Connect with us

Opinion

Did Obama Provide A Peaceful Transfer of Power? — Opinion

Hmmm…

Published

on

During a recent White House press conference, President Trump received a question from Playboy reporter Brian Karem that stirred a firestorm of controversy. His question was, “Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here, today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” The President responded, “We’re going to have to see what happens.”

Not willing to miss an opportunity to stir the pot, Joe Biden came out of his basement and made the following pronouncement: “Military Will Remove Trump from the White House if He Refuses to Leave.” Biden said that he had been talking with some retired military persons, and because of that meeting, he said, “I promise you; I’m absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

There are two issues I want to raise in this commentary: First, somebody needs to ask Joe Biden if he thought the transfer of power from Obama to Trump was a peaceful transfer? The second issue is what exactly does Joe mean when, as he says, “They,” referring to the military?

Let’s explore the first issue concerning transfer of power from the Obama administration to the incoming Trump administration. Look at all the things the Obama administration did prior to the election to defeat Donald Trump. Then, during the transition time, the Obama administration falsified FISA warrants to spy on the Trump organization, and after the president was inaugurated, they continued to investigate false allegations in order to overthrow Donald Trump’s new presidency.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

We have seen examples time and time again where the Justice Department, the Attorney General, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA and other cabinet level positions actively campaigned to either stop Donald Trump from winning the election, or to get him indicted under impeachment as soon as possible after the election.

When an outgoing administration is undermining the credibility of a new administration, how could anyone consider this to be a peaceful transition is beyond me. Criminal activity has taken place in order to keep Donald Trump from succeeding as president. For 2 ½ years members of the House continuously lodged accusations and vicious attacks on the integrity of President Donald Trump. Yet when it came time for the House to issue impeachment charges, neither of the two charges made reference to the accusations that the House Democratic leadership and former members of the Obama administration had launched against President Trump.

Any person who would look at the Obama administration activities during the transition to power of the Trump administration could only conclude that the Obama administration was doing everything it could, including criminal activity, to circumvent the peaceful transition of power. After the new administration was sworn in with a duly elected President of the United States, their activities continued.

According to the Federalist columnist, Mollie Hemingway, in her article of May 8, 2020, she says the, “Obama, Biden oval office meeting on January 5, 2017 was key to the entire anti-Trump operation.” She says, “Information released in the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case it brought against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be charged with protecting his administration and its utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research. This research alleged Trump was part of a treasonous plot to collude with Russia and from it being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.”

The evidence above is not in dispute; it is a matter of the record. Yet, how could any reasonable person read what the Obama administration was doing 15 days before the new administration was to take office and not conclude that the aim of the transition of power was far from peaceful? It was an outright attack by the Obama administration, orchestrated from the Oval Office. What is very important is whether Joe Biden was an active participant in the meeting. The following were the others in attendance at that January 5, 2017 meeting:

Sally Yates, acting AG; James Comey, head of the FBI; CIA Director John Brennan; and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed Obama on Russia-related matters in the Oval Office. Biden and Rice also attended. So, Mr. Biden. You were part of the planning to overthrow the incoming Trump administration. It is time for you to come clean and tell the American people the truth and to admit your involvement in the greatest attempt ever in the history of the United States to overthrow a duly elected president.

Now to the second issue of sending in the military to remove the President: Mr. Biden, referring to your quote who is, “They?” Are you suggesting that the Pentagon should go in and arrest the president and overthrow him from the White House? The president of United States by the Constitution is the Commander-in-Chief of all the military, so I ask you Mr. Biden, who’s going to give the order? Are you going to give it before you become inaugurated as president? You have no power over the military until they swear you in to the office of president. Are you possibly suggesting that the military should start, on their own authority, a coup against the President of the United States?

You are suggesting that the military should complete what the Obama/Biden administration tried to do but failed in 2016 and 2017, and which the Democratic party then tried for over 3 more years. If the military were to overthrow the president, why do you think they would return that power to you? You suggest that you will abandon the Constitution for military rule. Once you open that door, you can never close it. Do you really think that if you can get the military to take over the government, they will ever trust you?

You and your campaign’s thrust for power tells me you would gladly sacrifice this nation to try and get rid of Donald Trump.

Dan Perkins is a published author of 4 novels on nuclear and biological terrorism against the United States and is a current events commentator for over 20 news blogs. He appears on radio and TV between 40 and 60 times a month, depending on the news cycles, and on about 1,400 radio stations and TV networks. He is either a guest host or host on 4 weekly syndicated talk shows. Dan’s newest show is called “America’s Cannabis Conversation” on the W420radionetwork.com, a new show that broadcasts Saturday each week at 4:20 PM local time. More information on Perkins can be found at his web site danperkins.guru.

News

DOD Will Stop Paying Military Members Who Refuse Vaccine

Hasn’t this gone on long enough?

Published

on

military troops

At this point in the pandemic, perhaps the only thing that we know for sure is that we don’t really know when the end will finally arrive.  The virus has continued to power through unpredictable waves, each with their own distinct set of warnings from the powers that be.

