Goose and gander: Obama vs. Trump

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

2008: Obama campaign talks to Iran — and ghost of Ted Kennedy

Get ready for a short trip in the way-back machine to 2008.
Obama’s campaign had a series of communications with both Iran and Syria.

Obama Held Secret Talks With Iran, Syria Weeks Before Election

Malkah Fleisher, 02/02/09 | Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama employed representatives to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president.

United States President Barack Obama employed representatives and experts to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president, organizers of the meetings told Agence France Presse on Monday.

Over the past few months, Obama campaign and election officials, as well as nuclear non-proliferation experts, had several “very, very high-level” contacts with Iranian leaders, according to Jeffrey Boutwell, executive director for the U.S. branch of the Pugwash group, a Nobel Prize-winning international organization of scientists. Former defense secretary William Perry, who served in Obama’s election campaign, also participated in some of the meetings, which included discussions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. …/

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed the reports Monday that Obama officials had repeated contact with his country for some time prior to the U.S. elections. “Dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration,” Assad said. ../ Read more

So guess who was talking to Iran months before taking office? I don’t even want to get on the Iranian Valerie Jarrett off-ramp. No SNL skits, only a “thrill up the leg” to media.

Hearings, investigations, wire taps, outrage, Independent Counsel…. don’t be silly.

While we are in the way back machine, let us go a few decades back to 1983. Good ol’ lion of the Senate, Mary Jo Kopechne killer, Ted Kennedy made his grand invitation to the Soviet’s Communist Party, and Yuri Andropov, to come intervene in our election. A quid pro quo. Senator Kennedy was trying to challenge Reagan and needed an edge.

American Thinker

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

So he promised Soviets wide access to the American media to make their case. But how would he assure Soviets of such unprecedented access? Well, Ted won’t be talking, nor anyone else either. Maybe we could ask his media friends? Investigations? FBI probe? Logan Act? Surely you jest.

Rantzilla on having a new President

Buckle up I have a rant for you, if you are interested. What a difference a few long months makes?

The National Coalition of Trolls (DNC et al) has kicked off their newest operation, fashioning itself as a Tea Party type movement. Hey, I’m not writing their script, only commenting about it.

Seven years after the popular Tea Party rise, Democrats are imitating the movement. Wait, they spent all that time mocking, attacking, ignoring, and calling them racists etc.; but now say they are following in their footsteps. Media spent 7 years attacking it, trying to marginalize and discredit them.

Whatever they say.

Wait, the Tea Party was set off by government intervention in healthcare, bailouts, stimulus, arrogance of power, and taxagedon to grow government and its control by dolling out goodies to people. Yet Liberals and Democrats say they are following Tea Party’s lead? The original call for Tea Parties was led by Rick Santelli on CNBC saying enough is enough, announcing the idea of Tea Party, hearkening back to the days of patriots dumping tea in Boston Harbor to protest taxes and the King’s control schemes. Everything about that is contrary to the modern Left, and any movement it started.

Tea Parties also had strong overtones about freedom of speech, religion, the Founders and the Constitution. Not necessarily what we see in today’s left. They do call themselves progressives but the new term, coined by others, is regressive. They are about shutting down speech of others or labeling different views hate speech. Still, they continue their imitation narrative.

Never mind that the left is also caught up in their civil disobedience and violence agenda. It is basically nothing like what conservatives or Republicans did. Tea Parties had a respect for law enforcement and kept the demonstrations neat — even though they were grassroots organized. Not the Left. Tea Parties were bottom up grass roots, even resisting the intervention of some Republicans who wanted to commandeer it. The Left is always organized top down, by those in power, or close to its power center. (George Soros et al) But it is staged to seem grassroots — Move On. It’s their business model.

Here is an interesting tangent to liberals.

I have a theory involving market forces and the Left’s willing gullibility to believe in all these things they do, so easily. I figure if you can find a way to target that segment of people, it would be a goldmine. How so? Just think about it. Obama ran on a faith-based message and they all bought it: lock, stock and barrel.

I mean if you have people who are that easy to sell anything you want, then you have a powerful market of buyers or consumers. They demonstrate a willingness to believe in things based on little proof. And once they do, believe in it, you can hardly even talk them out of it. That, my friends, is gold to any marketing agenda. That’s the utopia salesman have searched for. Think about that slogan, change you can believe in. Then think about Obamacare and all the lies. You couldn’t even tell them they were lies, even after Gruber came out admitting it. Even after it was proven to be lies, they still believed it.

So that is the secret, getting them to believe it. That isn’t hard, they are an easy pitch. But once they do, they remain loyal even if results are not what they expected. Now that is the kind of people any marketer wants to find.

Whether this quote is from James Carville or not, it is true from the standpoint of reality. And Obama constantly proved it.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd. — credited to James Carville.

So couple their mentality with the herd mindset and you have a powerful consumer base. You could sell them anything. And they create the demand all by themselves. What could be wrong with that? And then, once sold on it, you could not talk them out of it.

All you have to do is look at the last election. Bernie scored big with Dems, some say he could have won. He promised them free healthcare, free college and a 15 per/hr minimum wage. They believed and remained loyal. Just what they wanted to hear. You couldn’t talk them out of it. They sent in their five box tops and sat there waiting for it to arrive.

Wake up and smell the crazy.

Democrats discovered a new phenomena called Voter Rage. And it is catching on in the media. They like this movement, of course. Remember all the attacks at Tea Parties? Not so with the perpetual protestors, which are nothing more than re-branded Occupiers, who re-branded themselves Bernie’s base, who re-branded themselves as the Resistance.

Something happens they don’t like, take the rage to the streets. Mix it with anarcho-commies, it gets very colorful. They weaponize rage and hate as tools.

What we have with the Left is the biggest case of projection I have ever seen. They lost the election but now think they can project themselves right back into majority power, or at least a potent minority one. Their perception is supposed to become everyone’s reality.

Democrats have that other time-worn weapon. If they don’t get their way, they take to the streets and protest. That is a powerful force for them to get more stuff, or promises. See how this cycle works? Once they believe, they’ll do anything for that cause whether they understand it or not. It makes no difference. People wonder how so many people can be self-claimed socialist? My opinion is they aren’t all socialists — many are Me-ists. As long as they think it benefits ‘Me’ they’re fine with it. If it is not, then cue the rage.

RightRing | Bullright

Maxine Waters Stirring Her Impeachment Latte

Some things just defy words.

And then there is Maxine Waters, which is why we have video today.

“Eventually, we’ve got to do something about him [Trump].”

She failed to say if that was North or South Korea. I’m sure it was an oversight.

But just keep leading the way, Maxine, for the DCC and DNC to follow.

Problem is CA, LA, America needs to do something about Maxine… before it’s too late.

Telling Teen Vogue magazine on the subject of impeachment, she said:

“I think we should go for it.”

Dems may need “lessons” to talk to Trump voters

What else would you expect? When Dems take a whooping like they did in November, they don’t need an autopsy for what they did wrong. No, they just need to learn to talk to those Trump voters. Er, you know, the people they have worked so damn hard to ignore for oh, about a decade or more.

I’ll take more ignorance, please, as long as you’re dishing it out.

Democrats hold lessons on how to talk to real people

Gathering in Sheperdstown, W.Va., Democrats were scheduled to hear from liberal political operative David Brock on Thursday, who ran a session called “Hold Trump Accountable” with Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden and Priorities USA CEO Guy Cecil. Earlier in the day, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) moderated a “discussion with Trump voters,” according to a draft schedule obtained by POLITICO.

[topics include] “speaking to those who feel invisible in rural America,” “Listening to those feel unheard,” and “Rising America — They feel unheard too.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-real-people-lessons-234198

In other news, Tucker Carlson gets jonathan Gruber back on Fox for his pinata routine.

BizPac Review

“I think that’s a prime example of the misinformation that has been spread. I just don’t think people understand what the law has done for them,” he said.

When asked about the people the law has hurt, Gruber said, “This law was never supposed to help everybody, Tucker. That wasn’t the design. The law was actually explicitly designed first in Massachusetts and then for the nation to leave the vast majority of Americans alone.

