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/

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

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/

Brennan no saint has dirty hands

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

Obama loyalists still at CIA fuel radical Islam
Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com – February 16, 2017 | Infowars

WASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s time to “drain the swamp” at the CIA, as former CIA Director John Brennan, a clear Muslim sympathizer, packed the agency with Obama loyalists determined to bring down the Trump administration.

Looking for anti-Trump leakers, President Trump needs to be as concerned about the CIA as the NSA.

Few remember that it was John Brennan’s private security company that was responsible for the breach of State Department files which sanitized the passport records (still never seen by the public) of presidential candidate and then-Sen. Barack Obama prior to the 2008 presidential election.

On March 21, two unnamed contract employees for the State Dept. and a third were disciplined for breaching Obama’s passport files. Two were found to be employees for Stanley, Inc., a security firm based in Arlington, Virginia, that was headed by former CIA agent John Brennan, who was then serving as an advisor on intelligence and foreign policy to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.

Brennan was an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, where he studied Arabic. In 1976, he voted in the presidential election for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall. He speaks Arabic fluently, having served in the CIA as station chief in Saudi Arabia.

On Feb. 13, 2010, as President Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor in the White House, Brennan hosted a public forum, co-hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University, where he quoted a lengthy statement in Arabic which he didn’t translate for his English-speaking audience.

More: http://www.infowars.com/report-muslim-sympathizers-at-cia-behind-trump-leaks/

Congressional Review Act, Thanks Harry

Law backed by Harry Reid will haunt Dems in 2017

By Susan Crabtree | 12/16/16

One of outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s greatest legislative achievements will come back to haunt Democrats early next year.

President-elect Trump has promised to repeal two federal regulations for every new one issued, and the Congressional Review Act, which Reid co-sponsored in 1996, will give him a running start.

The law gives Congress the power to rescind any unwelcome late, so-called “midnight” regulations from an outgoing president through a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress.

Since its passage as part of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1996, it has only been successfully used once, but Republicans are promising to leverage its full power in January to kill rules the Obama administration has issued in its last months in office.

In his 77-minute farewell address on the Senate floor last week, Reid included the Congressional Review Act as one of his top accomplishments in the Senate, along with passage of Obamacare, the 2009 stimulus bill, a taxpayer bill of rights and several other measures

Republicans, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, have compiled a list of roughly 50 regulations they could go after early next year.

“I know some of my Democrat colleagues say, ‘Why did you do that?'” Reid said during his final speech on the Senate floor. “Here’s what I did. I worked with Republican Sen. Don Nickles from Oklahoma … Don and I talked about this. We knew that the administrations would change and it would affect every president, Democrat and Republican.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/law-backed-by-harry-reid-will-haunt-dems-in-2017/article/2609786

Good old Harry left something worth something.

The Central Factor is Time

Looking across the spectrum of all these problems today, the one common denominator and leading factor in all of our issues or problems seems to be time.

How many songs have been written about time? It’s the one known factor and one thing we have no control over. And time is pressing.

Plug time into anything and it gives you the known variables. How much time do we have? How much time does it take to fix it? How much time is necessary to get the desired results? How much time is being wasted by ignoring the problems? How much time is wasted for all sorts of reasons? In the end, does the clock have enough time available to turn the situation(s) around?

So many people may be looking for a new clock by now. Some may be resigned that it is not even possible anymore. Some are just complacent that it even matters — with so many other concerns upon them. But then, time alone will not fix things either. It can only make the problems a little older.

Just a few general thoughts about the general factor in all our issues, time. We don’t have much left in this election.

Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.

The problem is that it does not seem to bite them more often, if at all. They are now floating the idea of not just beating Trump and getting the White House, but that this could even be a wave election for them in Congress. See what I mean about overreaching? It never ends with Libs, progressives, socialists, whatever they call themselves.

RightRing | Bullright

Radical Islamic agenda and gun control

Eric Bolling filled in on the O’Reilly Factor. A former Obama advisor, Nayyera Haq, argued for more gun control laws. Eric laid out the Islamist problem spreading like wild fire. Well, it’s hard to deny, hard as libs try.

The terrorist was “a homophobic who clearly had mental health issues”.

She claimed we are making progress on ISIS, but that as we make gains in the ME, ISIS gets desperate calling for lone wolf attacks. “As you beat back ISIS on the ground in Syria and Iraq, they spread to Europe and US. So that’s a separate problem,” she said.

