Obama actively interfered in two major foreign elections, yet not one mainstream media outlet or publication was willing to report his brazen and wholly inappropriate interference in one election or his ties to illegal activities used to influence a major foreign election.

President Barack Obama recently said he told Russian President Vladimir Putin to “knock it off” back in September. Obama’s alleged demand was a result of the supposed “hacking” of the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in what has been presented as an attempt by the Russians to influence the outcome of the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.

This alleged effort by the Russians was even cited as a reason to block Trump’s election in the Electoral College. Some presidential electors even asked for an intelligence briefing before they cast their votes, so they would know exactly what Putin’s government did. Of course, almost all those asking for the briefing were Democrat electors already voting for Trump’s Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton, so it could be dismissed as just a political ploy.

But, if the Russians did covertly attempt to alter the outcome of the presidential election, it would seem somewhat hypocritical of the U.S. government to take umbrage. After all, the United States, under several presidents both Democrat and Republican, has repeatedly interfered in foreign elections, both covertly and overtly, multiple times in the past several decades.

Most recently, President Obama told British voters that they better not vote for Brexit — the public vote for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (EU) — or they would find themselves “at the back of the queue [line]” in getting any sort of trade deal with the United States. Of course, with Obama leaving office on January 20, he would not be making any trade deals with anyone much longer anyway.

Here is the video of Barack Obama attempting to influence the Brexit vote by threatening to put them at the back of the que:

Trending: BAD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS? Mar-A-Lago Cameras Were NOT Turned Off During FBI Raid...Kept Rolling Despite FBI Orders [VIDEO]

Obama went on to say, “I think this [membership in the EU] makes you guys bigger players,” at a joint press conference with then-British Prime Minister David Cameron, a staunch supporter of remaining in the EU. In the end, the British did not take Obama’s “advice,” and opted to leave the EU.

It was not the first time that the Obama administration attempted to determine the outcome of a foreign election. In the last Israeli election, the Obama State Department funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to the opposition of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that the State Department and a group called One Voice coordinated political activities — including the building of a voter database, the training of activists, and the hiring of a political consulting firm tied to President Obama himself.

Save big on MyPillow products. Use promo code FedUp at checkout and save big on the MyPillow Body Pillow.

Watch here:


Yet, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has charged that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. presidential election by releasing e-mails damaging to the Clinton campaign effort. But why is it acceptable for the United States government to interfere in another nation’s election campaign efforts, but not acceptable for other countries — including Russia — to (allegedly) interfere in U.S. elections?

The Brexit vote and Israeli election are not the only times this has happened. Don Levin of Carnegie Mellon University has documented 81 times the United States has attempted to influence presidential elections in other countries between 1946 and 2000. And then, of course, there are the military coups backed by the United States and the regime changes imposed by military actions. In his study, Levin described “intervention” as including funding of the election campaigns of selected political parties, the dissemination of political propaganda, training of local activists in political techniques, and public comments by high-ranking U.S. officials, favoring or disfavoring one side or the other. He also included public threats to withdraw foreign aid, or even promises to provide it if one side were to be elected.

For entire story: The American

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.