Conspiracies gone wild

After going through some random possibilities (there are a lot of them), I came up with one whacky sort of conspiracy theory. Considering the state of affairs, probably all too logical.

Start with one big coverup, larger than any I ever saw. That’s the Russia, DNC and all the inter-connections to the election, corruption, that we know about so far.

No, not the Trump thing. That all is just part of the massive coverup of the greater scandal on the Left. So Trump and Russia is a diversion. But it doesn’t end there.

I figure on January 2oth the clock started ticking. That was when everything goes, no matter what, to throw at Trump to create this bonfire. That keeps people and hopefully the new administration from looking into what really went on for about eight years.

Now 7 months in we are at code red. They have done a good job dragging out every basic thing so far. Except that more info is oozing out of the woodwork about all those old scandals, the ones that Obama said never existed. More than expected.

But it is getting to such a critical stage now that the only plan B is in full operation. It was to drag, stall, obfuscate, divert, destroy, deconstruct until the 2018 election – by any means. The left has to try to “win” the House. The only way to keep the obfuscation of everything going, and damaging material hidden, is to at least gain control of the House.

Then they reclaim control, the agenda and flow of information. They can ride that until the 2020 election when they must get control of the White House to bury all the evidence starting to ooze out. Sure, it is a long shot but it is the only one they have.

At this current rate, there will be enough stuff coming out it would be hard to overlook or prevent a major special investigation. They probably thought that, with any luck, it would take us longer to uncover what we already know. But that is why the giant diversion is so necessary. All the yelling and screaming on Russia is part of that giant cover up.

The mountain of stuff includes the DNC scandals, the Obama scandals, DOJ and intel scandals, with foreign policy chasers, from the past eight years. It also involves most of Obama’s key operatives, including 2 attorney generals, FBI Director, and intel officials. Those smoking guns seem to be everywhere.

It would all feed into the largest investigation in history and Dems are determined not to let it happen. That requires a giant coverup and diversion. Nothing bigger than Russia. N. Korea is even useful. Hell, they would be happy to use Iran in their smokescreen, too. Then they can throw in military or cultural issues wherever they can.

On top of that we have the mountain of scandal around Hillary, servergate, Clinton Foundation, uranuium, money, and her pay to play scandals — all of which she thinks are safely buried because she lost. But they need to be exhumed and chronicled so it never happens again. “What Happened” should have a giant question mark after it. We need two Independent Counsels. So no election autopsy was desired. The relay race is on.

We are sitting in the middle of this narrative of lies from 8 years. Stench is everywhere. So now they have to bet everything on getting to the next election before the dam breaks. The one plus on their side is that there is a knuckle-dragging reluctance from some Republicans to even look into it. Shell-shocked critters lurking in the Swamp.

But the voices are getting louder and evidence is mounting that is harder all the time for critters to ignore. I think that’s another reason Obama spent most of 7 months out of the country. (he was always out of the country when the SHTF) Obama doesn’t want to be anywhere near this nasty coverup. But all the radicals know what to do.

Because this includes obstructing Congress and the administration’s agenda along with the inner workings of government in various places, it is the equivalent of holding government hostage to the left’s agenda. That is further aided by the activists and holdovers embedded throughout government. Compare those radicals to sleeper cells in common cause with the left, whether they are actionable participants, leakers or disruptors.

A huge coverup it is but nothing like MSM is trying to fabricate and peddle.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

Supreme Hubris

The case of the Trinity Lutheran Church wound its way through the Supreme Court this week. A real religious discrimination case, as opposed to a made up one.

Anyone reading here is probably familiar with it, but here is a short summary.

(Syllabus) The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri pre-school and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravel surface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church

What happened was a 7-2 decision in favor of the church. Then the thing that gets me is the 2 dissenters. Sotomayor is a stinging dissent, with Ginsburg and her ACLU ties.

Does that mean, in her view, that she’s okay with the government discriminating against a church? Should we ask? She seems to be the one most aligned with Obama’s zealous worldview than even Kagan. His bigotry against Christians knew no boundaries.

