Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

One of the strangest, and funniest, things I witnessed was Van Jones prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Never mind that 8 months later, Dems never had a real autopsy over the death of Hillary’s campaign.

He gave a speech in Chicago with just that subject on the docket.

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

“The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”

“Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”

“That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”

Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337253-van-jones-rips-clinton-campaign-they-spent-money-on-themselves

It could be the case that she spent more money than anyone in history to not get elected.

Now, despite all the money flowing into the Georgia-6th District, once again their expensive scorched earth strategy ended in ashes, with Ossoff losing by 6 points.

It is not what pundits expected and it wasn’t what Ossoff hoped. And he was beat by a woman…with a real vagina rather than a Planned Parenthoody imposter.

Elections have consequences, for sure….. they empty bank accounts. So while Republicans want to Drain the Swamp, the Democrats just want to drain bank accounts.

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

Where, what “Matter”?

noun (Dictionary.com)
1. – the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. – physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. – something that occupies space.

4. -particular kind of substance: matter

5. -situation, state, affair, or business: trivial matter

6. -an amount or extent reckoned approximately: a matter of 10 miles.

7. – consequence for serious thought.

Wikipedia – “In the classical physics observed in everyday life, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space; this includes atoms and anything made up of these, but not other energy phenomena or waves such as light or sound. More generally, however, in (modern) physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because a universal definition of it is elusive; for example, the elementary constituents of atoms may be point particles, each having no volume individually.”

Now that I have looked, it seems nowhere can I find that “matter” is a criminal investigation. Or maybe it is close to #5 or #7? Well, if Loretta Lynch told Comey to call the Hillary “criminal investigation” a matter, and he did, I expected to find a proper notation or legal definition somewhere. But no.

Legal dictionary says Matter is “a substantial, essential thing, opposed to form; facts.”  — Substantial, essential “thing“? – keep looking.

According to Science: (Live Science), there are five stages of matter: Solids, liquids, gases, plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates. Yet I see nowhere any stage morphs into a criminal investigation.

Or maybe we have discovered a brand new type of matter that has been so far elusive for millennia? I’d like to be first to name it “Lynch matter”: i.e the criminal investigation of a corrupt politico or politician. Elusive, slippery, evasive by nature.

But I still sort of like the term “criminal investigation,”… that’s just me.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Clinton comes clean…. I mean dirty

If you are Hillary Clinton, then this makes an excellent opener for any conversation about the 2016 election.

Enter the ‘Responsibility Ruse’: a lesson in how not to take responsibility (set @ 8 min)

“I take full responsibility for every decision I made … but that is not why I lost.” – {of course it isn’t… you ignorant people, it wasn’t my falut…get it?]

So I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons of this last campaign. Because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy, they’re going after our unity as a nation. …

Host: So you weren’t going to lie, good for you.
Hillary: right, well…yeah (gestures with hands in air).
Host: “Well”… I see you are rethinking that.

Hillary: Well, I’m not rethinking it, but everybody else better rethink it because we have to figure out how to combat this. [hint, hint…. people get the message]

Host: But that’s my point. My impression is that the Left, the Democrats, the liberals… whatever you want to call them, including Bernie Sanders folks, everybody on the Democratic side… which at one time maybe 12-15 years ago was ahead of Republicans on tech as it existed then is way behind now. And there’s a way to weaponize tech that doesn’t involve lying, or having Russians help you, just that its a political weapon, it’s a fact of life now . How do you.. how do we do it going forward?

Hillary: let me just do a comparison for you. So, I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation, I get the nomination, so I’m now the nominee of the Democratic party: I inherit nothing from the Democratic party.

Host: what do you mean, “nothing”?

Hillary: I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong…. I had to inject money into it to keep it going.

I’m Hillary, I can strain the hell out of a gnat, but take responsibility? That’s not my bag!
But I do like saying the word though, it makes me feel so, you know, responsible and all.

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

Trump would beat Clinton on popular vote

Daily Wire [excerpt]

The one consolation Hillary Clinton continues to cling to after her stunning upset at the hands of Donald Trump in November is the fact that she won the popular vote, by about 2 percent (48 – 46), which though ultimately meaningless in the electoral college system, Democrats have attempted to hold up as “proof” that Trump is “not their president.” But buried within a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll is the delicious little nugget that if a rematch were to be held today, Clinton would apparently be stripped of even that moral victory.

