Saving Sanity: a noble cause

Is a once a week rant too much to ask or expect for a blog? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The problem is not the lack of material but rather the sheer volume of it.

That also can lead to things like burnout, exhaustion, even suffocation in a sea of mud. Just saying. So silence is not golden but may at times be the only viable option.

Something has bugged me though ever since I have been doing this blog. It is the amount of humor we use and whether it is appropriate? I mean these are serious times, and does the humor contribute to the coarsening of culture? I’m not sure.

Well, blah blah. I remember a past Bible study over whether humor is bad thing or acceptable? See, there was a belief at one time that Christians should refrain from humor, certainly in Church settings. I think that might have fallen by the wayside, but was once a real issue. The point was humor diminished Christianity.

It took away the seriousness of issues. It was seen to some as an insult. We know some people, for many reasons, do not appreciate humor anyway. But on serious matters it was frowned on. It was thought a type of mockery that didn’t belong in serious debate or dialogue. Using it diminished one’s credibility.

Someone finally wrote a book explaining that humor was not wrong and listed examples of humor in the Old and New Testament. So one cannot ban humor in theory.

My issue with all this is how can you look around today and not have a sense of humor about things? That doesn’t mean you take issues less seriously….or does it? This is where rationality and sanity come in. A rational person is aware of the serious nature yet can still poke fun at the condition of society. It doesn’t diminish one’s sincerity, or an issue itself.

Sometimes humor is the only way — or one of the ways — people can cope or deal with a given situation. It can cover pain, or masque all kinds of personal emotion.

It is similar with some violence these days. You see random murders and people killed for no visible reason. One struggles with trying to understand why? As if we need to know why to make sense of it. Humor is different. Humor makes sense in a funny way. But we are struck at a murder that had no rational reason for it. That it keeps on happening adds to all those questions. We don’t know and may never know. Sometimes even the killer had no reason. This is where rational thought has a problem. We almost need to see why. And some people today are uncomfortable with just calling it evil. It bothers us and it should. We don’t want to lay a blanket excuse over it just to try to explain it. An excuse that may or not be true. And explaining evil may be excusing it.

Humor can punctuate events without tainting them — or at least intending to.

Does using humor on serious issues take away seriousness from them? Maybe it can; though attributing false explanations also takes away from them. We almost expect those. I question fairness in a lot circumstances and think of humor as a great equalizer. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Sometimes humor points out the absurdity. Sometimes nothing short of a punch line does it justice. (no matter how bad the event) I think we know that doesn’t mean the thing was funny or a joke. We don’t mean it is not serious.

Late night comics in recent years have gone to a whole different level. In fact, their humor has become the absurdity — and maybe even the thing that drives any of their jokes. And less, their jokes don’t seem to be funny anymore but their absurdity is obvious. Then for these intended jokes to be taken as fact or for mainstream political dialogue is another matter. Their absurd humor replaces political thought. It becomes mainstream opinion. This has been validated over and over since Trump took office.

Defamation of character?

They have basically turned Trump, or what he is about, into a joke. I get the joke part and we make jokes about Hillary. But that is different, no one loses sight of the seriousness of the threat she represents. We still understand all her real flaws. Still we use humor to poke fun at or take the edge off the hyper-serious nature — seriousness she imbues on herself. We don’t lose sight of the greater issue. The fears and concern so big that humor can be a coping mechanism because we cannot see or visualize the whole extent. It is beyond simple description — and breaks all past comparisons. So you see there is a difference. Their political objective is to reduce Trump to an absurd caricature

But these days the joke is the entire issue. The left turns the joke into reality, instead of vice versa. Humor is used as ridicule, and the left does ridicule as a political weapon well. In fact, the purpose of it is to bury or lose sight of the truth and reality.

See there is a proper purpose for humor as hyperbole. It is also a tool. It points out the error through exaggeration. Again, that is not to lose sight of the truth. It is not to try to turn hyperbole into literal reality. The Bible uses hyperbole for emphasis. The object is not to make hyperbole a fact. We are also supposed to know and see the difference.

