Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Burned on intel security deal

Probably people reading here would have heard some of this info before. But it is put together in a good article from AIM’s Cliff Kincaid.

Follow the intel trail of the CIA and its latest IT expansion. Just happening to award the contract to Bezos’ company over IBM, in spite of charging 54 million more than its big-blue competitor. The swamp has expanded.

The Washington Post, Amazon, and the Intelligence Community

by Cliff Kincaid on March 13, 2017 | AIM

One of The Washington Post’s big disclosures on Sunday was a front-page story about President Donald Trump’s choice of a cemetery. It was the latest contribution from reporter David A. Fahrenthold, whose job it is to probe every aspect of the life of the new President, no matter how esoteric and trivial. On the other hand, when it comes to covering the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and his ties to the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), the paper is AWOL. …/

Read http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-washington-post-amazon-and-the-intelligence-community/

So, in view of all that, I’d say they need to either reopen that clouded bid or just cancel it outright and transfer the contract to IBM. I would trust them a lot more with this intel security than the Bezos startup. (and I’m not a big IBM fan) Deep State scored, bigly.

This cannot stand. We the people know when we’ve been burned, when we see it.

At the very least, where the hell are the hearings about it, the investigation, and the protest over conflict of interest? But then the company used the fact that it had this contract to further line its pockets and boost its credibility. Where’s the outrage?

I’m pretty sure there is even more filth and connections there than he touched on.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Cooper illustates the Russian debacle

I have sadly fallen into an alternative reality. It is not by choice. I watched a CNN segment on Anderson Cooper that illustrates a huge political problem in America.

However, this confirmation of the problem comes ironically from two different players, in almost reversed positions from their respective sides. An irony of juxtaposition.

Stephen Cohen —

“American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University”…”During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine, Cohen drew criticism for his “pro-Russian” views with sources describing him as an apologist for Putin and the Russian government. Cohen personally describes himself as an American “dissenter” and argues that the media stifle anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin’s perspective while stigmatizing them as Putin apologists for doing so. [Wikipedia]

In an article in The Nation, Cohen stated that the US political-media establishment was silent about “Kiev’s atrocities” in the Donbass region. His article was, in turn, criticized by Cathy Young as “error-riddled” narrative and “embarrassing” repetition of Kremlin propaganda.

Gary Kasparov — Most people know Kasparov as the famous chess champion but recently as a great authority on all things Russia. His new book is “Winter is coming”.

On the eve of Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Russia, after the Syria missile message, Cohen takes the side of questioning everything about the missile strike to questioning the intentions of Trump. Never mind the intentions of one Vladimir Putin.

He claims tensions have never been higher between US and Russia that we were never so close to war and that this is a new cold war high in the relationship. That mantra should sound familiar. But everyone emphasizes Cohen’s foremost expertise on Russia.

That’s exactly where Kasparov comes in. He was astonished how this mantra leaves Putin’s intentions unchallenged — by intent or not. He was visibly offended. Knowing full well some of the limits and trail of dead bodies in Putin’s wake, he unloaded on Cohen’s reasoning ability. Ah, and that is exactly where liberals hate being challenged. Because emotion and politics are a driving force, it replaces their reasoning ability. He called Cohen’s brand of politics towing the Kremlin line.

Of course, to his pedigree, Cohen goes on the offensive against the Trump administration and Tillerson, for his ties to Russia. Okay Tillerson, or Trump for that matter, are compromised by Russia but he is not. Then he took the Russian perspective that he sees no evidence or proof that either Syria or Russia was involved in the chemical attack.

Kasparov pointed out that Cohen’s were the same talking points the Kremlin and Putin are using, to point blame everywhere else, to us and terrorists, rather than at Assad. Then he asserted the same thing Putin said, that this chemical was possibly a terrorist stockpile hit during a bombing run. Well, but days after Russia and Syria planes were trying to destroy evidence by more bombing. So why would they be trying to cover it up and destroy evidence, even bombing the hospital after 5 hours — if terrorists or rebels were responsible for the gas attack?

Kasparov seems to nail the box of Cohen’s positioning shut. He tells Cohen that Russia has long used anti-American dissent as a core in their propaganda.

There you have it — if it is not obvious — here is an American skeptic, dissenter, professor, academic and expert representing the Russia side of things and a Russian representing the US side of things. Striking irony.

RightRing | Bullright