Apparently Obama likes library jokes

So here’s my latest one: Obama worked so hard to get his Chicago LieBarry passed…. for records that are missing. Now wasn’t that hilarious?

Real Clear Politics    (excerpts)
By Thomas Lipscomb — “Crisis at the National Archives
June 10, 2018

To support this effort, in 2014 President Obama signed the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments. For the first time electronic government records were placed under the 1950 Federal Records Act. The new law also included updates clarifying “the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems” and empowering “the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal.” Additionally, it gives the Archivist of the United States the final authority in determining just what is a government record.

And yet the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges. So far, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Lynch and several EPA officials have been named as offenders. The IRS suffered record “losses” as well. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy called it “an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws.”

Clearly, America’s National Archives is facing the first major challenge to its historic role in preserving the records of the United States. What good is the National Archives administering a presidential library, like the planned Obama library in Chicago, if it is missing critical records of interest to scholars? And what’s to prevent evasion of the entire federal records system by subsequent administrations to suit current politics rather than serve scholars for centuries to come?

See: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html

Obama is the scandal that really never ends. Between his legacy of lies and Hillary, they are rival experts at hiding records. Where is the award for that?

Advertisements

Brennan Spells Sedition

In one of his latest rants in the op-ed pages, John Brennan laid out his reasons for opposing Trump so venomously. Or he thought he did, for anyone willing to buy his crazy BS.

Vice President Joe Biden swears in CIA Director John Brennan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on 8 March 2013. Members of Brennan’s family stand with him. Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the United States Constitution, dating from 1787, which has George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it. (Wiki pd)

Here are a few excerpts from Wa Po:

“Presidents throughout the years have differed in their approaches to policy, based on political platforms, ideologies and individual beliefs. Mr. Trump, however, has shown highly abnormal behavior by lying routinely to the American people without compunction, intentionally fueling divisions in our country and actively working to degrade the imperfect but critical institutions that serve us.”

“His disparagement of institutions is designed to short-circuit legitimate law enforcement investigations, intelligence assessments and media challenges that threaten his interests. His fear of the special counsel’s work is especially palpable, as is his growing interest in destroying its mandate.”

Interesting that a man who claims to want to protect institutions or norms in America so much is the very key culprit in undermining them in 2016-17 — throughout the campaign. The institution of the press, like others, was being corrupted and spoon-fed their own corrosive toxin, which undermined any objective truth in media journalism.

But that guy, John Brennan, is worried about Trump damaging the integrity and credibility of institutions? While he now is fully engaged in sedition, Brennan was even undermining the sacred election process he claimed to be concerned with.

The reason Brennan chimes in on just this topic of institutions was to follow Obama’s twisted and treasonous lead. Obama often rails about protecting sacred institutions from the damage Trump is doing to them. The same institutions that were co-opted in an elaborate Trump opposition and are now incorporated in the resistance. The same institutions that contribute to the Deep State resistance.

Obama wrote in his famous White House exit letter:

“That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions — like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties — that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it’s up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them.” – [Obama’s exit letter.]

Sounds a lot like the same crutch of criticism Brennan is now using toward Trump.

So Brennan carefully wove a Trump diatribe criticizing his damage to sacred institutions of integrity. Of which we know the FBI, CIA, DOJ and entire intelligence apparatus were a significant concern, along with those who ran them under Obama’s politicized and weaponized government.

Good thing that old reliable arm of the press has given another glimpse into what happened in the 2016 election and ever since.

Are NBC and CNN Paying Off Top Spies Who Leaked Info With On-Air Jobs?

Tablet Magazine

“The first reason, popular on both the left and among the Never Trump coterie on the right, is the assertion that Trump is a dangerous fascist who is on the verge of overthrowing the rule of law in America, an emergency that, if real, might indeed call for extreme measures, like throwing the principles of evidence-based reporting out the window. The problem with this argument being that however obvious and galling the man’s flaws are, no evidence for the thesis that Donald Trump intends to do away with Congress and the courts and rule by his own Trumpian fiat exists, at least not on planet earth. The assertion that such evidence does exist is the province of lunatics, and of people who find it useful to goose them on social media, or take their money.”

