Tag Archives: Wikileaks

Behold the Lowlights of Michelle Obama’s Trump-Bashing Tour

Judging from their vocal criticism of President Trump, it’s clear that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Obama shares G.W. Bush’s viewpoint that it’s terrible for the country and the presidency to undermine a current president.

Barack does it by praising anything and anyone who opposes the president’s policies and, by doing so, manages to disparage the man who took his place.  Michelle, on the other hand, is much less diplomatic.  Instead of using discretion, Mrs. Obama vomits out anti-Trump venom wherever she goes.

Michelle’s Trump-Bashing Tour started right after the 2016 election, when Mrs. Hope and Change told Oprah Winfrey that because Trump was elected, “now we’re feeling what not having hope feels like.”

In May of 2017, Mrs. Obama spoke out against Trump when he dared loosen the stringent dietary restrictions connected to her unpopular school lunch program.  Months later, at an Inbound marketing conference in Boston, Michelle rebuked a segment of the sisterhood when she declared, “Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their [sic] own voice.”

The following month, at a Pennsylvania Conference for Women, Mrs. Obama used a hand motion to imply that Trump lowered the bar concerning women and minorities.  Then, forgetting that she did the same thing to Laura Bush in 2009, Michelle mocked First Lady Melania Trump for handing her a boxed gift on the steps of the White House on Inauguration Day 2017.

Simply put, Michelle Obama switched focus from dancing with The Tonight Show‘s host, Jimmy Fallon, to stirring up hatred towards Trump.  Instead of organic gardening, the former president’s outspoken wife now advocates for minorities and women by belittling a male president.

Let’s not forget that before being elected, both Mr. and Mrs. Obama believed they were the “ones we’ve been waiting for.”  Now, that Obama’s Tenure of Terror is over, the twosome’s newest goal is to find a way to reproduce thousands, if not millions, of little Michelle and Barack facsimiles to dispatch across the planet in hopes of furthering the gospel of discord.

In the meantime, the former first lady furthers that cause by sharing Trump putdowns at professional development gatherings for women.

Recently, at the Simmons Leadership Conference in Boston, the former first lady told the audience that the Obama presidency “was like having the ‘good parent’ at home.  The responsible parent, the one who told you to eat your carrots and go to bed on time.”  Ratcheting up the hyperbole, Michelle then pointed out, “And now we have the other parent.  We thought it’d feel fun – maybe it feels fun for now because we can eat candy all day and stay up late and not follow the rules.”

Judging from her comments about carrots and bedtime, Michelle must still be of the opinion that without Obama diktats concerning vegetable portions and salt quotas, sleep schedules, and general guidelines for survival, with “the other parent” in charge, Americans (children that we are) have devolved into hog-wild, candy-eating, sleep-deprived rule-breakers.

In addition to criticizing Trump for allowing grownups to make decisions about what they eat, how long they sleep, and how they exercise freedom, in Boston, Michelle also expressed disappointment about that famous politician in a pantsuit who keeps babbling to covens of women about why she lost.

Michelle besmirched Trump by stating that Clinton was “the best-qualified candidate” but also explained that “[Hillary] wasn’t perfect, but she was way more perfect than many of the alternatives.”  Put another way, Michelle “Feels Fun” Obama considers “wasn’t perfect … way more perfect.”

Michelle also told the ladies that in addition to Putin, Comey, misogynists, Stepford Wives, WikiLeaks, cable news, and voter suppression, Trump defeated incoherent loser Hillary because of low voter turnout.  After all, without the New Black Panthers and ACORN to inspire the electorate in 2016, voters were unwilling to go out and elect a woman who can’t walk up or down stairs without falling.

Choosing not to expand upon the other possible reasons Hillary couldn’t “get out the vote,” Michelle also reminded “wes” in the audience that “[w]e’ve got to be willing, when we do find qualified people, to vote for them.  And we didn’t do that in this election.”

Then, demonstrating a level of hubris surpassed only by Barack, Michelle soothed the “disheartened” in the room with thoughts concerning herself and BFF Oprah:

So I think people should be less … disheartened that me and Oprah don’t want to run, and more disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton, probably the most qualified person to ever seek the office of the presidency, lost.  She lost.

If Michelle Obama thinks that in the history of this nation, Hillary Clinton was the “most qualified person to ever seek the office of the presidency” then the former FLOTUS clearly believes that high levels of corruption are what qualifies a person to run for president.  Either that or Michelle has finally conceded that Barack wasn’t the most qualified person to seek the office of the presidency.

Whatever her intent, after showering Hillary’s orthopedic sandals with accolades, Michelle announced, yet again, that she, Michelle, isn’t running for president and explained her decision in the following way:

And you can’t just say, “You’re a woman.  Run.”  And we can’t look for women like that.  We can’t just say “let’s find the women we like and ask them [sic] to do it,” because there are a million women who are inclined and who do have the passion for politics.

