

1. Obama built the cages for immigrant children.

Truth be told, it has been a mess since the 1960s.  And the US Congress has studiously avoided fixing it, although I give Speaker Pelosi Credit for getting a $4.6 Billion item through Congress recently, to start to fix the problem.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Bad Take

For John, BLUF:  I am embarrassed for my nation that partisanship has led to an unwillingness to accept the results of an election, and thus to lack of cooperation on important issues.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

An Open Letter to the Director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Here is the sub-headline:

On June 17, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, posted an Instagram live video discussing the detention camps along the southern US border as “concentration camps” in which she used the phrase “Never Again.”  This drew sharp criticism the following day from Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, and others for allegedly misappropriating a slogan associated with the Holocaust.  After several days of heated media and political debate, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum released a statement on June 24 condemning the use of Holocaust analogies.  We received the following open letter addressed to the director of the museum, Sara J. Bloomfield, delivered by the signatories on July 1.

—The Editors

From The New York Review of Books, by Scholars Omer Bartov, Doris Bergen, Andrea Orzoff, Timothy Snyder, and Anika Walke, et al, on, 1 July 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

We are scholars who strongly support the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Many of us write on the Holocaust and genocide; we have researched in the USHMM’s library and archives or served as fellows or associated scholars; we have been grateful for the Museum’s support and intellectual community. Many of us teach the Holocaust at our universities, and have drawn on the Museum’s online resources. We support the Museum’s programs from workshops to education.

We are deeply concerned about the Museum’s recent “Statement Regarding the Museum’s Position on Holocaust Analogies.” We write this public letter to urge its retraction.

To say it flat out, I am disappointed in this.  This statement shows a total lack of perspective.  For one thing, this is not about people being uprooted and then sent to a camp, being ripped from their home, and then sent to a camp from which they were not expected to return.  No, this is about people who have voluntarily left their homes and illegally passed through other countries to enter ours, where reception facilities are inadequate and resources to improve those facilities have been stingily provides by the Congress, and workers, like those at Wayfarer, have been working to thwart improving said facilities.  And, what is the plan?  Open borders for the 42 odd million people of Central America, plus the people from other parts of the world filtering across our Southern Border.

I do wonder if this would have been published if the signers, and the Editors of The New York Review of Books had realized things were as bad under President Obama?

Regards  —  Cliff

President Obama on Russia Gate before November 2016

For John, BLUF:  Do you think they were trying to stitch up LTG (ret) Michael Flynn, who was probably a pain in the rear?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Colluders, Obstructionists, Leakers, and Other Projectionists

From American Greatness, by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, 26 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Before the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the idea that the Russians or anyone else could warp or tamper with our elections in any serious manner was laughed off by President Obama.  “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections,” Obama said in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.

Obama was anxious that the sure-to-be-sore-loser Trump would not blame his defeat on voting impropriety in a fashion that might call into question Clinton’s victory.  After Clinton’s stunning defeat,  Russian “collusion”—thanks initially to efforts by Obama holdover Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to go after Michael Flynn and the successful attempts of the CIA and FBI to seed the bogus Steele dossier among the government elite—became a club to destroy the incoming Trump Administration.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Russiagate Backstory

For John, BLUF:  It is just possible the Obama Administration didn't have clean skirts WRT Russiagate.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Rosenstein:  The “Previous Administration” Didn’t Tell Us The Whole Truth, And Don’t Get Me Started On Comey

From Hot Air, by Mr Ed Morrissey, 26 April 2019.

Here is the lede:

Rod Rosenstein won’t stick around much longer at the Department of Justice, but the deputy Attorney General will make his departure memorable.  At a dinner hosted by the Armenian Bar Association, Rosenstein took aim at critics, the media, and especially Russia, whose aims at destabilizing the US remain vastly underappreciated, he warned.  However, when describing his last two years at the center of the Russiagate maelstrom, Rosenstein took veiled shots at the Obama administration, James Comey, and Congress for their roles in stoking those fires:

This makes Rod Rosenstein sound like a stand up guy, which makes him a credit to DOJ and the American System.

I hate this mess (Russiagate) and wish it would go away, before the hidden origins drag our nation further into the muck, but maybe we do need a house cleaning.  I hope Mr Horowitz is a man of integrity.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Finding the Center of Mass

For John, BLUF:  The flow of voters.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

CNN: Moderate Democrats Who Voted For Trump Are Really Put Off By AOC

From Hot Air, by Writer John Sexton, 22 March 2019.

Here is the lede:

CNN’s OutFront devoted a segment Thursday to something that should probably cause some concern among Democrats.  Reporter Jason Carroll spoke to moderate Dems in Lucerne County, Pennsylvania, i.e. people who voted for Obama and then flipped and voted for Trump in 2016, who are not fans of the way the party has been trending lately.  Specifically, they are not impressed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the new trendsetter for the party.

The thing is, CNN's Reporter wasn't pursuing this story.  These folks found him.

The good news is that this is the area former VEEP Joe Biden is from.  If he doesn't veer off down some left branch, he should draw these voters back to the Party.  Yes, Joe Biden.

As Democratic Party leaders absorb this trend the ride to the 2020 Election will become increasingly bumpy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Understanding How The Economy Works

For John, BLUF:  The system works by people getting rich and creating additional jobs, so others can prosper.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a Tweet from Professor Stephanie Kelton (@StephanieKelton):

No one makes a billion dollars.  You TAKE a billion dollars.  You take it from your workers (Hi, Jeff, Jim, and Alice!).  You plunder it from the environment (What up, Charles & David?).  You strip it using patents/protections (Lookin' at you, Bill.)

I can almost hear the voice of our Senior Senator, E Warren, in the background screaming "You didn't build that."  That said, I realize it was not her line when first uttered.

Here is the Tweet Response of Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb):

She is using Twitter and a computer to claim that those who invented them are rent seekers.  And she, a parasite, lives from rent seeking, charities, and public funds.

I am with Nassim Nicholas Taleb on this one.

And that isn't a Black Swan.

"Rent Seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth-creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff