Revealed: Obama’s Secret Farewell Letter to Trump

President Trump has called the Obama farewell letter written to him as “beautiful.”

That it is.

There is some hypocrisy to be found in the letter, in particular regarding the part about democracy. However, it’s nice to see a guy like Obama set aside politics in order to offer friendly advice to the new kid on the block.

Unfortunately, the contents of the private letter were leaked, ostensibly by someone at Trump’s end.

Bloomberg

Washington (AP) — Before he left office in January, President Barack Obama offered his successor accolades and advice in a private letter that underscored some of his concerns as he passed the baton.

In the letter, published Sunday by CNN, Obama praised President Donald Trump, saying: “Congratulations on a remarkable run. Millions have placed their hopes in you, and all of us, regardless of party, should hope for expanded prosperity and security during your tenure.”

Obama went on to urge Trump to “build more ladders of success for every child and family,” to “sustain the international order” and to protect “democratic institutions and traditions.”

Obama wrote: “We are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions — like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties — that our forebears fought and bled for.”

It is customary for presidents to leave notes for their successors. But typically these missives do not come to light so quickly. The handoff letters from President George W. Bush in 2009 and President Bill Clinton in 2001 were revealed earlier this year. CNN reports it received the Obama letter from “someone Trump showed it to.”

After taking office, Trump praised the note from Obama, calling it a “beautiful letter” in an interview with ABC. Trump added that he called Obama to thank him for the note.

The White House declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Obama.

In the letter, Obama offered some advice: urging Trump to provide opportunities for those “willing to work hard,” arguing that American “leadership in this world really is indispensable” and asking him to leave “instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them.”

Obama also wrote that Trump should “take time, in the rush of events and responsibilities, for friends and family. They’ll get you through the inevitable rough patches.” He concluded by wishing the “very best as you embark on this great adventure.”

Former top Obama aide David Axelrod seized on the letter on Twitter, writing: “What wise and eloquent advice from one president to another. Sad how thoroughly @POTUS has disregarded it!”

Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum criticized the letter’s opening words, calling it “politically correct” on CNN, though he went on to say the rest was “very gracious and well written.”

Click on the continue reading buttom to read the letter as published at CNN.

Continue reading

Unhinged Keith Olbermann: For Whom Has Trump Made America Great? (Video)

“limitless evil” That’s Olbermann’s take on Donald Trump, along with “filth.” And a lot more.

Us? According to the Little O, we’re “morons” and “degenerates.”

Nine minutes. Olbermann’s place in the narrative is to whip up his million or so fans into a frenzy over white oppression and racism. Here his target is Donald Trump, whom Olbermann is obsessed with.

Donald Trump is ‘just six Senate votes from impeachment’

Liberals harp on the “Trump is a racist” theme these days. Only problem for them is that being a racist is not a crime. Impeachment and removal from office requires that a president be guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours.” The first two are specific. The last two are vague. Pointing out that violence comes from all sides and bemoaning the loss of Confederate monuments would hardly seem a “high crime” or a “misdemeanour.”

Some would call those ideas “truth.” But in an Orwellian nightmare, truth becomes a crime.

The Independent

Donald Trump is just six Senate votes from impeachment, according to an analyst at a prominent independent think-tank.

Support for the President among Republican Senators has waned to the extent that Mr Trump is likely to only hang onto his seat by six votes, according to Elaine Kamarck of the Washington-based research group The Brookings Institution.

Ms Kamarck, who is director of the Centre for Effective Public Management, said 12 Republican Senators had “no fear of the President” and had indicated they could vote against him in a vote.

Among the Senators likely to rebel was John McCain, who delivered the killer blow to Mr Trump’s replacement for Obamacare, Ms Kamarck said in an article on the think-tank’s website.

The US constitution allows Congress to remove a president before they have completed their term if enough members vote to say they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours”.

An article of impeachment must get a majority vote in the House of Representatives before reaching the Senate. Once there, at least two-thirds of senators must find the President guilty for him to be removed.

Ms Kamarck said that 12 rebellious Republican Senators combined with 48 Democrats “who have shown no inclination to work with this President” meant Mr Trump was six votes away from a Senate conviction.

Three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings in the past. Andrew Johnson in 1898 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999 were impeached but acquitted, while Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment.

President Andrew Johnson tried to do right by the south after the War Between the States. He was impeached in 1868, with Republicans failing to remove him from office by one vote.

Woman Professor Claims Alt-Right Memes Dangerous to Democracy

A woman professor, Sophia A. McClennen, laments the legacy media’s loss of its monopoly on the production of propaganda.

She claims that alt-right Internet memes, such as the Trump Tweet showing him body slamming CNN, are dangerous. That’s pseudointellectual nonsense coming from a woman professor who will probably receive a raise and promotion for writing this shallow piece.

I’ve excerpted about a third of it.

Excerpt from Salon

Forget fake news — alt-right memes could do more damage to democracy

As BuzzFeed notes, there is “a sprawling new universe of far-right internet personalities who have aligned themselves with a ‘new right’ or ‘alt-right’ or ‘new far-right’ political youth movement in the US.” This group is interested in moving their trolling into the real world.

