Obama, Deep State covering its trail

So the Obama effect is still in full swing. He added another layer to the obstruction.

Judicial Watch: Obama NSC Advisor Susan Rice’s Unmasking Material is at Obama Library

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that the National Security Council (NSC) on May 23, 2017, informed it by letter that the materials regarding the unmasking by Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice of “the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team” have been removed to the Obama Library.

The NSC will not fulfill an April 4 Judicial Watch request for records regarding information relating to people “who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.”

The agency also informed Judicial Watch that it would not turn over communications with any Intelligence Community member or agency concerning the alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election; the hacking of DNC computers; or the suspected communications between Russia and Trump campaign/transition officials. Specifically, the NSC told Judicial Watch:

Read more: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obama-nsc-advisor-susan-rices-unmasking-material-obama-library/

Yet media questions if Trump obstructed justice? That’s crazier than crazy.

The Gangsters’ Beat

There was a time when mob bosses were the bad guys and the FBI were considered the good guys. One was supposedly the answer to the other — guess which?

It’s sort of different now that an FBI Director acts more like a mob boss than a good guy. These days, everything seems upside down or inside out.

So it was yesteryear that, despite any current problems, the FBI usually enjoyed a degree of integrity and credibility even when approval waned for other government.

There also was a time the Department of Justice stood for nonpartisan justice, not for another political branch of government. It retained its reputation by remaining objective. Gone, under Obama, are those days. Likewise with the FBI.

Every department in government was politicized under Obama. If it was not radically ‘activated’ by the Left, it wasn’t for lack of politicization. It probably was just yet to be sufficiently proven in public.

Under Obama, the lines were blurred between the gangsters and government officials. The latter had an Omerta and both is a Cosa Nostra — “our thing”. Black Lives Matter and the radicals had a revolving door to the White House. Racists were in charge of racism.

Obama wanted to put on his shoes to march with protestors. When they chanted pigs in the blanket, the White House and Department of Justice were silent. Then cops were killed. But the Dep. of Cosa Nostra only cared about forcing mayors and police to sign consent decrees. Any shooting by a police officer was scandalized to ignite riots and usurp police departments, which provoked no reaction. Wait, the response was cops were told to stand down as violence rose.

Then the Department of inJustice handled the Clinton investigation with FBI carrying its water. (Mob rules) Surveillance rises and there is no leak or outcry. No one was on the people’s side. Feds and DOJ were conveniently locked into their political cocoon.

In comes Trump and when leaks occur, there is no investigation or will to find them. Trump complains about surveillance and leaks so they deny it, ignore him, or feel a reflexive need to correct him. Trump cannot tell the Washington cartel or Cosa Nostra what to do. No, they can’t have that. Wise guys revolt or break windows.

RightRing | Bullright

Making Common Cause With The Enemy

Here’s a subject that has irritated me for decades, so I suppose this is a good time to say it. Nothing irks me as much as someone making common cause with the enemy.

Sure, there may be some names for it depending on situation and context but no matter what it is called, it is a repulsive concept to me. Where have the loyalists gone? This overall theme could apply to party impersonators, traitors, terrorists, anti-American leftists, Marxists. revolution advocates. And the reasons could be numerous.

Deep Purple had a song “Mistreated” with the opening lyrics:

“I’ve been mistreated, I’ve been abused
I’ve been struck downhearted, baby, I’ve been confused
Because I know, yes, I know I’ve been mistreated ….

I’ve been losing my mind.”

That’s sort of the impression I get about these sell out people and what they do. A perfect example of what I’m talking about is how the Left turns to celebrate a terrorist. As if terrorism had some point of wisdom if we’d just listen enough to it. Well, I don’t know how much further down the road you can go? Listening is quite enough, it seems to me.