Then came the revelations of CIA Director Brennan. He tells us the are coming here and scheming to exploit the refugee program and immigration. Nayyera Haq said:

“I think a big part of the answer is: now that it’s coming to America homeland, let’s not make it easy for people to get weapons like AR-15s or any other weapons… now, absolutely.”

Did she make that loud and clear? We have to sacrifice our rights and guns because the terrorists are coming here. That might have been a Freudian slip, but it’s the ugly truth. They must crack down on our rights because of Radical Islamic Terrorists and jihadis — which they can’t even mention — are obsessed with killing. Target guns not terrorists.

Let me flush that out further. Immigrants, real immigrants, typically come here to assimilate into America. Islamic radicals come here to assimilate America to them, Islam. They don’t want any part of assimilation and if we have to sacrifice or lose things because of them coming here, all the better. That is not immigration, that’s an invasion, a hostile takeover. But Islamists already declared war on us, so it’s no surprise.

Incidentally, the Radicals and Muslims are some of the most vocal supporters of gun control, why is that? I’ve read articles by so-called moderate, liberal Muslims for gun control. Stop looking at their Islam faith, blame our gun laws, they say. Absurd.

So now for a message to our Commander and Denier:

Mr. Obama, if you really want Americans to resent Muslims, then take our rights away and demand we sacrifice our guns because the Radical Islamists’ political agenda cannot be controlled or defeated. That will make Americans respect Muslims more, won’t it?

That is not a wise trade off: making new rights and protections for Muslims while you take away our Constitutional rights. Then again, Obama will not enforce the laws there now, and scrubbed regulations for offensive words. What these radicals and terrorists are doing is treason, something like what you’ve been doing. But here is the king of deception himself.

“The reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism,” Obama lectured us after Orlando.

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam. It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.”

“It wouldn’t make us more safe, it would make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” – NOLA

Even within that rebuttal he could only call it extremism. Obama is an extremist obfuscater of the first degree. Our greatest threat is still sitting in the Oval Office.

RightRing | Bullright

How a North American Union is born

Ted Cruz – Wolf in Sheep Clothing!!!

So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.

Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)

Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?

But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’

Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.

And watch Hillary distance herself from NAFTA.

No, not a bad April Fools’ joke

Obama: Good Times Are Here Again

On Friday, Obama touted the jobs report as great news. As if we just don’t know how good the economy is. He took the opportunity to remind us because we dummies don’t understand too good. He has to explain it, over and over, until we get the message.

He told us how the unemployment, now below 5%, is excellent news. He talked up the economy, while at the same time the stock market was going south. It’s all good.

“The United States of America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. I know that’s still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody,” Obama said.

The unemployment rate supposedly dropped below 5%, but 51% of people still see economic conditions as poor. Must be a tough sell, not just to Republicans.

When you fill in the voids and blanks in Obama’s rhetoric you come to some strange conclusions. We know that when people’s unemployment runs out or they can’t find work and come off the roles, they don’t count.

From the Heritage’s Daily Signal:

The “real” unemployment rate in January remained unchanged from December at 9.9 percent. Almost six million Americans worked part-time in January but would have accepted full-time jobs if they could have found them, according to the bureau.

So is Obama saying that when their unemployment runs out, and they still can’t find work, that it’s a good thing? Yes. He boasts about the decline in numbers when more people are not counted. Way to go, Obama.

It’s no surprise, Obama can ignore the undercurrent in America that is not happy with his job performance or the effects his policies have on America. Now he whistles past the unemployed and underemployed people in a similar fashion. Then he calls it good news.

RightRing | Bullright

State of the nation is gross incompetence, with a strong dictatorship strain

There is an increasing consensus out there formed over years.

The State Of The Nation: A Dictatorship Without Tears

Source: John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute  | Blacklisted News

“Government incompetence, corruption and lack of accountability continue to result in the loss of vast amounts of money and weapons. A Reuters investigation revealed $8.5 trillion in “taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for.” Then there was the $500 million in Pentagon weapons, aircraft and equipment (small arms, ammunition, night-vision goggles, patrol boats, vehicles and other supplies) that the U.S. military somehow lost track of.”
\
“If this brief catalogue of our national woes proves anything at all, it is that the American experiment in liberty has failed, and as political economist Lawrence Hunter warns, it is only a matter of time before people realize it.”

Read article at: http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_State_Of_The_Nation%3A_A_Dictatorship_Without_Tears/48284/0/38/38/Y/M.html

One may not agree with the entire synopsis but it is hard to disagree with the facts. Actually, the “revolution” that some are calling for is more of the same at a faster pace. Just see the progressives’ talking points for that.