Gruber said the belief was that people who had health insurance would eventually benefit in the “long-term” by lowering cost. The law was designed to “fix what was wrong in our system.

Problem was it was sold on lies. All lies. So when they promised it would not affect people, it did. It did not leave us alone. But that was really the design. The sales pitch was that it would leave us alone. He got the sales pitch and design mixed up.

So you want to be a liberal

I thought it might be good to have a piece that describes the nuances of how to become a liberal. Many younger people might be trying to figure out what it is. It’s not for everyone.

I will describe some of the proper ethics to today’s liberalism — not to be confused with the old classical liberals a century ago. The two aren’t compatible.

Get acquainted with ideas of modern, post sixties, liberaldom. Identity, identity, identity.

The golden rule is every identity group has their own formula to follow to be a proper, politically correct, liberal. It’s all about who you are, first. So it is very important to know who you are. Most of it, and your view, is based on who you are. Identity matters a lot.

At this point, you may want to look into the mirror and familiarize yourself with: skin color, your heritage, sexual identity, age, your religion, status in this country, the language you speak, type of education you have, the school(s) you went to, the degree you have, your career choice, your type of employment, union you belong to, organizations, how much money you make, whether you are married, single or living with someone, the children you have, their ages, their races, the kind of home you live in or neighborhood, what denomination you are, or what your other beliefs are… just for a few things to start.

You may think of more categories later. Extra credit — good trainee organizers learn to be naturally creative at finding new categories. That all matters to being a good liberal.

Get used to that group identity because it is all you’ll be seen as, in liberal circles — or cocktail parties and social rallies you will attend. Liberals learn to stay in their own lane.

Now to really be mainstream on main street, you’ll have to learn this simple formula: your identity is the key to your role and identity in liberaldom. Don’t leave home without it.

Practical applications

If you listen to liberal activists, they’ll tell you to “check your white privilege at the door.” However, as is with liberaldom, things are often different than what liberals say publicly. Some would call those lies, but you don’t have to worry about that in liberaldom. You don’t exactly check white privilege, you punctuate it. You can’t check your identity.

One of the most import things today is the race card. To use it the right way, like the tool it is, you have to know how it works. Different rules apply to different groups.

If you are black, you generally play the race card by promoting your race and culture. Then you denounce structural racism, which is everywhere. If you are white, it is the opposite. You play it by acknowledging and apologizing for being white, first. You must go through initiation. It’s like a fraternity, you take an oath to preserve black or minorities’ culture, while demonstrating guilt for your perceived white privilege.

Understand if you are white, you will never be able to live down or say anything that removes the stain of your whiteness nor its stain on society. That’s important because you must assume responsibility for anything ever done to another race or minority, on behalf of anyone who was white in the history of this country. You can never overcome that damage, and no amount of penitence will fix it. For instance, your posture is to feel guilt while blacks’ is to be proud. Then you can move on to the general denunciation structural racism.

Feel free to play the race card within those boundaries.

Now you have learned the simple pillar on which everything else in liberaldom is built. You must see everything, culturally and politically, through the lens of identities. There are other categories to also use but identity is the basic. It grows on you.

You can then broaden out to apply this identity formula toward all political opponents. Then you can add Alinsky rules and tactics toward your enemy. When attacking your target, pick apart his/her positions by singling out people by groups or categories. Use the identity of anyone or everyone to your own advantage. That is what they are for.

The Mafia has the Omerta pledge, while Libs have political correctness. P/C rules.
One final rule is to defend liberaldom at all costs. No exceptions or exemptions.

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

Schumer recruiting Trump

Cheesy Chuck Schumer declared that the only way Democrats could work with Trump is if he abandons his Republican base and joins Democrats, instead.

Well, I guess he already forgot who won the election. See their idea of bipartisanship?

Take note McCain — it is going to get increasingly lonely on his pedestal. But then he probably already made that choice.

The Year of Whining Liberals

After much thought, I am going to declare 2017 the year of Whining Democrats.