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

“(b) The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character. Like the disqualification statute in McDaniel, the Department’s policy puts Trinity Lutheran to a choice: It may participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. When the State conditions a benefit in this way, McDaniel says plainly that the State has imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must withstand the most exacting scrutiny. 435 U. S., at 626, 628.”


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

“[In Locke vs. Davey] Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s restriction on the use of its funds was in keeping with the State’s anti-establishment interest in not using taxpayer funds to pay for the training of clergy, an “essentially religious endeavor,” id., at 721.

Here, nothing of the sort can be said about a program to use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. At any rate, [in Locke] the Court took account of Washington’s anti-establishment interest only after determining that the scholarship program did not “require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Id., at 720–721″

There is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. Pp. 11–14.

Yet the Department offers nothing more than Missouri’s preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns.”

But there is no doubt, in my mind, that the left (anti-Christian zealots) will have their own spin why this is a terrible thing — a bad decision which needs to be overturned. Again, why the dissent in this case is what baffles me?

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

“The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.”

Then she proceeded to dig into the mission statement of the Luthran church to use as disqualifiers against Trinity, based on their expressed purpose as a church. Done in a way that only Obama and likely Ginsburg would approve of.

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

“The Church uses “preaching, teaching, worship, witness, service, and fellowship according to the Word of God” to carry out its mission “to ‘make disciples.’”

So she went straight to the church’s doctrine to use against them. Why not put the mission purpose of the church under the spotlight in order to discriminate against it? Basically, Sotomayor’s litmus is based on ‘what it is‘ not what it is doing, or proposing to do. Thus, Sotomayor wants to discrimiate against them solely because of their religious character.

See decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

Conflicted Nation

Starting with the Trump investigation debacle — basically to retry the campaign and election — we have all the players in position. What do we end up with?

Mueller – conflict; Rosenstein – conflict, Comey – conflict; McCabe – conflicted. But the issue at the forefront in this carousel of conflicts is deciding if Trump obstructed justice? How’s that for a very sick joke? Sorry. it isn’t. No crime… but plenty of ripe conflicts.

Actually, Mueller should never have even accepted the job since a main focus seemed to be the firing of James Comey, which made him a key witness.(a priority of Comey’s to be at the center) On top of all those conflicts, we have all the political conflicts.

Well, the election never ended and the Deep State is still casting their ballots, daily. We have conflicts everywhere with a conflicted, biased media to selectively cover it. Just wait till they get to the Constitutional conflicts.They’re still creating them.

Now we have a nation of conflicts.

RightRing | Bullright

The Gangsters’ Beat

There was a time when mob bosses were the bad guys and the FBI were considered the good guys. One was supposedly the answer to the other — guess which?

It’s sort of different now that an FBI Director acts more like a mob boss than a good guy. These days, everything seems upside down or inside out.

So it was yesteryear that, despite any current problems, the FBI usually enjoyed a degree of integrity and credibility even when approval waned for other government.

There also was a time the Department of Justice stood for nonpartisan justice, not for another political branch of government. It retained its reputation by remaining objective. Gone, under Obama, are those days. Likewise with the FBI.

Every department in government was politicized under Obama. If it was not radically ‘activated’ by the Left, it wasn’t for lack of politicization. It probably was just yet to be sufficiently proven in public.

Under Obama, the lines were blurred between the gangsters and government officials. The latter had an Omerta and both is a Cosa Nostra — “our thing”. Black Lives Matter and the radicals had a revolving door to the White House. Racists were in charge of racism.

Obama wanted to put on his shoes to march with protestors. When they chanted pigs in the blanket, the White House and Department of Justice were silent. Then cops were killed. But the Dep. of Cosa Nostra only cared about forcing mayors and police to sign consent decrees. Any shooting by a police officer was scandalized to ignite riots and usurp police departments, which provoked no reaction. Wait, the response was cops were told to stand down as violence rose.

