Jefferson’s wisdom

“Whenever the words of a law will bear two meanings, one of which will give effect to the law, and the other will defeat it, the former must be supposed to have been intended by the Legislature, because they could not intend that meaning, which would defeat their intention, in passing that law; and in a statute, as in a will, the intention of the party is to be sought after.”

1–Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:110

“When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.”

2–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

3–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

Source: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1020.htm

This insidious epidemic must stop

There is a terrible disease racing across America, affecting liberals and Democrats. Can it be contained or is it yet another epidemic? Sanity is such a terrible thing to squander.

Unhinged: Liberals Suffering From Nightmares, Insomnia, Binge Eating Since Trump’s Victory

Derek Hunter — Daily Caller

Liberals across the country have been struck by nightmares and insomnia since Donald Trump won the presidency is November.

“I have not slept a full night since the election,” fashion designer Ariane Zurcher told Yahoo News, and she’s not alone.

President Trump is haunting the dreams of many Americans and is being blamed for lost sleep and weight gain.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/18/unhinged-liberals-suffering-nightmares-insomnia-binge-eating-since-trumps-victory/

 

It must be striking right at the heart of academia. What will they do? The diseease has been festering in certain populations for decades, in the margins. But now it’s gone mainstream. I don’t know which is worse the disease or all the related symptoms?

 

Seeing is not believing, St Patrick’s snipe

I’m seeing the Dems and media in a frenzy daily to find something, anything, to blame on Trump. This is proof that seeing does not always equate with believing.

The media calls itself adversarial press. That would be an understatement, and probably require redefinition as hostile.

But even St Patrick’s Day cannot pass without a chance for MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to take a swipe at Trump.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Irish-Americans Working for Trump ‘Disgrace Their Heritage’

BY: Alex Griswold — March 17, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Irish-Americans on St. Patrick’s Day that they were betraying their heritage if they worked for President Donald Trump.

O’Donnell, who is an Irish-American, tweeted out on Friday that, “The Irish-Americans working for Trump disgrace their heritage.”

O’Donnell’s tweet links to an op-ed from the New York Times shaming the Trump administration’s Irish-Americans employees for being insufficiently empathic towards to the plight of immigrants.

“We Irish are not Know Nothings. We know something important: what it’s like to be feared, to be discriminated against, to be stereotyped,” wrote columnist Fintan O’Toole.

Among the notable Irish-Americans working for Trump are Vice President Mike Pence, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, and chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Original: http://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-irish-americans-working-for-trump-disgrace-their-heritage/

Well, Lawrence, mission accomplished. One day Rachael Maddow makes a non-bombshell tax revelation, and then along comes O’Donnell to wrap in Irish immigration.

No more shamrocks for you, Lawrence. And lay off the caffeine Maddow, it won’t pump up your ratings.

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

Defending the Indefensible

I’m almost amused by the political dialogue — to use the term loosely — of the left these days but if one thing sums it up, it would be defending the indefensible.

They apply those talents to Obamacare. What is there to defend? It is a total mess even for doctors and healthcare professionals, and prices are going through the roof. But if anyone can defend that it would be Democrats or the liberal left. Calling that a success is sort of like calling the burnig of Rome a strategic victory.

It isn’t the only place they’ve applied their expertise.They defend Obama’s sham legacy, his leading from behind foreign policy. He doubled the national debt….. “winning!”

Finally, Trump has taken the opportunity to say he was left a big mess all over. That was a strange way of securing Obama’s legacy. Now that Trump elegantly points that out, shrieks come from thhe heckler section. Dare he say that? Mess is an understatement.

Remember Obama’s doctrine was “don’t do stupid shit!” Apparently they didn’t follow their own doctrine. Unless fertilized evil was their idea of smart?

The Democrat party is in a scorched-earth campaign to deny the effects of the last 8 years, and to defend the entire scandalous, evil hole called Obama’s legacy. But it was a pretty big giveaway how bad it is when their biggest claim was Obama had a scandal-free administration for eight years. And Valerie Jarrett echoed that across liberaldom.

Leading from behind and “don’t do stupid shit” being pillars of that tenure. If it looks like and quacks like a duck, guess what? It ain’t a pig. Besides, there isn’t enough lipstick to cover this mess. But who’s trying? How quick their perspective changed from a yellow brick road under a rainbow; to a black plague in every corner with red-alert problems everywhere, just as he leaves. They can complain about leadership now.

