Dem Aliases Running Wild

I’ll take Dep of Injustice for 500… who is Elizabeth Carlisle?

Tea Party

Lynch’s code name was Elizabeth Carlisle.

Kim Dotcom’s reports not only show that the emails were forwarded to Lynch’s Elizabeth Carlisle account, but that a Twitter account bearing the name Elizabeth Carlisle regularly posted anti-Trump, pro-Hillary Clinton articles.

The use of aliases seems to have been common in the Obama White House. Lynch’s predecessor, Attorney General Eric Holder, used a grand total of three aliases during his tenure.

While using fake news is not a crime in and of itself, it does set off alarms when one considers the various malpractices, and possible violations, that Lynch currently stands accused of.

Read more: https://www.teaparty.org/breaking-loretta-lynchs-secret-identity-exposed-criminal-257117/

What is it with democrats and all their aliases? And these people are honestly worried about Russian “bots”? I wonder if her alias persona ever interacted with Carlos Danger?

Swamp Busting: a new national sport

I feel like I am in a modern sequel to Cool Hand Luke. “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” In fact, communication as we know it is not working. Like the Tower of Babel, language is being deliberately confused except not for any good reason.

Genesis 11:5 “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

But here liberals are deliberately confusing the language to obfuscate the truth about what they are doing. And it is not a noble endeavor. The deception is part and parcel of their agenda to deter the law, justice and is pretty much their entire agenda.

Actually, the voting booth process doesn’t seem to be working either. When a person wins, his opponents feel entitled to take over claiming victory and pushing the ‘winner’ out of the job. We must get used to the new rules. Sort of a right of loser ascension — if you can. So the real winner is the loser, get it? The two problems go together, rules and language.

How is that our process?

Now when a person loses a presidential election, the consolation prize is that all pending investigations or charges are dropped. How is that right? How is that equal justice for all? Why should someone get off the hook for losing an election? Bernie and his wife are trying to apply the same rule — call it an entitlement right.

So let’s write that right into Article II; section 1 — Loser’s Rights.

Needless to say, the same entitlement right to immunity shall also apply to the DNC, or party apparatus that lost. Got that? Sure, it is perfectly logical then that the scandal which swept up not one but two DNC chairs, and their candidate, should be exempt from any investigation. It’s just not fair that they even have to answer questions about it.

Even those IT guys who were working for it shall get an exemption — at least so far. Are we going to have to repeal this law they seem to be asserting to get to the bottom of it, and hold those accountable who engaged in this activity? Maybe so, if I can just find it first. It’s called the “but Hillary lost law” or the “but Hillary is not the president exemption.”

Language has no interpretation; or language can be interpreted any way you want.

To the best of my knowledge, I thought we were going to drain the swamp not expand it. But the people now positioned — or embedded — in the White House seem hell bent on keeping the Swamp thriving and fertilizing their Deep State roots. Drain = “pump it up.”

And those Obama or Clinton holdovers, who I thought are a major problem, and a source of leaks, are now being enshrined into the new administration. Particularly into the National Security Council, thanks to a Trump appointee. Say what? Call me baffled. I know it is not on Trump’s order but the vague open language of the winner is now liberally reinterpreted to the “protection of swamp creatures” — must be evolving language.

Worse, it seems said appointee has now taken over and has veto power over Trump people. Yeah, that language again must be causing the problem. Still, when Trump supporters point out our grievance, it is interpreted as an “attack on McMaster.”

Trump seems to be surrounded now by the enemy insurgency. Wait, I thought we were the insurgency? This is the Swamp insurgency. The Deep State has spread its tentacles as far as it can, right through the current White House as if it owned the Oval Office — which it doesn’t. The Swamp is not ceding ground but gaining it.

To further erode the fairness in draining the swamp, one of the chief offenders of the Obama administration in unmasking individuals (identifying them), Susan Rice, is now assured a permanent security clearance to classified information. Likely her future career has become dependent on it. Language must be the culprit. Are we seeing a pattern?

Words also get in my way, lately.

One sentence keeps on popping into my head at least a couple times a day. That is “I have never in my life seen anything like this!” But of course I haven’t, because it has never happened before. Period! One cannot go back in history because it is not there.

You would think with the new emphasis on the problems of Sanctuary Cities we need a change. But low and behold the Sanctuary cities — one and more to follow — are now suing the federal government to preserve their lawless activities that we must fund. Yet the people support a new change. But lawlessness is enshrined as the law of the land.

Sound like progress? It would if you were progressive. In fact, the steady leaking of information would sound like a wonderful “whistle blower” thing; rather than undermining a new sitting president, his agenda, and obfuscating the voting process of the people.

Welcome to the new language era where: winning means losing, losing means winning, wrong means right, loyalty means disloyalty, disloyalty gets accolades, doing what you promised is treason, and treason means respecting the will of the voters. Criminals have protected status and Drain the Swamp means create more Swamp Gas.

Stay in your own lane and respect the signs or boundaries, however you interpret them.

‘Swamp Busting’ may yet catch on. But so far it is still a quirky, little understood fad.

Right Ring | Bullright — what better anonymous source on The Swamp?

“All In” the Obama propaganda

This is one of the biggest statements of Obama apologists to validate his “legacy” of lies that still echoes across media in America.

” Improved America’s Image Abroad

With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years.

Favorable opinion toward the United States rose during Obama’s first term in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent, and have stayed high ever since.” – Washington Monthly

You’d have to give that one 5 giant Pinocchios. 10 of 15 countries surveyed? Really, that’s proof positive — 2-thirds, 66% of their countries surveyed. No sense in repeating the nonsense of this basic claim. It is debunked by flat history.

Anyone watching in the last 8 years, who wasn’t in a coma, can clearly tell you that is a lie, and that world opinion of the US suffered not improved. There were a whole lot of reasons for it. That is simply Obama’s claim, nothing more.

Even if it were true, it proves what exactly? Seems the world has funny reasons for liking us, like when they are rolling us or it is to their advantage. We should celebrate that?

I would bet, like his ballyhooed approval polls, that most of it is based on a personal like of Obama. Did countries, even in Africa, appreciate Obama lecturing and trying to force gay marriage on them? Leading from behind must have turned them on.

How about the countries where he meddled in their affairs and elections: Egypt, Israel, Canada, Russia? Then lighting the Middle East on fire, they must have loved that part? Or the refugee crisis he promoted across the globe. ‘Give us more, please.’

His severe bias against Christians was definitely a winner, with the Christian persecution he ignored. Love is in the air. Seems more like an abusive relationship with ‘we the people’ to me, but they probably liked that. When the world likes you, just consider the source. Then ask why? Brace yourself for the answers. So it didn’t take long to unlike us?!

Quote from Wa Montly as just one of many sources for the commentary.

RightRing | Bullright

MSM ignores any real news to beat the Russian Bear

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Caller

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

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

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

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


Read at Daily Caller

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

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

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

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

Guess what happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

What’s in a meeting?

…Billed as the most significant meeting in recent times?

A lot of built up anticipations. It’s what the Left and media do. The fallout.

A simple metaphor could be appropriate to set the stage for the Russian talk: Obama cocked the gun and team Trump is now trying to disarm the weapon, particularly on Syria. Another way you could look at it is: there is a three-alarm fire and the Trump administration is the fire department.responding. No matter what it takes to get it under control and put it out, there is major damage that cannot be avoided. Coming to terms with that view is necessary.

Two items lead: 1) mentioning the Russian meddling, 2) talk on cease fire in Syria.

So Syria is on the table as a major issue. Let’s remember how Russia got there, by way of Obama and an invitation. But now that Russia is there, let’s all talk about what to do and how to fix it. (some hubris) Even Ukraine, per any mention, is much the same.

Naturally, Putin and Russia would rather deal with — realistically or not — a marginal issue like Syria. There is suddenly talk of Assad leaving, at some point, and more future discussion. Of course, Putin seems willing to discuss that. (no surprise) Now that they are in there, they will have a controlling interest in it and the region — by propping up a vulnerable dictator. See the way it works?

The question now is do we play along by accepting those premises? Again, because it is centrally important, they are there by intervention and will benefit through their current involvement, in the aftermath decisions. It’s like having the arsonist stick around to help deal with the damage from the fire. You welcome his help. What he is doing there in the first place is dismissed as unimportant. That’s the strategy.

I am a bit of an ideologue on Russia. They aren’t really ideologues but opportunists.

Russia for its part wants meeting talks to be about distant side issues — important as they might seem — rather than dealing with the central concerns on Russia. Media assists on that. As long as Putin keeps the conversation about those marginal things he’s ahead. He can debate details or denials on those matters without touching his family jewels. So they have a bargaining chip they stole along the way. Assad, Syrian crisis, ISIS, refugees?

Yet here we are; what the left wants to talk about is elections. Our crown jewels seem to be on the table, or that is the appearance. Then media wants to control the interpretation of any results. Breaking through arbitrary barriers is a central key.

BTW: I forgot to add that the 3-alarm fire was called in and confirmed on 1/20/17.

RightRing | Bullright

Evil Obama clowns’ radical rabid strategy

Time for a situational evaluation. Obama is not gone, Even as his legacy is shrinking into thin air, he trots around as if he were a king. He pops up everywhere conspicuously to undermine Trump’s agenda and administration. Along with his perpetual criticism — something he has experience at, criticizing and undermining sitting presidents.

Obama’s former advisers have morphed into trolls across social media — including Fiction Ben Rhodes — to preserve Obama’s disappearing agenda, desperately trying to lay credit to anything good happening now. So the Shadow Government of Obama is now fully operational. He denies the past and the one president policy. He has no real legacy, he must steal one, or create one from thin air. Enter fiction writer Ben Rhodes to the rescue.

As Bill Clinton said about Obama’s campaign: “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” And it’s getting bigger every day. So many lies, so little time, so much to hide, so much to revise, so much to do — nipping at the heels of Trump.

The insults fly from everywhere at Trump, both personal and on his presidency. Something Obama never had. The opposition of the Resistance is in ful bloom, with the willing collaboration of media. The calls for impeachment have begun and they push the 25th amendment, something reserved for drastic circumstances. Another historic first.

But the left and Democrats’ desperation calls for drastic measures. So they attach the word unpresidential to everything Trump does: his Twitter, his speeches, his choices, his actions. Everything Trump does is called dangerous. Obama weaponized government.

However, what is truly unpresidential and unprecedented is Obama. The lying chameleon is on the loose and fully engaged in undermining the 45th president of the United States. He is unpresidential at every level, like he always was. What he is doing is unprecedented. He went straight on the road, armed with his expense account and vacation stipend, to travel the world on his campaign to undermine the current president, Trump.

What one president policy? One president at a time policy. The attacks and politics should stop at waters’ edge. Remember all that? Gone like the wind. But Obama won’t leave the stage. On Trump’s first trip, he went wheels up for the Middle East and they rolled out the attacks. Incidentally, Obama’s specialty was always going overseas to attack America and his political opponents. None of that was strange because it was normal under Obama. Yet they shunned anyone criticizing Obama, or fighting back. Press refrained from being critical anytime, especially when Obama went abroad.

But now that offshore targeting is the new normal. Yet it is now unpatriotic and unpresidential and unprecedented for Trump to say anything to defend himself or even criticize the press offshore. Obama thrived on offshore attacks. Media celebrated them.

Obama is trolling Trump around the world on the public stage. He seems to think he is still president that what he says still matters. So he talks to world leaders after meetings with Trump. He tells them his policies, which apparently Trump should be obligated to pursue, are the only option. Who exactly does he think he is? He cares nothing about America, and never did. He aids and abets our enemies, seeking to undermine the current administration any way he can. He is invested in America’s demise, as much as Putin.

At the very same time, his apologists come out to defend his operational strategy by saying he is reluctant to get politically involved in current policies. No, he is not reluctant at all; he is more anxious now than he ever was to talk about N. Korea as a threat, or other problems he left in his wake. He wants to be very involved. Who can tell him to back off? He cannot give up the podium. He refuses to let the current president do his job. Then his network of hacks are busy in the media and public stage criticizing him, as if they care anything about America or Americans.

Maybe he has too much time on his hands simply because there are no current investigations or special counsels in place for what he did, at every level? What we need is some form of accountability for it all. We really don’t need hearings, though, we need prosecutions. We need grand juries and indictments. We need hearings about stripping him of his privileges. We need these rat bastards to testify for what they’ve done.

 

Finally, we need to enforce the One President at a time Policy. Obama doesn’t seem to get it on his own. He always had problems about rules applying to himself. He always had to push the envelope of what he couldn’t do. So where is Congress to tell him?

Now on his second trip abroad, to the G-20 summit, they stage one great question about, what else, Russia and the elections. So Trump is attacked for responding to the question. Media later conflated world “diplomacy” with the way he answered the hostile press. They are two separate things. He goes to the G-20 Summit and all press cares about is Russia and the last election. He gives an excellent speech in Polland, mentioning Russia, but all they care about is Russia and the last election — “attack on our democracy.”

The press is attacking our democracy every day, denying the results of the people’s will, stomping down and mocking the people’s freedom of speech. Then they totally ignore the huge mess that Obama left us. No honeymoon… they want to steal the election victory from Republicans. Just act as if it didn’t happen. Then they want to impeach him.

But that’s okay, because Obama is still busy flirting around having personal meetings with world leaders, present and former: Trudeau, Merkel, Moon, Macron, David Cameron, and Matteo Renzi in Milan before slidinng into home-turf in Indonesia. Even NYT, libs paper of record, comfortably acknowledged, “One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Obama was trolling President Trump.” Why be forgiven for thinking it, that is what he is doing? Then they quickly added too that:

Mr. Obama has generally tried to stay above the political fray in his nascent post-presidency. But in these charged times, just breaking bread with a world leader can take on a political subtext. It is a tension his advisers recognize, and say they try to mitigate by holding get-togethers at Mr. Obama’s hotel and avoiding the trappings of leader-to-leader meetings.”

He’s really trying not to have these be platforms to weigh in on the issues of the day.” – NYT

No, he is not refraining from leader to leader meetings. He is making a point to go talk to them. For Pete’s sake, he is obviously and intentionally trying desperately to undermine Trump’s presidency. He is the first Presidential Troll.

Just last year, Obama had a completely different view. Obama wasted no time after election, on 11/14, saying ““there is one president at a time.” Then in December, at Christmas, the White House chief liar and adviser, Ben Rhodes, reiterated:

“On the president-elect, the first thing I’d just say is that there’s one president at a time. President Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, and we are taking this action, of course, as U.S. policy.” — Rhodes on Israel policy — Washington Examiner

I guess Obama now thinks having a foundation gives him license to operate with some presidential status he only wishes he had. But if they can pretend, certainly Obama can too. They’ll go along with Unprecedented, Treasonous and historic Unpresidential Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

A primer thought on Russia talk

No there is no plural to ‘talk,’ yet. Anyway, we come from different points. First off, one has to know Russia is listening to every public dialogue or conversation we may have. An open society does have its downsides.

Who cares what I think? I already read liberal egotists’ papers on how Trump should ‘proceed’. Arrogant, aren’t they, for people who got nothing done in the last eight years? Or have any thing of value to show for it.

Principles are different. We are generally concerned about benefits. Russia obsesses over opportunities. Those can be far apart. We see benefit, Russia sees opportunity. Having a namesake the “Art of the Deal” doesn’t quite translate the same way to this subject. In it, Trump emphasizes a benefit to each side as grounds for a deal. Russia fixates on opportunity in any given scenario — even chaos. Best to know that going in.

We, typically, want to benefit or appease both parties. That was the way it has been seen in the recent past. Face it, Russia rolled Obama. That has to change. It’s like “carrots and sticks” vs, shovels. Then libs’ election debacle, that matters to Russia?

Secondarily, economics is not a driving force to Russia’s policy. It is not an economic debate to them. Putin is not obsessed with, and has little use for economic principles. He’s always been rather bored with them. It was not Obama’s wheelhouse either. So there should be no illusions that this can be based on economics. Russia would have to see the appeal or opportunity for them, which escapes him now.

The liberals have been offering all these suggestions to the administration on what it should do. Helpful sadists. More dysfunctional crap. But agreeing on any basic groundwork for discussions? That’s the big question. Is it even possible? My doubts remain.

There is a small tactic to consider. Twice in the past months, both Lavrov and Putin have used humor. One was a smack down of Andrea Mitchel about manners. Funny. Turn that ‘no manners’ claim and joke back on Russia. It could be a humiliating tactic. Very useful. But a tactic cannot be a strategy.

RightRing | Bullright

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