Then the Department of inJustice handled the Clinton investigation with FBI carrying its water. (Mob rules) Surveillance rises and there is no leak or outcry. No one was on the people’s side. Feds and DOJ were conveniently locked into their political cocoon.

In comes Trump and when leaks occur, there is no investigation or will to find them. Trump complains about surveillance and leaks so they deny it, ignore him, or feel a reflexive need to correct him. Trump cannot tell the Washington cartel or Cosa Nostra what to do. No, they can’t have that. Wise guys revolt or break windows.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Busted

You don’t say…..mainstream media hasn’t or won’t, that’s for sure.
Washington Examiner

Federal contractor arrested for sending classified intelligence to news outlet

“A 25-year-old federal contractor is facing charges she leaked a classified National Security Agency document to a news outlet in May. The charges come about an hour after the publication of a story based on an NSA document detailing Russian attempts to hack American voting systems.

Reality Leigh Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.”

Read at Washington Examiner

Let me guess, a Hillary Clinton voter/supporter? Just a hunch, call me psychic.

Burned on intel security deal

Probably people reading here would have heard some of this info before. But it is put together in a good article from AIM’s Cliff Kincaid.

Follow the intel trail of the CIA and its latest IT expansion. Just happening to award the contract to Bezos’ company over IBM, in spite of charging 54 million more than its big-blue competitor. The swamp has expanded.

The Washington Post, Amazon, and the Intelligence Community

by Cliff Kincaid on March 13, 2017 | AIM

One of The Washington Post’s big disclosures on Sunday was a front-page story about President Donald Trump’s choice of a cemetery. It was the latest contribution from reporter David A. Fahrenthold, whose job it is to probe every aspect of the life of the new President, no matter how esoteric and trivial. On the other hand, when it comes to covering the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and his ties to the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), the paper is AWOL. …/

Read http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-washington-post-amazon-and-the-intelligence-community/

So, in view of all that, I’d say they need to either reopen that clouded bid or just cancel it outright and transfer the contract to IBM. I would trust them a lot more with this intel security than the Bezos startup. (and I’m not a big IBM fan) Deep State scored, bigly.

This cannot stand. We the people know when we’ve been burned, when we see it.

At the very least, where the hell are the hearings about it, the investigation, and the protest over conflict of interest? But then the company used the fact that it had this contract to further line its pockets and boost its credibility. Where’s the outrage?

I’m pretty sure there is even more filth and connections there than he touched on.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey, Comey… Mueller’s homie

Is there a nutjob in the house?

The People’s Pundit Daily

Comey and the Clinton Email Case: The Untold Inside Story

May 11, 2017

Mr. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump Tuesday on recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, claimed the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information was “unanimous.”

However, multiple sources not only told PPD the decision wasn’t unanimous, but also that the former director undercut their investigation from start to finish.

“Comey was never an investigator or agent. Special agents are trained and were insulted that Comey included them in his artificial ‘we,’” one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. “To suggest all agreed there was not enough to prosecute, was misleading. It’s false. Trained investigators agreed that there was more than enough. He stood in the way.

The story told to PPD must be retold in the proper context…./

See https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2017/05/11/fbi-james-comey-clinton-email-case-untold-inside-story/

Context is everything. Interesting also that Comey and Mueller are best of friends and it is unanimously praised. That’s like David Axelrod being independent about Obama.

Normally, that is what you’d call a Huge Conflict of Interest. Yet even among the 535 members of the cesspool in DC, no one finds this fraternal friendship problematic and praised the selection of an unbiased “Special Counsel.”

Even in the media, no one seems to find it troubling. Instead, they celebrate the fact that the two good friends go way back, personally and professionally. Cosa Nostra comes to mind. Maybe we ought to subpoena all the correspondence — writings and otherwise — between the two?

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Obamacare has no cures

Now that the nation’s healthcare is hostage to the government, is everyone happy? Of course not. Those are the stakes, like it or not. It’s hardly debatable. Pardon the rant.