Of course one can make excuses for being anti-American, sedition or treason too. And they do invent some whoppers. I suppose, like Obama, you could think there is some cultural reason for what terrorists do: education, poverty, grievances or the way they were treated that somehow excuses, if not justifies, the terrorists’/organizations’ actions. Obama pointed to Crusades to counter modern criticism of Islamists.He acted like there are no religious qualifiers for terrorism at the same time, compounding his error.

Look no further than a holiday parade for the Left to trot out its heroes.

Now the left picks a leader of the terrorist group that Obama commuted out of prison to host, as grand marshal, a Puerto Rico Day parade in NYC. Well, words escape me. It is not that they are ignorant and don’t know what they are doing. They do know, they just have rationalizations for it. Again, to make some point. ‘Maybe we need to listen to these terrorists?’ Please! It also says a lot about endorsees who march with terrorist sycophants in that parade, like the socialist and revolution-pimping Mayor De Blasio

Oscar Lopez Rivera, [is] a leader of the Puerto Rican terrorist organization known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN.

“This is a historic moment because we are seeing convergence and a momentum on the campaign for Oscar that really gives me a lot of hope and inspiration,” [City Council speaker], Viverito said at a press conference.

When you go down that road, you lose your soul. A piece of you dies that you cannot get back. There is no therapy that will heal it. There are no fixes. And once you do go there, you are stuck, like it or not, in that fog of backbiting treason for whatever reason.

Terrorists, on the other hand, are loyal to the radical nature of what they do. Vengeance, political motive and hatred are their means. But they feel no allegiance to this country.

Treason is pretty much the same. It’s a one way street with few off ramps. That brings us to Leftists. They seem to have a thrill for it, rationalizing all kinds of self-serving reasons for ati-Americanism or treason as a truth expedition, or nobility. Recently, Obama called his Syrian red line detour “courageous” while getting a JFK award. Obama was known for asking the Defense Department to draw up plan options only to reject them all. Nothing fits when you really want to take no action. So why create a red line or call for plans then? Well, maybe to cover for a lack of will.

Unlike the popular misconceptions, making common cause with the enemy — be it in politics, ideology, nationality, terrorism etc — does not take courage, heroism or integrity, it takes traitorous actions. Those are usually based in some self-interest. But noble, redeeming qualities they are not. Though one can take pride and satisfaction in it.

RightRing | Bullright

Goodnight Obama

Let’s recap tor the memory-challenged.

Published on Sep 29, 2016

Dr. Jerome Corsi reading new parody book “GOODNIGHT OBAMA” celebrating President Obama’s departure from the White House on January 21, 2017.

Every time Captain Zero rears his head is a new reason for another reading.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Winners and Losers of the week

Fox heavyweight Charles Krauthammer has interestingly called special counsel, Robert Mueller the winner of the week. His loser was McMaster. It’s all in how you see it.

NRO – National Review – had the story:

Charles Krauthammer named H. R. McMaster his “loser of the week” due to his damaged reputation, and then he explained why the winner of the week was Robert Mueller:
My loser: H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser. On the night of the report of Trump spilling secrets to the Russians, he was one of several trotted out to say the story was false. The next day, he is contradicted by Trump who said he was within his rights to say what he said, implying that he did say it and the story was true. McMaster holds a press conference the next day, where he had to reconcile the irreconcilables. It was a sad sight for a man who spent decades establishing a reputation for integrity and consistency.

My winner is Robert Mueller, who is going to be the chief investigator for the Russia probe. He is now the man who is in charge who has a mandate to investigate essentially anything and is politically untouchable, cannot be fired. Technically he can; politically he can’t. He’s the most powerful man in Washington.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447818/robert-mueller-russian-probe-special-counsel-most-powerful-man-washington

 

If Mueller is the latest standard, allow me to write the new definition for Webster’s:
Winner in that you get an unlimited appointment with an unlimited mandate, and then get get to move your entire law firm into it. – Winning.

And winning is when your own conflict of interest is irrelevant or ignored unanimously by your peers.

My loser of the week has to be Obama, who was instantly driven further into exile by Trump’s new trip to Saudi Arabia. The country that could not be bothered to roll out the red carpet treatment for Obama is quite relieved that he is gone, and definitely not missed by the Saudi government.

It became even more clear after the arrival how much Obama was despised, a bright red carpet and reception for Trump. It seems to take a real bad thing to recognize a good thing.

Also big losers are those Democrats, media, race baiters and haters who are left in Obama’s vacuum to defend his lousy legacy of lies. Losing.

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

Obama: Profiles In Lies

Let’s get this straight: the guy who lied about Bengazi, lied about Obamacare — just to get it passed — who promised Putin and Russia more flexibility after his last election, (when he’d no longer be accountable to voters), who rejected accountability, the guy who voted present in Illinois on all the tough votes — Obama.

That guy deserves a Profiles in Courage award?

“It is my fervent hope, and the hope of millions, that regardless of Party such courage is still possible. That today’s members of Congress regardless of party are willing to look at the facts and speak the truth, even when it contradicts party positions.

I hope current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential; but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable.”

The “vulnerable” – unless, of course, it is babies or life in the womb who deserve abortion. And call that “social justice.” too. You channel that courage so well, Obama.

Was it for courageously meddling and intervening in Israel’s election, in Egypt’s election, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, refusing to call it Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Obama, the guy who lacked a strategy to deal with ISIS, who called them a JV team. The guy who drew a red line and ran away from it. The guy who wore the race card on his lapel to provide immunity from criticism. The guy who only wanted positive reports back from our military operations. Courage, expedience… he lectures Congress?

Those courageous feats, and more, earn him the Profiles in Courage Award from the JFK Library. The words Obama and courage do not belong in the same paragraph.

H/T to the Guardian

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

The Trauma From Obama

As the media is all about analyzing Trump’s first hundred days with an accusatory eye, I thought it was time to take the temperature of the country. That’s putting it mildly.

I like the medical analogy with America as the patient. So we elected Obama, whether you want to look at that like contracting a chronic illness or severe injury is beside the point.

It’s more like we suffered some ailment that grew progressively worse over the 8 years Obama was in office. Not enough care or attention was given it; in fact it got none. Then, since the election, and more recently, we were treated to a parade of opposition.

I finally diagnosed into his second term that it seemed America was in Trauma — becoming a slave to its condition. You knew it wasn’t getting any better and watched it get worse. After the shock wore off there was still a lot of trauma. So “no drama Obama” caused a whole lot of trauma.

Right into Trump’s inauguration that Obama trauma continued. One thing I’ve learned from people who studied the subject is the body does not heal itself fully while it is in trauma. And if you know anything about x-rays, they cannot get real clear pictures of something with so much trauma around it.

So we had to shake off that trauma from Obama. Not easy. He had infected every part of the nation, from one end to the other, and divided the country by every measure possible. He also politicized about every part of government. No wonder we were in that state.

Even when Trump came into office, it was immediately obvious there were Obama loyalists, hangers on, and Deep State opposition almost everywhere. Leftists began a stampede of protests. Democrats promised to oppose anything and everything.

Yet here we were still a traumatized nation. reluctant to provide us any relief. Obama’s loyalists came out kicking the injury, reviving the pain at every opportunity. It’s hard for one to deny the state we were in under Obama. The first step would be to rid ourselves of the trauma to let healing begin.

However, can you really ever heal from something as traumatic as Obama’s legacy? I guess you would also have to talk to abuse victims to examine that part. And yes, it is possible to be in trauma while also being abused.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s preface, in the unspoken

While Obama is still drafting his book, I’ll practice my satire in writing what should be his preface, if only someone slipped him a dose of truth serum. One thing you can count on is that his finished excuse-a-log won’t look like this. (unless you read between lines)

To the reader

After wearing the nom de plume of President of the United States for eight years like no one else ever– because I’ve always been sort of confused about my real name anyway — I feel I owe it to the people, who had the pleasure of putting me in that office, to tell them how right they were to bestow their blind allegiance in me.