On one hand they’ll be defending, on the other they’ll be condemning everything, everywhere. Their hope and change turned to Mope and Complain.

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Got Milk?

Let me do serious for a minute instead of media’s mockery of anything related to Obama.

There was a wiretap of candidate Trump before the election.

So the control area of debris here is: a former president’s administration, two campaigns in a heated race, and a current president’s administration.

Add to that the chronic leaks epidemic just to spice it up.

Is that enough to give you pause?

 

For your viewing pleasure:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hannity-hammers-valerie-jarrett-over-wiretap-scandal-and-wins/55075/

The Obama Agenda: Trumping Reality

Let’s boil it down to what this whole assorted affair is about — and I mean all the political dissent and consternation. Well, it is pretty simple.

It is really just two things. Almost all of the hyper political climate and fear mongering is over Obama’s legacy of disaster and 2)his last famed achievement, the Iran deal.

That too simple? Some might say duh, we knew that. Maybe, but it really is that simple. At least that is all that is driving it — aside from some powerful egos marinated in Obama’s legacy of lies. I mean what would you expect from those people surrounding the Captain of Treason?

Remember the schoolyard meme that one person is merely putting down another in order to build himself up? That must be an elementary lesson people learn. In this case, it’s one Obamafiles need to fully utilize — to preserve all that they did.

Or as Steve Bannon told CPAC “if you think they are going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.” They aren’t. “Everyday it is going to be a fight.”

 

Insiders: Obama Holdover ‘Shadow Government’ Plotting to Undermine Trump

by John Hayward17 Feb 201 | Breitbart

Several intelligence insiders have come forward over the past few days to describe a “shadow government” of Obama holdovers leaking information to derail the Trump presidency, with National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s resignation their first great success.

There are even allegations that former President Barack Obama himself is actively involved, citing his establishment of a command center in Washington and continuing involvement with activist organizations.

Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer, formerly a CIA-trained defense intelligence officer, said in a Fox Business appearance on Wednesday: “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan, and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before they left.” He also mentioned Ben Rhodes:

Schaffer said it was clear that sensitive information that could compromise U.S. intelligence-gathering methods was divulged to the media as part of the campaign to bring down Flynn, by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material. That should narrow the list of suspects considerably.

The Washington Free Beacon quoted “multiple sources in and out of the White House” on Tuesday to describe a “secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran.”

Since all news coverage is now driven by leaks of dubious accuracy from anonymous sources seemingly above evaluation, it seems only fair to entertain some insiders who wish to leak on the leakers.

According to the Free Beacon’s sources, the Obama loyalists are highly organized, under the direction of former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, famed for his ability to sell false narratives about Iran to credulous reporters. His critique of media types as young “know nothings” whose only experience “consists of being around political campaigns” would seem validated by a press corps that eagerly runs with just about anything an anonymous source hostile to Trump feeds them.

Rhodes shoveled a lot of manure to cultivate the Iran nuclear deal, and he is not going to let it go without a fight. According to the Free Beacon’s sources – one of whom is identified as a “veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House” – Flynn was targeted because he was preparing to “publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal.”

Another official who purportedly sits on the National Security Council said “the drumbeat of leaks of sensitive material related to General Flynn has been building since he was named to his position,” and his resignation was “not the result of a series of random events.”

“Last night’s resignation was their first major win, but unless the Trump people get serious about cleaning house, it won’t be the last,” warned a third source, suggesting these Obama loyalists are just getting warmed up.

More – http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/02/17/obama-shadow-government-may-working-undermine-trump/

 

Here’s what frames it in context — aside from the fact this author is not calling it a shadow government. Proof of that seems to be in the pudding. (daily)
 

Revenge of Obama’s ‘Former Officials’

Obama officials are waging war on the Trump White House.

For a president who has a uniquely hostile relationship with the press, positive news cycles are both rare and fleeting. The Trump team displayed remarkable discipline by refusing to step on the president’s well-received address to a joint session of Congress. A lot of good discipline did them. Just 24 hours after Trump’s address, a series of troubling reports involving links among those in Trump’s orbit to Russian officials reset the national discourse. Those stories make for a trend, though, that has little to do with Trump and a lot to do with his predecessor. The Obama administration’s foreign-policy team seems to be campaigning to rehabilitate itself one leak at a time, and the press is helping.