“The second reason for the departures from legal, institutional, and procedural norms that propagating a conspiracy theory requires is far more troubling. The lies and misinformation spoon-fed to the press by former high intelligence officials, who are now cashing paychecks from the same news outlets that they partnered with, are part of an ongoing campaign which, if successful, will protect those ex-spy chiefs from the legal consequences of their own law-breaking while in office.”

Chew on that John Brennan. It is hard to ignore countless dark operatives who have migrated from Deep State jobs into the mainstream media. Only last week, Ben Rhodes went over to NBC, as if that was any surprise. Brennan himself got an NBC deal.

“For example, the House Intelligence Committee report found that James Clapper “flatly denied ‘discussing[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.’ ” Yet while Clapper may now find himself in trouble for lying to Congress—which he has done before on extremely consequential subjects, like the extent of America’s domestic spying programs, apparently without damaging his credibility as a “news source”—he has carved a new job out of a possible crime. In August 2017, CNN hired him as an analyst, creating the appearance, at least, that the network is now paying him for the information he leaked to them. At the same time, it provides him with a platform to run an offense shielding him from the legal consequences of his actions. Presumably, Clapper will continue to justify his actions as a public official on-air while denying any wrong-doing, and his “analysis” will be presented to viewers as impartial and truthful.”

Also being part of the media organ now shields them of accountability for their covert actions. Remember that leakers are being hunted while reporters who publish it are considered immune. CNN scooped up Josh Campbell, the former assistant to James Comey who bailed out saying he had to leave FBI to speak out in the public square — to protect the institution — also penned a diatribe against Comey’s firing.

These insider additions could be the new avenues for the Deep State ops and holdovers to leak, creating a network for Deep State (and institutions) to channel their latest wares.

Read the article at http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/261158/trump-russia-collusion to see how the sausage is literally made.

“It’s hard to imagine anything worse for a democracy than journalists coordinating with political operatives and spies who are paid by the press to leak information about American citizens. But that’s where we are. We have hit rock-bottom.” [see article]

Right Ring | Bullright

After Action Report: Russia

One issue of a blog is you can tend to repeat things. But there are times and things that need repeated, maybe often. Such is the case with motives for the Russia, Trump investigation. Subversives have been very, very busy.

I said it before but the profound factor that sticks in my craw is the cause of the Trump investigation. To call it a Russia investigation is really pathetic. They talk about obstruction of justice. That ain’t a Russia issue. In my younger days, one of my most important lessons was it was not enough to know the how but you have to know the why, too.

In this Russia and Trump thing, we are hearing more and more about the how. I think we know most of it. But I notice they stay pretty silent on the why. We have seen the deep dark ways Obamafiles went about things, with dirty hands, and yet the media stays away from discussing why. Well, they speculated on every other related thing. How come they can’t come to grips to question that? At least Joe DiGenova has reminded us that they framed Trump in this entire thing in retaliation for the election. They try to diminish his integrity by calling it conspiracy theory. Oh, but it was a conspiracy, after all.

Obama had a Russia problem, which he could no longer cover up or just ignore. Even his underlings were prodding him to do something. Ala, along came Trump. He made the perfect scapegoat. Use the Russia problem as the reason to investigate Trump. And use it they did. That is the thing, the big lie, that hangs over this whole smoke cloud. The problem was the genesis for investigating Trump. It makes no sense to most people. That didn’t seem to matter. Push a narrative hard enough and it becomes a fact.

But it served the purpose. It got Obama out of the huge hole he had — an action deficit — to do something about Russia. It appeared like the Obama administration was doing something about Russia when its motives were clearly on Trump. It would bury the truth that he failed to respond, some say was complicit, in the Russia problem. It would alter his historical legacy by substituting Trump for the Russia problem. And it would be the perfect cover for investigating Trump and his entire campaign. Bad enough that it was not a last minute thought. It had been built over months. But the time came when he could formerly merge the two, supposedly seamlessly, so you couldn’t see where one ended and the other started — or where his complicit incompetence started or ended. Or where his malfeasance started because it never ended.

Now what we have is the Deep State running things, in the absence of Obama officials. And the Deep State has surfaced at their pinnacle of power in the DOJ. Sure they have ties throughout but where would their power be at its zenith? Of course when in control in the DOJ. Which is all why now Holder is calling on DOJ employees to defy the Trump administration as well as refuse to cooperate with Congress. As Holder explained in a telegraphed statement tailored directly to them, there have to be times when you just “say no” — to requests from outside the department. This of course would render the DOJ a sovereign power answerable and accountable to no one.

This does make it the most powerful department of the government. It will solidify the control of the Deep State and prevent it from being contested or routed out. But that is precisely why it is so important to challenge the DOJ, even if it is not desirable or popular. It was made to order to cover a multitude of sins of Obama’s. And it didn’t take much for the public to follow their (Obama’s and his lieutenants’) lead. People had been led by the string of mainstream media for years. And Media would do Deep State’s dirty work for them. Media had built up suspicion of Trump from the beginning. It was simply a matter of bringing all sides together: the media’s disdain for Trump, the left’s dissatisfaction and grief over the election, FBI and intelligence’s campaign of investigation and a plot against him, with a good old time-honored strategy or plot against their political opponents. It wouldn’t take much to unite them all in a choreographed coup even once Trump took power.

At the point Trump won the election, all efforts had to be shifted to resistance. Russia looked like even a better cover for that purpose. But the real point was that once the dubious Trump investigation began, right on through with their best efforts of broadening it into a huge counterintelligence investigation, along with Obama’s intentional urging, all was set firmly in place to take on a mind of its own. Especially with the absence of Obama officials after inauguration. Obama knew it would go on and on like they always do. The best part is Trump would be enshrined in one of Obama’s greatest failures — to respond to Russia with any substantial credibility. They wanted to saddle then bury Trump with Obama’s treasonous incompetence.

A solution to the Russia problem. It would no longer be his failure but a problem hung around Trump’s neck. It was also a political solution, the kind Obama liked. Better still it would continue on long after he left office. People would no longer complain or point to Obama as a weak link in one of the biggest elections and greatest upsets in history. They would blame Trump. This is how sinister these people are. The Deep State would cooperate without urging, because they would protect their radical czar.

In the process, Obama destroyed the credibility of the DOJ and FBI in his swamp of subversion. But who cares? Which is more valuable, saving Obama’s legacy or the FBI’s? We know which wins and it isn’t even close. Besides. the DOJ and FBI have their advocates to defend their reputations, at all costs, and they will. Mueller and Rosenstein will creatively defend the assault on the country and election by DOJ and intelligence. They can be counted on for that purpose. As usual, if successful, Obama would get away with offloading the entire blame for his treason and sedition onto Trump.

Obama and his vast number of cohorts throughout government suffered no accountability, at least so far. Can history ignore this choreographed corruption? How do you delete this treason, and now sedition, from the record?

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama Slithers Out With His Lie

Thou protests too much. Obama trots out the claim his presidency was scandal free.

Fox News

“I didn’t have scandals, which seems like it shouldn’t be something you brag about,” Obama said, according to Newsweek.

“if you look at the history of the modern presidency, coming out of the modern presidency without anybody going to jail is really good. It’s a big deal.” [and he’s proud — no, instead they got rewarded]

“No one in my White House ever got in trouble for screwing up as long there wasn’t malicious intent behind it,” Obama reportedly told the crowd.

That’s because what he screwed up was the entire country, and we have yet to recover from his tenure of evil. Who knew destroying America was not a scandal?

In fact, most of our problems now were caused directly, if not intentionally, by Obama.

US Attorneys General do not get held in contempt in a scandal-free administration. The IRS doesn’t politically target people in a scandal-free administration. A scandal-free administration, intelligence and DOJ do not start up an investigation of an opponent’s campaign, nor target political opponents by weaponizing government against them.

Even now, his LieBarry (as I call it) is a big scandal. Obama’s truth-challenged legacy.
To believe any of Obama’s claims would “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Here’s Obama in search of a scandal-free zone.

Right Ring | Bullright

Yates drops inadvertent truth bomb

Yates sat down for an interview with Morning Joe sharpening her critique on President Trump, for his asking DOJ to look into investigation abuse of his presidential campaign.