And they are off to a great start setting the narrative. Post election, their incessant whining began and it won’t stop, over anything and everything .

Thus, the year will go right from one whining Democrat bitch into the next one.

There are not enough crying towels to go around. It will be a non-stop crying fest.

That will go nicely with Obama’s shadow government running the opposition department for the DNC right down the street from the White House. Obama, The Shadow Whiner.

Connie Francis, “Who’s sorry now?” — circa ’58

Obama’s Desparate Push To Handcuff Trump’s White House

Andrew WestFriday, December 30, 2016

President Obama is acting in unprecedented angst during his last month in office, in what could only be described as an attempt to sabotage the agenda of incoming President-Elect Donald Trump.

http://linkis.com/patriotupdate.com/GYt1A

Whining — definitely not to be confused with winning.

 

Note: One year ago today, I said 2015 was “the Year of the Outsider” before others did.
Just call me Captain Obvious, at your service.

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

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.

Fake News or Harry Reid’s news

Okay, let’s write some fake news. I mean I’m bored.

So Harry Reid complains the Russian hacking influenced the election throwing it to Trump. Right. Then he claimed that Comey single-handedly influenced the election results for Trump. Slap the certificate of authenticity on that. Both are true, to Reid.

Now this means that Russia, Putin’s hacks and Comey with the FBI in unison all worked together to get Trump elected. We are talking a huge conspiracy, fake news there. Plus, Hillary’s people at Harvard said the media helped get Trump elected. Media-Russia-FBI-Comey.

It doesn’t stop there, turns out Reid is also against fake news. Here is Harry Reid giving his retirement lecture speech. He lashed out at Fake News. (HuffPo)

“We’re entering a new Gilded Age. It has never been more important to be able to distinguish between what’s real and what is fake… We have media outlets pushing conspiracy theories disguised as news. Separating real from fake has never been more important.”

He cited Pope Francis to bolster his case: (but Hillary also railed against fake news)

“[The Pope]said yesterday, and this is a quote: ‘The media that focuses on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement,’” Reid said.

Echoing that,

Hillary Clinton took the opposite tone, calling fake news “a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.”

Then Reid went on to referrence George Orwell’s “1984” to make his case.

The king of fake news is very concerned about Fake News. It turns out that writing a report about Harry Reid and fake news is a good way to point out fake news. He brought in the Pope and George Orwell. Who is more creative than that? Any time you can use the Pope to help promote your conspiracies is a good day. Hillary, I found your culprit.

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

What are Democrats to do? “Resistance” everything

So guess what the minority party in Congress wants to do?

Here’s what the resistance looks like: We block f’n EVERYTHING

Nov 29, 2016 1 — Daily Kos

We are the opposition, we are the resistance. The 2009 through present-era Republicans have written the new rules, and they are: OPPOSE EVERYTHING—even if they might otherwise agree.

So it’s up to Democrats to do NOTHING to legitimize the loser of the popular vote. Absolutely nothing. They oppose, they block, they filibuster, they delay.

Read more

So the people who claim to speak for a majority in America are actually the minority party. Wait, someone is not reading the tea leaves here!.

In other Demonrat news, the party doubled down on Pelosi — or is it tripled down?

(ABC) Pelosi was challenged by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who has argued that younger members with a vision for expanding the party’s economic message and geographical outreach is key to future electoral and legislative success. After the vote, Ryan said the Democratic caucus needs to come together.

The party’s new leadership was chosen today in a private meeting using secret ballots.

Now see what Dems do with their valuable popular vote? I rest my case.

Throwing Comey Under The Bus

Friday, CNN reported:

In a conference call with top donors Friday, campaign chairman John Podesta said a “hostile press corps” contributed to Clinton’s defeat. Other top advisers said Comey’s decision to take another look at Clinton’s emails stopped the campaign’s momentum and motivated Trump voters. That bombshell contributed to a significant fall-off among college educated voters “who fizzled at the end,” an adviser said. Those voters, always wavering about Clinton, were simply turned off at the end. “

So the guy who got her off the hook is now the villain of her election loss. Fizzled?

Podesta blaming a hostile press is so rich. He really did say that.The hostile press which were kind enough to share the debate questions with her. And the media who made cute bio-documentaries showing her in a Mother Teresa light. Then all the press that ran stories with lists of supporters, from military to Republican officials, who endorsed her as the right choice. That hostile press corp. She even finishes her race with a scandal.

Here we go with Dems’ mind games

Rush Limbaugh puts it in stark terms. He’s talking strategy which is what this is all about.

I’m Getting Nervous About All These Calls for Trump to Unify with the Losers

November 10, 2016

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m getting nervous. I am already getting nervous. I know it’s early. I’m not getting nervous because of anything I’ve heard President-Elect Trump say. I’m getting nervous because of things I’m hearing other people say, things totally unnecessary. And I want to take some time today to try to explain why I’m nervous and destroy some myths that seem to always pop up after elections about unity and crossing the aisle and working together and almost apologizing for winning.

I’m sick of it. I’m fed up with it. I have watched it happen for now 29 years, and I’m not gonna sit here and stand or sit mute while it happens again. We have been governed against our will for the last eight years. The Democrat Party — and nobody saw this, folks — because everybody was so focused on two people, Hillary and Donald Trump. Nobody, I mean nobody until after it was over, had any idea what had really happened.

We should have known it because we’ve been chronicling it. I’m talking about the demise of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party since 2010, the midterm elections in 2010, they lost 900 seats in that election in the House, in the Senate, go to governorships, mayors, town council, if you go all over the country, they got a shellacking. We now know that if Donald Trump had run for president in 2012 using the exact data he got versus what Obama got in 2012, Donald Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012, if you take the data from this election and measure it against what Obama had.

“And we also have the plummeting fortunes of the Democrat Party to back it up. The Democrat Party happens to be the receptacle for anti-Americanism in America today. If you don’t like America and if you’ve got problems with America, that’s where you go. You go to the Democrat Party. It is undeniable. Now, I warned everybody about this rioting. I warned about it constantly. I want you to hear, because, folks, it isn’t real. I am begging you to ignore it. Do not let it affect you. “

Lots more: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/10/i_m_getting_nervous_about_all_these_calls_for_trump_to_unify_with_the_losers

That is enough to open the can of worms. I am sick of it, too, but that doesn’t seem to matter. I’ve been watching this for years wondering just how far Democrats will be allowed to push their agenda? I think we now know. It came to a screeching halt, at least for the moment…only for the moment.

Like clockwork, Dems now shift to try to interfere in the Republican party. They have ruined themselves, and failed at their own mission. But suddenly they are advisers to Repubs and we should listen to them? I know, it is absurd but this is what they do. They want to do anything to detract from the train wreck in the DNC. I mean anything. And bringing Republicans down, after a win, is a huge objective they can all get behind.

Now Clinton campaign staffer, Jennifer Palmieri, says it was Comey’s fault Hillary lost. She cannot take any responsibility. Their campaign accepts no blame for the outcome. Next they’ll blame voters. Hillary the failed human being and candidate shall not be blamed. They want Dems as passionate about her corrupt record as Mother Teresa’s.

For years they have been beating Repubs over the head about the autopsy of the Republican party. I was sick of that. But have an introspective investigation of the DNC and Hillary Campaign? No, can’t have that. “Even Republicans said you need to do __.”

Now Democrats are pushing the idea of Keith Ellison as DNC Chair. Did we mention because he is a Muslim? Think about it, they ousted a Chair literally on the eve of their convention because of a scandal. So they replaced her with the pillar of integrity Donna Brazile, Clinton loyalist.Then there was the corrupted candidate herself.

Problem is they’ll focus their criticism on Republicans. We don’t play that BS. And no one is going to appoint them, or Hillary, as the “tolerance czar.” I can’t wait to see Dems invisible autopsy. They promised people booty for votes. Now the protracted chase and foreplay is over, Democrat stooges are aghast at reality – no booty. Take it out on Republicans.