Crazy Obama-hood

Welcome to the wacky world of Obama. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. A place where a clerk goes to jail for not issuing a marriage license but an entire city in California refuses to follow federal law and nothing happens. A place where incompetence is the excuse and justification for more incompetence.

In fact, when the Attorney General is asked about sanctuary cities going on for decades, Loretta Lynch claims that she needs time to study it. Time is not on our side, people.

The IRS targets people politically and the DOJ claims there is no grounds to prosecute Lerner or anyone else. The administration lies to everyone to get Obamacare passed but you lying to the government will land you in jail. The government breaches a dam contaminating an entire ecosystem but it calls you a denier threat if you don’t buy their global warming propaganda. The DOJ will launch an immediate civil rights investigation if you don’t sell a cake to someone or participate in their wedding ceremony. But a city openly refuses to cooperate with federal laws and statutes, and DOJ says we’ll have to “study” up on the matter.

Obama tells people to quit popping off about the circumstances or criticizing his ISIS policy. Instead, he says, put out their own strategy and show him. That’s election campaign rhetoric. It is radical Alinsky rules: make your opponent put forth a plan or strategy to prevent him from criticizing yours. The thing is he is the president, with access to all the information. He doesn’t want you to criticize his strategy unless you put forth a plan of your own, which he can then criticize and mock taking the focus off his. Just read Rules for Radicals, it’s just like the ISIS pr Al Qaeda terrorist manual. Then he deports five more detainees from Gitmo back to the ME, while also conniving a scheme to bring remaining Gitmo combatants to US mainland prisons. And imports tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, with a fictional screening, just to add a little more spice to it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: (the capitol)

Tick, tick, tick…

Lois Lerner legacy lives on

Lois Lerner escapes prosecution, and the arm of justice.

“In a letter notifying members of Congress of its decision, the Justice Department said that while investigators had found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” there was no evidence that any IRS employee had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice.”

See article

Please, no news here. Move on everyone. What a disgrace.

State of the State

I am mentioning some random observations, not that they are connected with one another.

Here we are on the verge of Hillary possibly getting into the White House, with Bubba Clinton. People are projecting her into popular office. No choice but Hillary. “Hard Choices”.

Russia revised its constitution in a way for Putin to get back into office. He’s more popular than ever in the country. They seem to love the guy.

Elists are unpopular in government or elsewhere. The American people are fed up with elitists rule in government and Washington in particular. The disgruntled seem to be across the political spectrum. Trump exposes behind the scenes media manipulation regarding the debates. Who knew? People are turned off by the bias of media in general. Media doubles down on bias.

The world is on fire with radicalism and Obama takes a sigh approach. Obama administration accuses Israel of using excessive force. State Department says that Palestine and Israel are committing terrorism.

David Cameron comes out to make speeches pointing directly to Islamic terrorism. Obama can’t be forced to use the words and says ISIS is not Islamic. Obama calls Islam a religion of peace. Obama wants to put more Muslims in space and other places. But Obama tells us the Crusades are an issue.

Jerusalem is under attack and knife wielding terrorists are spreading throughout Israael. When Israel takes defensive actions it is roundly condemned or criticized. Media cannot be any more biased against Israel.

Sure its a proxy war in Syria, but the media is finally admitting it? Old news, no? Russia has gone through its proper government channels to approve its actions. Obama is flying by the seat of his pants, much the way he did things in Libya. (that worked out well) Obama claims Russia, Putin are operating out of weakness. Hmmm.

Obama says global warming is the greatest security threat. Pay no mind to all other impostors. State of the State — maddening; requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Search for Competency

How do you start a post that is filled with sanctimonious hubris, self-serving political interests, elite establishment powers and politics? Maybe you just dive in.

The recent debate taught some of us that the media is an important player in that process. But it was evident from the beginning when CNN wanted to use old polls in placing candidates on the two different tiers. It proved media can and does have some influence in the debates — not to mention the questions.

Elite establishment likes to pick the winners. Should I say they like to decide? With all these influences coming together, the one thing that unifies them is the establishment. Why don’t we just have an Establishment Party? It would be simpler.

Even despite all this influence peddling, I have a few observations that stand out to me:

Both Parties are having primaries, why does it appear the media only cares about one, the Republican primary? No one is interested in Dems’ views on current issues.