The frenzy on Wednesday night began with a revelation in the New York Times that members of Barack Obama’s administration had left a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators who happen to be looking into the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russian government. The report revealed that intelligence officials intercepted communications between Russian officials and “Trump associates,” and that the administration worked frantically in the final days to ensure those revelations could not be buried and forgotten after they left office.

Continue reading at (may need subscription)

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/revenge-of-obamas-former-officials/

 

Donald Trump may be busy but so is the Democrat Left.(what remains of the political left) While Trump works long days on his agenda for the people — who elected him by 306 electoral votes — the fiction writing, revisionist Left is as busy creating a means to oppose him. Though there is a deeper reason why they oppose him.

Obama’s agenda needs to trump reality for Obamafiles to succeed.

See, they are not happy with opposition alone but set their sights on undermining, destroying, ousting or overthrowing him. And that, according to their radical base, is “by any means necessary.” Labeling these conspiracy theories is dangerously naive.

Sure they have openly called for and mentioned a slew of hopes and schemes, including political ones for the midterm elections. But the threats that are far more credible, in my opinion, are the ones many people want to poo-poo.

According to the author above, the theory goes that there are nine designated Obamafiles to cover the tracks and rewrite the dismal mess of foreign policy failures they made of things. Cleanup in isle one! From Syria to Yemen, and Ukraine to Iran, and all their applied negligence along the way. Protecting the Iran deal is job #1.

There is one solution, besides rewriting history, to divert all attention to Trump. Then to photoshop Trump into the entire foreign policy picture. Yes, remember Ben Rhodes also has that idea of journalists as young and pliable know-nothings, which he can lead on Obama’s narrative. They can write it as fast as media can report and cover it.

That only begs the question: does media realize it is being led on this narrative? They have yet to ask Obama and his people any questions. Did you notice how quickly the N Korea nuclear issue became an “immediate short-term” crisis? They dispensed Obamafiles to news channels to defend the Obama legacy by setting off all these alarm bells about immediate problems across the globe. Meanwhile, applauding their foreign policy disaster.

But while the Iran Deal from Hell was being negotiated, no one could say anything about the problems or what to do about them because, in their minds, everything hinged on securing Obama’s legacy deal. Of course, there was no time for anything else. They only cared about one thing, and sacrificed everything else in order to get it. Never mind that it was a failure too. Even liberals are restless and tired of defending Obama’s record.

As every group has a de facto leader, the comrade in charge of the nine elite Obamafiles is fiction writer Ben Rhodes. It only makes sense. He in turn would answer to Valerie Jarrett and Obama. This group would be the lead defenders for Obama’s holy grail, his legacy. As Iran is the living monument of that, it requires lots of protection — by any means necessary. Russia is just a choice diversion.

What is odd here is that for years Obama refused and avoided any action toward Russia in hopes of getting the Iran deal done. In Syria, he did much the same: he ignored Iran’s meddling in Syria and elsewhere, with their agents of terrorism that flows across the Mid-East. He would not upset that to get an Iran deal done. So basically he sold us and our security out to terrorism, in order to get his deal. Now we know that; the intelligence community has to know that, Iran knows that, and Russia knew that.

The irony is Obama needs an entire apparatus(Shadow Gov) to protect his legacy of lies.

This is something we need to get used to. It’s not going away. If I read one I read five articles just today that concluded this is not going to change. This is what the left is. They are in perpetual protest.There always has to be something to protest. It’s how they get what they want, how they exist.

However, now they are merely doing it to protect their legacy of policy failures. The problem is that the left does not understand the whole paradigm. They see one thing at a time and that’s all they care to see. They don’t care about the big picture so it’s a challenge just to break through. It is on the media, it is that way to youth and a whole lot of regular working people. So Bannon is right, we have to fight this thing and this mental subterfuge every day and not fall for the simple, colorful narrative.

Goose and gander: Obama vs. Trump

Okay, “Russians interfered in our election” is the talking point. I get it. It’s the outrage of the decade, sure. Interference in our elections or policies is offensive. That’s the big issue.

Then why is Obama’s former presidency trying to sabotage the new sitting president somehow not a problem? Not a concern? How could you ignore that if you were so worried about the sovereignty of something like elections and the stability of our government?