They, and you the reader, will be eternally the better for it. Always keep believing.

No longer being able to use that particular POTUS title will not stop me from showing the same arrogance and narcissism that I always… well, that got me this far.

To prove how correct I am, my first big speaking engagement is set at 400 thousand, and the price will only go up from there. My book deal commanded an historic 60 million for my and Michele’s books. And what a bargain they got. I feel obligated to tell you in case you were surprised at the size of the number. I’m projected to be on course to being worth about 250 million in 15 years — by conservative estimates.

It was always my opinion that I should tell you what I think you need to know. And being that I have been entrusted with the sole liberty to write the history of this country, everything else should be ignored. You also should really appreciate the modest price of this book because only I know how much I spent creating it.

Enjoy.

Now that I think of it, his version of murdering the truth will probably be far worse. But his sycophants will lap it up because to admit his allergy to the truth, at this point, destroys the gigantic myth of his entire legacy.

RightRing | Bullright

Susan Rice’s road to fortune

I would like to know why Susan Rice hasn’t been unmasked the same way she did others, like was done to Michael Flynn? Where was all the vetting information on Rice?

She was famous as the go to liar for hire under Obama, a job that paid political dividends but the salary wasn’t close to 7 figures. How come more attention hasn’t been on her, I mean aside from scandals she was instrumental in?

So how did she go from a nest egg of 20 million to 50 million in 5 years? Inquiring minds would like to know. Measly government and a UN diplomat salary doesn’t pay that well. Great work if you can get it, eh?

Rice only spent a couple years in middle management in the private sector. Other than that she’s been “all in” in politics and government — or public service as they like to call it.

So make 30 million in around five years? I thought only Clintons could do that.

See unmasking on Kevin Jackson’s The Black Sphere

Kucinich and Marxist left up to same old agenda

Occasionally I have to turn back to old reliable sources for greater information. Ones that have, for me, proven over time to be accurate. Take Accuracy in the Media, for example.

Fox Commentator in Bed with Kim Jong-un

by Cliff Kincaid on April 12, 2017 | AIM

The Epoch Times newspaper is currently running an editorial series called “The Dead End of Communism” that includes a detailed discussion of the diabolical, even Satanic, roots of Karl Marx, the father of communism. Looking at his writings in detail, the authors document how his goal was “to enact a sort of vengeance against heaven.” Contrary to his “progressive” profile, Marx hated humanity and life on earth. His appeal was that he promised a heaven on earth. But it turned out to be hell for those living under it.

Communism has killed more than 100 million people, and millions more are at risk of death. The people of South Korea and other countries are currently in the crosshairs of Communist North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The communist ruler, Kim Jong-un, has even threatened America with a nuclear attack.

The North Korean nuclear weapons program was assisted by President Bill Clinton’s administration, in the name of stopping it, and the Obama administration did little to contain it. It’s likely that former President Barack Obama informed President Donald Trump about this growing problem, and that this helps explain why Trump has been so concerned, even preoccupied, with the North Korean nuclear threat since he took office.

Of course, the North Korean regime could not survive without the assistance of its communist neighbor, China. So communism is not itself dead. It is very much alive and a real threat. […/ see]

Read more: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-commentator-in-bed-with-kim-jong-un/

 

Photo: Twitter

Absolutely, the old Dennis Kucinich is up to his tricks again. Occasionally you get a clip of him sounding reasonable on some issue or other.

But then reality invades when you see what he is doing and passionate about. There can be no doubt what his agenda is and who’s side he is on.

Still, he uses the banner of peace as cover for his real political agenda — as usual. Except now they have made him a Fox News contributor, telling me even Fox either fell prey to his politics, or never new his real political bent — much less the “peace” one.

Taking A Long Walk With Stupid

If you are expecting a self-deprecating apology piece here, you might be disappointed.