The Hill

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday said President Trump has taken his “assault on the rule of law to a new level” by demanding the Justice Department (DOJ) look into alleged surveillance abuses of his 2016 presidential campaign.

 

“I think what we’re seeing here is the president has taken his all-out assault of the rule of law to a new level and this time he is ordering up an investigation of the investigators who are examining his own campaign. You know, that’s really shocking,” Yates said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/388599-sally-yates-trump-has-taken-his-assault-on-the-rule-of-law-to-a

Let’s talk about “Shocking” Sally.

No matter how coy Sally Yates tries to play with her words, the truth is still clear: “Investigators who are [investigating] his own campaign.” Think about that.

That is called investigating Trump’s campaign, and that is what they are/were doing. That is by definition what investigators do. It is Precisely the same predicament Comey had with Loretta Lynch over the Hillary Clinton investigation. They wanted to call it a matter, when in reality it was an investigation — intentionally botched one but an investigation.

See the problem now? They have been trying to tell us it is an investigation into Russia but from the mouths of babes, Yates slipped out the truth that it is an investigation of the Trump campaign, no matter how innocuously she tries to phrase it.

And when has this occurred before in history? How about never.

Sure autopsies on campaigns are done in politics by candidates post-election, but an FBI investigation of a presidential campaign, begun while in process some time before the election? Look for some precedent on that. I’m pretty sure there isn’t one. Even in Hillary’s case, they were investigating her prior conduct not the campaign itself.

During the 2016 campaign, remember how much they made out of the fact that we don’t go after political opponents in this country. Presuming an investigation against Hillary, after the election, was the subject. No, in this case they opened and carried on an active investigation of the Trump campaign long before the election. Then carried it right into his presidency. He had never been a public official or even in a major campaign before. So the conduct they were looking at was before he even got into office.

Imagine what all those investigators were thinking as they watched the campaign go on, knowing full well they had a spy or paid informant working with FBI in their investigation into the campaign? And knowing they were using the dosssier of his political opponent as their reason and evidence for FISA warrants. Then they lied about it all the way.

Right Ring | Bullright

What is with Obama loyalty?

I kept wistfully wishing that someone would break his/her Obama Omertà and spill the beans about all the corruption (conspiracy) of the Obama era. With every passing day that seems less and less likely. What would it take?

Or were their type of activities in Obama’s Cosa Nostra so intentionally spread out among their crew of ‘bigwigs’ that no one would dare blow the whistle or implicate themselves? (well-schooled radicals) Protecting the whole is greater than the sum of any of the parts.

Or do all Obama-hoodies believe so much in the outfit that it carries a loyalty higher than any moral, ethical code? Especially if the organization is to live on in a future capacity. Hell, they invented their own loyalty (and ethics) to rival any mob or crime syndicate.

Their slogan must be: “no one talks, and everyone walks.”

Maybe… someday?

Note:**Omertà /oʊˈmɛərtə/ (Italian pronunciation: [omerˈta]) is a code of honor that places importance on silence, non-cooperation with authorities, and non-interference in the illegal actions of others. It originated and remains common in Southern Italy, where banditry or brigandage and Mafia-type criminal organizations (like the Camorra, Cosa Nostra, ‘Ndrangheta and Sacra Corona Unita) are strong. It is also deeply rooted in rural Spain, Crete (Greece), and Corsica, all of which share a common or similar historic culture with Southern Italy.

**Cosa Nostra — our thing : the Sicilian Mafia

Right Ring | Bullright

Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation

Lerner, Paz say they fear physical harm from enraged public, want IRS testimony sealed permanently

The Washington Times

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/

Retaliation — I think that word should be banned from her vocabulary. I’m not feeling the sympathy. What about her pension? Consequences? There’s Obama’s not a smidgen.

Career government criminals want the records permanently sealed and government protection now. She now wants to reverse the Constitution.

Our government then had to pay out 3.5 million taxpayer dollars for what she did! And it took 6 years to do it. She had her 5th amendment privileges, what do they have?

That’s a brand new kind of chutzpah. My G-A-S is busted.

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

Making Common Cause With The Enemy

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

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

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

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

I’ve been losing my mind.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Goodnight Obama

Let’s recap tor the memory-challenged.

Published on Sep 29, 2016

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

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

Obama: Profiles In Lies

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

That guy deserves a Profiles in Courage award?

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

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

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

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

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

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

H/T to the Guardian

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.

Defending the Indefensible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Wolves in the midst, Islamic cleric at Inaugural prayer service

One thousand chapters strong across America with 400 thousand members, ACT has been speaking out on the issues of Islamic Radicalism within our borders and beyond.

So it is only natural they had a curious eye on the inaugural events. Guess what they found at one of the services?

Radical Islamic Cleric Poisons Inaugural Prayer Service

(ACT)On January 21st, the noble occasion of Interfaith National Prayer Service at the Washington National cathedral was poisoned by the presence of a radical Islamic cleric named Mohamed Magid.

The attendance of Magid at this occasion to honor President Trump and Vice President Pence, clarifies with absolute precision, how close the tentacles of radical Islam can stretch towards those with the very task of eradicating them.

Magid serves as the executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center and is the former executive director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which according to declassified FBI memos, acted as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987.

Magid has endorsed sharia governance, and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. To advance his dream of a caliphate, Magid believes in incremental infiltration of both government, and the media.

A 1991 document from ISNA’s mothership, the Muslim Brotherhood, stated “its work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

The Muslim Brotherhood also considered Magid’s ISNA as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

Given these facts, a man as dangerous and radical as Magid should not be allowed anywhere near the President of the United States.

Magid, and many others like him, are crafty characters who understand that by attending this noteworthy event, they can now claim innocence from radical ties since they were seen attending an interfaith prayer service with the President of the United States.

This is why eradicating the stealth jihad is one of the most critical aspects of the war on terror. While combatting ISIS is paramount, we must open our eyes to the infiltration taking place within our own borders.

Always trying to innoculate themselves against the boilerplate of radical Islam. If they wanted to try so hard not to represent themselves as radicals, then why are they engaged in proliferation of radicalism, as radicals? Of course truth and honesty are also their enemies, so it figures they would try to represent their real cause as harmless.

My friend, Pepp, recently reminded me of a scripture I think also apples here.

1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

I thought ACT explained Islamists’ rationale very well. Just being seen at events is an attempt to normalize the very type of people who mean us harm.

This is all part of the greater problem I have tried, very hard, to write about. That is they are opportunists, in the same form of other radicals in our country. And they seek to extort every opportunity they can find. It is what they do.

Boycotting America: the infertile resistance breeds

The week of hypocrisy and double standards, and here we go.

The hearings were one thing, emphasis on race and Russia – not necessarily in that order — but dialogue and media are another which got progressively worse, right on script.

We finished the week by having the self-anointed civil rights leader, John Lewis call Trump’s election and his presidency illegitimate. Anyone NOT see that coming? These people certainly are predictable, if nothing else.

“I don’t see this President-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis told NBC News Friday. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” – NBC

No, unfortunately, Lewis was not a lone voice. Predictable. He did it intentionally on Friday before MLK Day — which I guess is now ensconced as the day of hate.

Now you would think that Lewis making this statement would be like a bomb going off, and the shock of it from a sitting senior Congressman would outrage people. You would think immediately people would distance themselves from his remarks, en masse. The condemnation would be fierce. And you would think a media outcry would demand every single Democrat condemn his remarks or be condemned. Nope.

Actually, Michelle Obama kicked it off on Oprah saying “we’re feeling what not having hope feels like.” She was praised for saying we have no hope. They cheered her on.

One Democrat pundit said on Sunday, “this is the resistance; this is just what it looks like now.” Ah, “what it looks like now” is short for this is the way it’s going to be. No, it’s actually going to be worse. They know it and so do we. And then their shadow Obama government will be adding to the resistance.

What you would think should be a normal response, in their racist political correctness, now is reversed. Rather than blanket condemnation, the praises for John Lewis came from everywhere: media, Congress, the black community, the public. Hard to find anyone who does condemn his statements.

Remember Joe Wilson, the SOTUS “heckler”? He had the audacity to make a public disagreement with Obama. He got a good talking to from the Republican leadership. And Mitch McConnell, all he said was that job #1 was to make Obama a one-term president. Democrats turned that into a giant insult and classic racism. Justice Alito shook his head. People were called racists for asking questions about Obama’s birth certificate or records — since he really had no trail. Just questioning Obama was blatant racism.