And so, not knowing when any of this will be considered “over”, (at least in the federal government’s eyes), overreaching vaccine mandates continue to be enforced.

The latest threat to the unvaccinated takes aim at the US military, hitting service members directly in the wallet.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered that all members of the National Guard and Reserve must receive Covid vaccines or face loss of pay and being marked absent without cause from drills and training, according to a copy of a memo obtained by NBC News.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Aug. 24, Austin made the Covid vaccine mandatory for all service members and directing the secretaries of the military services to issue their own implementation guidance and timelines. The mandate extended to all service members on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard.

On Nov. 2, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma wrote a letter to Austin, asking him to rescind the vaccine mandate for members of the Oklahoma National Guard. Days later, Stitt appointed a new adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard who said he would not enforce the vaccine mandate.

But the DOD wasn’t having it.

On Monday, Austin responded to Stitt, denying his request to rescind the mandate for the Oklahoma National Guard. What remained unclear, however, was how the Pentagon planned to enforce the mandate for members of the National Guard while they are on state duty. Most of the time, including when they are training, members are on state duty and answer to their governor.

Further, those who are unable to participate in their duties due to their vaccination status will be accusing no time served during their absences.

At this point in the pandemic, perhaps the only thing that we know for sure is that we don’t really know when the end will finally arrive.  The virus has continued to power through unpredictable waves, each with their own distinct set of warnings from the powers that be. And so, not knowing when any of this will be considered “over”, (at least in the federal government’s eyes), overreaching vaccine mandates continue to be enforced. The latest threat to the unvaccinated takes aim at the US military, hitting service members directly in the wallet. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered that all members of the National Guard and Reserve must receive Covid vaccines or face loss of pay and being marked absent without cause from drills and training, according to a copy of a memo obtained by NBC News. On Aug. 24, Austin made the Covid vaccine mandatory for all service members and directing the secretaries of the military services to issue their own implementation guidance and timelines. The mandate extended to all service members on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard. On Nov. 2, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma wrote a letter to Austin, asking him to rescind the vaccine mandate for members of the Oklahoma National Guard. Days later, Stitt appointed a new adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard who said he would not enforce the vaccine mandate. But the DOD wasn’t having it. On Monday, Austin responded to Stitt, denying his request to rescind the mandate for the Oklahoma National Guard. What remained unclear, however, was how the Pentagon planned to enforce the mandate for members of the National Guard while they are on state duty. Most of the time, including when they are training, members are on state duty and…

Continue Reading

Opinion

Former Trump Chief of Staff Flips, is Cooperating with Jan 6th Committee

Say WHAT?!

Published

on

The work of the January 6th select committee continues to astound and astonish of late, with potential witness after potential witness finding themselves in untenable positions.  Stuck between a rock and a contempt charge.

The latest to reverse course and decide to cooperate is none other than former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who this week signaled his willingness to work with the Democratically-led fishing expedition.

 Mark Meadows, who served as former President Donald Trump’s last chief of staff and was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, is now cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the panel, said in a statement that Meadows has been “engaging” with the panel through his lawyer, providing records to the committee “and will soon appear for an initial deposition.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee in late September for records and testimony regarding his and Trump’s activities before and during the Capitol riot.

The news was rather unexpected:

“Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney. He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition,” the committee said in a statement Tuesday. “The Select Committee expects all witnesses, including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive. The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.”

His lawyer initially said Meadows wouldn’t cooperate with the committee because of Trump’s plans to assert executive privilege, an argument dismissed by the committee, whose members will vote this week to hold former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress for ignoring the panel’s subpoenas.

“As we have from the beginning, we continue to work with the Select Committee and its staff to see if we can reach an accommodation that does not require Mr. Meadows to waive Executive Privilege or to forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify before Congress,” Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger said in a statement Tuesday. “We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics.”

The committee has been widely criticized on the right side of the aisle, with many considering their investigation to be nothing more than a re-do of Trump’s second impeachment, this time with a Democratic majority deciding the outcome.

The work of the January 6th select committee continues to astound and astonish of late, with potential witness after potential witness finding themselves in untenable positions.  Stuck between a rock and a contempt charge. The latest to reverse course and decide to cooperate is none other than former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who this week signaled his willingness to work with the Democratically-led fishing expedition.  Mark Meadows, who served as former President Donald Trump’s last chief of staff and was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, is now cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the panel, said in a statement that Meadows has been “engaging” with the panel through his lawyer, providing records to the committee “and will soon appear for an initial deposition.” Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee in late September for records and testimony regarding his and Trump’s activities before and during the Capitol riot. The news was rather unexpected: “Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney. He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition,” the committee said in a statement Tuesday. “The Select Committee expects all witnesses, including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive. The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.” His lawyer initially said Meadows wouldn’t cooperate with the committee because of Trump’s plans to assert executive privilege, an argument dismissed by the committee, whose members will vote this week to hold former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress for ignoring the panel’s subpoenas. “As we have from the beginning, we continue to…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week