Then Michelle praised herself and unwittingly demeaned Barack by saying:

Just because I gave a good speech, and I’m smart and intelligent doesn’t mean I should be the next president.  That’s been our problem.  We’re very shortsighted about how we think about selecting the commander in chief.

And so, based on those and other insightful ruminations, as of today, Mrs. Obama isn’t running for president – not because the former first lady believes she’d lose if she were to run, but because, at this juncture, “good parent” Michelle Obama prefers stroking her ego on a nationwide Trump-Bashing

 

 

Barack’s Anti-Ally Initiative

When pro-Obama pundits tout that the President has accomplished a lot in two years, they are correct. Who else in American history has worked so boldly and tirelessly to weaken our nation and undermine national security by hurting our greatest allies and cultivating friendships that are, at best, dubious?

Policy-wise, Barack has done many appalling things. However, the pièce de résistance was finding out that “British nuclear secrets” were used as a “bargaining chip” to woo Russia into an arms control treaty.  In other words, Obama gave away Britain’s nuclear secrets to get Russia to agree to sign a treaty that at the end of the day weakens America.

President Obama began the anti-ally initiative by deciding to suspend plans for a missile defense shield in Europe. The first to be devastated by Obama handing Russia a “diplomatic victory” was Poland, who called the decision to shelve the missile defense plan that Russia opposed “catastrophic.”

G.W. Bush initiated the eastern European missile shield plan in response to what the United States perceived to be a threat from a nuclear Iran. Therefore, Poland was the first ally to be betrayed. By way of Barack Obama, the United States told Poland: “We care more about pleasing our allies’ enemies than we do about our ensuring the safety of our allies.” By placing friends in harm’s way, Obama “gave meaning to those words.”

Besides betraying Poland, taking the bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and sending it back to Britain and “dumping” Bibi Netanyahu to rush off to dinner should have been a red flag for Britain and Israel, because according to Wikileaks, in 2009:

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

What Barry did to make friends with a bully was give away the secret combination to his best friend’s new bicycle lock.  And for what? To suck up to a thug who, first chance he gets, plans to show appreciation by beating the tar out of the traitor and adding his bike to the collection too.

Obama hasn’t figured out yet that an alliance built on untrustworthiness stands on shaky ground. If Russia signs a treaty with someone who betrayed an ally, how much faith could Russia have in Obama’s capacity to keep his word?

The President’s inability to listen to the voice of the American people on issues like stimulus, health care reform, and the deficit proves that his haughty self-importance is such that, regardless of the ramifications for those affected, Barry the Inflictor cares little about the results nor the resistance and has taken that attitude global.

The British had a policy of “refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.” Britain’s desire to “maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal” meant nothing to Obama who, in an effort to elevate his status with the wrong crowd, managed to make the world a more treacherous place.

Apparently, Obama knows better, even when it comes to disrespecting the national security wishes of a supposed ally and revealing what Great Britain desired to keep top secret. It’s no wonder Obama and Michelle aren’t on the royal wedding guest list.

Today’s poor decision could be tomorrow’s disaster. Obama obviously hasn’t thought through the potential consequence of Britain, in return for the US betraying top-secret information, packing up and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan.

Either way, Obama has proven here and abroad, domestically and internationally, that he doesn’t respect anyone’s wishes but his own.  In this particular case, if a spy revealed British secrets to the Russians they’d be accused of espionage.

Poland and Britain are “allies” who have officially been spurned as the President kindles a romance with a Russian bear. Based on Obama’s stance it appears as if the next ally to be kicked out of the clubhouse is Israel, Obama sided against Mubarak in support of the Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood having a say in Egypt’s new government.

Although in many circles the Egyptian president is considered a dictator, Bibi Netanyahu is convinced with Mubarak gone Egypt is even more vulnerable to anti-Zionist Islamist rule, a result more devastating for Israel than removing missile shields from Poland and selling Britain’s nuclear secrets to Russia.

What Obama did at the expense of British and American national security was so absurd that America may find out someday Barack left Israel at the mercy of her enemies and assisted the Iranian regime in the quest to obtain a nuclear bomb.

In a few short years, Barack Obama has proven to be the worst example yet of loyalty, faithfulness and allegiance to both America and her closest allies. Who would have thought the President of the United States would be the source of instruction on how not to treat your friends.

Hillary Analyzes Argentina’s President

Originally posted at American Thinker

Originally posted at American Thinker

Recently, the highly controversial WikiLeaks document mega-dump exposed confidential diplomatic secrets to an already unstable world. Disquieting revelations that “American and British diplomats fear Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme could lead to fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists or a devastating nuclear exchange with India” surprise no one. However, the leak that America’s most famous woman scorned dared to probe into the marriage, relationship, and emotional stability of another female leader is downright mind-boggling.

Talk about audacity. Among the documents Wiki made public was a stunning communiqué from the office of Hillary Clinton asking the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires to “delve into the psyche” of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, current Argentine president and widow of late President Nestor Kirchner. Hillary Clinton, possessor of a mind so twisted that she can justify a marriage to a proven serial womanizer, has the nerve to inquire into the status of another woman’s psyche?

The cable, sent at 2:55 p.m. on New Year’s Eve, and originating in the department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asked a series of other probing questions as part of what it said was an attempt by her office to understand “leadership dynamics” between Kirchner and her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner.

Psyche probes aside, presidential aspirations may explain Hillary’s inordinate and demeaning interest in Argentina’s first elected female president. Much like the Clintons, the Argentinean political power couple met when Cristina was still in law school. In 1975, both the Clintons and the Kirchners wed and went on to practice law.

When Nestor’s term ended, Cristina ventured into politics and was elected to the Argentine National Congress as Deputy and Senator of Argentina. Mrs. Kirchner then made a successful run for the presidency, and in 2007, Nestor officially settled into Bill Clinton’s dream job of First Gentleman.

By way of WikiLeaks, Hillary-the-voyeur was caught trying to decode the “mindset of Kirchner’s husband, who was [Cristina’s] closest adviser prior to his death” (which, by the way, was from natural causes, not a spousal reaction to philandering). The confidential documents embarrassingly expose the former First Lady’s imperious insolence, overlooking as she does the perverted mentality of her own husband while exploring the “mindset” of someone else’s.

Furthermore, one can’t help but ask: How does Hillary Clinton, of all people, have the effrontery to inquire into the “leadership dynamics” of any married political team?

Instead of evaluating the Kirchner marriage, it might do the snooping Secretary of State good to spend some time in Chappaqua contemplating how a woman could suffer the humiliation of a dysfunctional, adulterous relationship and choose to publicly weather disgrace in order to retain power and political prestige.

Some of the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner questions Hillary posed included “How does stress affect her behavior toward advisors and/or her decision making? What steps does Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner or her advisers/handlers take in helping her deal with stress? Is she taking any medications?”

Every one of Hillary’s personal inquiries is strangely similar to the ones Americans struggle to push aside on the rare occasion that Mrs. Clinton stands awkwardly alongside America’s most famous Lothario in public.

Leaked classified documents indicate that marriage/relationship expert Hillary Clinton “saw Kirchner and her husband as perhaps prone to emotional instability,” which would be laughable if it wasn’t so detrimental to diplomatic relations. It would be interesting to know how Hillary would diagnose a woman who on national TV maintained that a “vast right wing conspiracy” targeted an innocent man — even after investigators swabbed a DNA match off an unmentionably stained blue dress.

In the name of healing diplomatic relations, maybe Cristina could reciprocate by inquiring of Hillary how one endures the pain of 35 years of repeated marital infidelity. Mrs. Kirchner might choose to rephrase Hillary’s questions in the following way: “As he’s matured, has the former president demonstrated a greater tendency to drift between extramarital affairs? What is the most common trigger that stimulates Bill’s abnormally large libido and/or inability to remain faithful?”

Hillary, nose pressed up against the window of the Casa Rosada, has been smudging up the political windows trying to figure out if Cristina de Kirchner views “circumstances in black and white or in nuanced terms[.] Does she have a ‘strategic, big picture outlook’ or does she ‘prefer to take a tactical view?'” Based on the pointed nature of the questions, maybe, for a minute there, Hillary mistakenly addressed her own reflection in the window.

Known to be “thin-skinned and intolerant of perceived criticism,” Hillary Clinton also accused the Kirchner government of what both Hillary and Bill have been repeatedly guilty of — thin skin and intolerance toward criticism. These character flaws may soon rear their ugly heads as Hillary is asked to respond to accusations of sanctioning espionage.

Surprisingly parallel political histories and, for whatever the reason, Cristina’s unhindered ascent to the presidency may be the underlying factors in Hillary Clinton’s quest to figure out the psychological makeup of a woman whose marriage somehow managed to both survive and produce two presidents. Secretary of State Clinton, above all, is well aware that regardless of mental or marital health:

No modern-day couple in a democracy has carried out a comparable transfer of power, and certainly not in Latin America. In the four and a half years of Mr. Kirchner’s presidency, the couple, affectionately known as “the penguins” — a reference to Mr. Kirchner’s Patagonian home state of Santa Cruz — evolved into Latin America’s Dynamic Duo, power brokers who held sway over a country of 40 million people.

Clinton’s probing questions are clearly more pertinent to her own psyche than to Mrs. Kirchner’s. The irony is that the dysfunction Hillary secretly sought to uncover in Argentina actually resides within Clinton herself — in the peculiar psychological makeup of a woman who endures a political marriage of convenience to a man with deep-seated pathological problems of his own.

%d bloggers like this: