FALN: justice denied

These domestic terrorists remain unprosecuted for their acts. Bill and Hillary pardoned FALN terrorists and enabled them. Obama later pardoned one of the FALN stragglers.

Eric Holder did his part and now has presidential aspirations of his own.

Yet MSM remains as quiet as church mice about these terrorists. Always has. Drive a news story? Fuhgeddaboudit! Congress has done little to capture terrorist thugs in Cuba.

Where is justice? A lot of people are asking that same question these days.

Hillary never paid the price or was held accountable. No one was.

Terrorists Murdered My Father. They Have Not Seen Justice

By Joe Connor January 24, 2019 | National Review
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama gave some clemency; the chief bomb-maker escaped to Cuba.

Forty-four years ago today, terrorists shattered my family. Sadly, the war against these individuals and their benefactors continues to this day.

My father, 33-year-old Frank Connor, and three other innocent men were murdered, while scores were injured and maimed, on Jan. 24, 1975, when the Marxist Puerto Rican terrorist group Armed Forces for National Liberation (“FALN”) blew up New York’s historic Fraunces Tavern during a crowded lunchtime. The FALN appointed themselves my father’s judge, jury, and executioner, profiling, targeting, and savagely murdering so-called “reactionary corporate executives.” The Connor family had planned to celebrate my ninth and my brother’s 11th birthday that very night.

Fraunces Tavern was targeted by the FALN — who paid lip service to independence but in reality sought to impose a Cuban-style socialist regime in Puerto Rico — for its proximity to Wall Street and for its storied reputation as the birthplace of American liberty. Alexander Hamilton and the Sons of Liberty met there. General George Washington bade farewell to his officers at Fraunces after the Revolutionary War…./

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/faln-terrorist-bombing-new-york-city-1975/

When Americans call it the Department of Injustice that is what they are talking about.

Meanwhile Press and Media Whine

I’m going to put up this piece from the news association, not because it deserves to be but because it needs to be called out for what it is. I am mean for picking on the press.

They are calling on all press to use their prestigious space to defend the “free press.”
A few hundred have agreed, like a solidarity thing.

RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom

August 13, 2018 | RTDNA [*emphasis mine]

The Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force are calling on our more than 1,200 members and their broadcast and digital news outlets to join the Boston Globe and more than 100 other local newspapers across the country on Aug. 16 in a coordinated editorial response to attacks from the President on the media.

“We urge our members to join the effort on Thursday, Aug. 16 by dedicating airtime, publishing an online editorial or sharing information via social media platforms that speaks to your viewers and listeners about the role we play in preserving the public’s right and need to know, in a government for and by the people,” said Dan Shelley, RTDNA’s executive director.

“The President has ratcheted up his anti-press contempt. Journalists are now the ‘disgusting fake news,’ and according to one presidential tweet, we also ‘cause Wars [sic].’ This rhetoric has contributed to many of the president’s supporters lashing out harshly against members of the White House press corps and other journalists. It must stop before more journalists are hurt or worse,” states Shelley.

Today, RTDNA, its members and the other broadcast and digital journalists it represents stand in solidarity with the dozens of American newspapers that have joined the Boston Globe campaign to publish editorials pushing back against the notion that responsible journalism is “fake news” and that journalists are the “enemy of the American people.”

Please contact RTDNA at pressfreedom@rtdna.org if your station plans to participate. For more information on how to explain the public service your news organization regularly provides, please see this list of resources for rebuilding trust with news consumers and this list of questions to consider as a newsroom.

About the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force
RTDNA formed the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force to defend against threats to the First Amendment and news media access, and to bridge the divide between responsible journalists and those who don’t like, or don’t understand, the news media. People wishing to support RTDNA’s efforts may reach out to the task force by emailing pressfreedom@rtdna.org.

About RTDNA
RTDNA is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. Founded as a grassroots organization in 1946, RTDNA works to protect the rights of electronic journalists throughout the country, promotes ethical standards in the industry, provides members with training and education and honors outstanding work in the profession through the Edward R. Murrow Awards.”

Original source

So it is a campaign defending press freedom. Oh goody, a special day for that.

Instead of what they claim, this is a dedicated day to attack Trump, feel free as if they do not already do so daily. So what is the special occasion about this day? That’s what they have done since Trump won.

But my personal issue with this goes much deeper. First of all, when press refers to the First Amendment, they liberally mean “freedom of press.” However, there are other freedoms in the first amendment. Just that to press, this freedom is the only one they really give a damn about. Secondly, it is offensive that they lay claim to the First Amendment as their own. But that is the only part they want people to care about and keep beating us over the head about.

Yes, I understand the need for a Free Press. It is absurd I have to make that disclaimer.

I will take the opportunity to mention another favorite talking point of theirs — meaning the press in general. The claim is Trump declared war on the first amendment. Again, by first amendment they are referring to press. (misleading to say the least.) Or some even say he declared war on the “free press.” What nonsense. I have never seen another president more media friendly than Trump.

This bothers me why? It is mostly this “war on or against the first amendment” mantra that gets me. As the old line goes: “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” With all that is going on, there is not a war on the press or first amendment. It is a battle within the First Amendment. But it has always been there. There has always been some friction within the 1st Amend. The press is only one of 5 freedoms contained therein: Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition of grievance, and assembly. I see press is only one fifth of that. Technically, you can say press may have some tangential influence in others.

As to the “war” as they call it within the first amendment; it is press declaring war on the people’s freedoms. Press has no ownership of or control over the First Amendment.

Despite how I really feel about this brouhaha over the press, I will give them this honored day…… to make a joke out of themselves, as they have done for over 10 years.

What an idea!

We could have had special “defense of the first amendment days” back in 2009-2010. Remember the Tea Parties? But we did not get “special day” kudos for defending free speech. We got the royal condemnation for it, and viciously attacked. For all of our organizing skill and peaceful efforts, we had the long arm of the IRS attack dogs sicked on us. It was labeled traitorous to the US Constitution in media. Talk about Orwellian.

Did we get a special assist or atta-boy from the media/press for standing up and defending the First Amendment? Just the opposite. We were attacked for “hiding behind the first amendment.” But it was press that was doing the attacking. They declared war on free speech and dissent, from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and in press and media.

So what does that tell us, other than the fact that the “press” doesn’t give a damn about the first amendment? It tells us they have chosen sides. And they chose to go to war against the American people, just for standing up for their first amendment rights.

So for this dedicated “defending press day” I offer them a peace sign minus the index finger. Of course they really don’t need me or anyone else to stand up for them, they have the power of the press. And chose to use that power against the American people. What were they “standing up” for back then? Oh, it was for big-government, for the power of the White House, the power in Congress. Remember their stories of outrage that people yelled at Congressmen, especially black members, when the Democrat caucus paraded in front of Tea Parties to fabricate fake news about us. Then press ran that narrative lie into the ground. We were also labeled racists then. Media assisted.

Excuse me for not having any outrage that the press is victimized. Give me a break. Again, press made huge choices long ago and declared war within the first amendment, against the people. You didn’t just stand idly by, you were the enforcers. Even Ben Rhodes admitted the Obama administration had media, press eating out of their hand. Because, at that point, free press sycophants, you were no longer a “free press.”

Is it time for a ‘voice of free speech task force’? — at least I’m being honest.
See what they did there: “Voice of the First Amendment Task Force”?

 

Related Ref:
Boston Globe: “200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials”

[Globe]- The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s opinion page, told the AP last week.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Obama Slithers Out With His Lie

Thou protests too much. Obama trots out the claim his presidency was scandal free.

Fox News

“I didn’t have scandals, which seems like it shouldn’t be something you brag about,” Obama said, according to Newsweek.

“if you look at the history of the modern presidency, coming out of the modern presidency without anybody going to jail is really good. It’s a big deal.” [and he’s proud — no, instead they got rewarded]

“No one in my White House ever got in trouble for screwing up as long there wasn’t malicious intent behind it,” Obama reportedly told the crowd.

That’s because what he screwed up was the entire country, and we have yet to recover from his tenure of evil. Who knew destroying America was not a scandal?

In fact, most of our problems now were caused directly, if not intentionally, by Obama.

US Attorneys General do not get held in contempt in a scandal-free administration. The IRS doesn’t politically target people in a scandal-free administration. A scandal-free administration, intelligence and DOJ do not start up an investigation of an opponent’s campaign, nor target political opponents by weaponizing government against them.

Even now, his LieBarry (as I call it) is a big scandal. Obama’s truth-challenged legacy.
To believe any of Obama’s claims would “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Here’s Obama in search of a scandal-free zone.

Right Ring | Bullright

Rice the evil spewer

In Obama’s second term, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argued why Rice should be kept from Sec of State, but because of Rwanda.

“But what is not arguable is that she deserves to be denied the post for a different reason [than Benghazi] altogether: Rwanda. What emerges when taken together — Rice’s weak response in Benghazi, blaming the murder of four Americans on a stupid video, and her shameful lack of action in the Rwandan genocide — is a career diplomat of singular weakness, lacking the spine or muscularity to assert American moral influence in the world.

Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 refused any involvement whatsoever in the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded.”

Both events argue against any noble-good notion, when she was involved in both.

Rice now writes in a NYT op-ed article: “Susan Rice: When America No Longer Is a Global Force for Good

“President Trump’s National Security Strategy marks a dramatic departure from the plans of his Republican and Democratic predecessors, painting a dark, almost dystopian portrait of an “extraordinarily dangerous” world characterized by hostile states and lurking threats. There is scant mention of America’s unrivaled political, military, technological and economic strength, or the opportunities to expand prosperity, freedom and security through principled leadership — the foundation of American foreign policy since World War II.

In Mr. Trump’s estimation, we live in a world where America wins only at others’ expense. There is no common good, no international community, no universal values, only American values. America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy, or a “shining city on a hill,” as in President Reagan’s vision. The new strategy enshrines a zero-sum mentality: “Protecting American interests requires that we compete continuously within and across these contests, which are being played out in regions around the world.” This is the hallmark of Mr. Trump’s nationalistic, black-and-white “America First” strategy.”#

America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy. So she claims Obama’s strategy, or policy, was “a global force for good.” Fancy that when it was exactly the opposite in action. It consistently stood in the face of a good legacy.

The ME and their Muslim Brotherhood obsession, then the anti-Israel platform, the Benghazi debacle — with or without the gun running — botched with mistakes and denials from the beginning, the Syrian issue of mixed messages and disappearing red lines, Russian influence throughout, the bad Iranian deal at all costs to us, ignorance on N Korea, and ISIS sprouting an official Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, reactionary spiteful withdrawal from Iraq, depleting our military, politicizing military intell and rules of engagement, not enforcing laws here in this country and politicizing the DOJ and intelligence.

Add to it the radicalization of government at home, with a war on energy, and lies about current events that were impossible to ignore. (the media really tried their best) I won’t even get into the racism for lack of space.

So we’re to infer all that was part of a “global force for good. If it was, then I’d like to know what a global force of empowering evil would look like? So all the above were part of the force for good? But now she has the arrogance and audacity to call Trump basically a force for bad. Here fellow comrades like Rhodes and Pfeiffer were on social media calling for the obituaries of current leadership. I hate to rain on her parade — or march — but the last 8 years was no picnic or vacation from evil. In fact, it was awash in it and corruption. Yet hearing her call it a force for good is hilarious.

This week we confirmed that Obama’s administration was so eager to get an Iran deal at any cost that they stood down on actions against Hezbollah’s international crime and terrorism operation. Let’s forget the Uranium deal for the moment. Politicizing and weaponizing government made it a force for good?

Now that all the skeletons are falling out of the closets (there aren’t enough closets) she is pointing fingers at the Trump administration, like her comrades. That rapid, immediate withdrawal from Iraq set off a chain of events. At home, Obama was so worried about his scummy legacy that he couldn’t have events called terrorism.

But all of that was part of some “global force for good.” What’s her definition of good?

Then back up a moment. She also called Trump’s policies a zero sum game that requires everyone else lose in order for us to win. We haven’t seen anything like that. Trump hasn’t called for that. Actually, he holds that they are winning while we are winning. But contrast that with Obama where we constantly lost on the deals and the world, or others, always won. That was more the zero-sum game. We weren’t really meant to win in Obama’s view.

She then goes for “enshrining Mr. Trump’s harsh anti-immigration policies, from the border wall to ending family preferences and limiting refugee admissions.” Again, contrast that with Obama’s mixed signals about border control, catch and release, and unconstitutional DACA program, and opening us to external threats in wartime. Refugees that were at least partly created by his own policies of complicit ignorance.

The perpetual do-gooder also made a policy of ignoring Christian persecutions while favoring Muslim refugees. He could only point to one major accomplishment of getting Osama bin Laden, but allowed a caliphate to form and spread, referring to it as JV. Yet he didn’t really take on that JV squad. Instead, he simply said it was not Islamic. Imagine that, a caliphate that is not Islamic? Oh, he banned using accurate terms to describe that caliphate of terrorism.

Enough contradictions in there to show she is shoveling more bullshit? What’s worse is they know, but have a constant need to deceive, try to control the narrative and revise Obama’s entire legacy. The people didn’t see it his way either, which showed in the election. Again, argue against the results and legitimacy of the election. Now…. they are going to lecture us on being a do-gooder? How about people just do what is right, and forget this false do-good narrative? Although I used to think that doing the right thing was being a force for good!

Right Ring | Bullright

Holder calls for protests against Trump

Some things defy words. So here is Exhibit A of the resistance – opposition operation. First, Eric Holder claims to represent the vast majority of Americans.

Then he goes all in on resist and sedition.

Since when does Eric Holder “speak on behalf of the vast majority of Americans”??? Who elected Holder? NO ONE! Not a single person went to a poll and voted for him, much less elected him.

Yet he is organizing calling for protests against a sitting president. Former AG calls for protests? Are these elitists or what? Who are the people that take marching orders from Eric Holder? Obamfiles are radicals, pure radicals.

Stunning, Hypocritical Statements

Over the last few days there have been a series of stunning and hypocritical statements. Even more than normal, and from high places. This was supposed to be a short one.

Start with Juanita Broaddrick who is amazed lately by high profile people that suddenly tell her they believe her now. Okay, stunner that they can even admit it. Give them credit. She saw it as kind of a validation, finally. She declared Hell has frozen over.

Erstwhile do-gooders may have their political reasons for a change of tune now. But it does not reconcile years of looking down on these Clinton victims, and making excuses for Bubba and Hillary, which allowed them to continue to corrupt and enrich themselves. They simply believe Juanita — and presumably others — all is better, no harm? Everyone is happy? All because it is politically convenient now when Hill and Bill are private citizens hiding under a fictional exemption from accountability. Leaves a bad taste, no?

 

Sleazy Senator Bob Menendez just walked on his corruption case. Well, he walks and the jury hangs. (great pun) But in his deadlocked debacle he made two remarkable statements. (there were more but who has time?)

1) “To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat, I know who you are and I won’t forget you”

Ouch, can’t help seeing that as a threat. Wonder what vengeance he has in mind? And who are they, since most of the media ignored the whole thing? The MSM was making sure no one could dig his political grave, if they don’t tell people what is going on.

There still is an Senate ethics investigation Mitch McConnell called for. So it isn’t done.

2) Menendez said another stunner. Paraphrased, he has a fear of abuse of government power. He has a new appreciation and respect now for those who suffered from the hands of abusive power. So he’s going to turn into a fierce advocate? Don’t wait for that.

Wow sort of strange for someone who lived and breathed hiding behind, enabled and enriched by, the abuse of power. Then has a hung jury at his trial.

No, I don’t think you get to say that when you were not convicted for some strange reason — after all he did. I don’t think you call that abuse of power, you call that luck of draw.

Actually, details were even worse from the government side:

[ABC] Jury member Edward Norris said 10 jurors wanted to acquit Menendez on all charges, while two held out for conviction.

“I just wish there was stronger evidence right out of the gate,” the juror said. “It was a victimless crime, I think, and it was an email trial. I just didn’t see a smoking gun.”

Menendez can take that as a compliment. It is tough not to leave a trail. Victimless?

 

Finally, there is Hillary. always making the news. Hillary said that an investigation into the Uranium One would be “such an Abuse of Power”misuse and abuse of power. It must be that, but Trump and his campaign cannot be investigated enough.

[Clinton called the proposed investigation] “a disastrous step into politicizing the Justice Department” and “such an abuse of power.”

“If they send a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, like some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have, that we can trust our justice system,”

Here we go with the talk of dictatorships and rogue, out of control regimes that… I don’t know, use IRS to attack their political enemies, or silence their opponents with threats. That sort of thing. Ones who would stand down law enforcement to let innocent people or businesses suffer anarchy; or who turn felons out on streets because there is no room in jails for them. Maybe regimes that pardon terrorists. Ones that are more concerned with politics and elections than national security. What kind of regime would use government to make deals that benefit themselves and silence anyone who opposes them?

She also said “It will be incredibly demoralizing to people who have served at the Justice Department…who know better.” Whew, they know better? Isn’t that the way we got to this point? So it would be terrible for those public officials to have to follow and enforce the law. How demoralizing? Why should a justice Department stand up for blind justice as opposed to biased injustice? Leaders meeting on a tarmac days before getting an investigation is squashed. How demoralizing when an attorney General is held in contempt by Congress for not complying with….wait for it, justice!

Yes, they know better than that. Yet we saw no whistle blowers stand up to expose Obama’s injustice. In fact, we saw officials and staffers line up to take the 5th amendment to protect those who abused power and authority. She says they know better? Yes they do. Now I know why she has such faith in the Deep State swamp microbes.

We need a real Department of Know Better.

No, she said it would be a giant “abuse of power.” Wait, what she did was an abuse of power: from first lady right on up through the Senate to the State Department. Not to mention her reign of corruption and control over the DNC. Then that whole theater investigation of her abuse revealed how deep those corrupted roots go. She and her campaign manager were pushing for a special counsel on Trump. And they already suggested he should be investigated for obstruction of justice. Abuse of Power? Enemies, political enemies, do we really need to talk about Hillary and enemies?

Let’s not forget Hillary is a walking, talking, flame-throwing obstruction of justice. (and probably everyone around her) So now Hillary and Menendez sound like twins. She is getting around to claiming to be a victim of government abuse of power, which she wants to use against Trump, her political enemy. That’s what she’ll be blaming Trump for.

Now Obstruction of justice was a year and a half of Hillary covering her backside for her illegal server. But somehow she’s concerned about power being corrupted and abused? Yes, tell us all how scary that could be. Sends shivers down my back. (and shivs in the backs of her enemies)

 

CNN for its part set up a clock asking how long it will be, after he returned, for Trump to comment on the Roy Moore situation? Apparently upset he hadn’t already.

If they hadn’t noticed, he’s been kind of busy. Well, with Trump trying to avert that inevitable WWIII, nuclear Armageddon, and with rehearsing the nuclear codes he shouldn’t be trusted to have, and having secret meetings with Putin and all. Either we’re on the precipice of Nuclear Holocaust or we are not. Make up your mind!

I can’t leave out the narrative change. We remember the last 25 years. Democrats, a little late to the parade, now act like the party of protecting and listening to women. The suddenly woke folk on women victims try to define the narrative. Dems are the good guys, after standing in the way of any moral responsibility. You guessed it, Republican are the bad guys. That is meant to deflect and erase their political history for the last 25 years.

One more laugh for the road. Orin Hatch had a moment of outburst at Sherod Brown in committee. Orin called out their class warfare garbage about Republicans are doing it “all for the rich.” I guess the Utah Senator finally had enough. It didn’t stop Ohio Senator Sherod Brown from spouting off back to him that the rich are just getting richer. Great for people who actually want to raise all our taxes, let alone block this tax cut. And they have such righteous objectives.

Right Ring | Bullright

MSM ignores any real news to beat the Russian Bear

Holding fast to conspiracy narratives pushed by Hillary Clinton (and her campaign of trolls) on Russia meddling, misogyny, racism that cheated her out of her destined Ovalating Office. Unfortunately, she is right, that media will follow her lead every time. While she and the entrenched media establishment are baited and trolled by Russia. They would take career Russian propagandists word or version of events over Trump’s almost every time.

It’s really easy if you are in the Kremlin hell-bent on sowing discord in America. If destroying credibility in American institutions is their goal, then the Left hands them a victory flag. So even when Trump goes to Poland to make a classical academic defense of western civilization, especially then, they have a collective panic attack and cannot recover. But intensive care could not treat their disease.

Then came his next trip to France with liberal Macron, their macaroni boy of Paris they fell for head first. This time MSM decided to downplay coverage of the visit ignoring most of the ceremony, except the presser to push Russia questions. Even the centennial of WWI and France’s Bastile Day got marginal coverage. Jake Tapper called it just a photo-op for Trump. Right a 100 year anniversary is just a photo-op , world history just gets in the way. After all, that is the way they see it.

So now, once again, another historical marker pops up that media seems too preoccupied with Russian propaganda to notice — or give due diligence to. It’s like you have this Russian spy novel playing out in the background to obfuscate any real news.

US Has Produced More Oil Than Saudi Arabia For 4 Straight Years [GRAPH]

Daily Caller

Saudi Arabia has lagged the U.S. in oil production for the last four years, according to federal data compiled by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Perry created a chart Saturday showing just how far behind Saudi oil production has trailed U.S. production. Rising U.S. production combined with OPEC policies drove crude oil prices down to new lows. Monday, a barrel of oil costs $46.26, while the same barrel would have sold for $109.04 in June 2014.

U.S. oil production, on the other hand, is increasing. The U.S. imported about 60 percent of its oil in 2007, but by 2014, the country only imported 27 percent of its oil — the lowest level since 1985. Rising oil production has reduced demand for Saudi oil abroad too, keeping prices low.

Saudi Arabia can likely handle cheap oil better than other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations, but cheap oil is still devastating the country.


Read at Daily Caller

And yet they wonder why we call MSM Fake News? Everything positive — as they define it — about their messiah’s golden throne was heralded from the mountaintops to make sure it echoed to anyone. It was unavoidable. They ran his Saturday addresses to tout all the great, but invisible, good news. It was good because they said so. Job numbers, even when bad, were called good. Or, as the Bible says, “those who call evil good and good evil.” And it worked, or saturated the airwaves to a point no one else could be heard.

Spending, national debt, budget issues. Remember Obamafiles claimed he halved the budget ‘deficit’ to cover the 2o trillion dollar explosion. The fairy dust worked, put some lipstick on that pig and sell it like the sweety-pie lie it is. He depleted the military, and budget, but who cares about that thing? All is good, they said. ‘These are the good times.’ Never mind that you did not see or feel it. You weren’t alone though. Most didn’t, still you had to listen to regurgitated talking points of how great things were going.

No, we weren’t wrong. Our instincts were not misguided. We weren’t misinformed. We were not too stupid to understand. We were not uneducated halfwits. We were just being constantly lied to on such a level, to such a degree, that Americans never were subjected to before. Even low information voters knew something was wrong. Economists, real ones that is, were not impressed. But even they had a hard time getting any information out. It was all being blurred, blotted out, and intentionally drown out by the so-called good news coming directly from, and being dictated by, the White House.

But it was all good in those days and there were no questions to ask, because no questions were necessary. Just report the White House talking points, life was easy for reporters. Obama would even tell press what stories they think should be covered, and what stories they didn’t think deserved time.

Guess what happened?

Remember Benghazi, IRS, Lois Lerner, or Fast and Furious? Leading from behind was actually a defense strategy they could get behind. Meaningless red lines were all the rage. Russian intervention? It really is not intervention when you are inviting them into Syria and altering your national policy to their liking and getting nothing in return. Of course that is not intervention. That is failed US leadership like we never experienced before either. It was complicit failure. Now they are paranoid about intervention? They opened the door, invited them in, coalesced with them. Is it any surprise Russia wasn’t the greatest or most respectful house guests, when Obama shows no respect for our own house?

Then, to top it all off, when Obama left he had them all declare that he had a completely scandal-free administration, not even a little one. Remember that? So it was an insult on reason and intelligence. It was a fraud. Obamacare was created, built and sold on lies. They named it the Affordable Care Act.

The article above, while it is good news to be ignored under Trump, will likely be co-opted for propaganda value by Obamafiles — who are just as active outside the Office as they were in the White House. So they are quite anxiuos to take credit for anything good. It is what they do. Though our growth and oil business in particular was in spite of Obama’s war on energy, not because of it. But that doesn’t stop them from laying claim.

Anyone dishonest enough to prop up Obama’s regime for 8 years is certainly going to use any dirty trick to that end, to credit Obama with a net positive. A guy like Obama that never had to live under or feel the effect of his own policies. Calling evil good was quite popular, getting even easier with practice. It was instant revision everywhere.