So it was way more than Obama ever received, even before Trump takes office. Now resistance is celebrated. Calls for obstruction ring from every corner of the Left. Respect is out, Resistance is in.(lockstep of course) In fact, the Left even says, proudly, it is following the model that worked so well for Republicans. (choke, gag) Get that, they even blame us for their radical resistance. They blame Russia for the election results. And they blame Trump for the condition of America which preceded any thought of his to run. Now they are trying to even make us own Obamacare.

Well, the total fallout of John Lewis is wide agreement with him. In fact, 23 members of Congress are boycotting the inauguration. It’s the cool thing now to join the resistance. They will institutionalize it, celebrate it, take it into schools and claim it as righteous.

All this deception won’t work. The people have been awakened and are not going to take their eyes off this, We survived their decade of decadence and aren’t happy. Sorry, Dems, don’t even try to out anger us. It ain’t happening. The blame projection won’t work. But they have the towers of media carrying their water, and soon will have every one of their shadow operatives opposing Trump. Exactly the way they did in the general election. Almost as if the election never happened because, to them, it didn’t.

Protests are highly overrated. Respectful protests were fashionable toward Obama, disrespectful protests toward Trump are now in. When Tea Party protests were born, the IRS and media assailed “speaking truth to power” using their big-gov firehouses, under a black president. It was Democrats in the sixties who opposed Lewis and their ‘civil rights’ agenda. Now they blame Republicans but no one is supposed to know the truth.

Now their resistance stuff is all the rage. Resisting what? – doesn’t matter. On the IRS Tea Party scandal, blacks and Democrats stood on the side of big government fire hoses. They stood up and walked out. Eric Holder was in contempt and they stood up for him, who was standing up for Obama. But now they see illegitimacy as the cause de jure.

So the answer, my friend, ain’t blowing in the wind. No, their answer to nothing is to boycott Trump and whatever he does. Take that Mitch McConnell. He let them beat him up for eight years for a benign statement. Then people bent over backwards for Obama. Republicans stood there like deer in the headlights, as radicals ruled the White House and administration. That really worked?

The boycott of Trump takes full shape before the parade or swearing in. What will they do when he’s in office? I think we know. (whatever was not done to Obama) Can’t you smell what the boycott is cooking? It means de facto protesting America and what it stands for, the rule of law. So civil rights or justice are excuses, the real boycott is against America.

And happy MLK Day, for what that’s worth.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama Exits To Go Nowhere

So what do you call a Farewell Address when you don’t actually leave? Just asking.

No, it’s not a trick question.

Obama has said he is sticking around Washington and not going anywhere, and may be frequently speaking out. Yet he had the need to have a farewell address.

Do traitors make a farewell address now? Times, they are a changin’ I think. What if Benedict Arnold had got to make a farewell address. What would he would have said? Would it top Obama’s self-centered soliloquy? He even quoted a fictional character.

I’ve already heard now that Obama — the great orator he is was — is leaving, we won’t hear anything like this for a long time. I sure hope not, or ever hear BS piled that high.

His exit is just as radical as his two terms in office was. He’s not leaving, you morons out there drinking Obama juice. He’s ousted from the Oval Office — not gone.

Lay off the stuff… it will kill you if it doesn’t eat you from the inside first.

Not gone, not forgotten… just ____________ (there)

RightRing | Bullright

The man of No Hope n No Change reflects on his factor of “Me”

“The next phase and this is part of what I’m interested in doing, after I get out of the presidency, is to make sure that I’m working with that next generation so that they understand you can’t just rely on inspiration,” Obama said.

Washington Examiner

Taking “some responsibility” for the losses suffered by the Democratic Party during his eight years in the White House, President Obama suggested that his lack of presence on the campaign trail was a decisive factor.

I think it is high time. Obama clearly needs an intervention to stop him. Will he get one?

So “you can’t just rely on inspiration.” This guy makes me sick. Don’t tell that to all the drones who got you to the White House. Obama didn’t even have much inspiration either.

The real problem is Obama did show up… boy did he — in 2008-2016, everywhere.