But then when Trump uses hyperbole or exaggerates something, the truth slayers run out to correct any errors. Yet they have accepted their fictional character of Trump as reality. Trump, off the cuff, uses a lot of rhetorical tools. That is why the left likes it, they busy themselves pointing out any perceived inaccuracies. Funny how they don’t “factcheck” themselves or their depiction of Trump and coverage.

We are in an era when reality has no value to the left. Into that void they have put narrative, and perception has become their only reality. So when humor is applied, it is taken as perception — which it is — but then taken as fact or reality. The narrative rules and protecting that narrative becomes their chief mission. Humor is not humor, it is now reality. That narrative drives their politics, even moreso than they drive the narrative.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Dueling Sides, Strategic Craziness and Mission of Sedition

Anything talked about now involves speculation. So this is speculative. But I don’t mind talking about it in this age of fake news and fake narratives. Why not?

Press is making a big controversy over the spending bill coming in less than four days. What’s new? That is where the fact ends and their disingenuous strategy starts.

Look, under all this radicalism liberals are foisting on America, I don’t know what Reagan would do, I don’t know what George Dubya Bush would do? I am only glad we have Trump in the White House in this situation than say a Jeb or a Mittens.

Now a government shutdown looms and Dems are playing politics as usual. They’ve tied the DACA issue to the functionality of government. When they base the entire purpose of our government on the persistent whims of illegal aliens, where are we? They have admitted that this is their only political leverage. And, like dynamite in their hands, Dems cannot let it sit idle. They have to abuse it, even to scorched-earth ends.

This is a hostage crisis where radical Democrats are blackmailing our government and our national security — be it our military, southern border, security, or daily functions — all because of their radical political agenda.. It does teach us something though. This is what we have to expect. What won’t they do? Trump exposed it. I’ve been saying for years that these are hardcore radicals, as ideologically driven as the caliphate of ISIS. They will use any means to their ends. They spent 8 years politicizing all areas of government.

So I am grateful we have Trump instead of a wet noodle. We needed a disruptor. All Dems have left is to try holding our government hostage. Including the use of Deep State to do it.

With all this in mind, I am trying to find words to describe it in the State of the Union. The State is: Radicalized dysfunction? Thermonuclearized Constitutional meltdown?

So, the speculation is wide open to what they will do, how far they will go, who all they will hurt. Yet it is just the beginning for Democrats. This is how they negotiate by using government force. Coercion and sedition do have common alliances there.

They are well down the road on their Mission of Sedition. The only speculation is how far down that road they will travel at 90 mph, without touching the brakes?

You could compare Dems to leaches. They find the most important thing or event happening, or scheduled to happen, and attach their political strategy to it like leaches. These are the people who politicize everything and anything for their agenda. Let the speculation begin, though not without a basis for it.

Here is another fact to factor into any speculation. The fake media, led by CNN, has already branded Trump’s supposed “sh*thole” comments a “scandal”. Words are now a scandal. Wouldn’t scandal more apply to holding government hostage to illegal aliens, or boycotting the State of the Union Speech? That is something actually in the Constitution, not the words he uses.

Now it comes down to words, whether or not something can be done. Of course even that is a one-way rule. It doesn’t matter what they say. In fact, the more radical their language is on the left the better they like it. But for Trump, “he shouldn’t say that”… or he is going to start a nuclear war with his rhetoric. Nonsense, actually the left has been whistling past nuclear threats for a long time. They made fun of Dubya for how he said “nuclear” and attacked his words “axis of evil” as hurtful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Yet when there was a threat of incoming missile to Hawaii this weekend, CNN didn’t even originally report it. No, they were too preoccupied with anti-Trump, words and rhetoric, to interrupt it with a missile threat in the Pacific. By Monday, they spun around to rail against this false-threat as exhibit A in their attack on Trump’s competence. They literally worried about Trump’s words over a real-time threat. Once media gets a narrative on its tongue, reality is of no consequence. Imagine what they would do in a nuclear situation?