So now that we have oil production growth, who do you think can find fault with our achievement? That’s right, the same people who will gladly try to lay credit to it. But the Left’s “green” team will condemn it as a negative. Oil, fossil fuels is bad juju. Which is why we knew Obama was never supportive to the industry. Yet he wants credit? In your dreams, Obama. And if America was not as innovative, like we’ve always been, this could not have happened. Certainly it was nothing Obama had a hand in.

However, we shouldn’t be afaid to admit good news, because some of it took place under Obama’s tyranny. It began and was under way before him. Like Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. But Obama did about everything he could to step on it.

Under Trump, all good news will be summarily buried, or tortured by Obama revisionists if it refuses stay in the hole. Since the Left controls the media, that is the way it is. And whatever they can tie to Obama’s Legacy of Lies, they will. Memory Lane is not a place I’d want to live, if I were Obama

RightRing | Bullright

Eric Holder, Obama and Snowden

Obama disagrees with Holder on Snowden

By Susan Crabtree | Washington Examiner

President Obama does not agree with the view of his former Attorney General Eric Holder that Edward Snowden performed a “public service” by leaking classified documents about the United States’ sweeping surveillance programs.

Holder, in an interview with CNN’s David Axelrod over the weekend, said Snowden’s illegal act had some silver linings for people by shining a light on U.S. surveillance techniques. But he also said the former contractor for the National Security Agency must pay a penalty for the crimes.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest was unequivocal in his response to a question on whether Obama agreed with Holder’s perception that Snowden’s actions had some redeeming qualities for the public.

“A careful review of [Obama’s] public comments will indicate that he does not” share Holder’s view, Earnest said

Read: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-disagrees-with-holder-on-snowden/article/2592644

Odd that Obama would be forced to publicly disagree with Holder. So Axelrod interviews Holder, and that is real credible journalism? I wonder if this is the beginning of the talk which is to end in a Snowden pardon? Since when should a former AG come out to defend a criminal? But then these guys are radicals, it’s what they do.

Curiouser, haunting Benghazi details

Benghazi always seems to come back to what didn’t we know and when didn’t we know it?

BOMBSHELL: Here Are The Stunning Instructions The Benghazi Rescue Team Received

Will this be a new Benghazi “ghost” to haunt Hillary?

Duane Lester January 20, 2016 | TPNN

From the beginning of the heated controversy over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, people have wondered why no U.S. response force was sent to defend and rescue the diplomat and the other victims of the assault. New evidence now indicates that not only were fighting forces on the way, but they were deterred by not being cleared to enter Libya, leaving our people to the relentless murderers on the ground.

And that may not be the worst of it.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson says she was informed of military teams ready to deploy or actually heading to Libya before they were told to stop or turn back, even as the 8-hour-long attack continued.

“This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway,” Attkisson claims. “They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died. Those attacks went on for eight hours.”

On her show “Full Measure,” Attkisson interviewed Col. Andrew Wood, the man who once led a Special Forces anti-terrorism unit that protected Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya. He said his team was removed a month prior to the attacks, despite warnings of terrorist activity and possible violence against the U.S. facilities in Benghazi. He told Attkisson about the team mentioned in an email as “spinning up” to respond to the attacks on September 11, 2012.

“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood reportedly claimed. “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”

There has been speculation about President Obama’s involvement in the non-response to repeated pleas for help during the prolonged attack on the U.S. compound. Some claim that Obama or someone very close to him issued a stand down order, denying those whose lives were on the line the support that might have saved them. Often the reason cited for such a supposed order was to protect the president from scandalous involvement in a horrific situation just prior to the 2012 election.

Attkisson noted on her show that as of today, “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack on foreign soil.”

h/t: PJ Media

Original article at http://www.tpnn.com/2016/01/20/bombshell-here-are-the-stunning-instructions-the-benghazi-rescue-team-received/

 

This also goes to the heart of another scandal, Fast and Furious, based on my opinion. From my reading and understanding, any time the US has an operation involving another sovereign country the President must be briefed and sign off on it. It’s part of the chain of command. That means Obama cannot have the plausible deniability he continually implies. That also means he okayed gun running operations going south of the border.

It means the latest 50 cal gun found in El Chapo Guzmán’s hideout is a direct product of that and that the guns used in killing people in Mexico and in the US were part and parcel of Obama’s operation. So does it make sense that these were rogue operations he was unaware of or not under his oversight as CiC? No way, José . Even Eric Holder could not have conducted it without Obama’s approval.

But then as the article asserts, it gets worse. We don’t have any account or detail of what Obama was doing on the Benghazi attack. And despite that “lengthy” hearing, we don’t know what all Clinton did, or didn’t do, on the night of the attack and after. If memory serves me, she did not speak to the Sec of Defense until the following morning. And as the article states, we now know that security forces were pulled from the Benghazi compound earlier, before the attack ever happened.

On both F&F and Benghazi we have no account for the involvement of the Commander in Chief. Despite Hillary taking full responsibility for Benghazi, again in 2015, she never did. Pursuant to that “responsibility,” would she ever be running for President in 2016?

It’s all politics, all the time

Bad enough that we have one ideologue politician in the White House, but we also have a politico, Attorney General running the DoJ.Why does that matter? Whenever credibility or trust is a factor, then it becomes an issue.

A week since the Grand Jury decision was released and we found out the details. No hands in the air, he assaulted the cop in the car and tried to get his gun. Then he bum-rushed the cop. Even the blood trail showed the direction he was traveling. So all that they had been saying was wrong. And race had noting to do with it. Those results are the backdrop.

Then we had the nasty riots and fallout of the decision. That night DeAndre Joshua was shot, who may have been a witness to the Brown shooting, and also friend to Dorian Johnson, is hardly getting covered. It’s being dismissed as is Louis Head’s incitement.

A week later Obama has a WH meeting with his race-bating buds. All the facts are out now and a lot of people have egg on their face. So that evening Holder travels to give a speech in Atlanta. Holder said the events in Ferguson were not unique to Ferguson but nationwide. Then he mentioned he was going to write policies on profiling.

But we scream that profiling did not have anything to do with Ferguson. Well, precisely the point. The issue of profiling is another poll-tested issue. They know it is a popular whipping post, with many people. So the subject and narrative on Ferguson is now bad. What to do? Change the subject almost as if Ferguson was about profiling.

Obama has a pow wow with his race-baiters. He decided lets change the subject to something that is popular, we can rally people to support. And it gets away from the losing, declining narrative about the Ferguson details. Face it, after the second round of riots and destroying much of the city, it has been stained. The narrative is now about the violence and the riots, and the lies flowing from there since August.

Time to change the subject.

Anything Holder does will be an attempt to start an argument about profiling and steer the attention right into that, as if it were the central issue. We’ll see how fast both media and race-baiters pick up on the narrative. It was already reported MSNBC was posing provocative questions on profiling.

“Like you, I understand that the need for this trust was made clear in the wake of the intense public reaction to last week’s grand jury announcement. But the problems we must confront are not only found in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique to that state or that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national in scope and that threaten the entire nation.”

“Third: in the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement, which will institute rigorous new standards – and robust safeguards – to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.”

This is a straight from the top, race power-brokers, an attempt to commandeer the Ferguson issue into a wider grievance issue. Holder stressed these were national issues. It was Ferguson, it was a local matter. But, as is typical, when controversy and trouble arise they broaden the issue.

Holder said: “Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from the communities they serve.” Well, where does that come from?

He also said: “But the issue is larger than just the police and the community. Our overall system of justice must be strengthened and made more fair. In this way, we can ensure faith in the justice system. Without that deserved faith, without that reasoned belief, there can be no justice.”

Really? Most people have no trust in Obama or Holder, their cred on anything is MIA.

Holder told them: “As this critical effort unfolds, we will remain firmly resolved to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in driving this work into the future. And this commitment will also fuel our broader efforts to bring change – and meaningful reform – to urgent challenges far beyond the realm of community policing.”

Can you say politics?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama does Ferguson

Something new to be sick of from the cesspool of the Oval Office Occupant.

Now he is going to micromange police departments because they are doing a horrible job. He cannot mange what is in his own cabinet and responsibilities, but he is going to organize and dictate to local police departments? His hypocrisy really knows no boundaries. Except that is not what people elected him for.

Obama Tries To Focus Public On Racist Cops

11:09 PM 11/30/2014 | Daily Caller

Obama outlined his new focus on racist cops Nov. 25.

“In many communities of color [people] have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly,” Obama told supporters in Chicago.

“That may not be true everywhere, and it’s certainly not true for the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that’s an impression that folks have and it’s not just made up,” said the nation’s chief law enforcement official.

“It’s rooted in realities that have existed in this country for a long time,” said Obama, who began his political career as a “community organizer” in Chicago.

In his speech, Obama said he’s asking Holder to manage the new focus.

“I’ve instructed Attorney General Eric Holder not just to investigate what happened in Ferguson, but also identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focused on building trust in our communities,” he said.

Obama also sketched out possible White House regulations, including a possible new effort to ensure that only a small proportion of white police officials are hired in African-American districts.

“We know that when we have a police force that is representative of the communities it’s serving that makes a difference,” the president stated.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/30/obama-tries-to-focus-public-on-racist-cops/

He’s already told us that he stays out of individual cases. Now he is meddling in states and local law enforcement. So the police acted stupidly in Cambridge, and I guess there is a whole lot of stupid going on across the country. Nothing that playing politics and injecting his demented ideology can’t fix.

Forget everything else he should be doing. Obama is back on the campaign trail to try to cover for his last unilateral action for Hispanics, which was a cover and diversion for their midterm defeat. I notice he didn’t start with the violence and murders in Chicago.

When is the last time anyone saw him do his job? Why don’t he and Holder sign on with MSNBC for a new show and leave the rest of us alone? They can name it “The Sideshow”.

RightRing | Bullright

Dissing Zero

While some effects are hypothetical, what isn’t are Obama’s poll numbers. So I looked at the Real Clear Politics chart and what I found was interesting. The day it shifted from black-approval, to negative-disapproval was about May29th, 2013. From then on the disapproval leads. Well, besides a giant asteroid passing by earth, there was other news.

Six months into his second term and Obama’s approval numbers inverted. His disapproval numbers have remained higher than his approvals ever since.

May 2013 was not a good month for the Obama administration, dep of Justice, or the IRS, or one Lois Lerner. The IRS scandal broke and by the 22nd, Lerner was taking the fifth amendment in her roundabout way of giving an opening statement declaring she did nothing wrong. This after she initially leaked the IRS targeted conservatives. Benghazi was still on the front burner.

Last October it was 50.9 disapproval — 43.9 approval. By December, it was 55.6 disapproval to 40% approval. All that stuff which happened in the last year and a half adds to that mix. Benghazi, to IRS, to immigration, privacy, rights, government spending and national security.

We had the trifecta, Benghazi the Dep of Justice scandal over the phone records. (without even counting fast and furious) Questions of whether Holder lied under oath about investigations. It was the week Lois Lerner was called to testify and took the fifth amendment. The Democrats finally began calling for her resignation. A Senate gang of eight was working on and moving an immigration reform bill. He’s been inverted ever since.

Then through to the recent discontent. On August 05, NBC/Wall Street Journal reported about upcoming mid-term elections:

Two words sum up the mood of the nation: Fed up.

Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, more than 70 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly 80 percent are down on the country’s political system, according to the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll.

The frustration carries over to the nation’s political leaders, with President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating hitting a new low at 40 percent, and a mere 14 percent of the public giving Congress a thumbs up.

“We’re in the summer of our discontent,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “Americans are cranky, unhappy… It is with everything going on in the world.”

The discontent’s two main causes

The NBC/WSJ pollsters attribute the wide discontent to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as a loss of faith in the country’s politicians. /…

There’s also the public’s anger at Washington. A whopping 79 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the U.S. political system, including nearly half who are very dissatisfied.

In addition, 71 percent of Americans believe the economic problems facing the country are due to the inability of elected officials in Washington to get things done to improve the economy.

By comparison, just 23 percent think the problems are due to deep and longstanding issues with the economy.

“The public seems to have moved beyond the plaintive cry of ‘Feel our pain!’ to the more angry pronouncement of ‘You are causing our pain!’” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research.