The media competes on what probing questions to ask Republican candidates, especially the outsider ones. No one asks any tough probing policy questions to the Democrats, including Hillary. In fact, Hillary had refused to state her position on the XL Pipeline for months. No one pushed the issue. Then suddenly, in the face of dwindling polls and the Pope”s visit highlighting the climate change agenda, she vows to oppose it.

Media is casting its vote all the time. They don’t like Trump. They all would like him out, but they do like the ratings he brings them. But don’t talk about Hillary’s opponents.

All these factors together help create one atmosphere of unrest. People were already angry enough, which is why Trump got on top. Democrats are too, but they look to a big government socialist like Sanders for solutions — more government. But people are not just angry with government or Congress. It’s toward media, too, long a point of contention with conservatives, and anything connected with old-guard establishment.

So we have the government not trusted, in any branch. Media is distrusted more and more and under suspicion. The economy is no pillar of stability, not to most people anyway. The world is destabilized with refugees now flooding all across Europe. And Kerry already announced we are going to take a 80,000 and 100,000 the following year. Putin is putting on the blitz.

IRS was targeting people, EPA is running roughshod. Hillary is a ham sandwich short of indictment. We still have the border crisis which people are ticked off with. Mad but no, they do not just want new immigration law. We can’t trust the government to enforce current laws. So we have that old festering wound which doesn’t trust government on anything. Nor the media. We can’t trust the government to investigate itself.

They are angry with the effects Obamacare has had. They are angry with the debt and budget, and Planned Parenthood. They are angry with the effects government has had over their lives and liberty.They are angry with the abuse of power. They are angry that they elected representatives who forgot what they came to Washington for. They are angry at their Party who shortstops their voice in elections. Pissed off would be putting it mildly.

Then you have career politicians vying to fix the problems, with the track records they already have — generally making things worse — while the establishment runs interference to pick them. Then there are the denials about many of the problems we take seriously and they don’t seem to. Talk about icing the cake!

The Hillary Email Hustle

Just some random statements and comments on Hillary and servergate.

Now she gives an interview to Andrea Mitchel. In it she made a few whoppers. I’m not putting a link up, you can look it up.

She trotted out her old excuse that she didn’t want two different devices. You know, that was never the reason. No one can be stupid enopugh to believe this. Hasn’t this already been knocked down everywhere? Yet she brings it again.

Hillary said it wasn’t the best choice. Ya think? No, it was her deliberate choice. It was a schemed, premeditated choice. Did she admit as a woman making a wrong choice?

She said the server was approved by the State Dep. Really? Then again, she was the Secretary of State. Therefore is she basically saying she approved of it? If it was approved, and under the authority of the State Dep., then what was the purpose for setting it up in the first place? It was to circumvent. Did they approve of her circumventing or annexing their State system? When did State authorize that? Did State approve her lawyer’s copy?

Bryan Pagliano (former State employee) is the IT guy who maintained it and now is pleading the fifth. Cut the chase, he is likely the guy who did the deleting and scrubbed the server, per her orders. One can see a big reason he would not testify. Short of the server testifying, he is the next best thing. Did he make the thumb-drive copy for her attorney?

She uses the excuse that she was trying to simplify things when in reality she complicates everything. If it was part of and extension of the State, then why would she put her personal emails and information on it? Why would she want to include all her personal email and information as well on a government tied, State authorized system?

She explained that Bryan was tasked to keep their server and their personal information maintained, and personally employed by her and Bill. Was he also authorized and approved by State? Why would she want to entangle her personal information with the State? Does that make any sense? No one made her give up a personal email account or her own server system to use the State system. She could have had her own or multiple personal accounts outside the State. Read not tied to the State Department. Why tie her personal to State?

Records always were a problem with Hillary. Or Hillary’s records always were a problem. Obama and Axelrod went after her records. She was always hiding and obscuring her records. Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008 asked “what is she hiding?”

She is sorry that all this has been confusing to people. Really? By design; it was obviously not confusing enough, as she hoped, to have it lost in the smoke and mirrors. She is sorry people are confused! Ha ha.

The important point is no one forced her to give up a personal email account.

About Benghazi, she said she has been asking and hounding the investigations to testify to them. She was just looking for every opportunity to volunteer herself to help in the Benghazi case. They declined her offers all the time. Is that somewhere in writing? (probably one of the deleted emails)

The answers are obvious to anyone not smoking the ganja or guzzling the Kool Aid.

Weeks ago Mitchel started the pondering by asking the central question:

Andea Mitchel: no one can explain why she had a private server.
Not even Hillary, apparently. And the guy who maintained it isn’t talking.

Hard Choices

A home-brew system with Hillary Clinton is toxic.