Who do we have to blame that on? Barack Obama and his pack of radicals. We tried to tell people 7 years ago, when they politicized the healthcare system, that it was a bad thing to do. No, they wouldn’t listen. So Obama and Obamacare weaponized the nation’s healthcare and used it against us. Our medical system is subservient to government.

So if you resented the idea of a government bureaucrat between your doctor and you, look out. Now you have the entire federal government between you and your healthcare. But that is exactly what progressive liberals and socialists wanted. The state will do with it what it wants. What does that make you? Why not just call it Serfcare instead?

The politicians are up to their eyeballs in your healthcare. What’s next, asking them if you can have that knee surgery? Yet the whole thing is considered a healthcare right.

The implications are far and reaching. That means every election is potentially a referendum on our healthcare. Each administration, or Congress itself, can take it upon itself to rewrite the nation’s healthcare. Sure, we used to think that was too big a reach for them to do. Not so anymore. To redo Obamacare may be an arduous task which gets easier the more it is debated and voted on. If changed, the next administration can change it back, almost like an Executive Order. Now we see the truth.

What effect does that have on the industry itself? Who knows. Doesn’t offer much for stability, does it? That is not a calming feeling to the people.

Bad enough that now we already have accountants doing yeoman’s work being questioned from customers about their individual healthcare tax implications. They have to tell people what their tax penalty is and the in and outs to comply with the nannycare system.

Now many pundits see the writing on the wall. Charles Krauthammer said that in a few years there won’t be any debate about government involvement in the system.

Krauthammer told Chris Wallace:

“I think historically speaking we’re at the midpoint,” Krauthammer answered. “We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years we’ll be in a single payer system.” – Blaze

Now I don’t want to accept that as point of fact. I don’t want to think single-payer is now inevitable. Certainly it has gotten closer simply because of the government usurping and controlling the whole issue. So he is right in that once that began, the game and paradign has shifted. We can try to get it back but that will just be our version of the government based/tied system. The next political leaders have a chance to have it their way. We’ve already had how many elections with healthcare at the center.

Could it be permanently fixed in that position? I mean every election, indeed political candidate decision, may be factored by your healthcare or medical situation. Is that what politicians want; what people want? Politicians have enough problems doing the job they are sworn to do now, but have each one be a de facto lieutenant for healthcare?

And that was the problem with politicizing healthcare in the first place. Then passing Obamacare and a federally controlled system etched it into a permanent political issue. We saw that coming. Did libs? Did they care? They only wanted a single-payer system anyway. That’s the problem. What will future townhalls look like?

The process we are engaged in is even worse. Every argument conservatives used against Obamacare7 years ago is now used by Democrats against Republicans. That’s absurd. You cannot argue the failing points of Obamacare against a new plan, when you gladly endorsed Obamacare despite all the lies and problems. Now Dems repeat 7 yr-old criticisms that were used against them. They dug up all the old valid complaints on Obamacare, including wanting to kill off people. I thought it was rich but it is an orchestrated campaign.

First, Dems claimed their protests were duplicating what conservatives and Republicans did in Tea Parties. Then they started to disrupt and mock politicians at townhalls, saying that’s what conservatives did. They claimed it was the beginning of their mid-term come back — right after election — calling it the resistance. Faux imitation is not flattery.

So all of it supposedly follows the Tea Parties’ formula. (much as libs delegitimized those) Sigh. Even to the floor of Congress when Republicans passed the bill singing “nah nah nah nah, hey hey, goodbye.” Confident, aren’t they? But it is not healthcare or issues they care about, it’s power and politics. Even as a minority they are adept. Healthcare is a ward of the state. Screw up the nations healthcare, and supposedly it is a political victory?

RightRing | Bullright

Taking A Long Walk With Stupid

If you are expecting a self-deprecating apology piece here, you might be disappointed.

My current theory, which I will try to prove, is that when you post a few thousand things on the internet, you are entitled to make a couple stupid things. Seems like that should be a certainty. I’ll just amuse myself by taking a walk down that road.

