Tag Archives: Trump

EXCLUSIVE: Was Trump’s Congratulatory Call to Putin Wrong?

Originally posted at BLUNT FORCE TRUTH

Once again, politicians and pundits have short memories.  It’s as if those who dislike Donald Trump forgot what Washington D.C. overlooked when Obama occupied the White House. For instance, in March 2012, Russia’s Vladimir Putin won an election that, at the time, the New York Times implied was rigged:

A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin … faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term.

On the day of the Russian election, the U.S. State Department, headed by Hillary ‘Uranium One’ Clinton, congratulated the people of Russia in a statement that said the United States “looks forward to working with the president-elect after the results are certified and he is sworn in.”

The following day, a supplemental State Department press release cited the concerns of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  The organization’s suspicions included, “conditions under which the [Russian] campaign was conducted, the partisan use of government resources, and procedural irregularities on election day, among other issues.” On behalf of the OSCE, the State Department went on to “urge Russian authorities… to ensure that the procedures for future elections …be more transparent.”

It’s uncanny how similar that is when compared to some of the election antics Democrats employ.

Nonetheless, the election glitches as well as Russia’s failing record on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, didn’t stop Nobel Peace Prize winner/negotiator extraordinaire, Barack Obama from dialing up Vlad to commend the president-elect on his victory.

Rather than broach State Department and OSCE concerns, according to the White House:

President Obama highlighted achievements in U.S.-Russia relations over the past three years with President Medvedev, including cooperation on Afghanistan, the conclusion and ratification of the START agreement, Russia’s recent invitation to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and cooperation on Iran. President Obama and President-Elect Putin agreed that the successful reset in relations should be built upon during the coming years.

Obama also told Putin that he looked forward to the G-8 summit at Camp David and  “…agreed to continue discussions on areas where the United States and Russia have differed, including Syria and missile defense…[and to]…continue…efforts to find common ground and remove obstacles to better relations.”

Evidently, 2012 Barack remained indifferent toward Russian threats because at the end of March, at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, Obama reaffirmed the tone of his post-election telephone call during a hush-hush chat with Russian President Medvedev.  During that live mic dispatch, Obama asked Dmitry to convey to Vladimir that after the 2012 election Barack would be more “flexible.”

Then, during the October 2012 debate when his Republican opponent Mitt Romney, suggested Russia was the most significant “geopolitical threat facing America,” the former president reestablished his lack of trepidation concerning Russia yet again.  In response to Romney’s assertion, the soon-to-be “flexible” Obama mockingly quipped back, “And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Fast-forward to March 2018 and Vladimir Putin has won re-election.

In response to Russia’s selection, the OSCE reiterated its 2012 concerns surrounding Russian “Restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of assembly, association and expression, as well as on candidate registration, …[and the] limited the space for political engagement [which] resulted in a lack of genuine competition.”

Notwithstanding these and other concerns, President Trump followed Obama’s lead and phoned Putin. The President offered his congratulations and refrained from discussing things like Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections, nerve agent attacks on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and the sanctions the U.S. recently imposed on Russia for “malicious cyber attacks.

Just like Obama in 2012, Trump chose to limit the call to discuss “shared interests” and a prosed plan to meet with Putin in the future. The only difference between 2012 and 2018 in that unlike Barack Obama, Donald Trump’s call to Vladimir has garnered disapproval from the left and criticism from some on the right.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had this to say: “When I look at a Russian election, what I see is a lack of credibility in tallying the results. Calling him wouldn’t have been high on my list.”  Dependable Trump faultfinder, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) chimed in, saying:

An American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, President Trump insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future, including the countless Russian patriots who have risked so much to protest and resist Putin’s regime.

With friends like McConnell and McCain, who needs Democrat adversaries like Virginia’s Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who once said that Trump is a “president who acts like he’s Vladimir Putin’s defense lawyer.”

In fact, the reaction to Trump’s Russian election telephone call dredges up memories of Mrs. Obama, who, after bringing Laura Bush a boxed gift on Inauguration Day 2010, mocked first lady Melania Trump for presenting her with a boxed gift on Inauguration Day 2016.

Duplicity is how the Washington D.C. rolls, especially when it comes to all things Trump. In the end, that duplicity is evidenced by double-dealing politicians and pundits alike, most of whom withheld criticism when Obama called Russia’s newly elected president in 2012, but who now condemn Donald Trump for doing and saying the same thing.

Former ‘lunch czar’ FLOTUS slams Trump

Originally posted at American Thinker

Speaking on behalf of herself and her husband, Michelle Obama recently reassured a crowd of fawning conference attendees that “we’re not gone.  We’re just breathing.”  That they are!  They’re not gone, and what they’re breathing…is fire!