Whether on Reddit or YouTube or another form of social media these alt-right rants share a few key beliefs. As Malia Rolt explains in a piece on YouTube and the alt-right, those posting right-wing hate speech “all believe that the media is untrustworthy and political correctness has gone too far, and see advocacy for equality for all as a threat to freedom of speech.”

The issue of freedom of speech and social media, of course, is a tricky issue since all of the platforms have rules and restrictions over the sort of content they allow. And yet, there is some evidence to suggest that the application of those rules may indeed favor aggressive speech by the right more than from other quarters.

For instance, a report from ProPublica suggests that Facebook’s internal rules for censoring hate speech is biased to favor both the right and celebrity users. In contrast, “Facebook users who don’t mince words in criticizing racism and police killings of racial minorities say that their posts are often taken down.”

They compare two posts. One by a U.S. congressman who wrote a post after a terrorist attack in London that called for the slaughter of “radicalized” Muslims. “Hunt them, identify them, and kill them,” declared U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican. “Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.” And one by Boston poet and Black Lives Matter activist DiDi Delgado: “All white people are racist. Start from this reference point, or you’ve already failed.”

Delgado’s post was removed and her Facebook account was disabled for seven days. Higgins’ post was untouched. Such practices certainly suggest deep political biases in the ways that Facebook censors users.

All of this combines to suggest that, while each social media platform has a different identity and different content rules, there is increasing evidence that right-wing hate speech is growing in power and force across the major social media platforms and into everyday life.

What this week’s Trump Twitter war against the mainstream news media teaches us is that CNN should be worried — but not about Trump’s attacks, rather about the fact that an increasing number of U.S. citizens are forming their political ideas based on alt-right rants, and not on anything that even remotely resembles information.

Microchip has been banned from Twitter over 100 times. He’s far from alone. Recall that MILO was permanently banned and has never come back. Microchip gets back on via trickery until Twitter discovers he’s back, when they ban him again.

The point is that the rules do not favor the alt-right. Another point is that the media is obviously not trustworthy.

McClennan’s essay starts with the wrong premise. The only way to break the media monopoly is through alternative media, citizen journalism, taking matters one Tweet, comment, and blog post at a time.

The “fake news” phrase has come into widespread use for a reason and if the professor doesn’t acknowledge that, she’s either stupid or lying.

LOOKS LIKE PROFESSOR MCCLENNEN WAS A BERNIE SUPPORTER.

Germany Legalizes Sodomite Marriage After Merkel Allows Vote

GERMAN WEIRDOS CELEBRATE THEIR NEW RIGHT.

According to the BBC, polls say that 83 percent of Germans support sodomite marriage.

When a country goes full retard, it goes all the way.

Historically, sodomy was illegal, a “crime against nature.”

A good historian could probably make the case that civilizations that engage in mass degeneracy do not long survive.

When Germany is under Muslim control, this law will be repealed and those who supported it will be thrown off rooftops along with all the sodomite couples who have marriage licenses.

Maybe the legalization is a good thing. It’ll make it easier for the Imams to identify the fags.

Excerpt from the BBC

A clear majority of German MPs have voted to legalise same-sex marriage, days after Chancellor Angela Merkel dropped her opposition to a vote.

The reform gives gay men and lesbians full marital rights, and allows them to adopt children.

At present, same-sex couples are limited to civil unions.

Mrs Merkel’s political opponents were strongly in favour. But Mrs Merkel, who gave MPs the go-ahead for a free vote only on Monday, voted against.

The measure was backed by 393 lawmakers, while 226 voted against and four abstained.

The German legal code will now read: “Marriage is entered into for life by two people of different or the same sex”, AFP news agency reported.

How did Merkel prompt the vote?

During her 2013 election campaign, Mrs Merkel argued against gay marriage on the grounds of “children’s welfare,” and admitted that she had a “hard time” with the issue.

But at an event hosted by the women’s magazine “Brigitte” on 26 June, she shocked the German media by announcing on stage that she had noted other parties’ support for it, and would allow a free vote in the future.

The usually-cautious chancellor said she had had a “life-changing experience” in her home constituency, where she had dinner with a lesbian couple who cared for eight foster children together.

As the news spread on Twitter, supporters rallied under the hashtag #EheFuerAlle (MarriageForAll) – and started calling for a vote as soon as possible.

Following Friday’s vote, Mrs Merkel said that for her marriage was between a man and a woman. But she said she hoped the passing of the bill would lead to more “social peace”.

Rachel Maddow Denies Contact with GOP Shooter, but Segment Does Not Air in Rerun

If you like mysteries, here’s one for you.

James Hodgkinson, the GOP Congressional shooter, was a big fan of Rachel Maddow. As we’ve noted in an earlier post, Maddow was one of a dozen or more celebrity pundits who helped radicalize the shooter.

Of course, now everyone is saying that they are against violence, when all they’ve been doing is feeding the leftist nut jobs around the USA the lie that Trump stole the election and that he’s the new Hitler.

To repeat a line that became famous during the Watergate affair, modified to fit: “What did Rachel Maddow know and when did she know it?

Breitbart

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow reacted to news that James Hodgkinson, the now-deceased alleged shooter in an incident that has resulted in five people hospitalized, including House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), was a fan of her program.

Maddow referenced a Hodgkinson letter to the editor that appeared in the July 29, 2012 edition of the Belleview (IL) News-Democrat, but denied having received correspondence Hodgkinson.

“[H]e once submitted a letter to the editor that cited statistics about political donations that he says he heard on this TV show because he said he watched this TV show,” she said. “I should tell you we went through our correspondence today as soon as we got his name, as soon as we got that detail about him. We didn’t find evidence he ever sent anything to this show or tried to contact us at all.”

During the re-air of her program at 12 a.m. ET, the segment did not air. Instead, the opening segment was a replay of a May 26 segment about allegations of President Donald Trump and his associates having ties with the Russian government.

The mystery is why the denial did not air when the show repeated later in the evening. Could it be that in fact there was contact between Maddow or her show and the shooter?

There needs to be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the links between the mainstream media and Hodgkinson. There’s more smoke here than the is for the ridiculous Trump allegations about ties to Russia.

A special prosecutor should be given the resources to investigate all of Maddow’s shows for the last two years. Ditto the shows featuring Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, and others. The question at hand is whether these pundits dished out fake news that incited the shooter to go on his rampage.

What does the consumption of the type of anti-Trump material pedaled by the likes of Maddow over extended periods of time do to the already warped mind of a leftist?

Journalists who produce fake news, actors who produce fake Shakespeare featuring Trump’s assassination, and comedians who hold up bloody heads should all be investigated and held accountable.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that people on Maddow’s show had contact with the shooter, encouraging him in his radical thinking.

Let’s get to the truth for a change.

FBI Refuses To Hand Over “Comey Memos” To Congress

The FBI is stalling in providing the evidence requested by a Congressional committee. That slow walk is giving more time for President Donald Trump’s enemies to continue their daily unrelenting smear jobs on him. The goal is his removal from office.

While Trump’s overseas trip has been a yuuuuge success in spite of the press sniping at him, events back home show that while the cats been away the mice have been at play.

Zerohedge

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said today that the FBI had decided to withhold documents, including memos, notes, summaries, and recordings, requested by his committee in regards to the ongoing Russia probe. This was revealed in a letter sent by Chaffetz to the FBI responding to the agency’s decision to withhold documents requested by the Committee on May 16, 2017.

The FBI’s denial to cooperate is presented below:

According to a statement [5]by the Oversight Committee, “Chaffetz requested memos, notes, summaries, and recordings to assist in the Committee’s investigation of the FBI’s independence, and which are outside the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

The documents are due June 8, 2017, but that may not happen as it appears the FBI is suddenly unwilling to cooperate.

As Chaffetz elaborates, after a New York Times report that former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Corney memorialized the content of phone calls and meetings with the President in a series of memoranda, he requested those memoranda and any related notes, summaries, and recordings. The FBI is withholding those documents, citing to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor. According to a letter from your staff: “In light of this development and other considerations [the Bureau] is undertaking appropriate consultation to ensure all relevant interest implicated by your request are properly evaluated.

The letter states:

“The Committee has its own, Constitutionally-based prerogative to conduct investigations. But the Committee in no way wants to impede or interfere with the Special Counsel’s ability to conduct his investigation. In fact, the Committee’s investigation will complement the work of the Special Counsel. Whereas the Special Counsel is conducting a criminal or counterintelligence investigation that will occur largely behind closed doors, the Committee’s work will shed light on matters of high public interest, regardless of whether there is evidence of criminal conduct.

“The focus of the Committee’s investigation is the independence of the FBI, including conversations between the President and Comey and the process by which Comey was removed from his role as director. The records being withheld are central to those questions, even more so in light of Comey’s decision not to testify before the Committee at this time.”

“I am seeking to better understand Comey’s communications with the White House and Attorney General in such a way that does not implicate the Special Counsel’s work.”

As Chaffetz concludes, “Congress and the American public have a right and a duty to examine this issue independently of the Special Counsel’s investigation. I trust and hope you understand this and make the right decision-to produce these documents to the Committee immediately and on a voluntary basis.”

The American public is certainly looking forward to the FBI’s release of the full content of the Comey’s memos, not only those relating to his meetings with Trump, but just as importantly, with Loretta Lynch, as well as Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton.

Have the paper shredders at the FBI been working overtime. Are computers being wiped clean?

Comey gave Hillary Clinton a free pass for her crimes. What do the Clintons have on him.

Perhaps as I am writing these words, Comey is writing his memos, which will contain false allegations against Trump.

While it’s impossible for anyone outside the immediate circle to know the details for sure, the broad outline is one of corruption in the FBI with a strong incentive to take down Trump to keep business going as usual.

If the FBI were an honest operation, they would have tracked down the parties engaging in criminal leaks designed to bring down Trump. It can’t be that hard to do.

DID HE REALLY WRITE MEMOS? WHERE ARE THEY?

Comey has a strategy when the memos can’t be produced: