Jefferson’s wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

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

CA puts on a secession rush, eh?

Okay, one more ridiculous ‘wish it was fake but not’ story. For now….

Canada, do you have any idea what you are asking for?

KIRO 7

After the West Coast overwhelming supported Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for president, Canadians are taking to social media to invite Washington, Oregon, and California to join Canada.

Whoop, there it is. Why should Hollywood weirdos have to move if Canada comes to them?

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

The Day has Come

I never thought or expected to see the day that the collective press/media would become a chief adversary, even an enemy, but that day is here.

Well, it is just happened to really hit me that way. Regardless of all our problems, government corruptions and failures, the “press” has now positioned itself in such a way that it is a chief adversary (if not the foremost one) and just a tool of the power.

Sort of scary. One can look at all the reasons and motivations. That is one hell of a revelation to come to terms with. I thought I had witnessed many problems before.

We know all that stuff about the idea and main purpose of the press — the ideal. However, it made itself into this hyper-politicized, bias oriented institution in general. They’ve picked their side, the battle lines have been drawn. We’ve defined the battlefield and the strategy is unfolding before our eyes. It not only applies to politics but it is an ideological adversary — even a radical one.

Not a scenario I had expected to this operational level. The saying is know your enemy. What happens when the press/media finally becomes a determined enemy of the people? Couple that predicament with the most critically import election of our time.

This was on top of another observation a while back that we don’t really have a free press. So I wondered, after these many years, maybe the press did not want to be free after all? Not anymore anyway. That used to be a major difference we had to other places.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary does NAACP

Out in front of the Republican Convention, and pandering as usual, Hillary gave a speech to NAACP. (I wonder if she charged them 250K?)

She lectured on the rule of law and accountability. Her hypocrisy really has no bounds.

So is the message or the messenger the problem?

And as president, I will bring the full weight of the law to bear and making sure those who kill police officers are brought to justice. There can be no justification, no looking the other way.

That’s why our laws treat the murderers of police so seriously, because they represent the rule of law itself. If you take aim at that and at them, you take aim at all of us.

We must reform our criminal justice system because everyone is safer when there is respect for the law and when everyone is respected by the law.

I don’t think anyone anywhere needs to connect what is wrong with messenger Hillary Clinton lecturing us on the rule of law and accountability, saying she stands up for the rule of law — while she trounces it every chance she gets. And lying is no problem either.

Stop the Tragedy: Rein in Disaster… before It’s too late

See something say something. Be vigilant, don’t let our guard down.

Words, just words? ..(satire…)

I decided to take a stand. Something has to be done. We have a serious problem in this country and it is only getting worse. If I’m accused of politicizing tragedy, I don’t care. Too soon? Too bad! It is urgent. We can’t wait. This isn’t about gun control, it’s about survival.

Can we now see that when anti-American, racist hacks become armed with unilateral executive power and a pen that really bad things can and DO happen? It’s almost a given and we see ugly results of it unfold time and again. It is a recipe for disaster.

I’m tired of going from one horrific, tragic abuse of power to the next and people asking “couldn’t anything be done to stop it? Shouldn’t we have seen it coming?” Something needs to be done to stop this cycle of abuse. We need to do much more to prevent this from happening over and over. We can do better.

This notion I hear all the time that somehow allowing more of these irresponsible, reckless race pimps, ideologues and hacks more access to that weaponry of power, instead of less, is dumb. It is a phony talking point… and it’s dangerous. We all should agree on that!

I have to admit I, too, once turned a blind eye to this risk. I rationalized that these things probably wouldn’t happen and they would not effect me or my community. Well, those hopes have been shattered along with the hopes of so many others. We believed we were safe. But we bought into the lies.

We have to decide, at some point, if this is the kind of country we want to live in. The background checks have not worked nor been able to prevent this access to the weaponry of power, tragically. It’s time we ask if this dangerous executive power should be accessible? Who needs that kind of power anyway?

It might be time to finally consider removing that powerful weaponry from the hands of those not suited to have it in the first place. And maybe it is time to confiscate this dangerous weaponry before it is further abused or falls into the wrong hands. Some things are far too dangerous for anyone to own or have at their fingertips. We just cannot afford to take that chance anymore. We’ve seen the damage this weaponry of power can do.

That’s right, I’m not afraid to use the “C” word, it’s time for confiscation. We’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked. We cannot trust anyone with the means to wreak so much damage on so many people, especially race hacks with sinister intentions. We must remove that weaponry from those who would do us harm.

These legislative loopholes have allowed this abuse to continue and less regulation is not the answer either. These policies are setting us back decades. In fact, we used to have tighter restraints on this weaponry of power, but we have these big organizations out there with lots of money, pushing their own agenda to Congress. Make no mistake, they are powerful and their agenda is dangerous to every man, woman and child in this country.

We must decide if this is the kind of country we want to live in, where these acts — or the threat of them — are “daily fare”? I do not want my family or grandchildren to live in that kind of country, under that threat. They don’t deserve that, nor do we.

We must be stronger than these threats and interests.I don’t want to examine another case in the rear view mirror and say “could have, would have.”

RightRing | Bullright

United States of Divert, Deny and Lie

It’s mourning again in America, and Hillary has avoided one more obstacle in her grand anointing process. Welcome to the Department of Injustice.

Comey punted and claimed “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. Ouch, take that America. Those laws and justice that you value are not even a speed bump to the privileged elite ruling-class who operate above the law. (actually, it is beneath the law but who is arguing.) Cleanup in isle two!

Two people are now relieved, Hillary and Loretta Lynch. Well, Bill Clinton is three.

I thought “extremely careless” was being negligent.

While all the attention now shifts to the bombshell that FBI director is recommending no charges be filed, it diverts the emphasis off of the whole ordeal. It seems Comey was talking about a narrow statute dealing with classified information, but that was not the genesis of the scandal.

Long before the classified was sent or received, she set up an email system to obfuscate accountability and divert from archives and the FOIA system. If that is not willful intent going to all that trouble to set this up, I don’t know what is. So they gave immunity to the techie, then, for what?

It was not just a matter of some classified emails, which she lied about. It is the whole thing from the time she entered office to the time she left. But nothing is chargeable. It seemed all they wanted to look at in their FBI investigation was the classified emails. And how else would she correspond with Syd Blumenthal, out of the loop of State, if not on that server?

So, Hillary got her way when she claimed this was a security review. In effect, that is what it became. But there is a good article on the miscarriage of justice issue this is in Reason Magazine by Judge Andrew Napolitano. What about the Inspector General’s report that was just released?

Inspector General’s Report Refutes All of Hillary Clinton’s Defenses For Using Private Email Server

The Democratic frontrunner is painted as stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable in IG’s report.

Andrew Napolitano | June 2, 2016 | Reason.com

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a year-long investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department IT folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-email-defenses-refuted

Well, America, if you were not disgusted before, then this was another thumb in the eye to remind you how repulsive this whole process has been. Hillary operated for four years on an island of her own creation Then, when questioned, she lied, lied, lied. And that is beside what she did in Benghazi which is what set off all the red flares . She set the stage to get four Americans killed, and abandoned them both before and after their slaughter.

Comey covered his ass and preserved his job under a possible Hillary presidency. To say politics, and who the Clintons are, had nothing to do with it is ludicrous. This whole thing was loaded with politics. It would take Loretta Lynch bucking that recommendation to bring charges. Then it would be her own decision to do that, which she won’t do. To borrow a Bill Clinton phrase, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

The very day after we celebrated the 240th 4th of July, James Comey came out to deliver the recommendation of no charges. Loretta Lynch had been caught a week before in a private meeting with Bill Clinton. Now, as Comey spoke Obama amd Hillary were preparing to board AF-1 for a campaign rally in North Carolina for Hillary.

What a photo op, while she is escaping a major leg of suspicion about her future, she is hitting the trail with the President, as his Director in the Justice department is basically unindicting her. That beats a corsage While Comey claimed politics or influences have nothing to do with it, clearly they were on full display.

Then arriving in NC, with the President campaigning at her side, Hillary comes on stage with her “this is my fight song” music playing. That is an insult to the legacy of Benghazi. She’s been fighting against the damning Benghazi facts since the attack, amid another campaign for Obama’s reelection. From one political campaign to another — all politics.

    This is my fight song
    Take back my life song
    Prove I’m alright song
    My power’s turned on
    Starting right now I’ll be strong
    I’ll play my fight song
    And I don’t really care if nobody else believes
    ‘Cause I’ve still got a lot of fight left in me

    — Rachel Platten, “Fight Song”

They never mentioned escaping the FBI intent to prosecute. Though she did refer to Obama’s birth certificate aimed at Trump. Was she comparing the two?

Her first words were, “I feel very privileged” to be with Obama, a friend she stood with, talking about their “memorable experiences” she and Obama had together, joking and mocking Trump. Well, Benghazi might be a memorable one too, if it weren’t for all their denial from the beginning. Strange irony that Hillary says Trump is unqualified and temperamentally unfit for the office. She is the heiress of unqualified.

Finally, Obama lectured, “when a crisis hits” what do you do he asks? “You got to make the tough calls,” he said. So when a crisis hits they lie, lie and lie some more. Then divert, deny, distract and obstruct the truth finding… that’s what they do. He’s ready to pass the baton to Hillary. Well, that is after our government collectively passed the opportunity to hold Hillary or Obama accountable for their boatload of scandals.

But these are strange days when a tweet is more important than a national security, felony scandal. And what Trump says about it is more important than what Hillary did.

RightRing | Bullright

Realated: It takes a village to elect a crook

What did Charlie Daniels say?

I saw this article from November, 2013 and I was mostly through it cheering before I realized it was written by Charlie Daniels. Normally I’m aware of his writings when I read them. But at least you will know in advance who wrote it. It is all the more true now. A few selected excerpts:

The government that was founded to serve the people has turned the equation around and now they believe that the people are supposed to serve the government. That we should be willing to put up with whatever taxes they choose to levy, to abide by every ridiculous rule or regulation their bureaucratic little minds can conceive and allow them to regulate every facet of our lives…while they live above the law out of the clutches of Obamacare and shrinking retirement plans.

They pass out billions of dollars in contracts to their political allies and subsidize companies that have no hope of succeeding while they exempt those they choose from the programs they’re forcing the rest of the country into.

They can hire thousands of agents to enforce their will on the public.

They can forsake Americans in the Foreign Service – leave them to die without even attempting to rescue them.

They can look into a television camera and lie with a straight face.

Amidst all this passivity, however, there is great frustration, a smoldering, white-hot anger that only awaits a rallying point to ignite and become the most motivated political force in this nation.

If there has ever been a time in the history of this country for a true leader to step forth, it is now.

Read at: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/what-has-happened-america

This was worth going back to read, in the context of when it was written of course. But since then, even more has been exposed about this cauldron of corruption going on.

Is it any wonder now, a few years later, the way the election process has unfolded?

More of his articles: http://www.cnsnews.com/author/charlie-daniels

What message Brexit sends

Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.

But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?

“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.

Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)

Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.

Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.

Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.

Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.

Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^

Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?

It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.

RightRing | Bullright

War on Bill of Rights

The liberal, progressive, Marxist, Socialist, radical Left is now at war with the Bill of Rights. That’s the Constitution for the unaware.

They are at war with any amendment they don’t particularly like or see a political reason for, since ideology trumps everything. The process goes something like this:

So “make no law” means make a law, in fact, make lots of them. It means freedom for the preferred or right type of assembly, in the proper zone. It means Freedom for the correct type of press, sans James Rosen types.

It means that militia is no longer needed or necessary, and neither are guns. The “shall not be infringed” means please infringe it into nothingness.

“Due process” means whatever they decide or interpret due process is at any given time, subject to change or revisions. For example, having a Democrat in the White House could be considered due process.

It means being secure in your property and possessions against search and seizure are relative terms for the all-powerful state to decide, and is provided or bestowed on one how government chooses, subject to revocation.

Right to be “confronted by witnesses” at trial means not necessarily and, again, up to upper management. A “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” is not obligatory. Protection against “excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” is so yesterday. I mean times change and so do conditions.

We the big-government reserve the authority to “deny or disparage others retained by the people” whenever we declare it. Let’s just call it a Bill of Tolerances. Move along.

RightRing | Bullright

National Immigration Propaganda Month

How do you know the dog days of summer are here? That would be when the Left and Obama embark on another #Hashtag campaign, #IamAnImmigrant. Or to be more specific, June is dubbed national Immigrant Heritage month.

Our borders and laws are being ignored so the Left starts another ad campaign, recruiting celebs and people too start using the new hashtag.

The left and Obama have ridiculed Trump’s use of Twitter. But these artisans of social media in the administration make no bones about using social media to rally their political support — all the way to Egypt.

The last hashtag you’ll see them promote is #America. Not without a few adjectives at least. But in the case of immigrants, no adjectives are needed or wanted. No need to say illegal immigrant. No need to say legal immigrant because it is all the same, to them. There are no qualifiers to immigration in their minds.

Fox News

According to the latest CBP figures, agents detained 27,754 unaccompanied minors from Central America in the first six months of the fiscal year, almost double last year’s total of 15,616 and just shy of the 2014 record of 28,579.

The numbers for immigrants traveling as families is even higher, with 32,117 apprehended — almost triple last year’s total of 13,913 and well above the 2014 “surge” figure of 19,830.

The immigration rush isn’t just at the southern border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, almost 500,000 immigrants who entered the U.S. legally last year overstayed their visa. Yet, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency removed fewer than 3,000 overstays, or less than 1 percent.

Breitbart

Nonprofit organization Welcome US gathered a star-studded group of Hollywood celebrities to kick off its “I Am an Immigrant” campaign in honor of Immigrant Heritage Month[also anti-Trump].

The group produced a video featuring 50 influential celebrity figures, including actresses Rosario Dawson, Kerry Washington, Julianne Moore, Lupita Nyong’o, Tracee Ellis Ross, and actors George Lopez, Guillermo Diaz, and Bobby Cannavale.

 

Incidentally, this is not to overshadow other officially endorsed hashtags like Obama’s WH promotion of #WearOrange. That one is for gun control. In my mind, a “wear orange” hashtag should support an indictment of Hillary. But for gun control or gun violence, they pick wearing orange as the designated color.

Then Hillary, on ABC, could not clearly say there is a second amendment. She said “IF there is one” it needs to be regulated. Gee, I wonder if “regulation” could be used on immigration, something clearly in need of legislative regulation, enforcement?

Obama’s historic achievement: escaping accountability

The liberal-Marxist Left told us how historical Obama’s election was. Four years later they pumped out the same BS. I have a perspective about it all. It may be early yet.

After January 23rd, we will pass the opportunity to impeach or try him for treason. And he’ll have escaped that accountability, in tact. Done. Truth is they were not going to do that, and Obama anticipated as much. It was one thing fixed in Congress they would not do no matter. They were never going to hold Obama accountable.

Given Obama’s massive malfeasance record, if it did happen, imagine what that mountain of case would have been like? And imagine the cost and the time and resources it would take? Look how long it took with Eric Holder, on the IRS commissioner, with Hillary’s emails, or with the Benghazi investigation.

Now considering Obama’s track record, I’m not going to list it all. But I have to give these Leftist radicals credit for one thing. When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They want to make sure it is beyond all repair.

Do we really need proof? They make sure they commit so many atrocities and abuses that it is hardly possible to keep up or deal with them all, by design. That is part of the insurance policy that you cannot deal with them all. If you did, it would suck up all the time and how many congresses would it take? Look at Obamacare, they lie and use whatever means trying to make it irreversible. It’s true to form of Alinsky tactics, overwhelm your opposition. Then blame them.

So to them this is a beautiful thing having all these conditions in their favor. You would not have enough time or manpower, never mind cooperation. The abuses go on daily. It is the closest thing to King George and the founders as we have seen. Just read the list of grievances in the Declaration. It screams a long train of abuses: “fatiguing” legislative bodies, and “obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws.”

The point is Obama has something to be proud of, when he passes that date, and even now, that he will not have been tried, impeached, even censured for his actions. And how long will it take to correct whatever we can? But so much damage is already done.

When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They go all the way.
Regardless, we can still be sure that nothing will be done.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama the agent of the enemy

A reminder that in 2014, Claire Lopez diagnosed the mission of Obama and little has changed since. It’s time the cold truth is finally known. What we have here is not a communication failure, what we have is full blown treason.

CIA Officer: Obama is a Muslim Agent with Brotherhood Ties to Take Down USA

by Jason DeWitt | November 2015 | Top Right News

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer, and she is risking her professional career to call out President Barack Obama in the biggest way possible.

Lopez is well respected in the intelligence community and worked in the Reagan White House. After two decades in the field with the CIA, and as an instructor for special forces and intelligence students, Lopez is now with the Center for Security Policy managing the counter-jihad and Shariah programs.

Now, she is claiming Obama is why America has completely “switched sides” during the war on terrorism. America is now supporting the enemy, especially through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Lopez has been unwilling to speak in public, but has confined with a few members of the House of Representatives her serious concerns about Obama’s motivations about foreign policy decisions.

Lopez noted that the war on terrorism has always been about stopping the spread of Shariah Islamic law, until Obama started to make major changes which clearly supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist interests.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

The transition was easy for Obama, who already hates American values and principles as an ideologically radical…

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

And,

The former CIA operative said, “as Israel fought enemies on all sides to remain free, secure and Jewish, America began to move away from Israel and toward its Muslim enemies. And, as Iran moved inexorably toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability, America helped.”

In addition, Lopez claims that the only reason Obama approved of the killing of Osama bin Laden is he simply couldn’t ignore the chance without looking suspicious. The opportunity presented himself, and he “couldn’t delay it any longer.”

Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter. Every patriot should learn just what side our President is on!

Source: CIA Officer: Obama is a Muslim Agent with Brotherhood Ties to Take Down USA | Top Right News

Yet this mission continues and he remains committed to his agenda. Then came the Iran deal on top of it. His agenda has slithered along undeterred.

Ben Rhodes hearing turns to Iraq debate

Crazier than crazy, this is why Democrats should not have an ounce of credibility from anyone. This took my seething disgust level to a historic high, which is hard to do.

Rhodes Wikipedia Public Domain

Rep Jason Chaffetz held a House hearing about the Ben Rhodes lie doctrine and his lengthy interview with NYT Magazine. But what happens is totally in your American face.

Rhodes for his part refused to go to the hearing, even after laying his whole case out, how the fiction writer describes it, on what the administration did in creating the Iran deal.

Democrats turn it into a hearing about the Iraq war and WMD — remember their most favorite acronym of all time. Who knew that Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, yellow cake would be a viable defense for the deception and lies of the Iran deal?

Lets forget for a moment that the Iran deal was wrong all the way around. That it was the product of 3+ years of lies and obfuscation to avoid Congress; that it went right by Congress and was mischaracterized as to what it even is. But that is what we’re supposed to do: forget all the Art of Deception and lying Obama and Democrats are engaged in.

They did have John Hannah as one witness. The Democrats spent nearly all their time questioning him about his participation in Dick Cheney’s office in the lead up to Iraq. But never mind that the Iraq issue went through Congress, kept Congress informed, then it even voted on the authorization.

To recap, Democrats got their hearing …. the one on Iraq and WMD. (fundraisers probably going out as I write) Republicans had a hearing — between injections of Scooter Libby, Iraq, WMD, yellow cake, Valerie Plame, Colin Powel and Dick Cheney — on the Ben Rhodes expose about the construction of the Iran deal, hard as it was to fit that in with time constraints and all.

But how many times has that happened where Democrats hijacked the hearing process into something else? As true obfuscators of reality, they continually hide, deceive, and conceal truth from the American people and rely on repeating their talking points.(true or not) Politics is the motive, so some believe. To make the worse worser, the administration did not even want Congress’s oversight in and on the deal.

The only thing you can conclude from Democrats’ convoluted position is that if Iraq and the WMD was such a debacle, then that somehow mitigates what the administration did creating the Iran “art of deception” deal. So there is no rational reason now for looking into the deception and unconstitutional Iran agreement, even if Rhodes has been out boasting about the deceit involved in the Iran deal.

When Rhodes talked about his ‘compadres’ in the press he reaches out to, he reveals something more. This has been a pattern of Democrat WH operatives since the 90’s when Clinton advisers tipped off, directed or redirected reporters on what they should be covering or how. This came out in testimonies of the Clinton scandals.

The Obama administration lied repeatedly to get the deal done. But that is its pattern: lying about Obamacare, lying on Benghazi, then on the Iran deal from the start. And Democrats framed it as a binary choice that it was war on Iran or this deal, when this deal was the most flawed, subversive thing they could ever create even if they tried.

Now Dems can be ecstatic that, in the end, the focus was more on the Iraq decisions 14 years ago than on Iran. At least the opening statements of the witnesses and a few of their questions were related to the Iran agreement, not Iraq.

Sincerely disgusted. I can hardly wait to see what Ben-fiction-Rhodes will be writing about his time in the administration. Will they eat that up?

From the NYT piece that spawned the hoopla over the Iran deal:

He [Rhodes] expressed a deep personal hopelessness about the possibility of open, rational public debate in a brutally partisan climate. But didn’t the country deserve better? I kept asking him.

Must be sort of a self-imposed hopelessness since he didn’t even want to share details with Congress. Dang schedules and executive limitations that disallow such, while they do allow for countless hours of self-gratified elaboration to a reporter on the topic. But apparently Congress is off executive-privilege limits, unfortunately.

RightRing | Bullright

Iran from bad to worse

GOP Failure Theater: the Iran nuclear vote, Cruz-Rubio edition

By: streiff (Diary) — May 8th, 2015 | Red State

Failure Theater. When the GOP talks a good game about opposing Obama’s policies but, in fact, vote to go along with them.

Yesterday the US Senate voted 98-1 to go along with whatever Barack Obama decides to give to Iran. Though the feckless Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has portrayed it as a successful “bipartisan” bill, part of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s erotic dream of “governing”, in fact it is a huge defeat for our Constitution. By turning the treaty process on its head, by giving Obama carte-blanche to do as he will unless Congress can muster the necessary 2/3 vote to abrogate his actions, the GOP has effectively taken the Congress out of any role in shaping US foreign policy.

This bill, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s bipartisanship fetish did not even require the Iran cease supporting terrorist attacks on Americans. Nope, reasoned the addled Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and the big brain types in the GOP leadership, requiring Iran to forego terrorism before we help them get a nuke was just too much. Obama would never stand for it.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/05/08/gop-failure-theater-iran-nuclear-vote-cruz-rubio-edition/

So much for strategy. And Obama is running around complaining about the Republicans? Incomprehensible chaos. Maybe Iran could nickname its program “bipartisan”?

Was Hillary seeking indictment?

Hillary Should Be Indicted

By Bradley A. Blakeman — Friday, 06 May 2016 | Newsmax

It has been said that: “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.” Well, if that is true then the FBI and Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the mishandling of classified materials with regard to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state are feeding from the all-you-can-eat buffet.

The news in the last few months has reported that there are as many as 100 to 150 FBI agents on the case. In addition, it was reported that a key Clinton aide who was responsible for the set up and maintenance of her home brewed private server used exclusively by Hillary for official State Department communications and who previously took the Fifth is now been granted immunity from criminal exposure in exchange for his testimony. It is also being reported that the FBI has broadened its investigation to include possible charges of corruption with regard to “pay to play” with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

A grand jury is made up of average citizens. I am sure they all have emails and are familiar with how they operate. This is not going to be hard for them to understand.

More at: http://www.newsmax.com/BradleyBlakeman/fbi-hillary-email-server/2016/05/06/id/727561/

Breaking News at Newsmax.com

Just a few pertinent questions Hillary needs to answer. Compelling case, I can’t see any other legitimate result. Almost as if she were courting indictment.

CFACT: Out of Control & Lawlessness

Out of control


CFACT

Friend,

Is our government out of control?

Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.

No sector appears safe.

CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:

“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”

Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.

“The Constitution is not a living organism,”  Justice Scalia reminded us,  “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.

He makes a frightening case.  We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/

Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.

These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]

 

Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.