Hillary funding resistance

Hillary Clinton Sent $800K from Campaign Funds to Her New ‘Resistance’ Group

Group will fund other liberal ‘resistance’ groups
Wa Free Beacon

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has sent $800,000 from her campaign funds to her new political action group, Federal Election Commission filings show.

Clinton announced her intent to be “part of the resistance” in May with the formation of Onward Together, a political action group that will fund a number of established “resistance” groups that can quickly counter President Trump with direct action and protests.

The group is dedicated to “encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office” and advancing “progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” according to its mission statement.

Federal Election Commission records show that Clinton has sent hundreds of thousands from her campaign funds to her group the same month she announced its creation. …/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-sent-800k-from-campaign-funds-to-her-new-resistance-group/

Can’t find her emails but never loses sight of her money, and what she does with it. Too dumb to be a criminal but smart enough to undermine government.

Hillary Books

Rumors say Hillary is already hard at work on a followup book to her excuse exposé coming out, “What [Didn’t] Happen.”

This one will be a shorter, simpler book titled “Lose the Election: All Your Investigations Go Away.” It will be sponsored by Calgon bath products, “Take me Away.”

Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

Having An Emotional Fit

This would be laughable under most circumstances….except that it was the most important presidential election in decades. Well, Libs don’t disappoint in their effort to emotionalize their reactions to the election — as only they can emotionalize.

So CNN had this article, including clips of voicemails from election dissenters. Here is just one gem from a woman who complained she had to take off her Bernie bumper stickers because of fears. Afraid too, to even go back to rejoin her family. Oh the pain and humiliation of it all. She said this:

“I finally had to take the Bernie bumper sticker off my car,” Gibbens continued in her voicemail. “I almost got rear-ended at an exit coming off the freeway. I mean just harassment because I had a Bernie sticker on my car. It’s really ugly. It leaves us scared because there’s so many people who seem more emboldened to be bullies.”

Scary because so many people seem emboldened to be bullies? Could that be those bullies on the Left? No she isn’t talking about the real bullies. How about weaponized bullies?

The article goes on to apply psychoanalysis to their emotional meltdown. As I said, it would be funny, except they are serious. Of course this is just as dangerous as the psychiatrists desperately trying to diagnose Trump from their clinical armchairs. And just as fruitful.

Paula Niedenthal, a psychology professor, opined on the caller:

“There’s this anxiety about being exposed. You have a bumper sticker, it’s almost like having a Green Bay Packers sticker and being in Texas.”

Yes, it’s every bit that bad in another way. How can therapists so easily identify with these nuts? Yes they do need real psychological help, but not because of the results of the election or because Trump won and is president. But could it be because of their very deep expectations that Hillary was going to win or, indeed, that she already did win?

There was no room for doubt. Then they were crushed when their beliefs didn’t comport with actual results. ‘How could this be?’ ‘We all said she would win…what happened, what went wrong? This cannot be happening. I won’t believe it! I won’t accept it!’

You can almost hear those internal deliberations echoing in their vulnerable brain cells. Could it just be that their expectations ran so far ahead of the truth that they could not possibly handle an alternate result? Isn’t that what elections are: a verdict, a final decision from the people? How can one know in advance, or be so sure, of the election?

It seems they had so much invested in their outcome. Even Hillary was so invested, literally in the preferred outcome, along with her backers and donors that there was no room for a different outcome. The amount of money riding on it alone was huge. But of course that would be hard to accept. They did it to themselves. Republicans, on the other hand, were tasked to believe the exact opposite before the election: no way, no how was it possible to win. What with the Democrat machine, their blue wall, illegal vote and all. Now, after the fact, Republicans are supposed to be apologetic for the results. Really. The only acceptable reaction to the left is for us to apologize for winning, and to deconstruct it.

Democrats are so far in denial that they have no options but to dissent from reality. Of course there is nothing acceptable to the left with what has happened since election.

It is worth looking at the piece (here) and listen to the voicemails.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

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

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

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where, what “Matter”?

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

4. -particular kind of substance: matter

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

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

7. – consequence for serious thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Clinton comes clean…. I mean dirty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Host: what do you mean, “nothing”?