My current theory, which I will try to prove, is that when you post a few thousand things on the internet, you are entitled to make a couple stupid things. Seems like that should be a certainty. I’ll just amuse myself by taking a walk down that road.

I’m not sure yet what the ratio is, for example 2 per thousand or five or whatever, but there must be some scientific number that could be applied to it.I suddenly noticed that I may be seriously short of my quota and will try to catch up on it.

With a healthy dose of imagination and lack of reality, I’ll give you a glimpse of what passes for stupid. The rest is up to your judgement.

I will attempt to leave truth behind because, hey, you cannot do stupid too well without a fair denial of reality at certain points.

We came through what is declared as an unprecedented election that no one could have predicted or expected. Then comes the realm of filling the role people elected him for.

Post election, about the only thing we heard a lot about is Russia. If you were one who could not find Russia on a map before the election, I bet you at least can now. If you didn’t know anything about this strange (apparently) unexplored place on earth, then you were in for a real treat in 2017.

I’ll take stupid for 500, Alex.

Hey, how many people know the presidents or leaders of countries around the world? But now we all know who is president of Russia. Even the dumbest liberals do. (Boris Yeltsin not so much) He’s probably better recognized than Oprah Winfrey.

But then that is the beauty, you don’t have to know anything else — and nothing is required — only that Putin is in control of Russia. And that probably is not changing anytime soon. You don’t have to know their political system or their policy on any issue. What is Putin’s world view? That’s irrelevant, again.

If you follow the mainstream media coverage, one thing you probably have learned in this adventure is that Putin is Right-wing and his political platform is “conservative.” There can be little debate about that, they tell us. Anything else must be wrong or a lie.

Its’ enough to know that Russia is evil and Putin is their leader. Well, that about sums it up. No need to clog up brain cells with any nuance or moral equivilance of Russia to our own country. That could cloud the matter.

It’s not just for foreign policy. It’s a home game too.

Now that I have a craving for stupid, why not go all out and say that actively defying federal law makes sanctuary cities safer? Add to that the more illegals you can bring in — to protect at the expense of others — the more safe that community will be.

I made mistakes and even been stupid before, but I don’t think it ever reached this level.

While I am drinking the stupid juice, I should make a judgement about the Trump administration. Normally the beginning of a presidency gets a honeymoon period. Now I see this president not only will not have one but that in even a shorter time he will have to accomplish everything he said he would do. That’s hardly too much to ask. And he should also have to fix all the problems created and festering for at least eight years. That’s fair.

And then, let me try this for stupid: just say all the things that Obama was not challenged on for eight years, how about we challenge and hold the new president accountable for all that? Being no one had the guts to do that before, lets all feign righteous indignation over all the problems we turned a blind eye to for 8 years — while whistling past the graveyard.

Speaking of whistles, maybe we can now reward and pat so-called whistle blowers on the back when we couldn’t even encourage any under Obama, since that concealed the flood of corruption and politicization which went undeterred.

Being stupid now, I almost forgot the central tenant: we need to pound the podium at every chance to push impeachment. No, there aren’t enough votes but repetition equals reality. At least get some indictments now, which we couldn’t dare have under Obama’s Legacy of Lies,

There’s a new doctrine: elections do have consequences, i.e. denial and impeachment.

To complete my trip to Stupidville, I must rely on mainstream media and trust them as the sole information source. Their objectivity really impresses me. And if in doubt, when questions do arise, I can always count on former Obama mouthpieces to clarify them.

I also see I need to trust the FBI and intelligence, including the deep state, in what remains of the administrative state to keep everything running smoothly. Yeah, let me put all my trust in that despite what Trump attempts to do. How helpful are they? Fortunately for us, we didn’t need them, the dissent, or whistle blowers in the last administration… but times now have changed. Investigations are now heroes.

And with classified information and intelligence being spread across 17 intelligence agencies, at breakneck speed, they should be quick to point out all the flaws in real time. Having that whole cabal trying to “Factcheck” reality saves on revision later. Let’s just distort reality right from the beginning.

Now that I really look at it, maybe this stupid thing is just not my cup of tea, even for a temporary stint.

RightRing | Bullright

Let’s just call her ‘Spreadsheet Suzie’

Report: Susan Rice Ordered ‘Spreadsheets’ of Trump Campaign Calls

by Joel B. Pollak4 Apr 2017 | Breitbart

President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign aides during the last election, and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.

The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by blogger Mike Cernovich and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides’ names to be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. The alleged “unmasking” may have been legal, but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the aim of leaking them to the press.

At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News compiled the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking — all based on mainstream media reports — the mainstream media dismissed the story as a “conspiracy theory.”

Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of the Obama administration’s alleged surveillance continue to emerge.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/report-susan-rice-ordered-spreadsheets-trump-campaign-calls/

Oh no, nothing to see here, media can go back to sleep. Spreadsheet Suzie’s got this!

More on another Breitbart article on Rice’s interview with Andrea Mitchel (lovefest)

“I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would.”

Rice: “I can’t get into any specific reports … what I can say is there is an established process.”

Well, so there’s an “established process” for surveillance, I take it?
And Spreadsheet Suzie was right on it.

Susan Rice center of Unmasking-gate

Washington Free Beacon

Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, reportedly requested on several occasions the identities of “masked” U.S. persons in intelligence reports linked to President Trump’s transition and campaign. The revelation contradicts Rice’s past comments on March 22, when she claimed she knew “nothing” about the intelligence reports.

White House lawyers discovered Rice’s dozens of requests last month, during a National Security Council review of the “government’s policy on ‘unmasking’ the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally,” Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported Monday, citing U.S. officials.

But Rice, who Newsweek once called Obama’s “right-hand woman,” denied during a PBS interview last month having any knowledge of the intelligence community’s alleged incidental surveillance of Trump’s transition team.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/flashback-susan-rice-said-i-know-nothing-unmasking-trump-officials/

Why does that make perfect sense?

The person who in 2012 told every major news network that a video caused the Benghazi attack. Obama’s Legacy of Lies’ right-hand deceiver.

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

Defending the Indefensible

I’m almost amused by the political dialogue — to use the term loosely — of the left these days but if one thing sums it up, it would be defending the indefensible.

They apply those talents to Obamacare. What is there to defend? It is a total mess even for doctors and healthcare professionals, and prices are going through the roof. But if anyone can defend that it would be Democrats or the liberal left. Calling that a success is sort of like calling the burnig of Rome a strategic victory.

It isn’t the only place they’ve applied their expertise.They defend Obama’s sham legacy, his leading from behind foreign policy. He doubled the national debt….. “winning!”

Finally, Trump has taken the opportunity to say he was left a big mess all over. That was a strange way of securing Obama’s legacy. Now that Trump elegantly points that out, shrieks come from thhe heckler section. Dare he say that? Mess is an understatement.

Remember Obama’s doctrine was “don’t do stupid shit!” Apparently they didn’t follow their own doctrine. Unless fertilized evil was their idea of smart?

The Democrat party is in a scorched-earth campaign to deny the effects of the last 8 years, and to defend the entire scandalous, evil hole called Obama’s legacy. But it was a pretty big giveaway how bad it is when their biggest claim was Obama had a scandal-free administration for eight years. And Valerie Jarrett echoed that across liberaldom.

Leading from behind and “don’t do stupid shit” being pillars of that tenure. If it looks like and quacks like a duck, guess what? It ain’t a pig. Besides, there isn’t enough lipstick to cover this mess. But who’s trying? How quick their perspective changed from a yellow brick road under a rainbow; to a black plague in every corner with red-alert problems everywhere, just as he leaves. They can complain about leadership now.

On one hand they’ll be defending, on the other they’ll be condemning everything, everywhere. Their hope and change turned to Mope and Complain.

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] 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.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright