Cyber Statement

Statement by President Trump on the Elevation of Cyber Command

August 18, 2017

I have directed that United States Cyber Command be elevated to the status of a Unified Combatant Command focused on cyberspace operations.

This new Unified Combatant Command will strengthen our cyberspace operations and create more opportunities to improve our Nation’s defense. The elevation of United States Cyber Command demonstrates our increased resolve against cyberspace threats and will help reassure our allies and partners and deter our adversaries.

United States Cyber Command’s elevation will also help streamline command and control of time-sensitive cyberspace operations by consolidating them under a single commander with authorities commensurate with the importance of such operations. Elevation will also ensure that critical cyberspace operations are adequately funded.

In connection with this elevation, the Secretary of Defense is examining the possibility of separating United States Cyber Command from the National Security Agency. He will announce recommendations on this matter at a later date.

Through United States Cyber Command, we will tackle our cyberspace challenges in coordination with like-minded allies and partners as we strive to respond rapidly to evolving cyberspace security threats and opportunities globally.

 

Short and sweet? Trying to elevate my thoughts.

Washington, Media Cabal of Chaos

They are in a tizzy. Let’s look at the media. They say there is a false equivalency here and that there is/can be no moral equivalency with White Supremacists and Nazis.

First, Trump was not making a direct moral equivalency. But he suggested violence on both sides. Now then, the left’s great equivalency argument.

If they hate any moral equivalence, then why is the Left drawing a moral equivalence of KKK, Nazis, racists with Trump and his entire base? Why can they freely apply an equivalence by comparing and associating Trump with racists or white supremacists?

Now the Left (et al), including antifa, will apply these same protest tactics to anything tied to Trump they can — as if they are racist terrorists. There is a rally planned next week in Arizona. My bet is the Left is staging a major protest for that. They want to apply the same public hatred and resentment against supremacists at the moment, , onto Trump. Get it? Yeah, I smell what the radical left is cooking.

The media has called on any high level Trump administration officials to quit in a show of separation with Trump over his latest statements on Charlottesville. So they want to see mass resignations in the administration. If they can’t directly oust Trump at the moment, they want to shame Trump’s advisers and team into abandoning him. It is now a real part of their anti-Trump strategy. It is disturbing how this is pushed by mainstream media and CNN . This is not a few low-level rogue leftists.

As Trump shut down the manufacturing and business councils, this was one more shot at Trump. It all happens when Trump is on vacation. The left has been ramping up pressure against Trump for months. They want to turn public opinion against Trump when he is on vacation, and undermine support for his agenda. It really is how they think.

I’m calling this a back-door coup. Trump goes out the front door on vacation, and the left tries to storm the back door in a coup d’etat. That is by driving distance between administration officials and Trump. No, it is not going to work like that. But getting any resignation would be useful against Trump. They hoped for a mass show of opposition to Trump. That would set the table for Congress when they return.

Screw America and the people’s agenda, all that matters is the Left’s agenda.

All to show ‘no confidence in Trump,’ of course. Imagine if they did anything like that to Obama? The left wants to drive public opinion/sentiment down so that he cannot carry out anything. Dysfunction is the Left’s best friend. On a regular basis you can turn on news to hear them question if there is any public confidence at all for Trump? I know, but this is what they are doing. Then they pose the old fitness for office question to bolster the argument for the 25th Amendment.

Their latest useful item is Bob Corker’s criticism in questioning Trump’s competence, and stability, for office. Corker said Trump has not demonstrated that he understands the character of the nation. Get that? There is another trophy for the left to use in its war against Trump, along with criticism from McCain, Rubio, Kasich and now McConnell. The usual suspects. What can the left do with that? Just add it to their Russia boondoggle.

The American people are being screwed as usual, by the same people who have been doing it for years, but now on a different level. It’s on, a coup in motion against Trump.

Right Ring | Bullright

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

What’s in the news numbers?

Gee, you could have reversed those numbers under Obama. But I’m sure it would be even worse with the sycophant media. I’d like to help them out.

So given that I think there are some questions reporters need to be asking Trump:

What type of phone do you prefer?

What is your golf handicap? What’s your best score?

What is your favorite room in the White House and why?

What is your favorite meal in the White House?

Who is your very favorite late night show host?

What is your favorite singer?

Do you like boxers or briefs?

Do you sing in the shower?

What is your favorite monument on the Mall?

What do you want to be remembered for most?

What is your least favorite thing about the White House?

Do you ever send out for food? If so, what?

Do you ever use the balcony in the residence?

Do you use the theater regularly, and what movie did you watch last?

Who’s your favorite actor?

What is your typical morning like?

If you could change one thing in the White House, what would it be?

…. feel free to add your own inquisitive question. Inquiring minds need to know.

Ref: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

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 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

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.

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

Blocked and Rolled Media – Press

You know it’s a bad day for media when they have to report that they’ve been blocked by WH press dept.  You know,  this may be the kind of prohibition that I could get behind.

[NYT] WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and two other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer allowed in reporters from only a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend.

Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.

More: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Crying and whining media is offended. They ought to check their press privilege.

Get ready for Terrorists Lives Matter

Terrorists Lives Matter is now cranking up the protestors against Trump’s anti-terrorism Executive Order that bans and restricts travel from certain countries. From JFK to the Statue of Liberty, to the editorial pages, leftists take to protesting.

Gee, could it be a useable voting bloc? The professors of crisis are hard at work.

And the activist news media falls right in line to advocate for terrorism. Then they start with the “but this is a recruiting tool for ISIS” hogwash. Any hope that the left will wake up and see daylight is vastly exaggerated. At least they’ve been exposed for who they are. Don’t these people know that terrorism/terrorists have been extorting our laws for decades? No, they don’t care. But the left desperately tries to super-spin it as a gift to ISIS playing right into their hands

The people who advocated for Unconstitutional Executive Orders before, now defiantly protest legal ones. Even notable law professor Johnathon Turley said precedent of law is very much in Trump’s favor for his actions. That doesn’t stop the ACLU.

Suddenly Trump’s Executive Order causes the left to bend further for terrorists’ agenda. Yet we are the bad guys? Give me a freaking break. The word “resist” is now their slogan. Wow, instead of encouraging and welcoming terrorists into the country, the president tries to halt it and they cry resist. But we’re helping terrorists?

Hints of this came in December, when the black liberation groups honored terrorists like the one on OSU campus as victims. It seems like just name any anti-life issue or event and leftists can get behind and rally to it. And they’ll find a way to justify their support. Since everything is reversed now, they will support the tyranny of anarchy over the rule of law. Terrorists or shooters become victims and police become the problem. A border wall is offensive but illegal immigration is not. Anything opposing their agenda is called racism and condemned.

A two teir system has emerged. If you are an illegal “undocumented” alien, you qualify for special protections and immunities from the law. Whole cities now stand up and say they’ll go to any lengths to secure and protect illegals from the rule of law — even if they commit crimes. See, it is completely backwards. Problem after problem and issue after issue.

An entire city has to be inconvenienced and held hostage because of their agenda to support illegals. The hell with lawful citizens, special evolving protections need to be granted for law breakers and illegal aliens. And then they blame the root cause for their unlawful situation on the rest of America. How fair and just is that?

Before their favorite line sprouts from everywhere: as I have said over and over, it is not about “who we are” — it is all about who they (terrorists and Islamists) are.

What the heck, another week under Trump and another protest. I’d call that “winning’.

RightRing | Bullright

Game on: media goes scorched lie

It did not take media long, to uniformly do what they refused for eight years to do. I’m talking about calling the president a liar.

Nicholas Kristof actually asked CNN’s Don Lemon “what are you calling it here?” They both agreed that the proper official term should be “lie” to describe what Trump said on the crowd size. With that it has become normalized to call the president a liar.

That’s right, we know they refused every way to use, or even allow, the term lie to be used about Obama. It not only was wrong, but unjustified then.