News flash, elections were never really threatened. If you cannot weather some secondary outside probing, then your election system is really frail and in trouble. Hearing them say "our Democracy was at risk" is a huge leap. Russia could have destroyed our democracy. Then why is sabotage and undermining by the former administration not a threat?

RightRing | Bullright

Assessment of the Left

Remember the old Van Jones’ cliche about how he viewed the progressive, liberal strategy?

“Top down, bottom up, inside out.”

Van Jones: “Change has to be top down. bottom up, and inside out. It’s got to be top down… we can’t just leave the federal government in the hands of our enemies and expect to make a lot of progress.

So even if we can’t get everything done we WANT to get done out of DC, we certainly can’t let other people have the levers of control of DC. But also, you can see right now, DC can’t do much by itself. You have to have that bottom up movement….and that’s what’s been missing is that bottom up sense of movement to get the best out of DC. And What’s {inaudible – cog]…in stopping that is the inside out piece. “

Van Jones said “we need to have the right president and the right movement.”
(the right radical roots)

Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is [its] an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

This is not about conflict resolution this is about conflict proliferation.

It was always fairly clear what they were talking about when they said bottom up or top down – Van Jones said they needed the presidency. But it was always more vague what inside out really meant — maybe inside anger acting out, turmoil or chaos itself? Now we see more of what really “inside out” looks like within the government.

That is government turned inside out, against itself, when undesirable power to radicals is in control. Of course this wouldn’t happen under Obama. Where government is used against itself to bring down an opposed power. And it is rolling out of the left right now.

See all the obfuscation, obstruction to allow nominees to get through. You have all the Dems, in minority, functioning in lockstep to use any of their power to oppose and sabotage the majority. Now the radical remnant within is in rebellion.Then you have the phony grass roots AstroTurf acting in concert calling for obstruction.

The first thing liberals did post election was demand Dems obstruct and do anything possible to prohibit everything the new administration tried to do. Hence, resistance.

At the moment, all three parts seem to be fully activated with one added caveat, the media. It is nicely cooperating with their strategy. Money was never a problem with Soros, Dem orgs etc. Then all they need do, collectively, is project chaos everywhere they can.

So under those circumstances, the only way Repubs can get Dems to cooperate is to appease them somehow — what the left wants and expects. If the radical left cannot control government, they must at least exert force over those with levers of power.

And media is doing a marvelous job right now playing along. It’s almost too perfect for them. They have a former president now going back into politics, leading their movement. Democrat pols are all on board with the radical left’s agenda to disrupt, deny, and destroy anything opposing them. It’s basic radical ideology, and Dems are fully radicalized.

There is Move On, which was Clinton’s defense organization. Then there is Organizing for Action, Obama’s campaign organization. There is RevCom, a tool of Bernie’s. Along with other leftist groups, including the ACLU, BLM, environmentalists and the financiers like Soros glad to foot any bills. Couple it with Obama and his internal political machine of fellow travelers, and former staff. Eric Holder and then a crew of Obama’s lawyers challenging everything Trump is doing. Now it’s a strategy of inside out and upside down, too.

RightRing | Bullright

Shadow Soros Dollars

Soros’s Smear Scripts
Welcome to the vast, mega-financed leftist astroturf campaign against President Trump.

March 2, 2017 — Matthew Vadum | FrontPage Mag

A radical group linked to rogue billionaire George Soros has been providing scripts containing anti-Trump talking points for constituents to read aloud during congressional town hall meetings.

One of the scripts distributed by the Revolutionary Love Project encourages town hall participants meeting with their member of Congress to accuse the Trump administration of – wait for it – “xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia.” Constituents are urged to use those precise words to “forcefully condemn” President Trump’s immigration and border security initiatives, Aaron Klein reports at Breitbart News.

Information about the scripts came as leaked audio from anti-Trump activists associated with the group Indivisible surfaced. Their target was a town hall hosted by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). They planned to deploy an “inside team” to occupy as many seats as possible and an “outside team” to “give [the media] the coverage they want.” Activists were urged to “dress like conservatives” and avoid “any signifier that you’re a liberal” so they could dominate the meeting.

“Game plan number one is to fill as many seats as we can, right? If it’s all of us in there and the poor people of Breaux Bridge are sitting behind us, well then tough luck for them,” James Proctor of Indivisible reportedly said….[read more]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265980/soross-smear-scripts-matthew-vadum/

How much longer can America put up with Soros and his collaborative web of commie influence over this government?