Update Also see Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

Asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday whether anyone in her inner circle ever expressed concern about the setup, Clinton responded, “I was not thinking a lot when I got in.”

“There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?”

RightRing | Bullright

Common Core word games coming soon

We probably cannot expect much change in Common Core policies, but it seems we can expect them to play word games about Common Core. This new poll survey was released describing different nuances in results depending on the wording of the questions. The wording was regarding varied substitutions that replaced Common Core like “standards”.

And guess what they found? Yes, they could fool some people into supporting it. A small amount, but hey. So what do you think they are going to do? You guessed it. I guess it was not a very tough question, or answer. And it’s not a tough decision for big-government elitists.

Republicans hate the words ‘Common Core’ more than they hate education standards

By Jason Russell • 8/18/15 | Washington Examiner

How much do Republicans hate Common Core? It depends how you ask them.

The results of the 2015 Education Next Poll were released Tuesday, with three groups of respondents answering questions about Common Core.

One group of respondents was asked simply whether they support or oppose Common Core. Half of the Republicans in the group opposed Common Core, with 30 percent in favor. Before asking if respondents support or oppose Common Core, the question explained, “In the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states.”

Continue reading

Actually the emphasis seemed to be not in winning people over to it, which is practically impossible, but in toning down the fierce opposition to it. So they know we don’t like it but can they make us not like it less, based on careful wording they use? They’ll be going for the gold on that, I’m sure. You can bank on that change until Common Core is hardly recognizable, in speech at least, dumbing down the name They didn’t poll it for nothing.

What I’d like to know is just who are these 30% of people who always seem to support or sympathize with this stuff, no matter how bad it is? If it were a disease we would have mapped the dna of it by now — and probably had some treatment for it. We are already used to our politicians playing word games with us. I guess anything Federal Government related just naturally follows suit. As the article said, they cannot reverse the opposition to it based on removal of the word. But if your thing is bureaucracy, get what support you can and let progressives do the rest. Sounds like their plan.

Hillary servergate, trail of scandal

Here are some basic defense talking points on the growing Hillary server scandal — herein and in other places referred to as servergate.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As “Classified” Or “Top Secret”

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself

“Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as “top secret” to push myths about Clinton’s handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.” — Media Matters.

The retroactively thing does not work. The emails from the intelligence agencies would be generated with that stamp or classification. If it was not on the documents on her server, then it had to be removed. That is just a fact. Our agencies do not willy nilly go out and put info out to be classified by others — retroactively. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

“FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use. “

They were not originated in State Department but in the various intelligence agencies that created them. Questions would have occurred regardless of Clinton’s server use? If State controlled that info how they should, there would not be a problem with it. It was her server, and information on it, being out of their loop that causes the risk and scrutiny. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes”

Regardless, the similariies involve classified information. Was her server company, vendor, cleared for such info? Did they have or create backups for it? That is why they investigated the Denver based company. So where the comparison does not work is that this was worse.

She stored them on a device, not approved, which could be compromised– or even lost. Petraeus didn’t destroy said information. (who can validate the destruction of it?) Indeed, she made copies of said information, apparently without the classification on it, electronically to another device and gave it to her lawyer. Additionally, we don’t know if she made other copies or distributed it to anyone else. Plus the emails she tried to keep from everyone.

Comparisons that might fit to any degree of similarity:

  • General Petraeus — giving notebooks to mistress with classified info in them (probation 100,000 fine)
  • Snowden — took classified documents and dispersed them to others.(currently on the lam – many calling it treason)
  • Sandy Berger with national archives — removed documents and destroyed documents.  (50,000 fine, loss of security clearance, forfeited law license, probation)

Now, it seems unlikely if not impossible that the information of classified nature could have come directly from the intelligence agencies. They would not have stripped the labeling off. And IF, big IF it arrived unmarked on her server, then someone, somewhere would have to remove it.(since it was generated with that labeling) So it would have to go through someone’s hand to remove it. The likely place being within the State Department itself. (especially as she is lecturing others not to use their private email accounts.) So if within State, someone had to remove the labeling prior to sending it to another system, unsecured out of the government loop and control. (two actions to consider) And was it the same person? Was it routinely done? That would make any others comparisons look pale. Now long this information was there and who all saw it or had access to it from there, makes her server use highly questionable.(and illegal)

“FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself.” — Really?