The new WashPost/ABC News poll found that while 46 percent of those surveyed said they voted for Clinton and 43 percent said they voted for Trump, asked how they would vote if given a second chance, respondents ended up giving Trump the popular vote win in the hypothetical rematch, 43 – 40.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12265/obama-admits-trump-caught-him-guard-blames-bubble-james-barrett

So instead of wondering why Trump’s support has not weakened, the winner of the election, why don’t they ask where Hillary’s support has gone? It’s melting, at the time she clearly is  plotting a rematch for 2020.  Where have all the Clinton flowers gone?

Meanwhile, Obama told ABC News that he blamed “the bubble,” or the job itself, for the reason he underestimated Trump and his popularity.

“[T]he bubble is the bubble,” he told Stephanopoulos. “And, I think we’ve done a pretty good job staying in touch with the American people. But at a certain point you can’t help but lose some feel for what’s on the ground because you’re not on the ground.”

The problem was not the job, but the person in that job.

No, Obama, its not losing touch with the American people if you never were in touch with the people to begin with. Yet at the same time, he was clearly delusional in his support for Hillary. He used his job “in the bubble” as the predicate to elect Hillary Clinton — who seems to have her own “bubble” of disconnect.

Of course, Obama has yet to admit that in effect he lost to Trump, because Obama was so invested in his legacy and Hillary’s win. Instead, “the bubble did it”.

But the media all carps about Trump’s low numbers? Yet the Dems have still not realized elections do have consequences.

Politicization A Central Threat

How the intel community was turned into a political weapon against President Trump

By Scott Uehlinger, opinion contributor – 04/05/17 | The Hill

The U.S. intelligence community is in the midst of a severe crisis. It has been used, or perhaps allowed itself to be used, as a tool of political destruction, against some of the same U.S. citizens it was created to protect.

What I am talking about is the continuing “Wiretapgate” debacle. We are seeing the widespread abuse of intelligence by an incumbent administration to target political opposition. Long a technique in the developing world — a tactic I often witnessed as a CIA station chief working abroad — the Third World has come to roost in the United States. It is a tragedy of the first order.

The danger of politicization is widely accepted throughout the intelligence community as the greatest hazard, in theory, to the intelligence profession. If an intel service cannot be accepted as an unbiased arbiter, it loses the trust of its people, and risks becoming irrelevant and unheeded. History is littered with intel failures; one need only look to the invasion of Iraq to see how politicization can lead to costly failure and a “trust gap” that can take years to bridge and resolve.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

Stunning to be compared to a third-world country, but accurate to Obama’s legacy.

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/

Darkness can’t understand the light

As the Inauguration came and went, sliding into the sunset, the media took to their standard talking points. (now as old as some redwoods in CA) “Dark.”

So they wasted no time applying their favorite term to Trump’s inaugural address, “dark”. I thought it rather uplifting and encouraging myself. Well, what does it matter what most people thought of his speech, while liberals scramble to define it? Even their adjectives are old — as old as darkness itself.

All of a sudden everything is dark. All of a sudden it is a divided nation. What has Obama done for a divided nation? He caused it then ran off the stage, only to crawl back on as the nations Chief Critic. His self-serving lectures only added to the division. Divided yes.

As the song says, “Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around.”

Baby, you keep knocking on my front door
Same old line you used to use before

But the left has it exactly the other way around. Darkness is their cause.

How about that darkness?

John 1:4- (KJ21)4 “In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Is it any wonder we have division in the world?

John 3:1 “9And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.”

Job 24:13 “Others have been with those who rebel against the light; They do not want to know its ways Nor abide in its paths.”

Darkness does not comprehend, but dark is an epidemic on the left. What has been pretty dark is the last eight years of ignorance and failed leadership. It became a dark reality.

When anyone talks about Obama’s Presidency, we are called dark. Supreme irony.

And what’s been dark is the media. They did their best to paper over a dark reality. Media became a tool to justify that dark reality. And now they portray darkness everywhere.

RightRing | Bullright

Media Showdown and conventional history meets metaphor

CNN runs a special called “The End” as Fox starts a daily show called “first 100 days.” Does anything highlight the contrast more than that? The beginning and the end.

On one hand Liberals are in mourning. They look back at radical nostalgia ending while the rest of us, thinking people, are in mourning for what Obama has done to this country.

Conservatives, Republicans, and normal people look forward to Trump coming in to fix some of the many problems — created or magnified by Obama, called accomplishments.

This brings up another thought nicely illustrated by that photo of Obama visiting the Henry Ford Museum, sitting on the bus Rosa Parks rode on. (look it up here )

The picture shows Obama sitting alone on an empty bus from a bygone era, which was famous for what took place on it. Namely Rosa Parks making her stand for civil rights and changing or challenging culture. That was the picture. But it is also a powerful metaphor for Obama and his legacy. Let’s see how much mileage I can get out of it? None of this applies to Rosa Parks but to Obama, who is caught in the nostalgia of it all.

In the end, Obama seems to be alone, surrounded by his failed legacy, staring out a window seemingly oblivious to what all took place. He wanted a coveted spot in the public and he got it. He started off wanting to “fundamentally change” America and our perception of it, only to himself become the chief symbol for what is rotten in Washington. In effect, there was a backfire, like those old buses were prone to do.

Then the big one. Obama’s finale of two terms and his legacy gets derailed and replaced by the newer Trump Train — a popular uprising of disgust from the people. They have had enough, finally, and sent a messenger to demonstrate their conviction. They beat back the status quo rules and establishment to get there. A David vs. Goliath story.

Obama argued that this movement, or man now leading it, was unqualified and ill-suited for the job, and not to be trusted. Trump deserved no seat and his movement was to be blacklisted by putting every label on it the left could, including racist. That further fueled resentment and resistance to the self-serving establishment — government run amuck.

After it all, there sits Obama alone on an empty bus staring outward. Alone on his own bus. He will now have to single-handedly defend his legacy, with help from his allies. But he is the only one who could make the case for his radical legacy. All the others will be just cheerleaders. He now leads his parade of one to secure and protect his legacy.

A moment of history illustrated, metaphorically, by a simple photo of Obama sitting on Rosa Parks’ bus in a dated backdrop. Obama rode on the past racial history to propel himself. He extorted every circumstance to usher in his radicalism as America’s cure, rather than the disease. How’s that for milking a metaphor? (more could be said)

RightRing | Bullright

Boycotting America: the infertile resistance breeds

The week of hypocrisy and double standards, and here we go.

The hearings were one thing, emphasis on race and Russia – not necessarily in that order — but dialogue and media are another which got progressively worse, right on script.

We finished the week by having the self-anointed civil rights leader, John Lewis call Trump’s election and his presidency illegitimate. Anyone NOT see that coming? These people certainly are predictable, if nothing else.

“I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis told NBC News Friday. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” – NBC

No, unfortunately, Lewis was not a lone voice. Predictable. He did it intentionally on Friday before MLK Day — which I guess is now ensconced as the day of hate.

Now you would think that Lewis making this statement would be like a bomb going off, and the shock of it from a sitting senior Congressman would outrage people. You would think immediately people would distance themselves from his remarks, en masse. The condemnation would be fierce. And you would think a media outcry would demand every single Democrat condemn his remarks or be condemned. Nope.

Actually, Michelle Obama kicked it off on Oprah saying “we’re feeling what not having hope feels like.” She was praised for saying we have no hope. They cheered her on.

One Democrat pundit said on Sunday, “this is the resistance; this is just what it looks like now.” Ah, “what it looks like now” is short for this is the way it’s going to be. No, it’s actually going to be worse. They know it and so do we. And then their shadow Obama government will be adding to the resistance.

What you would think should be a normal response, in their racist political correctness, now is reversed. Rather than blanket condemnation, the praises for John Lewis came from everywhere: media, Congress, the black community, the public. Hard to find anyone who does condemn his statements.

Remember Joe Wilson, the SOTUS “heckler”? He had the audacity to make a public disagreement with Obama. He got a good talking to from the Republican leadership. And Mitch McConnell, all he said was that job #1 was to make Obama a one-term president. Democrats turned that into a giant insult and classic racism. Justice Alito shook his head. People were called racists for asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate or records — since he really had no trail. Just questioning Obama was blatant racism.

So it was way more than Obama ever received, even before Trump takes office. Now resistance is celebrated. Calls for obstruction ring from every corner of the Left. Respect is out, Resistance is in.(lockstep of course) In fact, the Left even says, proudly, it is following the model that worked so well for Republicans. (choke, gag) Get that, they even blame us for their radical resistance. They blame Russia for the election results. And they blame Trump for the condition of America which preceded any thought of his to run. Now they are trying to even make us own Obamacare.

Well, the total fallout of John Lewis is wide agreement with him. In fact, 23 members of Congress are boycotting the inauguration. It’s the cool thing now to join the resistance. They will institutionalize it, celebrate it, take it into schools and claim it as righteous.

All this deception won’t work. The people have been awakened and are not going to take their eyes off this, We survived their decade of decadence and aren’t happy. Sorry, Dems, don’t even try to out anger us. It ain’t happening. The blame projection won’t work. But they have the towers of media carrying their water, and soon will have every one of their shadow operatives opposing Trump. Exactly the way they did in the general election. Almost as if the election never happened because, to them, it didn’t.

Protests are highly overrated. Respectful protests were fashionable toward Obama, disrespectful protests toward Trump are now in. When Tea Party protests were born, the IRS and media assailed “speaking truth to power” using their big-gov firehouses, under a black president. It was Democrats in the sixties who opposed Lewis and their ‘civil rights’ agenda. Now they blame Republicans but no one is supposed to know the truth.

Now their resistance stuff is all the rage. Resisting what? – doesn’t matter. On the IRS Tea Party scandal, blacks and Democrats stood on the side of big government fire hoses. They stood up and walked out. Eric Holder was in contempt and they stood up for him, who was standing up for Obama. But now they see illegitimacy as the cause de jure.

So the answer, my friend, ain’t blowing in the wind. No, their answer to nothing is to boycott Trump and whatever he does. Take that Mitch McConnell. He let them beat him up for eight years for a benign statement. Then people bent over backwards for Obama. Republicans stood there like deer in the headlights, as radicals ruled the White House and administration. That really worked?

The boycott of Trump takes full shape before the parade or swearing in. What will they do when he’s in office? I think we know. (whatever was not done to Obama) Can’t you smell what the boycott is cooking? It means de facto protesting America and what it stands for, the rule of law. So civil rights or justice are excuses, the real boycott is against America.

And happy MLK Day, for what that’s worth.

RightRing | Bullright

Negative Impact On The Election

Okay, which one had more negative effects and impact on the election:

(A) hacks and wikilleaks’ dumps of a couple email accounts connected to Hillary Clinton
(and so-called Russian intervention in the election via influencing voters) OR

(B)the hyper-radicalized media coverage attacking Trump 24/7 for over 9 months ?
(while dumbing down coverage by ignoring criticisms / record of Hillary Clinton)
 

You decide. Shall we examine the headlines and press pages, too? Mo’ investigation!

RightRing | Bullright

Inaugural Blues

In keeping with the RSNR theme, news you only wish was fake but isn’t, comes this gem.

The Left is trying to organize a protest strike on Donald Trump’s inauguration. They are calling out to their comrades in cause in the entertainment and show business. Combine that with a fundraiser for their many leftist organizations, like Planned Parenthood.

Leave it to former Clinton labor secretary, Robert Reich, to concoct the grand idea and lead the charge. They hope to get SNL character assassin Alec Baldwin to MC.

Former Secretary of Labor Proposes ‘Freedom Concert’ To Overshadow Inauguration

by Lindsey Ellefson | December 19th, 2016 | Mediaite

Robert Reich is a beloved author, blogger, and professor who was once the Secretary of Labor. He has over 1 million fans on Facebook and regularly has posts gain quick and sizable amounts of interaction, including shares. Here’s a recent example of a post that really took off:

The Trump people are upset that the only musicians willing to perform at the Trump inauguration are Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

Someone just suggested to me a televised “freedom concert” to air at the same time as the inauguration — with huge celebrities like Beyoncé and Jay Z, Madonna, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Gaga, Bruce Springsteen, and so on. Alec Baldwin MC’s the event, playing Trump as he does on SNL.

Presto. The Trump inauguration loses all the TV ratings.
Basically, no one watches it.

Even better, the proceeds of the freedom concert go to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal, NAACP, Common Cause, CAIR, IRAP, SPLC, Environmental Defense Fund, Human Rights Campaign Fund, MoveOn, Economic Policy Institute, Inequality Media, and GLAD.

What do you think?

Can you smell something? That’s the desperate stench of Donald Trump’s team trying to find a celebrity who doesn’t sell “Gods, Guns & Trump” shirts willing to… [see]

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-secretary-of-labor-proposes-freedom-concert-to-overshadow-inauguration/

Someone seems to be having inaugural blues. They started a Change.UG petition.

How ironic that a former Labor Secretary is calling out a strike on the inauguration. How many things are weird about that?

A protest strike and fundraiser — two things the Left is skilled at, besides wasting money. Combined into one with their anti-Trump fervor and voila. Maybe they’ll hand out LSD as well? Nothing is off the table. “Freedom Concert,” that’s a hoot. Sounds like a plan.

Scheduling Conflict?

There could be some problems though, since many celebrity activists already said they are leaving the country if Trump was elected. They could even be planning on leaving that day because it would be the last chance before Trump takes office.

Well, maybe enough stragglers will stay behind to entertain the masses. They will also have to hit up the celebs for money before they take it and depart our shores.

I thought what a shame they can’t get Obama to come, but he will be busy on that day.

H/T to Mediaite

 

Where are they now, Never Trumpers

Any cursory review of the election would leave many unanswered questions about those who absorbed the spotlight as the many, the proud… the anti-Trumpers.

What happened to them and where are they now? Well, I just saw that the prominent Never-Trump leader Bill Kristol will be stepping back, or down, in his career. Now Stephen Hayes is stepping up to be editor-in-chief of the failing Weekly Standard. Hayes is another anti-Trumper. They are calling the shakeup lots of things, but Kristol is out.

Hayes will certainly continue in the legacy of denial, after Kristol, while the Weekly Standard seeks to rebuild its once-lucrative brand. Put some lipstick on that pig.
The Hill

Bill Kristol is stepping down as editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, more than two decades after he co-founded the conservative publication.

“It’s good,” Kristol told CNN on Monday. “Here at The Weekly Standard, we’ve always been for regime change.”

Steve Hayes, the publication’s senior editor, will take over for Kristol.

But Kristol won’t be leaving the stage, just stepping away from Weekly Standard. We know he can’t leave the limelight. His condescending elitism won’t allow it.

Mitt Romney, what’s left to say about him? He was in the running for Secretary of State, then the unthinkable loss of not getting picked. After all he did to oppose Trump every public way he could, he tried to shift his hatred in a few tweets.

First, were all the attack(s)… plenty of them:

What he “knows?”

There was the one after election:

Then there was the one after failing to get the nomination he wanted:

But no apology or thanks to Trump for considering him — with all his many warts.

Then there is this reversal from staunch anti-Trumper, Erick Erickson. His radio show must be in a nose dive lately. But never fear, he now says we should give Trump a chance. A little late, don’t you think you waited long enough?

Erick Erickson: I’m gonna give Trump a chance (no, I’m not a sellout)

During the 2016 election, I was adamantly opposed to Donald Trump. Much of the media cited a piece I wrote in mid-February planting my flag against Trump as one of the major pieces to spark the #NeverTrump movement.

I wrote in that piece that if the GOP went with Trump that the party was not only going to lose the White House, but see devastation down ballot. All the polling showed it. The polling had been right during the primaries. Trump was the one guy consistently ahead in the polls and the one guy who consistently could not beat Hillary. The general election polling showed the same.

I, and the polling, were completely wrong. So were a lot of other people. After the election I wrote that those of us who were so completely wrong about the election should exercise some humility. If we got that much wrong, the odds are we got a lot of other stuff wrong, too. Consequently, I thought the day after the election and still think that we owe Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt.

This does not mean I am now on the Trump team. I still have concerns about Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/14/erick-erickson-im-gonna-give-trump-chance-no-im-not-sellout.html?refresh=true

How generous of Erick to give Trump “the benefit of the doubt” now…..when all other opposition has failed. He tries to blame his rabid, anti-Trump stance on earlier polls.

Count Erick as “not selling out”….
he’s selling up, to anyone who still believes anything he says.

Then there are the Obamas, those priceless gems of slobbering elitism. Michelle says she may be leaving the White House but not the public stage. Surprise! Right after she tells us we have no hope. Barack Obama plans to go nowhere. He told us that.

In fact, they rented a mansion down the street from the White House where he will continue his radical activism by running a shadow government, according to insider reports. I’m sure any Obama residence will have plenty of room for his Iranian adviser, Valerie Jarrett. I give Obama the award to represent the anti-Trump opposition.

You don’t believe Hillary Clinton is going anywhere either, do you? She’ll have her own oppositional organization. And when stars align, some spectacular things will happen.