More: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/americas-fed-obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271

I just love the way he stated that conclusion. But there is a fly in their ointment. They claim there is not a central issue people are rallied around. That’s a problem? Well, there are many. So the larger issue is not only don’t people trust our politicians (i.e. government) but that they blame it/them for these circumstances.

One has to be blind not to see the wide circumstances for discontent. This year is even worse than last. Does not coalescing around one particular issue seem like a problem that will hurt Republicans? Choosing one particular issue would naturally give others a pass. That people blame politicians and government could be a wonderful thing.

RightRing | Bullright

Adios to Holder

So finally the news that Holder is going to resign. If there was an inevitable resignation it was Holder’s, the only question was when. Most people on the right correctly assumed he would hold out as long as possible — to the benefit of Obama and himself.

eric holder photo: holder holder.jpgSo that it is finally on the table for real means a lot. He can no longer hold down the scandalous problems to the extent he would like. But now the real problem is, with his resignation, will start the complete white wash of the Obama regime.

A rally for a new Attorney General will strain Obama’s agenda before January.

With Eric Holder, Obama’s favorite son, on the way out they will believe they can cleanse all the scandals that happened under his tenure. Oh, those wheels on the bus get bigger and bigger.

That means Obama’s executive amnesty is on the way soon.

Only in August, Politico reported “Why the hell is Eric Holder still around?”
“The Survivor” by Glenn Rush

How did he do it? To start, it helps that he is one of the few administration figures to cross the threshold from employee to friend of the famously reserved president. Holder, in fact, is one of the only Cabinet members Obama routinely invites over for dinner and drinks (Education Secretary Arne Duncan, a hoops buddy from Chicago, is another) and the only one who times his summer vacation to hang out with the president on Martha’s Vineyard.

According to the piece, Obama has told his staff:

The job of attorney general is a “shit magnet” for the most intractable controversies.

What a creative visual for the Turd-in-Chief to use. Now that magnet is stuck to it.

RightRing | Bullright

Trouble in Ferguson’s Brown-ville – NYT style

Never, well almost never, will you see the Left get on the NYT for something. It’s almost taboo. But you have a freak instance where they criticize one of the left’s darling, heroes-in-the- making. Such is this case.

The New York Times did a mild article about Brown, compassionate yet confronting. What did they say that was so bad? Well, you can read the whole thing here. I’ll give a few select quotes. It is worth reading.

However, the real story now is in Leftville, where they have taken on and stopped just short of crucifying John Eligon, the author. So now there are scores of pieces written in opposition to what he wrote. What’s the Leftinistas’ old expression that they just want an honest debate? Nonsense. They claim to appreciate open discussion? No, they don’t.

The terrible story now of Brown’s death seems to be the postmortem one. Enter the wrath of the Left. Remember the name because, as Obama says, they have long memories. Whether John Eligon is aware or not, he walked through a door to an alternate universe.

Sometimes with the left you have to follow the evolution of the argument. That is exactly what we have here, all because NYT took a peek into what the Brown “tragedy” was about, the man at the center, and came up with a story that did not fit the Left’s narrative. Two things you have to remember about the left: 1) politics rules; 2) the narrative is everything – defer to #1. The author stumbled upon fractures in the second. NYT’s chief offense was being honest, for once.

It started with this interesting bit which set the stage.

FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them. (NYT)

Well, I wondered if it was some sort of a premonition? I do take it seriously. But whatever, this was not what angered the Left. No, it was that he said Brown was “no angel”. The famous quote all the left is concentrating on — again, you do know the pack mentality.

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

Now that did it. It gave the Left something they must attack, which forces the NYT to defend its article (or sell out Eligon) But this article created a whole subtext of dialogue – a firestorm. To a person, even in MSM media, they are attacking the article and author as insensitive and whacky, calling it a hit piece on Brown. Huffington Post declared: “NYT incites backlash after saying Michael Brown was no Angel.” See that? Blame NYT, at the same time the Left uses it to stir up defense of Brown, as a victim of the press. Then the NYT will also be blamed for the predictable reaction it will cause. Get it?

You didn’t think it was a political case? Wrong. It is now, that’s no secret on the Left. It has become a voter registration drive, straight up. But it is not one of those left vs right things. Yea, sure. Every time the left gets on board it is automatically a political issue. What don’t they politicize?

Here are a few objections to the article, and/or John Eligon. You know how the left treats anyone going against their narrative.

Daily Kos “I wonder how many obituaries for dead teenagers get the explicit “he was no angel” treatment from the sodding New York Times.”

Huffington Post, headline: “WATCH: New York Times Incites Backlash After Saying Michael Brown Was ‘No Angel'”

Salon called it an “outrageously skewed” article.

However, the generally respectful article has unwittingly demonstrated the media’s unconscious bias.

In an article that purports to be about the spiritual curiosity of a doomed teen, why is it necessary to hedge the writer’s argument with harmless details of his allegedly fraught youth? Because certain media outlets have aggressively spread certain details of Brown’s life, it seems that every news outlet needs to include details of Brown’s drug use and petty theft (which are normal teenage offenses) in order to remain “objective.”

Why talk about his actual life? Well, you see where the Salon piece is headed. Dare you mention anything untoward about “Big Mike” then you are biased with an agenda because this line of reasoning(facts) is agenda driven. They claim NYT leads the reader to conclude maybe his fate was sealed. Leftists do not like that. Rather they assert he was a good kid from a good family ready to head off to college. So its alright if they intentionally color the picture of “Big Mike”, damn anyone reporting details about Mike. Wait till they all go after this cop’s life, in lockstep. That will be “fair game”.

Remember in the OJ case when they broadcasted “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Remember the lectures on reserving judgement? Some call for the cop’s execution. They should have dragged him behind the police station and shot him. Now listen to their hollow chants about justice.

Back to this article. Couldn’t they just as easily say ‘those details about “Big Mike”only serve to humanize the man?’ No. This is just planting a flag on Michael Brown’s hill to the next soul even considering any revelations about Brown or his past. So that is it folks, if they went to war with the NYT over this, you can be sure anyone else is cannon fodder.

RightRing | Bullright

Ferguson: the ideo-mindset

A couple things strike me as odd about the Ferguson matter.

The disdain for police is only part of it. Then the mistrust of the police is probably the bigger part. They all expressed it, which seems to be at the heart of the discontent. The rally was a rail-a-thon against the police.