Remember all the lies if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep it. If you have insurance this will not affect me. Illegals will not be getting Obamacare. Remember the not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS? What about the big lie on Benghazi that a video was the cause of “protests” which caused 4 Americans to be slaughtered while our government and officials went AWOL?

Or what about the recent lie that Obama’s administration was scandal-free for eight years. But it is now normalized, and highly encouraged, to call President Trump a liar. Not just voices on the margins but mainstream news organizations.

Kristof even points to NYT having a meeting to decide to use the term. And it only took them 4 days to whip out the Lie-card. CNN pulled it out the day after inauguration. The most trusted name in news lulled it right out. Now all the media can agree.

Truth is media have been calling Trump a liar all along. Just that now as president they can call him a liar, sort of gives them a real thrill. It probably also thrills them to freely use the term now when they were so adamant against using it on Obama.

In September 2016, NYT said:

As the Times gets more comfortable with the “L” word, it will be interesting to see whether other news outlets do the same.

But then, to the media, this is war. Any means to defeat Trump are acceptable, including twisting every statement and lying about him. Of course they will excuse this saying that is how Obama was treated, but it wasn’t .And they wouldn’t stand for that treatment of Obama. Since it is Trump, they can savor every opportunity to use the “lie” word.

And, well, he was already called “illigitimate” by a sitting, senior congressman a week before he was sworn in. Lie or liar just has that extra zing to it.

Remember the good old says when liberals analyzed every use of the the term lie down to some politically correct sludge?

These were the same people propelling the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie about Brown and Ferguson. Remember they had those on location reports saying “mostly peaceful protests”.

RightRing | Bullright

First WH Press Conference under Trump

Do not attempt to adjust your TV, there is no problem with your set. This is an actual press briefing from the White House, do not be alarmed!

Since media has been so used to being spoon-fed their talking points from the Press room — speaking that liberal code language they’re all versed in — an actual, real press briefing is so out of the ordinary. The WH may add press passes for four Skype connections.

Obama’s old system will be exactly reversed: scripted talking points will come from hostile media in an attempt to put up a united front against the WH. That is backwards from the top-down flow, Obama model from the White House that successfully tried to manipulate news coverage. Just like darling sycophants, they followed in lockstep.

Obama, when leaving, left his instructions for how toughly media should cover Trump — knowing full well how his WH press corps treated him. Both Obama and press/media had gotten so used to their cozy relationship. Of course they did not want that to change. Try to imagine what a press briefing under Hillary Clinton would have looked like, complete with cake and all the party favors. And they could safely ignore their job, once again.

Darkness can’t understand the light

As the Inauguration came and went, sliding into the sunset, the media took to their standard talking points. (now as old as some redwoods in CA) “Dark.”

So they wasted no time applying their favorite term to Trump’s inaugural address, “dark”. I thought it rather uplifting and encouraging myself. Well, what does it matter what most people thought of his speech, while liberals scramble to define it? Even their adjectives are old — as old as darkness itself.

All of a sudden everything is dark. All of a sudden it is a divided nation. What has Obama done for a divided nation? He caused it then ran off the stage, only to crawl back on as the nations Chief Critic. His self-serving lectures only added to the division. Divided yes.

As the song says, “Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around.”

Baby, you keep knocking on my front door
Same old line you used to use before

But the left has it exactly the other way around. Darkness is their cause.

How about that darkness?

John 1:4- (KJ21)4 “In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Is it any wonder we have division in the world?

John 3:1 “9And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.”

Job 24:13 “Others have been with those who rebel against the light; They do not want to know its ways Nor abide in its paths.”

Darkness does not comprehend, but dark is an epidemic on the left. What has been pretty dark is the last eight years of ignorance and failed leadership. It became a dark reality.

When anyone talks about Obama’s Presidency, we are called dark. Supreme irony.

And what’s been dark is the media. They did their best to paper over a dark reality. Media became a tool to justify that dark reality. And now they portray darkness everywhere.

RightRing | Bullright