Who will play Obama in the movie?
In 1962, authors Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey published a novel, Seven Days in May, about a nearly successful right-wing military takeover of the federal government by generals appalled by a nuclear disarmament accord placed before the Senate for ratification. The plotters saw the treaty as a naïve giveaway to the Russians that they felt would doom the United States to destruction.
The 1964 film, also titled Seven Days in May, was a big hit. Coming to theaters months after JFK was assassinated — the December 1963 release date was put back several months due to the resulting national trauma — the coup scenario was actually set in the early 1970s. Oddly enough, that fictional time frame coincided with the all too real Watergate scandal that broke in June 1972 and led to the resignation of then-president Richard Nixon in August 1974.
Comes now “the winter of our discontent” in the persons of the losers in last November’s presidential contest. Elements of Shakespeare’s Richard III, of Watergate, and of Hollywood’s 1964 thriller have re-emerged, albeit in different garb.
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
(Richard III, Act I, scene 1, lines 1-4)
Do the Democrats see a “glorious summer” ahead, this year or next, when the Trump administration implodes?
Make no mistake at what is going on, an event without precedent in American history: Having lost a bitterly-contested, close election they felt certain they would easily win, the leadership of the Democratic Party seeks to remove a duly elected president they despise.
Spearheading this effort is none other than the immediate past president, Barack Obama. He has been joined by his operations aide and longtime loyalist Valerie Jarrett, by billionaire funders, by most of Hollywood and academia, by key elements of the “deep-state” federal bureaucracy, and with a de facto propaganda arm in the progressive press. There are two components to this effort. First, Obama has established Organizing For Action (OFA). As described by journalist-author Paul Sperry,
He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.…
“Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope.”
Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots.…
Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.
Also involved will be the Obama Foundation, run by Michelle Obama, another tax-exempt group which bids fair to be the next Clinton Foundation.
The second are his loose confederation of allies. These non-OFA players are not a literal conspiracy. To borrow a concept from antitrust law: The players are engaging in “tacit collusion” — signaling each other openly by their words and conduct, and thus all able to divine the underlying script. Hardly a smooth process, not infrequently punctuated by acts at tactical cross-purposes, nonetheless the players proceed in one direction towards a common strategic goal.
We now know, courtesy of the utterly despicable WikiLeaks, that the Obama CIA collected data on every electronic information-age device — TVs, computers, smartphones, etc. — used by every American.
And we know even more, per this WSJ report:
One CIA group revealed in the documents, known as Umbrage, maintains a library of malicious software components taken from commercial and foreign sources found “in-the-wild.” So far, security experts have found evidence in this trove that the CIA collected malware components believed to have been used by foreign countries.
This library appears to give the CIA the ability to deploy hacking tools and techniques that have been known to work in operations by other countries overseas, said one former Western intelligence official.
The Umbrage library would also provide a useful reference for identifying foreign hackers trying to penetrate U.S. systems, said a former U.S. intelligence officer. And it could also be used to mask a U.S. operation and make it appear that it was carried out by another country, the former officer said. That could be accomplished by inserting malware components from, say, a known Chinese, Russian or Iranian hacking operation into a U.S. one.
Focus on this: “The Umbrage library… could also be used to make a U.S. operation and make it appear that it was carried out by another country.”
On the March 8 Hannity, ex-intel office Tony Shaffer and ex-NSA official William Binney flatly stated (7:03) that the campaign hack of the Democratic National Committee was conducted through WikiLeaks not by the Russians but by ex-NSA personnel disgusted with the Clintons. They masked their operation by creating what intel types call a “false flag”: disguising the real source. The false flag in this DNC hack was Russia, implanted by “ATP 2829” malware. Our intel only shows that a Russian tool was used, not that Russia did it. Shaffer conceded he does not have proof, but he talked with insiders, whose reliability he clearly considered sufficient to make these allegations on the air. Shaffer added that he shared this information with reporters, none of whom expressed interest in the matter.
Now consider this: This CIA program aimed at everyone. Not just domestic opponents, some of whom were terrorists; not just suspect journalists; not just political opponents. That sort of secret surveillance, conducted by the Nixon administration, combined with Watergate to drive a president from office. George Bush 43’s administration was turned upside down when its Terrorist Surveillance Program was “outed” by the New York Times. How times have changed: Obama’s last press secretary, Josh Earnest, declined to deny on ABC’s This Week that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump associates working with Team Trump during the campaign. Former director of national intelligence James Clapper said he had no knowledge of collusion between Trump and the Russians. So what? Get Trump!
Unlike the military coup featured in Seven Days in May, the plotters — and their supporters egging them on — this time are civilian. Their weapons are leaked documents — illegal if they are classified — and transcripts of conversations swept up under questionable legal circumstances, which they implausibly deny having done. Add to this their echo chambers in Tinseltown, academia, and supporters inside the Beltway. Their aim is to send Donald Trump the way of Richard Nixon, or alternatively to damage him so badly that the Democrats get back at least one House of Congress in 2018. Then they could block Trump’s program agenda and lay the groundwork for recapturing the White House in 2020.
Part of the progressive playbook is to ignore matters of far graver import than the sins of which Team Trump stands accused: The 17 secret side deals the Obama negotiators made with Iran as part of the nuclear pact. Are these concealed because Team Obama made even more concessions than publicly known? Ferreting out Team Trump’s Russia connections is a legitimate matter — count on congressional stalwarts to see that there is a serious, wide-ranging inquiry. Also, the Clinton Foundation’s own deep Russia ties were largely ignored by progressives during the presidential campaign.
What is remarkable is how much of this is open. The fictional plotters of yesteryear conspired in super secrecy and were only discovered by chance. But our 44th president has set up shop at his posh D.C. home less than two miles from the White House. He takes to the third stage what Jimmy Carter began and Bill Clinton raised to a second level: ex-Democratic presidents using their retirement years to perpetuate their political influence and thus be able to frustrate policies of successors who seek to chart a new course.
Carter has often vented at actions taken by those who followed and has libeled the state of Israel. Worse, he sought to obstruct the efforts of the Bush administration to form the coalition that waged in the 1991 Gulf War. He conducted diplomacy in 1994 with North Korea that pre-empted sterner measures Bill Clinton was considering.
The Clintons created a huge money-laundering operation behind the façade of a charitable foundation. They made themselves centillionaires by auctioning access to Hillary, whom buyers believed would eventually become president. Upon her ignominious defeat last fall, contributions dried up and the pseudo-foundation imploded.
Enter Barack Hussein Obama, the self-anointed messiah who once promised that we would look back and say that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” In that, he failed. But he can still undermine his successor with the battalions by his side, plus no small amount of luck. Carter gave us the permanent vocal post-presidency, and the Clintons gave us the “permanent campaign.” Comes now Obama, who seeks to defenestrate a president, in search of permanent progressive governance.
And his most potent weapon — seeking its creation has Sen. Schumer holding Trump’s nomination for deputy attorney-general hostage — is a special prosecutor. All it might take is one Patrick Fitzgerald — he of the egregious Plame affair — to cripple the Trump administration.
The Plame playbook is straightforward: Learn at the outset who the perp — in this case, the leak of Plame’s CIA identity came from the deputy secretary of state — and immediately ignore him. Then drag in myriad target witnesses in search of testimonial discrepancies and/or a contradiction by a friendly witness. Then treat any conflicting recollection by an administration defendant as perjury, rather than honest error. Then pressure a hesitating witness to change testimony on a key fact. Then find a jury and keep exculpatory evidence out of the courtroom. The jurors need only decide that inaccurate testimony is deliberately so, to return a verdict of perjury. That conflicting recollections are common in matters involving participants who are overloaded and hence overworked can be overlooked, absent exculpatory evidence. Then get a hanging judge by luck of the judicial lottery. Abracadabra! Out of the hat jumps one guilty Bush 43 official.
Driving such high-profile investigations is a hanging party — hostile journalists who like witch-hunt crowds of old chase Frankenstein’s monster by torchlight, demanding only one end. Anything short of hanging Trump (ideal goal) or his senior officials (good enough) in Lafayette Square and the journo-pack will scream “Whitewash!”
I heard he sang a good song
I heard he had a style
And so I came to see him to listen for a while.…
(“Killing Me Softly With His Song”)
The anti-Trumpers have heard enough, and they are on the march. And their titular head is none other than the 44th president of the United States, deeply engaged in an operation without precedent in American history: destroying his duly elected successor. In 1797, George Washington stepped aside for his successor, John Adams, and in 1800, Adams stepped aside for Thomas Jefferson, the first transfer of power to a president of the opposition party. Much was made on January 20 of our 45th president’s accession as completing the 58th peaceful accession to presidential power in 228 years.
Put simply, Barack Hussein Obama remains committed to the fundamental transformation of America into a “progressive paradise.” If he has to destroy our system of presidential succession to do this, so be it. America’s Second Civil War enters its revolutionary phase.