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

Advertisements

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.

Obama’s lease expired

Obama fashioned a new stump speech to campaign for Hillary in which he talks about himself. But he’s campaigning for Hillary, on his questionable approval ratings.

As the mantra goes, his “lease is up” and he is leaving the White house. Boo-hoo. Then he tells people that he is looking around to make sure he didn’t break anything so the Obama’s can get back their deposit.

Well, it is a little hard to compare the White House to the typical lease agreement many people have. But that is what he does. The terms cause the outrage.

It is not the deposit part that got me, it is the idea of him looking around to make sure he didn’t break something. What a metaphor to work with. Rich, “Break something?”

Let’s see what Obama broke. How about the Justice Department for starters? Then the IRS targeted political opponents. He politicized every department in government, even politicized the military. Politics is always in the air in DC, but he took it to new lows.

Nothing was beyond politicization to Obama. In fact, he acted as if that was the cure for everything, just what it needed. Sure, he complained about the politics. Yet he politicized the EPA, the borders, immigration. He expanded the Executive Order and process. He even politicized national security. He made “Global Warming” his ideological agenda. He substituted politics for dialogue. He lied to us about a terrorist attack.

He announced to our enemies what he will not do and downplayed their strategy and threats. He broke our government. Then he ran up the tab and stuck us with the bill. That’s what he did. Now he is making darn sure he didn’t break anything?

How about breaking our healthcare system? But he is not done, just out of time.

So Obama wants his deposit back. Well, we want our place back. But after what he has done, it’s hard to even recognize the place. It has depreciated rather than increased in value. Like Hillary, he used the office for his own personal benefit.

Now he is looking for his security but what about ours? He also broke the public trust and divided the country more than it’s been in modern times. The people want a change election and he is opposing that. We choose our tenant and leaders not him. He wants to get his deposit back and tell us who to lease to. Obama is only worried about his security.

RightRing | Bullright

ISIS and Democrats: apples to apples

Of all the comparisons I have, the one I come back to time and again is comparing Democrats to ISIS, or more directly to Islamic radical terrorists. It works. Some people would say that is a bit extreme. But I think it applies and not in a forced way.

Why? First of all, because radicalism is big part of their strategy. And because terrorizing to influence people is, by nature, their goal. Political objectives of both may be murky at times but it drives their strategy.

Radicalism is the central connection. When I think about the Democrats, and party in particular, the term that always comes up is radicals. Obama confirmed that. After the last 8 years, it is hard to deny Democrats are radical. It’s their M/O and in their DNA.

Now that leaked emails about the inner workings of the DNC and Hillary’s campaign came out, it only confirms what we knew by their own words. Democrats’ talk amongst themselves exposes their mindset.

This could be a very long post…but it’s not. Or as Rep. Ted Poe from Texas says:
… “and that’s just the way it is.

All radicals all the time — Clintonistas

Welcome to the truth inside the Hillary campaign. (video)

What about the protest at the Chicago Trump rally? Well, surprise. (which is no surprise)

It doesn’t matter about legal… or ethics, we need to win this M-Fer.

We knew they were behind all this radicalism, but it is what they do.

Ever heard of Democracy Partners? Oh, the dark Hillary campaign that no media dares report on. Alive and thriving via Hillary’s campaign.

Sometimes the crazies bite…. sometimes they don’t. Portraying people as psychotic…. all sinister dark creatures of Hillary’s campaign.

“We want it coming from the people, not the Party.”

“We’re starting anarchy here.”

War on Christians is real… coming to your neighborhood

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty

By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post

Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.

In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html/

Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.

Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?

It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.

Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)

Catholic League — in 2003

At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.

And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.

Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.

Townhall.com reports

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.

While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.

Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.

That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.

Guy is right, Obama finds him insulting

One man speaking out on Democrat plantation politics.

They or Hillary “put us in a basket,” he says. Yep, they put everyone in a basket, and that’s where we are all supposed to stay. (or else…)

Obama says it is a personal insult to him if the blacks don’t line up to vote for Hillary. Bell finds Obama disrespectful. Well, that’s what critical listening (thinking) will do.

Someone calls it like it is. The guy is A.D. Bell and I don’t think we heard the last of him.

And Hillary doesn’t mind calling us all deplorable — who’s quibbling on the number? We’re irredeemable, she claims. Somehow it makes me proud to be “irredeemable” in her eyes — as opposed to a lockstep conformist.

Hillary can’t hide from the truth

Hillary is like the first female ambassador of ISIS. She aided in creating ISIS. Now she claims they are rooting for Trump to win. Why would they do that, when no one did more for their efforts than Obama and Hillary?

Counter Jihad

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency. ISIS swept western Iraq because of the failures of Hillary Clinton and her boss, President Barack Obama.

But that is only half the story. ISIS also exists in Syria. How is it that the United States allowed it to survive there? Lee Smith, at Tablet magazine, points out that letting Syria fester was the intentional policy of the Obama administration — in order to cosy up to Iran.

Audacity: Clinton Claims ISIS ‘Praying to Allah’ to Elect Trump

Probably the scariest part is that she falls for propaganda and apparently gave up critical thinking some years ago. Now she says trust her to protect America’s interests.

For someone who will not say ISIS terrorists are Muslim or Islamic, she claims they are praying to Allah over Trump. I bet they are secretly hoping for Hillary — in their Islamic way — who’s been very, very good for them.

Conclusion: Hillary needs to be put out to permanent pasture with her hubby, Bubba and fenced off from public service, ever.

Polls, Hillary, and Goldman Sachs

Polls are up in Trump’s favor, email problems plague Hillary, she has endless coughing fits, she’s hoarse, she leaves her campaign for extended periods, she has a record she can’t run or hide from, she can’t be trusted, she lies, she doesn’t have press conferences and she’s obsessed with Donald Trumps taxes. Which one of those does not fit in the picture?

Hillary’s real 3am phone call came in 2013. Probably a conference call with Goldman Sachs, hedgefunders and George Soros on the red line…. offering her 225 thousand dollars for a speech. She took the call, set up the speech — mission accomplished.

The call from Benghazi and Chris Stevens, not so much. Maybe that line was busy?

Newsflash: now Goldman Sachs forbids its top 1% of employees from donating “to “any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official,” which also applies to donating to Trump — or “governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket.” (those speeches must have been worth it)

But now I wonder what their policy is on paid speeches?

Aside from the politics of it all, I smell a big First Amendment case here.