Does this mean that Erickson along with Hayes, Kristol, Obama, Hillary and all those outspoken others will be on the same page at some point opposing Trump? Look for that; but how they parse their active roles in the coalition will stand reason on its head.

It would seem all the anti-Trumpers are not really going away, just lining up to posture themselves in public and media. But their opposition doesn’t change. They are just finding more creative ways to channel it.

Mike Morell’s divert and attack road show

Mike Morell, Clinton confidante, is back out on the trail. Speaking about the Russian involvement and hacks in the election, their favorite subject:

Breitbart
TEL AVIV – Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, is generating headlines for claiming that alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election amounts to “the political equivalent of 9/11.”

“It is an attack on our very democracy,” Morell said. “It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this 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.”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/12/14/mike-morell-cited-in-russia-hacking-stories-crafted-misleading-benghazi-talking-points/

So he calls it a 9/11 even after his involvement in the memo rewriting Benghazi attack.

Hoopla over Russia and the election

Does anyone even care about the uranium theft that Bill Clinton and his friends engaged in with Russia? No investigation about that, no hearings over it.

But we need to have hearings on Russia involvement in our election. I wish they were half as fired up about the uranium deal. If they are going to be concerned about Russia, then how about trying to appear consistent?

Maybe some feigned outrage about the uranium is in order, at least, or all the other government hacks we had. Why aren’t they as concerned about that? Blaming Trump for all this is so childish it is pathetic. None of it would likely matter much if Hillary won. But she didn’t. Russian hacks have nothing over our political hacks around DC.

So the answer is to politicize the election process and the results, and then politicize the truth. Where was their cyber outrage before? Where was Obama’s concern?

Haven’t we yet realized what we are doing, with all this rhetoric about Russia, is handing them the influence they are seeking?

Then there is Harry Reid’s take on it.

“We know from reports we have seen from all of you guys,” [Harry Reid] said to CNN’s Manu Raju, “reports that people in the campaign for Donald Trump were in touch with the Russians. And now it is very clear.” – Real Clear Politics

Let the politicization go on at mach speed. What an idiot.

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Mean and nasty Dems discuss their nasty campaign

As much as what Dems say is irrelevant, I can’t resist calling out some of these statements.

The two campaigns had a meeting at Harvard to discuss the election and results. Whoa, Dems are drinking nasty juice. I always called vodka mean juice but there is something worse, Democrats’ talking points.

They never miss an opportunity to play the race card. If anyone made this election about race, it was Democrats, from the beginning to the last day. No, it continues on.

CNN

Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said the Trump campaign had operated in the world of “dark arts.” As an example, she flashed the final issue of the National Enquirer, essentially describing Clinton as a corrupt criminal who should be thrown in jail.

“I don’t think you guys give yourself enough credit for the negative campaign you ran,” Grunwald said. “I think it was an incredibly effective negative campaign, and you guys don’t get credit for it.”

“Dark arts,” nothing vaguely sinister about all their name-calling, is there? How about Dems’ dark arts of smear and illusion? (with some help) Apparently she missed all the negative media/press coverage about Trump and his campaign. But Trump’s campaign doesn’t get enough credit for actually winning.

Dems favorite word is Dark. Everything Dems do is dark. They labeled the Republican convention “dark” while their convention was mired in scandal before it began. DWS had to resign…. but then she was hired immediately by Hillary. Surprise. Talk about narratives? Even Hillary’s campaign was a scandal.

Over the course of the two-day conference, the Clinton team attributed their general election loss to a myriad of factors. They said they faced huge headwinds within the electorate because of the strong desire for change: “We underestimated the force of that wind of change,” Mook said.

“Underestimated” the force of change” — ya think? Clinton ran on tailwinds of more of the same. Headwinds won, thank God. We didn’t underestimate the force of Hillary and Obama’s WH. Can’t say they did not try everything in their corrupt arsenal.

Then they went all out nuclear blaming the FBI and Comey for throwing the election to Republicans.

Clinton advisers also blamed unfair media coverage — noting that it was a struggle every day to get Clinton’s message to break through in a media environment dominated by Trump.

Hillary Clinton went 275 days without a press conference. Is that someone being denied media coverage?

“What hurt us was (the Trump campaign) coming after her or the press picking at us,” Palmieri said.

Press was picking at Hillary’s campaign, really? Where and when was that? They did attack Trump 24/7 and it continues. What alternative reality they live in.