But as the solution, they want the federal government to take over the entire investigation. So do you not have trust in local police and prosecutors, local government et al, but you have complete faith in the federal government — especially this DoJ under Eric Holder? The answer of course is yes, yes.

Sort of leaves me scratching my head how they complain about the militarization of police. That is a very real problem, I can understand that. It is one thing many of us are concerned about. Then they are upset at the national guard being brought in. On the other hand, they are begging the feds to take full control over everything.

So feds don’t abuse their authority, don’t screw up, and don’t deserve our distrust? Right, I have a bridge for them. The federal government that has politicized and scandalized almost every department, and can’t manage our border, is the infallible super-hero.

Am I missing some dots or not connecting them? I just find that strange. I know their desire is to make it a civil rights case, but the exuberant trust seems very questionable.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s touchstones, breaking badder


“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”.

Touchstone:

(assaying tool), a stone used to identify precious metals; or (metaphor) a means of assaying relative merits of a concept

1: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal
2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing
3: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature — merriam-webster

There’s nothing wrong with transparency and rule of law. Just that Obama has to pervert them to suit his personal needs like he does everything else. Then, you probably thought you knew what “transparency” meant.

But in this case, transparency actually now means the opposite: spying on citizens, concealing the truth about Benghazi, or lying when convenient –especially for political gain, Obamacare and its roll out, denying scandals as “phony scandals”, or that IRS was engaged in political activism. Or ignoring and dismissing a problem he previously railed against as a priority.  

So  transparency can mean denial of a problem and necessary cover-up that one even exists. Luckily, transparency is also alive and well in the Dep. of Justice — not. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for failure to comply. Now it can mean selective transparency when you want something known, like details of the bin Laden mission or CIA chief in Afghanistan, accusations about your political enemies, or spying and accusations on a reporter, or revenge for an unfavorable documentary. And feeling politically justified for it all — even the contempt.
 

Rule of Law: one does not have to return to Blackstone commentaries to define rule of law. It’s sort of self-explanatory. (Wikipedia)

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined “rule of law” this way:

“The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

O-translation: ‘whatever I say or decide the rule of law is at any particular time’.
 
Wikiquote

The term to “break bad” is American Southeast slang meaning to turn against one’s previously lawful lifestyle for one of criminal acts, usually at the cost of someone else’s life or well-being.

Obama could not abandon what he was never constrained by, so he’s ‘breaking badder’.

It sounded better than “cronyism, lies and corruption will be my touchstones.” Obama’s words fit his penchant for making factually inaccurate statements, then repeatedly lying to try to validate them. Benghazi and ObamaCare are text book examples. The border crisis demonstrates his lawlessness and insincerity for the “rule of law”.

RightRing | Bullright

Spies Like US

U.S. Charges Chinese Army Personnel With Cyberspying

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT | MAY 19, 2014 | NYT

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice said on Monday it had charged five individuals in China’s People’s Liberation Army in connection with stealing trade secrets from some of the largest American companies, including Westinghouse, United States Steel and Alcoa.

The move marked a rare instance of the United States charging foreign government employees with economic espionage, and it increased the tensions between American and Chinese officials who have accused each other in public and in private of using military assets to initiate hacks and cyberattacks.

At a news conference in Washington, the Justice Department said it was searching for five people: Wang Dong, Sun Kailiang, Wen Xinyu, Huang Zhenyu, and Gu Chunhui. It is unlikely that any of them will ever be brought to trial in the United States.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the men “have targeted the U.S. private sector for commercial advantage.”

“We allege that members of unit 61398 conspired to hack into computers of six U.S. victims to steal information that would provide an economic advantage to the victims’ competitors, including Chinese state-owned enterprises,” Mr. Holder said.

The Justice Department said that the men were indicted on May 1 by a federal grand jury in Pennsylvania and charged with conspiring to commit computer fraud and accessing a computer without authorization for the purpose of commercial advantage. [../]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/us/us-to-charge-chinese-workers-with-cyberspying.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0

 

So Holder announces crackdown, after secrets are already stolen. This just reveals how much damage is done. Are these efforts just for show? Is his timing just politics?

Dep. of Injustice issues dictate to schools

Eric Holder Just Sent This Threatening Letter To All Public Schools

by B. Christopher Agee | Western Journalism

Along with the Department of Education, Eric Holder’s Justice Department is reminding public schools in no uncertain terms that they are obligated to provide all children with an education regardless of their immigration status.

In an apparent attempt to clarify existing guidelines, the federal government sent a letter to schools indicating the agencies are “aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students.”

The letter emphasizes how loose the restrictions are regarding what type of documentation schools are required to accept, basically meaning there is no excuse for questioning why a child obviously in the country illegally is receiving taxpayer-funded schooling and/or child care.

“We want to be sure every school leader understand the legal requirements under the Constitution and federal laws,” the letter states, “and it is our hope that this update will address some of the misperceptions out there.”

One is hard pressed, however, to find any mention of the government’s responsibility to provide free education to criminal inhabitants within the structure of the U.S. Constitution. In any case, the letter goes on to spell out requirements in no uncertain terms.

“The message here is clear,” it read, “let all children who live in your district enroll in your public schools.”

Parents of children with only a foreign birth certificate are given ample leeway in providing alternative ‘documentation,’ including an entry in a family Bible, for instance.

Holder and other leftist leaders are determined to integrate illegals completely into society to the extent that actually holding them accountable for their crimes would not only be nearly impossible, but in itself an illegality.

Ensuring the next generation of criminals is indoctrinated within the public school system is one vital step in achieving that goal.

Photo Credit: Facebook/Remove the Idiot Eric Holder from Office!

 

(CBS 5)”We want to be sure every school leader understands the legal requirements under the Constitution and federal laws, and it is our hope that this update will address some of the misperceptions out there,” said Secretary Arne Duncan in a statement. “The message here is clear: let all children who live in your district enroll in your public schools.”

Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to “vigilantly enforce the law to ensure the schoolhouse door remains open to all.” Any actions to put up barriers to student enrollment, “not only harm innocent children, they also markedly weaken our nation…by leaving young people unprepared and ill-equipped to succeed,” he said.

Related: Object to book content and you could get ‘booked’

Photo Credit: Facebook/Remove the Idiot Eric Holder from Office!