After spending months with celebrities on a Tahitian vacation, and resting up from almost a decade of wreaking holy havoc on America, in an attempt to counter the sitting president’s policies, a revitalized Barack and Michelle are currently breathing fire in Trump’s direction every chance they get.

Quite unlike the 43rd president, who remained silent while Barack spent eight years making excuses for his own inadequacies by blaming his predecessor for every failure, both Michelle’s and Barry’s knee jerk reaction to public rejection is to respond by portraying fiascoes as achievements.

Take, for example, wealth-sharing/pay equity/carbon footprint-concerned Obama taking his private jet and a 14-car gas-guzzling entourage to Milan to collect $3.2 million for speaking at a Seeds & Chips, aka Dirty Deeds & Lyin’ Lips, Global Food Innovation summit.  While hubby was getting “free hugs” and stuffing his mom jeans with oodles of cash, less than six months after Trump’s inauguration, Michelle was busy blowing off steam at an annual Partnership for a Healthier America conference.

Seems Mrs. Obama is infuriated with Donald Trump for daring to point out that The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which masked government control as a nutritional concern, has resulted in wasted money, foul-tasting food, and 1.4 million kids dropping out of the school lunch program.

Trump’s secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, agrees it’s time for change.

Perdue said, “We all know that meals can’t be nutritious if they aren’t consumed and if they’re put in the trash.”  That’s why Perdue is counteracting Michelle’s Healthy Food Horror Show by giving school “food service professionals flexibility” in deciding what to serve the kids.

What a revolutionary concept!  Someone other than a government czarina gets to control the menu.

For one, some salt, which not only adds flavor, but also is now said to have no impact on blood pressure, will be added back into the menu.  In addition, school districts will also be issued whole wheat waivers, and children’s brains can now benefit from the fat in low-fat chocolate milk.

In other words, the iron grip of Michelle Obama’s no salt, fat-free lunch diktats will be off the necks of garroted school districts.  In turn, food will be made more palatable so that schoolchildren will want to eat lunch instead of scraping it into the garbage.

In response to the plan to do away with paltry portions of quinoa and salt-free rice cakes, Ms. “Fried Fat Cakes” has become visibly livid.

Michelle told the Obamas’ personal White House chef and executive director of the anti-childhood obesity initiative, Sam Kass, that instead of swallowing the excrement Americans have been subjected to during the Obama years, with Trump in charge, kids will be “eating crap.”

On a full-blown Healthier America conference tirade, a know-it-all Michelle appealed to women in the audience with false humility, saying, “Moms, think about this.  I don’t care what state you live in, take me out of the equation, like me, don’t like me, but think about why someone is OK with your kids eating crap.”

This is a confusing statement coming from someone who supports a woman’s “right to choose.”  With that in mind, the big takeaway from Michelle’s indignation is that choice is acceptable only if the one choosing doesn’t feed a survivor of the womb a “crappy” bag of Doritos and a ham sandwich for lunch.

After indirectly suggesting that certain Americans “celebrate” policies that disregard the well-being of children, Michelle made another stunning statement.  All fired up, the former FLOTUS, who clearly misses determining how much we “eat, feed, and move,” reprimanded the audience, saying, “You take your eye off the ball on things, and you let other people determine what you’re eating, what you’re feeding, how you’re moving, and before you know it, your kids have Type II diabetes.”

Further implying a Trump undercurrent of malfeasance, Mrs. Obama pressed the Healthier America audience to “look at motives.”

For the purpose of federal bureaucratic control, Michelle, the queen of deceitful intentions, insisted on feeding schoolchildren cardboard, and she’s the one accusing Donald Trump of ulterior motives?

Doing what she does best, which is telling people what to do and how to think, Michelle instructed the audience, “You have to stop and think, ‘Why don’t you want our kids to have good food at school?  What is wrong with you, and why is that a partisan issue?  Why would that be political?'”

Then the über-partisan, politically motivated Michelle, who likes to “splurge” on the very French fries and ice cream she now polices, proposed stricter control:

How about we stop asking kids how they feel about their food because kids, my kids included, if they could eat pizza and French fries every day with ice cream on top and a soda, they would think they were happy until they get sick.

Undoubtedly, a proponent of government gavage, a woman whose husband marginalized American preferences, then shared that she believes it’s “ridiculous” to consider children’s food preferences when deciding what to force-feed them for lunch.

“You know what?” Michelle said.  “Kids don’t like math, either.  What are we going to do?  Stop teaching math?”

Correct, most kids dislike math, but not as much as real American’s dislike government overreach.  And that “not liking” is the very reason, Trump, the man the Obamas criticize, is now the president of the United States.

So, after eight long years of government inflicting itself on individual liberty, whether Michelle Obama likes it or not, “we the people” want our children to experience a small taste of American freedom by eating more of whatever they want for lunch.

%d bloggers like this: