Russia, Obama: what we knew

But what media won’t talk about. Yet at a hearing with Peter Strzock, for proof of the conspiracy, media were forced to talk about what they have ignored for about a year.

Obama’s cybersecurity coordinator confirms Susan Rice ordered him to ‘stand down’ on Russian meddling

by Christian Datoc | June 20, 2018 | Washington Examiner

Michael Daniel confirmed Wednesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice ordered him and his staff to “stand down” in 2016 in regard to Russian attempts to meddle in the 2016 election.

Daniel, special assistant to former President Barack Obama and White House cybersecurity coordinator, told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that quotes attributed to him in the book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, were an “accurate rendering of the conversation” he had with Rice and his staff.

Daniel’s staff reportedly responded to the order in “disbelief.”

Over the past year, the Obama administration has been criticized for allegedly being aware of Russian attempts to influence the election yet primarily remaining silent on the subject.

The Washington Post reported that Obama himself — along with three top aides — was given direct evidence from the CIA of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cyber campaign to influence the election.

The Obama administration reportedly knew of Russia’s actions for months ahead of the 2016 election, but failed to take retaliatory action until December.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia said of the administration’s inaction. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamas-cybersecurity-coordinator-confirms-susan-rice-ordered-stand-down-russian-meddling-2016-election

I don’t know, but there are words so much more fitting than “choking.” How about dereliction of duty; or treason; or maybe just fulfilling that super-flexibility role, like President Gumby had promised Putin? Media has been busy ignoring it all.

I remember another distant place where standing down was an issue. Oh yeah, Benghazi.

Advertisements

Injustice of Injustice

I could just as easily call it Injustice of Social Justice, but that might be too ironic. Though it is pretty much the same thing.

It is my rantzilla for the week. Why have we allowed the left, or anyone, to hijack the word injustice? I’m not sure but it is clear they have. They also redefine social justice.

First, I believe injustice is a problem too. As just a few examples: I think injustice is protests turning violent, destroying property or hurting people; and cop killing. They certainly are not justice. Shutting down highways is injustice; shutting down government for vengeance because you lost the election is injustice; opening a counterintelligence investigation on a political opponent because he threatens your election is injustice; voter fraud or trying to rig elections is injustice; labeling people Nazis because they don’t agree with you is an injustice; I believe taking a knee to disrespect the Anthem or the flag is injustice. I think fighting for the right to abortion on demand is injustice. Labeling abortion safe is an injustice. Finally, defending the indefensible is injustice.

I see lawlessness as injustice – not as some puritanical civil disobedience redefined as social justice. And many of those things could be called immoral too. Breaking the law is injustice. I don’t accept some of the common, trivial interpretations as injustice. Modern definitions of the Left would say anything is injustice that doesn’t agree with their agenda. Injustice, as the Left uses it, is politically charged — like everything else they touch.

If this is what they consider winning, what is losing?

On the other hand, I also believe in social justice. I think government has a moral obligation in the law. I think a deterrent is part of the motivation for a law. I don’t think social justice gives you some right to commit injustice. I don’t think sensing an injustice gives you the sovereign right to break the peace, or disrupt another innocent person because you have a grievance. I think self-governing is a form of social justice. Free markets and economics are a kind of social justice. Humanitarian activism can be a type of social justice.

Social justice, to the left, is the kind of thing that can lead a person to believe they have the right to set off bombs to kill innocent people because they think government is acting immorally. Or to gun down Republicans on a ball field because they are political enemies. That is how the left sees social justice – you define it. And if you happen to be in the way of their social justice, you are not supposed to be offended if you are injured or someone is killed in their path to social justice. That’s the breaks.

But I do feel very offended.

I am offended by an illegal alien who was deported 5 times only to come back again and kill a fellow citizen. I am offended by lawlessness. I don’t believe “social justice” should be encouraging more lawlessness. I don not believe social justice is preventing hundreds of people to see a ball game, or keeping people from a store or restaurant. I do not think publishing people’s phone numbers to harass them is an act of social justice. A case can be made it is injustice. I don’t believe breaking the law, particularly when it hurts someone or destroys their property or livelihood, can be spun as “social justice.”

But in the words of the left, their slogan is no justice no peace.” Do you notice the implication buried in that? You shall not have peace as long as I have a grievance. Because I feel a grievance, I have the right to do whatever I want including to disturb the peace – and brand it social justice. They feel they have a moral ground that whenever they claim or perceive something unjust, then they have a right to commit injustice.

I read a call to action from a Bishop. It encouraged people to ‘do something’ in view of separated children on the border. Whatever you are motivated personally to do, in the name of the children, is acceptable. That usually means good deeds. But what if someone’s idea of social justice is revenge? What if it is civil disobedience? It does not say. (I’m not saying all civil disobedience is wrong. The reason it is done is a determining factor.)

Those church clergy also want you to send money to a legal fund to help parents or children. Why, to defend them for breaking the law? But they need our help. What are we helping? If you are doing that, are you encouraging more of that behavior, more lawlessness? At what point do you become complicit in their behavior? What about the consequences of your social actions; are you responsible for the consequences?

Every time I hear no justice no peace, I cringe. Selfishness seems like their real motivation. Now there are people who feel as long as they are not content, nor should you be. In other words: you have no rights as long as I /we claim to be victims.

Is that their idea of social justice? Yes. Social justice is all about getting what one wants. But the dirty little secret is the Left can never be satisfied. That is their whole game plan, not being satisfied and always claiming to be a grieved victim.

Here is my other problem. I mentioned different ways I am offended. Those are serious things I think justifiable. But when I hear the left complain about being offended, often they are outraged by things conservatives say. That is enough to send them over the cliff. Think about the contrast.

Roseanne said something on Twitter, wham, she loses her top-rated TV show. Someone on Fox says something they don’t like, even if true, and they demand a list of his/her sponsors to get the person off the air. See how this really works? Your freedom of speech is the chief offense here. Shutting down that freedom is their chief objective. You would think freedom of speech would be a cause worth defending. Peter Fonda says something outrageous on Twitter and it is just outrageous, but no consequences. The left will defend that as freedom.

I have legitimate social concerns and they trivialize being victimized to what someone says or thinks about them. Thought crimes. Then they use the cover and camouflage of words like “injustices” and Social Justice to disguise what they are doing. Social Justice today is defined by the Left and normally means what they want it to mean.

What does Social Justice mean? According to Heritage: (see)

Abstract: For its proponents, “social justice” is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular “progressive” thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.

I know, some sticklers for definitions would quibble with my loose use of social justice. My conscience could prevent posting this but I had to. You can decide. The concept of social justice is being refashioned and redefined almost weekly to suit the Left. It is what they make it. As Liberals are wont to do, they often take something and twist or redefine it to fit their objective — their agenda. Is it any wonder it appears different from what it once was, into a political tool? It is very much about economics today. The left’s. Nazifying large swaths of political enemies becomes social justice.

As much of our current culture, social justice escalated its evolution in the 60’s, assisted by some clergy, into a Marxism meld. The influence remains. Our definition became the problem. But words like “Social Justice warrior” do not convince me of pure motivations.

Right Ring | Bullright

Significance of the 4th Of July

The real significance of the 4th of July is, of course, declaring our Independence. Though that fact happened before securing our freedom in the Revolution.

That is something to ponder. Maybe the lesson is the Declaration did not accomplish the entire objective. Yet July 4th is the day and holiday we celebrate that started it all.

It would be years after the July 4th, 1776 Declaration that we finally assured our independence. We sort of glamorize it as the day independence was accomplished.

Fortunately, an alternative history has never been written. Though today we see signs that our independence is vulnerable. We see signs that it all could be squandered. And after all we have been through as a country since then, there are real threats that abound us.

Take for instance the Manchurian presidency of Barack Obama:

America really did have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House

By L. Todd Wood – Washington Times – Sunday, July 1, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

After returning from a tour of some of the war zones in the Middle East — which ended with the Free Iran Gathering 2018 in Paris — I am struck by the realization that America really did have a Manchurian Candidate in The White House for eight years.

If you look at the evidence, there really is no other conclusion. The calamitous consequences of the Obama presidency will be felt for the foreseeable future.

READ: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/1/us-really-did-have-manchurian-candidate-white-hous/

No Patriot

For the occasion, mainstream media asked some people on the street if they were proud of America? Many either said “not now” or “used to be.” It is quantified. Their pride in America seems based mostly on who is president at the time. Stunning.

How’s that Independence working for you?

Happy 4th of July.

 

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary does UK the wrong way

If you thought you had heard everything before, this will make you question that. Hillary said a lot of things that were wrong. Now she compares herself to Winston Churchill.

Yes, this will remain about her worst attempt at relevancy. Whopper Alert!

Clinton on being a polarizing figure: ‘I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars’

By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.

“I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn’t they?” she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee then immediately claimed she wasn’t actually comparing herself to Churchill, before going on to elaborate on the analogy.

Churchill went into the political wilderness between the two World Wars and during that time was a key voice criticizing then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward Adolf Hitler. He would go on to become prime minister himself and help lead the Allies to victory in World War II.

The Guardian report notes that Clinton made the Churchill reference “a fraction too quickly for the line to sound spontaneous.”

Clinton continued: “I mean, I’m not comparing myself, but I’m just saying people said that, but he was right about Hitler, and a lot of people in England were wrong. And Churchill was a pain. He kept popping up all the time.”

Clinton indeed has remained a polarizing figure, with her popularity falling since the election, as she has stayed in the public eye with her book tour and media interviews.
She told the Guardian she is not going to “call it a day” anytime soon.

“It feels like a duty. It feels like patriotism, and it feels necessary. I’m not going anywhere,” she said.

Clinton also used the Guardian interview to comment on the separation of families at the border in the wake of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” that ordered that all illegal border crossers be prosecuted. Trump has ordered the separations to be stopped, but critics are still fighting the prosecutions and other detentions.

Clinton said that she is worried that some of the minors may never be reunited, saying that that question is “keeping me up at night.”

“Absolutely I worry about that. I’m worried that some children will not be reunited,” she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/clinton-on-being-polarizing-figure-im-sure-said-that-about-churchill-between-wars.html

 

There are some things you can do; some things you can barely get away with passing off. And some things you ought never to have a logical reason for even thinking about trying to pull off. She’s strong on the 3rd one.

Then there are times when you should be laughed off the stage in a straight jacket, never to be heard from again. Why is that not happening, you may ask?

Secondly, she is a like Madonna. Remember her protest bombshell?

The problem is the amount of forethought she gave that comment. They questioned the spontaneity, You know she plotted out the comparison, practiced it, and tried it out on her staff. They said “that’s good”.

Just how she did the Deplorables comment, then bounced it off people in the Hamptons. Maybe what happens in the Hamptons should stay the hell in the Hamptons. Or at least get buried in the darkest crevices of one’s last fleeting brain cell. This is one.

Let me paraphrase and sum up Hillary’s message: ‘I’m not done pissing off the last person, even people who voted for me, yet. I will not be stopped because there is an unlimited potential for hatred of me out there.’ Face it, now that she cannot demand huge amounts of money for influence anymore, that is her only motivation left.

The only thing that keeps Hillary up at night, after all that Chardonnay, is thinking up a new crazy excuse or comparison for her loss to tell people. Even if there is no market. What she is really worried about being reunited is her candidacy. Relevancy is not her friend.

Dems in their own words: GOP ad

The Dems made the best campaign ad ever, for the GOP, and they weren’t even trying.

Already over 4 million views. Nothing can go viral like Vile Democrats.

The next time Dems say “that’s not who we are,” just show them this.

 

So the message is….. wouldn’t want to be like you.

The #WalkAway Movement is on the rise.

Lawless Left

Did you miss it all evolving? Maybe you could have, if you were not paying attention this week. Within a day of an unknown candidate winning a primary race in Queens, NY, over Joseph Crowley, Democrats solidified their “abolish ICE” position. Three days later they were in the streets protesting to demonstrate their newfound position. Mainsteaming it complete. Within days, NY’s junior Senator was wholeheartedly sporting the position.

But no one saw that one coming. They could be excused for a host of reasons. But no one heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before that either, the 28 year-old Bernie socialist.

It was like a meteor hitting. By Saturday, media reported 750 marches of protest across the country. It was so quick; evolution is now lightning speed with Democrats.

It normally starts with the same line.

Let’s be crystal clear, when Democrats say “this is not who we are,” what they are really saying is that we are not a country that respects the rule of law. We are not a country that should protect its borders from invasion. And finally, what they are saying is that we are a lawless people….or should be. That’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh. they like it.