Dems and the Disgruntled Black Vote

Whoomp there it is! Tavis Smiley made this stunningly honest revelation on Democrats and their coveted black vote, on ABC while sitting next to Bill Kristol.

Let me call this one “the burnout of the turnout.”

Real Clear Politics

There’s a front-page story, George, as you know, in “The New York Times” today. They talk about the black vote is what the Democratic Party is relying upon now to save the Senate. News flash: if you’re relying on the black vote, in a midterm election — and I’m not suggesting that black voters don’t care about this — but if you’re relying on that vote, then I think it’s uninspired because we have double- and triple-digit unemployment in the African American community.

SMILEY: But if you’re black or brown, let’s be frank about this. If you’re black or brown, other than helping to save the Democrats’ hide, give me three good reasons [that] you turn out the vote this time.

Now I’ll catch hell for saying that…

See w/ video http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/19/tavis_smiley_no_good_reason_to_vote_if_youre_black_or_brown_other_than_helping_to_save_the_democrats_hide.html

So you smell what he’s cooking? It’s too much truth for prime time news or NYT though.

He was responding to a NYT piece: (discussing Clinton’s ad appealing to blacks)
Urging Blacks to Vote for Clinton for Obama’s Sake, and Their Own

THE AD The actor Morgan Freeman’s unmistakable voice poses a simple question: “What does showing up when it’s time to vote actually mean?” Images of President Obama — at his 2008 election-night rally, and leading thousands of people commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma — answer the question. “You care about protecting his legacy, and our progress.”

Get that handoff? You only “care” if you go support Hillary Clinton. So if you don’t vote, you don’t care and you are not preserving Obama’s legacy. The question is, or should be, why should blacks be interested in preserving the legacy of someone who didn’t care about them, and did nothing really for them?

You got that right… to protect Obama’s legacy not theirs. Then trust and hand off that support — and legacy — to Hillary. There are a lot of specious connections there.

The message: black voters need to propel Hillary to victory. But why?

For one thing, Hillary and her gal pal, AFT union president, Randi Weingartner, will do nothing for schools and education choice. And Clinton will do nothing for jobs or the economy either since the only one Hillary is concerned about is the pay to play, Washington-beltway economy.

But then does Obama — or blacks for that matter — actually believe Hillary is all that concerned with preserving and protecting his legacy? Believing a Clinton?

ISIS and Democrats: apples to apples

Of all the comparisons I have, the one I come back to time and again is comparing Democrats to ISIS, or more directly to Islamic radical terrorists. It works. Some people would say that is a bit extreme. But I think it applies and not in a forced way.

Why? First of all, because radicalism is big part of their strategy. And because terrorizing to influence people is, by nature, their goal. Political objectives of both may be murky at times but it drives their strategy.

Radicalism is the central connection. When I think about the Democrats, and party in particular, the term that always comes up is radicals. Obama confirmed that. After the last 8 years, it is hard to deny Democrats are radical. It’s their M/O and in their DNA.

Now that leaked emails about the inner workings of the DNC and Hillary’s campaign came out, it only confirms what we knew by their own words. Democrats’ talk amongst themselves exposes their mindset.

This could be a very long post…but it’s not. Or as Rep. Ted Poe from Texas says:
… “and that’s just the way it is.

All radicals all the time — Clintonistas

Welcome to the truth inside the Hillary campaign. (video)

What about the protest at the Chicago Trump rally? Well, surprise. (which is no surprise)

It doesn’t matter about legal… or ethics, we need to win this M-Fer.

We knew they were behind all this radicalism, but it is what they do.

Ever heard of Democracy Partners? Oh, the dark Hillary campaign that no media dares report on. Alive and thriving via Hillary’s campaign.

Sometimes the crazies bite…. sometimes they don’t. Portraying people as psychotic…. all sinister dark creatures of Hillary’s campaign.

“We want it coming from the people, not the Party.”

“We’re starting anarchy here.”

War on Christians is real… coming to your neighborhood

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty

By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post

Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.

In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html/

Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.

Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?

It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.

Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)

Catholic League — in 2003

At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.

And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.

Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.

Townhall.com reports

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.

While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.

Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.

That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.