None Dared Call It Treason . . . When It Was a Democrat

By | 2018-07-25T00:05:23+00:00 July 24th, 2018|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The past week of Russia hysteria has me longing for the good old days. Like 2009, when a Democratic president could pull missile defense systems out of Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Vladimir Putin without facing charges of treason. Or 2010, when a former Democratic president could take a cool half-million from a suspected Russian government-backed source to speak in Moscow and that wasn’t considered treasonous, either. Or 2012, when no one was screaming for impeachment when a Democratic president on a hot mic assured the Russian president that he’ll have “more flexibility” on missile defense systems once he’s re-elected. Or when the previous Democratic administration helped Putin toward his goal of controlling the worldwide supply chain of uranium and that was really all about “resetting” relationships.

Oh, how the times have changed!

Now, according to screeching harpies like Commie-lover John Brennan or many in the Democratic Party’s kept media, if you don’t say the right words during a press conference, you might be a traitor, worthy of impeachment, and probably Putin’s hand-picked agent sitting in the White House to bring about . . . well, that’s where the narrative gets a little fuzzy.

But the point is not to focus on substance. Just the style. It’s all about words and feelings, not about what actually happens because that would ruin a really good story, much like telling children the story you’re reading them at bedtime isn’t real. Forget such things as facts when you can have a good rip-roaring fairytale that soothes you and distracts the world from reality.

Facts Unravel the Narrative
In the lovely fairytale the Beltway media has spun up at the behest of their deep state buddies like Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey, Donald Trump is the real traitor, guilty of “collusion,” while Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest are simply trying, with the purest of intentions, to be diplomatic in their relationships with Russia. It’s a tale at odds with reality.

If we look at the facts, the story changes and the narrative starts to unravel. People might have to confront the idea that systematic acts of appeasement in the face of Russian aggression might, in fact, be the real collusion. At least, one would think such systematic weakness would make people question them as sources on the subject of Russia and, failing that, the sources themselves might show some self-awareness and shut up.

Not only did Obama stop missile defense systems from deploying in Poland and the Czech Republic in 2009, Obama sent planeloads of socks and blankets to Ukraine in the face of Putin’s aggression. Which really shouldn’t have been a surprise: Senator Barack Obama was very much for disarming Ukraine. Channeling Neville Chamberlain, Obama said in 2005: “We need to eliminate these stockpiles [of conventional weapons] for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around the world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.”

What wonderfully stupid rhetoric. It’s much like saying, “When confronting wolves, make sure to lay down your guns and let them approach because they’re just misunderstood little doggies.”

How Trump Has Acted Differently Toward Russia
And while I and others have written at length about the Uranium One deal, it must be highlighted again: Putin wants to control the worldwide uranium supply chain. You know, the stuff that helps lead to the super big mushroom clouds that annihilate people in one blinding flash. But the Obama Administration felt it was best to give him the rights to upwards of 20 percent of our uranium supplies. Meantime, 
we have to import the overwhelming majority of our uranium. It’s not like we have extra piles of the stuff just sitting around so we can hand it out like candy to authoritarian leaders.

All of this behavior, however, makes Obama a reasonable politician in the eyes of the press and the globalist Left. While plenty of “soy boy” types like the Chamberlain appeasement approach to strongmen, Donald Trump has been quite different in how he has dealt with Putin.

While the Left and the media want to focus on style points and theater, Trump is quietly and forcefully dealing with Putin: Obama sends warm cuddly blankets to Ukraine. Trump sends Javelin anti-tank missiles. Obama wants to give Putin our uranium. Trump wants to undercut Putin’s energy dominance in Europe. His Three Seas Initiative speech last summer and his rebuke of Germany’s Angela Merkel over the Nord Stream II pipeline are very strong shots across Putin’s bow: almost half the Russian government revenue comes from oil and gas exports.

And while Obama did expel Russian diplomats over the election meddling, Trump sanctioned the Russian energy and defenses industries last fall and has targeted a very sensitive set of people: Putin’s inner circle, the oligarchs and some of the wealthiest men in Russia, the ones Putin needs to stay in power. These recent sanctions, enacted this spring, are some of the harshest we’ve hit anyone with, outside of the Iranian and North Korean sanctions.

But to all those hysterical people pounding the table over Trump’s “treason,” by all means you can take Obama’s style and rhetoric and his acts of appeasement. Just don’t lecture Trump on treason. Actions, not words, validate the man, so I’ll take Trump’s substantive actions any day of the week. In fact, I’ll take two scoops, thanks.

About the Author:

Ned Ryun
Ned Ryun is a former presidential writer for George W. Bush and the founder and CEO of American Majority. You can find him on Twitter @nedryun.