The money, the left and government

Follow the money trail.

GOP wants to eliminate shadowy DOJ slush fund bankrolling leftist groups

By Melissa Jacobs Published March 01, 2017 | Fox News

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

“Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations,” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton told Fox News. “It’s a shakedown. It’s corrupt, pure and simple.”

There is a recent effort by Republicans to eliminate the practice, which many believe was widely abused during the Obama administration.

When big banks are sued by the government for discrimination or mortgage abuse, they can settle the cases by donating to third-party non-victims. The settlements do not specify how these third-party groups could use the windfall.

So far, investigators have accounted for $3 billion paid to “non-victim entities.”

Critics say banks are incentivized to donate the funds to non-profits rather than giving it to consumers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html

Obama’s information spreading campaign

Even before he made his grand exit, Obama did all he could to set the stage for Trump. It’s called sabotage most places. But it’s just a day in office for the radical-in-chief, Obama.

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
//…

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”

MORE at NYT

The real story is there for all to see of Obama’s shadow government and its expansive influence. He would not be happy to give up power. And he isn’t finished.

Paid Obamascare trolls swarm web

Obamascare: 60% of online Obamacare defenders ‘paid to post’ hits on critics

By Paul Bedard • 2/25/17

A majority of online and social media defenders of Obamacare are professionals who are “paid to post,” according to a digital expert.

“Sixty percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time,” said Michael Brown. “They were paid to post.”

His shocking analysis was revealed on this weekend’s Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, broadcast on Sinclair stations and streamed live Sunday at 9:30 a.m. Her upcoming show focuses on information wars and Brown was describing what happened when he had a problem with Obamacare and complained online. [more]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamascare-60-of-online-obamacare-defenders-paid-to-post-hits-on-critics/article/2615774#.

Funny how media all care about Russia trying to influence the elections and politics but don’t pay any attention to dopey Obama trolls trying to manipulate public opinion. They do care about what conservatives do though. A real grass movement… of green.

Location for Obama’s Library

I’ve been hard at work trying to help Obama out with locating the right area for his museum-library. Someone had to. Location is everything.

After searching Chicago suburbs on Google for hours, I found a good spot for Obama to build his LieBarry. Right on the corner of Resistance Road and Poverty Place.

Taxes are cheap there, not that he’ll be paying any. And the neighborhood is just perfect for riots with lots of abandoned open space for all those demon-strations they’ll have.

I would suggest minimizing the window area. Micky D’s will want the adjacent corner. That should help the economy and offset the tax loss. Of course they’ll be no need for parking because what idiot would be stupid enough to bring a car there?

Just perfect.

RightRing | Bullright

Threats foreign and domestic

Taking stock and identifying all threats, foreign and domestic. WIP – work in progress.

Take it from a retired Former Commander in Chief of U.S. Pacific Fleet, James A. Lyons.

“IdentifyingTheThreat”

Published on Feb 19, 2017

As responsible Americans we must identify all threats foreign and domestic AND protect our fellow citizenry by raising awareness.

Blocked and Rolled Media – Press

You know it’s a bad day for media when they have to report that they’ve been blocked by WH press dept.  You know,  this may be the kind of prohibition that I could get behind.

[NYT] WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and two other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer allowed in reporters from only a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend.

Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Crying and whining media is offended. They ought to check their press privilege.

ABC tries to quell Shadow fires

Well, apparently ABC has taken on its wings the task of fact-checker, and accusation debunker. So move over liberal Snopes, Fact-Check, ABC wants a piece of the action.

Case in point: they are now chasing accusations conservatives have long proposed and bandied around that Obama will run a shadow government — feeding a potential coup of Trump’s White House. But those are more than rumors.

Now I would not go into all the reasons for the support of the shadow idea. Obama is certainly doing nothing to put out the accusation fires. No, in fact, he feeds them. The more you see his old guard politicos or officials out in the media, while the burrowed-in Obama loyalists leak from within the state, the more valid you have to take these charges.

Obama continually lectured people to stop believing what they see, only pay attention to what he or his media sycophants say. It worked at least on 30% of the people.

Here is ABC lecturing us not to believe the stories of a shadow government and its coup underway. What other reason would there be for the shadow entity existence, but to undermine the sitting president and his administration? A lot of work for nothing.

No, former President Obama isn’t planning a coup against President Trump

By RYAN STRUYK — Feb 22, 2017 | Abc News

A fake news story making the rounds on Facebook claims in the headline that Congress is concerned that former President Barack Obama might make a “treasonous coup attempt” against President Trump — and that they’re taking steps to stop him.

It’s not true.

Though the headline screams “BREAKING: Congress Moves to STOP Obama’s Treasonous Coup Attempt Against Trump,” only parts of the story are based on facts. It’s done by seeding the story with quotes that are true, but are twisted out of context.

The original version of the article, posted on a website called Angry Patriot, has 38,000 shares. And since this fake news story’s text has been posted more than two-dozen times on other webpages, its false headline has been shared even more on social media networks.

One of the other sites, Trump Media, has a disclaimer page: “All the information on this website is published in good faith … The Trump Media does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information.” Neither The Trump Media nor Angry Patriot sites responded to requests for comment from ABC News…./

The key point is that there’s no tie between the leaked information from U.S. intelligence agencies and former President Obama, as this fake news headline suggests.

[much more]

More: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-planning-coup-president-trump/story?id=45665594

Notice the story they are worried about is the mere accusation of a shadow government, not what it is doing. Its actions are not the story, only our interpretation of them — or what Obama’s allies do to disrupt and obstruct Trump.

Add to this the protest roll out of the “Indivisible” movement — started by 3 former Congressional Democrat staffers. Now credentialed by media as the beauty of democracy in action. (opposed to “tea-baggers,” remember?) All under a guise of Resistance.

I don’t know about you but simply stating it is not true just does not do it, at all, for me. To believe Obama is not going to take advantage of every speck of power and opportunity he can pilfer under a rock ‘requires the willing suspension of disbelief’.

This is no longer the lamestream media pretending to be objective but allying itself with deep state and all the various political operatives on the left, in the way it only dreamed it could do before — for a common end But since they share common allegiances, generally to Obama’s legacy, well, all hands on deck now. ‘We are all agents of the shadow state now.’ Shorthand, we are all Obama now. And they are all radicals now — fellow radical subversives, hell bent on undermining the administration and its goals and agenda.

Yet we are asked to believe all the accusations about Russia involvement in the Trump campaign/administration. But a lack of evidence for all their charges only adds fuel to their accusations. They attack away. So in their elite view: it’s one big Russia and Trump conspiracy, that is the problem. But Obama’s and the left’s shadow state working to undermine the administration is just a big bogus theory? Right.

RightRing | Bullright

Shadow government up and running

It may still be in the early, trial phase but the shadow government seems to be getting its feet on the ground as fast — or faster — than Trump can get his own administration up and running. Which is all probably their main objective. So here we are.

Loretta Lynch Played This Shocking Role In Setting Up A Coup Against Trump

American Patriot Daily News

The Trump administration has been plagued by leaks from the intelligence community.

Many believe these leaks were intended to destabilize the Trump Presidency and represent a soft coup.

And you won’t believe the role Loretta Lynch played in this plot.

Shortly before leaving office, Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed a directive loosening the rules on the NSA’s ability to share intercepted electronic communications with 16 other federal agencies, as well as their foreign counterparts.

The New York Times reports:

“In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.”

Now some critics are arguing this new order was the driving force behind the leaks that took down National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, is one of those critics.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, he argued that this order created a “shadow government” by expanding the pool of people able to access intercepted communications which would otherwise be classified.

Zero Hedge reports on his remarks:

“There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They had 8 years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks.

If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left.”

Obama supporters within the intelligence community have waged what some believe is a coup against Trump by using cherry-picked leaks to frame the information in the most damaging light possible.

Was this coup ultimately enabled by Loretta Lynch?

At least one expert is saying “yes.”

Original article at http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/loretta-lynch-shocking-role-setting-up-coup-against-trump

But it is not just the shadow government concerns at issue, it also enables the deep state that seems perpetually plotting against Trump. We have a real problem there.

It’s strange(not) that information was a rare commodity in the Obama adminstration. Now they spread information everywhere, leaks abound. No leaks and whistle blowers under Obama. Now, with their loyal allies in the media, they’ve become the angry yet powerful and permanent opposition. That is why the leaks need serious investigation.

All this information flowing, but yet we still do not even know the whereabouts of Obama during the Benghazi attack. How’s that?

Realted: https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/investigation-bring-down-obamas-shadow-government/