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

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

Hillary Clinton in Hot Seat on commencement speech

Observer

On June 8, Hillary Clinton is scheduled to serve as the Class of 2017 commencement speaker at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, where she will also be awarded an honorary degree. The announcement has incited protests from several members of the Haitian community who plan to protest the speech and are pushing the college’s president, Rudy Crew, to rescind the invitation.

“Every time the Clintons get in a bind, they run to the black community to whitewash their tarnished image,” said Komokoda, the Haitian group protesting the speech, in a statement.

http://observer.com/2017/05/haitians-protest-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-medgar-evers-college/

No, don’t rescind the invitation. Please, allow Hillary to be protested and shamed. (not that she has any) Pay them. She’s made enough money on it all, hold her accountable.

Maybe students will come equipped with some nice stiletto heels.

Exploiting people, particularly poor people, is the Clinton’s expertise. In office or out makes no difference. Perhaps she will get some long overdue ridicule? Furthermore, why should Obama be off the hook either?

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Double standards, Comey’s lame excuses

Let’s see now: James Comey goes out of his way to bury, seal off, and officially close the Hillary investigation. Well, or whatever the hell he was investigating. That would head off or terminate future, continuing probes once she presumably assumed office. Closure.

But then, at the very same time, he left an ongoing investigation wide open to run the course for as long as he — presumably, he alone — felt justified in continuing the stealthy probe. To that end, he already advanced the narrative in previous hearings that some of these investigations can take a long time, even years. And he’s not compelled to say.

Yet in Hillary’s case he wanted to nail the box shut by officially calling it a closed investigation. Nothing he can do to change those facts.

So what we have left in the smokescreen is an ongoing, never ending, probe involving the Trump campaign or possible ties to Russia. It is on course to run out any clock. No limits. Why would Comey need any? ‘We don’t confirm or deny investigations.

In effect, he is doing the very thing to Trump that he feared doing so much to Hillary. No way can he claim to be objective. The Hillary probe was a show investigation anyway, done to end possible questions about her later. Just the way she did in Benghazi, Hillary could claim it was all investigated very closely and cleared her of any wrongdoing.

That was the goal in the server/email investigation all along, giving her security of having been cleared. So having this investigation jihad on Trump continue over the course of his first term bothers who? What harm would it do? Why is there a need to close it? All the questions he feverishly felt needed answering on Hillary.

For Trump, who cares?

Something tangentially came out in the latest hearing on Wednesday. Comey admitted that the collateral contact information collected on Americans via foreign target surveillance is stored away. Then he was asked if that database was searchable . Indeed, yes he admitted it is searchable. Which means at a later date, or anytime really, they could access and search that database — meaning search people’s information. Done without a warrant.

Comey recently expressed that old political adage that if he was making both sides unhappy he must be doing something right. Somehow that demonstrates impartiality, fairness, or being apolitical. No, it is possible to frustrate both sides and be wrong all the way around, to both sides. Just because you gored two different oxen, does not mean you were justified in goring either, or that you were fair to each.

5/3/17
RightRing | Bullright

The Skinny on Media Leftinistas

I admit to occasionally watching CNN, but only so you never have to. I also have a part time therapist for it. Kids, don’t do that. Well, all their antics are not new except they are upping them to another level. Hey, it’s what they do.

Hard to believe though that 6 months or a year ago, resistance to the president — as taboo as it was even to say then — was everything liberals were against. Suddenly, they are certified experts on presidential resistance, no holds barred. They’ve gone into full-blown government-resistance mode. This from the very people who depend on it most.

So CNN sent reporters out to talk to people in America, which they are now wont to to do. You couldn’t have paid them to talk to the people before. Remember those phony interview narratives with the Tea Party? They could not hide their disgust.

First, reporters ceremoniously went to speak to Trump supporters. You know, just to gawk at their mistaken nature, perhaps to blame them, and probe their election conscience for signs of second thoughts. Then to mock them, in the media way, finally in editing. Then portray them like zoo animals. (which supporters are fully aware of, but don’t care)

To compliment that, CNN had on air interviews with JD Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy — cultural expert of working people and Appalachia — in its panel discussions. To paraphrase, ‘We must understand those people, but only so far.’ (wrong as they are)

But in this latest episode it sent a team to California, LA area, Maryland, Baltimore area, then Massachusetts, only this time to talk to the voices of the resistance in blue states. You knew they would get around to the apologists for the Resistance, diehard anti-Trumpers and opposition. They sound just as grieved as the night of the election results. Whaah.

Now Trump is being called unAmerican… so that’s the reason. Oh, we couldn’t say that about Obama. You know, we were mocked even for opposing Obama. Now they are justified to resist everything Trump as a sacred opposition. Actually, they blame Trump for their hatred. Ingenious. Gee, we should have thought of that; we might have gotten further. Maybe limiting Captain O to one term. Yet remember how McConnell was mocked, over and over, just for wanting to make Obama a one-term president?.

The Resistance say as long “as he is in office, they are going to keep fighting at [Trump’s] door.” No hatred there. But hey, at least I am not blaming their bitter hatred on racism because Trump is white. No, they do that themselves, The Left claims they are against white supremacist policies. Who knew law and order and treating everyone the same was supremacist? So they redefine things as they go along. But that is what they do.

When Steve Bannon called them the opposition party, there was a good reason.

RightRing | Bullright

Trump would beat Clinton on popular vote

Daily Wire [excerpt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chelsea forming swamp of support

Brought to you, again, by the corrupt Clinton’s perpetual campaign of enablers. Back, by unpopular demand, is the slobbering press now pimping Chelsea Clinton for mass public consumption. Who cares about Chelsea? Well that doesn’t matter.

How cool? Not. Power of women? Oh, they found just the perfect model… of nothing.

The corrupt Clinton machine is busy grooming her for what, as a favorite politician? A bridge way too far.

They aren’t floating her possible candidacy, They are steaming full speed ahead Titanic style toward the biggest iceberg out there. The last Clinton has not yet admitted why she lost, but here’s another… in case you couldn’t stomach the last one. Cool?

Bannon Bombs Media

Steve Bannon made a statement in an interview and all mainstream media go ballistic. What was his capiital offense., it? He basically told them to shut up_for a while, and just listen. I guess those are fighting words.

As is usually the ]problem, there is the statement(suggestion) and then what media says ABOUT it. And they can say a ;ot. So their talkathon continues and now they even throw in their “we won’t…we won’t.” But the public at large knows what the media or press have been doing. There is not even a question about it. This just gave them an additional thing to talk about.

According to the NYT :

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday.

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

It is the opposition party — as opposed to what they were doing for eight years of Obama.

The hyper-hypocrisy flared when CNN had whining-fest over this comment. Christiane Amanpour went into overdrive saying this constant criticism from Trump everyday is an attempt to delegitimize them, CNN, and is so very disconcerting. It is not fair, ha ha.

But when Sean Spicer complained at the podium about the constant drumbeat against Trump, they laughed and said he was whining, that this is their job and they’ll proudly continue. Now they are complaining. Criticism got under their skin.

Nothing stops their non-stop attackathon on Trump. So is it war? You decide. I just think its a welcome change to finally see them back on their heels.

I mean in one week they already questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, called him a liar, and CNN called his advisers propaganda ministers.Basically anything they wouldn’t do or say to Obama. I don’t believe a lot from them, but when they are this disturbed, I gotta know that is for real. So they want their conduct to go unchallenged.

That old journalism rule is to never become the story. They blew that one right out of the water. Now media itself has become the story. They had already lost their credibility way back. But now they became the central story because it is so bad. Even after they were exposed trying to help Hillary and colluding with the DNC. They are now advocacy, activist journalism. They warned us that we’re in for a bumpy ride for the next four years

But they do it non-stop over every detail Trump does. He goes around or over them on Twitter. They keep carping away. No you know one thing for sure, that never would have happened under Obama, and they wouldn’t allow it under Clinton. Just for one full day, I’d like to see what it would have been like with Hillary and just one press conference.