Right, it’s the server they are investigating. Those darned rogue things, since Clinton discovered their self-awareness and intelligence. (surely sent chills into the tech sector) A secondary issue/problem is her specious explanation of a server. If all info was being copied back to State, then why did she need the server? It would only create a redundancy and extra unnecessary hassle. We know why, she wanted to circumvent State Dep, and government(not comply with), or the very department she was the head of.

Since the subject is exploitation, what seems to be happening is a shifting of the goal post. It’s a little shrude, but then what isn’t when dealing with Clintons? Here the emphasis is all going on classified information. If, a big if, they can clear that hurdle then she can claim the investigation cleared her. But the whole issue of the server and her keeping information from the government FOIA system is very much an issue, along with the missing and hiding of emails from Benghazi.

So when they zero in focus on that legal problem of classified information it becomes a diversion on the greater server, email, information issue. As reports indicate, many sources have adopted Hillary’s meme that it is not her being investigated but her server. Who’s server was it? Even some reports have joked about the independence of her server. They willingly or not detach her, and her wrongdoing, from the server itself.

This is the opening Hillary is looking for to avoid personal responsibility or accountability. She’s already denied the classification of top secret information on it, creating a loophole to presumably dodge the entire bullet. I hope the smoke of the classified information does not distort the whole issue. It seems the only concern the Feds have and are looking at is the classified one. She must not be allowed to walk away after dumbing down the investigation the same way she did on the initial Benghazi investigation, which didn’t even question her and still made its declaration.

RightRing | Bullright

The most irritating two words

Democrats use so much language that really offends me, but there are two words that stand out as probably the most irritating.

Every time you hear the Democrats cry about needing this legislation, regulation or that bureaucracy those same two words rear their ugly head almost every time.

The words are Common Sense:–“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

One of the biggest culprits of this egregious offense is Hillary. She loves those words and works the phrase into almost any issue. The more unpleasant the issue or their ideas are, the more they use the words common sense to cover their butts and detract from their ideas. If the ideas aren’t popular, then throw out the word common sense a lot. Ask a Democrat their position on a very difficult and controversial issue and you are sooner or later likely to get the standard “I support a common sense approach.” Does it tell you anything? Does it define their position? Well, I suppose it defines the fact that they want to be sneaky and slippery about the issue. It sounds so good.

And that is exactly the problem, it sounds good to way too many people. First, the idea that these people are actually guided by common sense is ludicrous. I mean if there were a competition for lies that would be in the top 10. Or then the idea that whatever approach they do take must be therefore based on common sense because they told you they support a common sense approach. It’s crazy. Second, they are filler words; or it’s more like an empty vessel into which they can pour anything they want under that label. Want to buy affordable healthcare anyone? That’s the kind of plan those words are cover for.

The latest case in point is Hillary using them in her response about gun control. She said:

“It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks would fail in Congress despite overwhelming bipartisan support. It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense, and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.”

“The president is right — the politics on this issue have been poison. But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear, and I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”

All that sense from someone who obfuscates and hides the truth about Benghazi, a person who short circuited the State department by having her private email server. Someone who ran around blaming a video no one had seen for an attack, and telling the victims family they would get the guy who made it.

A person who scolded Congress “what difference at this point does it make” in response to questions on the Benghazi terrorist attack. This professor of “common sense” is lecturing everyone on what “makes no sense”, after scrubbing her private server clean after email requests on Benghazi – where an ambassador and 3 Americans were killed under her authority, while setting up an outpost under her orders.
“Once again racist rhetoric has metastasized into racist violence,” then she dove into race issues of the Charleston shootings. “America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”

For a little background from Dan O’Donnell at 1130 -WISN:

Even as her husband’s term in office was ending, Hillary was still trying to profit from it. She had furniture from the White House shipped to her personal home in Chappaqua, New York. She said they were donated, but when the manufacturers were contacted, it became clear that they were donated to the White House, not the Clintons, and meant to stay there. — Read more

But remember at that time the real story Hillary claimed news should be covering was the vast right-wing conspiracy, which was after her and her husband for all their escapades. This is probably the phoniest woman on the planet, lecturing on moral high ground.

At Texas Southern University earlier in June, Hillary said.

“Now, all of these reforms, from expanded early voting to modernized registration, are common sense ways to strengthen our democracy. But I’ll be candid here, none of them will come easily.”

But apparently real common sense does not come easily or frequently to Hillary Clinton.

Lecturing about law enforcement’s need to use cameras for “transparency she said,

“It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more than remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented by cameras but this is a common sense step we should take.”

So it’s “common sense,” we need cameras on Hillary Clinton to provide transparency.