We’ve seen enough. We know how they operate. They chose the rhetorical side of some mad-man like “rocket man” over Trump. They take Soviet-style talking points over Trump. They worried about the Trump campaign looking for dirt on Hillary, while Hillary was actually neck-deep in digging dirt about Trump from Russian spies, a foreign agent and government (politicized) intelligence. See how this works?

Not only weren’t media like CNN concerned about a hypothetical incoming missile, they don’t give a sh*t about missile defense itself. When Obama told Medvedev to tell Putin he promised to be more flexible after his last election, they didn’t even sigh. Apparently they knew he was giving up the store but, like Obama, they didn’t even care. Now the word “shithole” offends their ears? That word sends a “signal” around the world.

That isn’t speculation.

What is there really to speculate about the way Democrats would handle any situation, including the loss of an election, or the fallout from a missile or nuclear strike? Blame seems to be all that matters — political blame that is — to the left, not the real consequences of events due to their ignorance. What is worse: the speculation about what they would/will do…. or what they have already done?

What they do now? The Dems have already blown up any playbook or rulebook. This is that strange eerie place that no one ever considered before. Is taking a nuclear hit better than having Trump in office? Is making friends with enemies like Kim Jong Un preferable over giving Trump an accomplishment? Is defending the Iran deal, and whatever treason was used in getting it, easier than defending America with Trump in the White House? Is shutting down government over border security just a natural choice to protect illegal aliens, for them? But maybe it is not really speculating what Democrats do now, or what they will do in the future. Maybe the script is already written, but no one is reading it?

Moreover, exactly what is the State of the Union at the present?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Coup Afoot

What’s a little coup between political enemies? But when we use the term coup the Left and media get so bent out of shape. Well, they always do when you point out what they are doing.

Treat ‘Mental Health’ Talk Against Trump Like The Coup Attempt It Is

‘Many lawyer groups have actually volunteered, on their own, to file for a court paper to ensure that the security staff will cooperate with us. But we have declined, since this will really look like a coup…’

By Mollie Hemingway — January 8, 2018 | The Federalist

In the second season of the TV show “24,” President David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert) is removed from office for failing to launch a war against three Middle East countries purportedly behind a nuclear attack on U.S. soil.

Palmer has reason to doubt his intelligence agencies’ assurances of who was behind it, and it turns out the attack was orchestrated by a cabal of business and military leaders who want to launch a war for personal gain. The means by which Palmer is removed from office during the 4:00-5:00a hour on Day 2 is the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a portion of which reads:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide… to the Senate and the…House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Palmer’s chief of staff explains, “it seems there are people, cabinet members, who question whether you’re fit to continue as chief executive.” The conniving vice president says in the cabinet meeting putting the president on trial, “What I intend to show is a pattern of erratic behavior since this crisis started.” Using half-true innuendos and rumors as well as deliberately false information, he convinces enough of the cabinet to depose Palmer. In other words, Palmer is the victim of a bloodless coup. …/

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/08/treat-mental-health-talk-against-trump-like-the-coup-attempt-it-is/

Good article, but a coup it is. They won’t stop for lack of success. They intend to keep at it. They got this far. So the convenient book by Michael Wolff fit perfectly into their narrative. Why is that? Because Wolff knows exactly what he and they are trying to do.

Wolff plans on having a key role. To even admit what the purpose and intent is validates exactly what it is. More like a Fake News Coup. A bloodless coup, but every bit as nasty otherwise. The book, conveniently timed as it is, confirms all Leftists’ narratives up to this point. Since Obama, belief has been everything to the left. Truth is not a factor. Listen to him, Wolff goes out of his way to confirm every slanderous claim and accusation they have made, like he is leading a parade. And garbage in equals garbage out.

Wake up America, you are missing a presidency

Imagine when a president says I hope he, a special counsel, is “going to be fair.” Well, something odd about that. This was Trump’s message in his latest NYT interview.

When a president has to hope that someone who is uprooting your current presidency and legitimacy in the office will be fair, we are in strange times. Expectations for fairness?

You get elected and then half the country tries to either oust you — drive you out in one way or another — or ruin your entire presidency and stop it from the first day. It’s a real shame which should disgust every person in the county.

Okay, if they oppose his policies or agenda that is one thing. But when it is an orchestrated coup and a shadow government forms, what place are we in? Trump was right to hope it is over soon that it is bad for the country. It certainly isn’t good in any way. When you just have to hope, it is more a matter of survival. Who will pay the tab?

Then the powers that be immediately concentrate on the next election as they destroy the here and now. Do you get the irony of that? They don’t care about the the present but only about the next election. So now they ignore the current presidency so they can elevate the mid-term congressional ones. Will they care about those results?

Right Ring | Bullright

Bombs Away… goodbye mosque

Well, in other news:

Trump Breaks Obama’s Rules And Bombs Mosque Killing the ISIS’ Entire Iraqi Leadership

Bright Stars

Obama’s old rules of Mosques being off limits is off the table. President Trump authorized an air strike on a mosque in Mosul, Iraq, which has wiped out the entire remaining Iraqi ISIS leadership. This comes as the organization collapses all around itself.

Read: http://www.brightstars.me/2017/12/18/trump-breaks-obamas-rules-bombs-mosque-killing-isis-entire-iraqi-leadership/

But think of all the IEDs and suicide missions it saved.

Rules Of Engagement = Destroy it! I’d say it was an extremely efficient use of a bomb.

Thursday Trifecta of Politics

Politics hit the trifecta Thursday. The left thought they were in paradise. But the joke or lesson is really on them — with any analytical thought.

First the details: Chief of Staff General Kelly was compelled to come out to counter the “empty barrel” attack from Congresswoman Wilson(Fla); President Bush’s speech in NYC; and Obama found his angry voice, again, campaigning for progressives in NJ and VA.

That on the heels of McCain delivering his salty attack on Trump, in receiving the Liberty Medal honor. (McCain had to use his honorable moment to attack others)

Kelly’s remarks from the White House were weighted and directed perfectly. Just the fact that he would have to come out to address this issue that media blew into a firestorm is a sign of our times. He complained of the lack of sacred tradition and civility.

Well, home run. But it won’t stop the left in a spiral dive into the gutter. Obama would never be treated this way, under any circumstances. Nor will it stop RINOS.

So Kelley’s remarks were very sincere compared to her diatribe.
But he alluded to the moral decay.

Wilson had even phoned in to “The View” to scream her hatred for Trump, calling the Niger incident Trump’s Benghazi. If she didn’t politicize it before by listening in on a White House call, she went all out on a live TV rant — leaving Megyn McCain almost speechless. She said she told the widow to give her the phone so she could “curse him out.”

One person left the audience with the sincerity of moral high ground. General Kelly.

Bush speech

The health of the democratic spirit itself is at issue. And the renewal of that spirit is the urgent task at hand.

And we know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy.

Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.

They are further complicated by a trend in western countries away from global engagement and democratic confidence. Parts of Europe have developed an identity crisis. We have seen insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.

America is not immune from these trends. In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs. The American dream of upward mobility seems out of reach for some who feel left behind in a changing economy. Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.

We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places,….

Clearly directed at Trump, and not just him but the people who elected him. I love how these guys all do drive-bys on the electorate. — especially when they don’t agree with the results of the election.

Demonizing isolation, for a guy who ran against nation building. And yes, loudly he bashes the nationalism, as if it is corrupted somehow. But it was this very nationalism that helped get him elected, not once but twice. (even though many of us questioned his record) Oh nationalism was great when it voted for him. But it’s bad when we saw what direction he was taking us — that not so subtle handoff to globalism, the New World order.

Of course, again a huge swipe at conspiracies. Say nothing about the current conspiracy theories against Trump. No, we know the ‘conspiracies’ he meant were on the right.

Finally, oop there it is: “Our governing class”. Where the hell does that come from? The global elitism people are sickened of, which causes his bitterness at our nationalism.

Obama speech

“What we can’t have is the same old politics of division that we have seen so many times before that dates back centuries,” the former president said.

He implied that some people in power are embracing outdated mindsets when crafting policy.

“Some of the politics we see now, we thought we put that to bed,” Obama said. “That’s folks looking 50 years back. It’s the 21st century, not the 19th century.”

The master of illusion and straw men comes out to remind us everything wrong with him and the past 8 years. He’s like a sideshow magician at the fair doing cheap card tricks to lure your attention, just to be disappointed.

That’s supposed to be a fastball attack on Trump but Obama perfected the art of division. That’s what he ran on. I still remember the drop down lists for all his groupie identities. Then there was the class warfare, anti-Christian diatribes, anti-American crap, attacks on the rich, pitting one group against the other. It’s his specialty. Now he rails against the division he built.Ask Dems, they’ll tell you.

Right Ring | Bullright

Big Picture, Big Story

After Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation comes this second installment.

I think this is a big story. And I think Trump was right that it is a big story, bigger than people know. Home run, we got us a story here.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

Rice denies engaging in improper political spying
BY: Bill Gertz | September 19, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a House committee this month she requested the identities of Trump transition aides that were hidden in sensitive intelligence reports to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

Rice testified before a closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Sept. 6 that she asked U.S. intelligence agencies for the names of Trump advisers to be unmasked in transcripts of communications intercepts.

Rice asked for names to be unmasked in a transcript of an electronic intercept involving a meeting between three senior Trump aides and a United Arab Emirates official who had traveled to the United States for an informal visit.

The three officials included candidate Donald Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; presidential campaign chief executive Steve Bannon; and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, according to CNN, which first reported on Rice’s closed-door testimony.

Details of Rice’s testimony on the unmasking of Trump aides were made public Sept. 14, quoting unidentified government sources, and included comments from members of Congress who did not dispute the closed-door testimony.

Rice’s disclosures before the intelligence panel appear to contradict earlier statements she made asserting that she had no knowledge of the unmasking of Americans, the process of identifying the names of Americans who are protected by privacy laws and who are incidentally spied on during sensitive foreign electronic intelligence operations. …/

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story. I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world,” Trump said, adding cryptically, “it’s a bigger story than you know.”

Rice’s testimony before the House committee is part of a committee investigation into allegations of improper intelligence gathering by the Obama administration, as well as Russian influence operations targeting the 2016 election.

“We know the unmasking investigation is moving forward, and that the intel committee has amassed a lot of information about it,” said one congressional official. “It seems like you had Obama officials doing this and thinking they wouldn’t get caught.”

Read: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-nsc-adviser-admits-seeking-trump-aides-identities-intel-reports/

Maybe we knew or heard most of that before. The difference is context. No, it isn’t in the reporting or events. It seems the momentum has changed. Now, with Rice’s testimony, it is hard to overlook the obvious: that there was some surveillance at Trump Tower and that the names were suspiciously unmasked around the events of the campaign. So there was a meeting with a Saudi prince, which supposedly tripped Rice’s trigger to have to know everyone who was there. Or that is her excuse. Why? Your guess.

They only know everyone that was there, who is masked, because of surveillance. It is so blatantly political you cannot deny it, even if you wanted to. Then Rice refuses to say why she needed to know, saying it would involve classified information. If this is not worthy of investigation — why they were worried about all this — then what is worthy to know?

And now the people know too. See what changed was we were not supposed to get caught up in the how or why they got the information. We were just supposed to hear it trickled out from the Obama perspective, unquestioned. We were supposed to concentrate on their intentional outcome — not the means to it. Get it?

That makes all this smell more like the set up that it is. My explanation:

Maybe this investigation was loosely planned or not? At the least, the information was supposed to come out, somehow, at some point, to make Trump look bad. But it was to be by slight of hand, then passed right through so we couldn’t really question where it came from or how. Then we would be so busy in looking at its implications on Trump, shocked, to be bothered with the questionable means and/or their motives.

This, I believe, was cooked up some time ago. Before or right after election makes little difference. It may have been the ‘just in case plan.’ (JICP) Call it an insurance policy. In fact, they could have discovered enough info on the way they thought could be useful blackmail material. Maybe not a lot, just enough to cause major discomfort, or at least keep people answering questions as a distraction or diversion. But any information found along the way could be useful. The damage is in how the information is used, not whether it is damning or not. That is the weaponizing part. The time and purpose they used it for, the goal, would be up to them. But we would not be able to track down exactly where the information came from — not for a long time with a lot of effort.

That is where there was a problem. It didn’t unfold just the way it was supposed to. When Trump shot off a tweet about being wiretapped at the Trump Tower, it was like a canon going off around the world. We didn’t know why that was such a big deal, since it was obvious to most of us that there was some type of surveillance around Trump and the Trump Tower. We knew enough already. Maybe we didn’t know how deep it went, or who was involved, but we knew it took place. It interrupted the plot. Any incoming Republican would have faced the same thing.

Their problem was Trump pulled the trigger calling it out, untimely as it was, which set off a sequence of events and reactions to his accusation. That began the ball rolling, even though they mocked and attacked him for having said it.

He was not to be so bold as make that claim. It didn’t fit their plans. Then, surely, no one was supposed to believe it anyway. So it went on for weeks, as they tried to put Trump’s charge to bed quickly and permanently. (they: Democrats, Left, media and Obamafiles) It mostly did work; they tamped it down where only people brought it up to mock Trump’s ridiculous assertion. even demanding apologies. That started to screw things up.

That was about the time we were hearing Obama was traveling the globe and kite surfing somewhere in the Caribbean. So statements came out from Ben Rhodes and others calling wiretapping preposterous. But why wouldn’t Obama and his cronies be willing to spy on Trump, especially after he won, when they had been willing to do most anything during the campaign to aid Hillary? Why stop now when it is even more critical to them?

SO their loose plans were interrupted, inconveniently. And they couldn’t put the lid back on it. Suddenly the public outrage kicked up saying ‘wait a minute, he was under some kind of surveillance.’ We already knew that much. Remember how nasty they got in denials?

Now people were questioning the means of the information, not just whether Trump did something. Ah oh. People wanted that investigated with the other. Well, that wasn’t in the script at all. Actually, that was the one thing that could not be worked into their script. It messed everything up when it looks as if there was some agenda all along against Trump. No, they wanted us to only see a Russia agenda. (just as they did during the campaign.)

Anything else was very inconvenient. Must demonize Trump. Put him down and keep him down. Delegitimize him. But do not expose their creative, political, informational techniques. It usually does come down to narrative to the left. When they can control the narrative, they are ahead. But interrupt or change their narrative, they have a problem.

This was a big shift exposing the corrupt means, machinery, behind their Russia narrative. Like in Wizard of Oz, we weren’t supposed to see that part. That changes their whole story line. We were supposed to see the what, not the how or why. It blew up their plot.

The same applies to the Mueller and company. The investigation was to justify itself. The fact that they got a special counsel established — not the how or why — was supposed to convey legitimate authority for it and perception of “must be some wrong doing” then. Democrats and media touted that it exists therefore is justified — or else it wouldn’t.

The same rules, or lack of, also applied to Manafort’s no-knock raid. “If they got that warrant then it was justified.” If FISA or any judge issued it, there were legitimate grounds. And we certainly need not know why. The process is supposed to justify itself.

The same faulty premises applied to the surveillance. If there was surveillance, then obviously it must have been (a)legal and (b) justified by its existence alone. Never mind the reason. Which, in the case of Democrats, an outgoing president, a radicalized administration and party, after a terrible election loss, is entirely questionable.

Especially if the entire basis for said investigation is due to Democrats losing the election — or Trump winning. Never mind all the shenanigans that happened repeatedly on the left.

Therefore, it makes it easy for them to say any surveillance would have to be justified — or it wouldn’t have happened. See this is the way of using the process, corrupted as it is, to justify all their misconduct. That process and their creativity using it, is not to be questioned in any way, according to Dems. ‘Trust us.’ Then, as a backdoor guardian, if anyone can explain or sell this way of thinking, it would be media — their chief ally.

Meanwhile, let’s also pretend not to have noticed what is really taking place in front of us: the complete litigation of the election and outcome of it.

Right Ring | Bullright

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