The way I see it, media has picked a hell of a hill to die on. The left will tell media to keep attacking and run right into the fire. Everything the people wanted and stood up for, they stand against. It’s going to be one long, amusing battle. … CNN still sucks.

RightRing | Bullright

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.”

Inaugural Blues

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

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

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

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

by Lindsey Ellefson | December 19th, 2016 | Mediaite

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

 

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

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

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

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

Scheduling Conflict?

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

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

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

H/T to Mediaite

 

Making my list, checking it over

Let me check my end of the year list, not quite complete:

I mentioned the hypocrisy of the left.
I mentioned the evil nature of the Left
I mentioned the inability of the Left to relate to real, working people.
I mentioned the arrogance of Obama, Hillary and Democrats.
I mentioned how we are worse off now, practically than ever in history.

The world is more dangerous now than before Obama controlled the White House.
I wrote about reasons for supporting Trump, and some of the problems coming.

I mentioned what Islamists are doing to threaten and bring down America.
I mentioned political correctness, the favorite tool to push the Left’s agenda.
I said a lot about Russia, and where politicians failed to confront serious threats.
I talked about Christian victims and the Islamic agenda.
I mentioned most of the problems with ISIS and the caliphate.
I mentioned the stupidity of Democrats and some Republicans.
I mentioned the failure of the establishment and leaders to take people seriously.
I covered the mockery of Christians and their values everywhere.

I talked about the absurdity of the claim Trump was wrong for Christians.
I listened to all their absurd arguments on….well, everything.
I dignified their bafoonery by just talking about their schemes and motives.
I tried reasoning with the unreasonable Left.
I pointed out ruling class elitists and establishment don’t get it – and don’t care.
I’ve given much more time an energy to it all than they really deserve.

Check-a-roony

As to conclusions, well, that’s a deep subject. If enlightenment was the age of reason, then we are now in the age of anti-reason. That’s the point: the left no longer wants to explain, or even defend, what they do.

They just claim it is their inherent right to force their political ideology on everyone. And it is a political ideology. The harder it is forced down our throats the better they like it. The people who preach tolerance actually do not want to get along with anyone. Conflict is their means and their motive. Have you ever heard people talk so much about revolution while they were actually in control?

Hope and Change

Change is coming, change happened; but the naysayers are still wallowing in their denial. For eight years they talked about hope and “change.” Now it finally happened and boy are they pissed. We proved they really wanted no change at all, only total control.

Why didn’t they just say that instead of claiming to want change? Change you can believe in was total control, which is the only thing they do believe in. But total control does not require belief… only submission.

After the election, they are still campaigning only to overturn the results of the election. So they appeal to electors to overturn the results of the electoral college. They are never really satisfied, even when they get what they want. Or especially when they get what they want because then they just want more.

Red Scare

Hillary’s campaign and Democrats now complain about the influence Russia had in the election — or how much it hurt her. But then they claim Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million people. What is their point? So maybe they mean Russia hurt her electoral college path. Hmm, how’s that?

What about the Russiaphobia they spread about Trump? Do they care what effect that had? How about when Mike Morell, former CIA director, called Trump an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation? Do they really want to talk about the Russian effect? How about when they claimed Trump could not be trusted with the nuclear codes? But Hillary had a rogue server risking national security but they are talking about threats? Nuclear. The idea was to present Trump as a bigger security threat than Hillary.

What have we learned? As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Any means to their ends — or to clarify it, their means has no ends. Yet it is an incomplete list.

Now Michele Obama is out of hope, once again. No longer is she “proud” of America.
Fleeting pride didn’t take long. It makes me wonder what her hope was really in?

Feelings, “nothing more than feelings”:

[ABC]Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is well aware of my feelings about this, because I spoke to him directly about it.”

Obama declined to say how the U.S. planned to respond, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Obama believes in a “proportional response.”

President Obama, the guy who promised Putin more flexibility in his second term, now says he told Putin to “cut it out” on DNC and Hillary’s campaign hacking. He warns the cyber threat is real…like the Russian threat, Syria, ISIS, and a near-term North Korea problem — all second only to that immediate Climate Change threat. Check!

RightRing | Bullright

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