I’m not sure yet what the ratio is, for example 2 per thousand or five or whatever, but there must be some scientific number that could be applied to it.I suddenly noticed that I may be seriously short of my quota and will try to catch up on it.

With a healthy dose of imagination and lack of reality, I’ll give you a glimpse of what passes for stupid. The rest is up to your judgement.

I will attempt to leave truth behind because, hey, you cannot do stupid too well without a fair denial of reality at certain points.

We came through what is declared as an unprecedented election that no one could have predicted or expected. Then comes the realm of filling the role people elected him for.

Post election, about the only thing we heard a lot about is Russia. If you were one who could not find Russia on a map before the election, I bet you at least can now. If you didn’t know anything about this strange (apparently) unexplored place on earth, then you were in for a real treat in 2017.

I’ll take stupid for 500, Alex.

Hey, how many people know the presidents or leaders of countries around the world? But now we all know who is president of Russia. Even the dumbest liberals do. (Boris Yeltsin not so much) He’s probably better recognized than Oprah Winfrey.

But then that is the beauty, you don’t have to know anything else — and nothing is required — only that Putin is in control of Russia. And that probably is not changing anytime soon. You don’t have to know their political system or their policy on any issue. What is Putin’s world view? That’s irrelevant, again.

If you follow the mainstream media coverage, one thing you probably have learned in this adventure is that Putin is Right-wing and his political platform is “conservative.” There can be little debate about that, they tell us. Anything else must be wrong or a lie.

Its’ enough to know that Russia is evil and Putin is their leader. Well, that about sums it up. No need to clog up brain cells with any nuance or moral equivilance of Russia to our own country. That could cloud the matter.

It’s not just for foreign policy. It’s a home game too.

Now that I have a craving for stupid, why not go all out and say that actively defying federal law makes sanctuary cities safer? Add to that the more illegals you can bring in — to protect at the expense of others — the more safe that community will be.

I made mistakes and even been stupid before, but I don’t think it ever reached this level.

While I am drinking the stupid juice, I should make a judgement about the Trump administration. Normally the beginning of a presidency gets a honeymoon period. Now I see this president not only will not have one but that in even a shorter time he will have to accomplish everything he said he would do. That’s hardly too much to ask. And he should also have to fix all the problems created and festering for at least eight years. That’s fair.

And then, let me try this for stupid: just say all the things that Obama was not challenged on for eight years, how about we challenge and hold the new president accountable for all that? Being no one had the guts to do that before, lets all feign righteous indignation over all the problems we turned a blind eye to for 8 years — while whistling past the graveyard.

Speaking of whistles, maybe we can now reward and pat so-called whistle blowers on the back when we couldn’t even encourage any under Obama, since that concealed the flood of corruption and politicization which went undeterred.

Being stupid now, I almost forgot the central tenant: we need to pound the podium at every chance to push impeachment. No, there aren’t enough votes but repetition equals reality. At least get some indictments now, which we couldn’t dare have under Obama’s Legacy of Lies,

There’s a new doctrine: elections do have consequences, i.e. denial and impeachment.

To complete my trip to Stupidville, I must rely on mainstream media and trust them as the sole information source. Their objectivity really impresses me. And if in doubt, when questions do arise, I can always count on former Obama mouthpieces to clarify them.

I also see I need to trust the FBI and intelligence, including the deep state, in what remains of the administrative state to keep everything running smoothly. Yeah, let me put all my trust in that despite what Trump attempts to do. How helpful are they? Fortunately for us, we didn’t need them, the dissent, or whistle blowers in the last administration… but times now have changed. Investigations are now heroes.

And with classified information and intelligence being spread across 17 intelligence agencies, at breakneck speed, they should be quick to point out all the flaws in real time. Having that whole cabal trying to “Factcheck” reality saves on revision later. Let’s just distort reality right from the beginning.

Now that I really look at it, maybe this stupid thing is just not my cup of tea, even for a temporary stint.

RightRing | Bullright

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.)

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/

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.

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/