Yes, I know that is a radical statement but it is not hyperbole. At least it represents the Democrats and their party to a tee. Lawlessness is key in their agenda.

But I know people disagree. Somehow I am being dishonest. Though the facts stand contrary to that argument. They only “respect” the rule of law when it fits their political agenda, and only for as long as it does.

So Democrats are lawless, like those people they “stand up” for and encourage.

Obama pipes up, as the latest push of the illegal invasion spawns media stories about children being separated from parents and families. Washington Examiner:

Obama added Americas hold the common ideal “that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve the chance to become something better.”

“That’s the legacy our parents and grandparents and generations before created for us, and it’s something we have to protect for the generations to come,” he continued. “But we have to do more than say ‘this isn’t who we are.’ We have to prove it – through our policies, our laws, our actions, and our votes.” — Obama commenting on World Refugee Day.

Here we go with the same code words again, ‘this is not who we are.’ They said it on preventing terrorists from coming to America, or getting tough on Islamists. The travel ban was the latest. But thankfully that power has remained within the president.

Look, they have no respect for law really. When in their favor, they say “that’s the law, period.” But otherwise, if you don’t like the law, or don’t believe it is right, then civil disobedience is the answer. Defy the law, and protest it. But respect it? No chance. So there is no illusion Democrats respect the law. If they don’t like it, they simply ignore it as their right. And they will go to battle against the rule of law.

Another great line for Democrats in prime time talking points.

Their other favorite words to repeat, “we are better then that.” But no, Democrats are not better than that. They only use words like a lemon meringue pie in your face. They are revealing the truth, they have no respect for the rule of law — only the politics of activism. The more radical the position the better it sells.

They want open borders and lawlessness. What is next, you might ask? They already called for abolishing local police forces. That seemed radical even for them, but maybe no more. Basically anything that stands in the way of lawlessness could be a target. Or anything that stands in the way of chaos and anarchy. (their other best friend)

It is a hard case to make that progressives want vast government control over every element in your lives, where the nanny state rules, and yet want people to be lawless. I guess that is what happens in “evolution,” sometimes it missfires. If you have people that don’t care about consistency or hypocrisy, or even decency, and grounded by nothing larger than themselves, then this is the inevitable result. A collision of forces.

Desperation can do dangerous things. The left will cling to any new – hopefully radical — idea now that might be popular with their radical, angry base. All at an alarming speed. What is the next new thing? Who could predict? But it is not pretty.

The central rule is Republicans and conservatives, their enemies, should follow and be saddled by the law but Leftists? Not so much.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dem Dumpster Fire: Radicals vs. SCOTUS

Today is June 27th, 2018, henceforth to be known as the first day of the Democrat Dumpster Fire, and the hysterical meltdown that ensued to November.

This is what happens, the Democrats become unglued when they don’t get their way.

More at Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/politics/liberals-decry-kennedys-retirement/

Here come the tears…

Working Nazi, death camps and Kennedy into the same tweet.
But we are still working on the names for those death camps… creativity in mind.

The “democracy” is collapsing around them, to hear progs tell it. And the way I see it is the republic has been given a 2nd chance, fortunately, from an 8-year death spiral and we are making good use of it.

Now they demand we wait for 2018 elections to nominate a SCOTUS pick.

Meanwhile, we just had a primary election yesterday and Dems, or should I say Democrat Socialists, are telling you what they are about — loudly. The commies have officially cannibalized the Democrat Party. So when they lecture about ‘moderates,’ you can laugh right in their face.

This shows the other thing Democrats do, they lie and then twist everything into a Gordian Knot. They think we can only nominate a Supreme Court Justice every 2 years.

Notice what the term “norms” really means to Leftists. They get their power and way… or revolution. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing it always meant to them for the last 50 years. Just that they now openly admit it. And now some of our naive Repub brethren cannot deny it.

But it is the same thing “mainstream” means to Democrats. Sheila Jackson Lee does a post-primary interview to repeat that’s who we are as Democrats, “we are a big tent party.” No, they consolidated into the commie mainstream. Who is the Dumpster Fire?

Finally, Democrats always complain that Donald Trump is just a reality TV star.
But he completely exposed the ‘reality‘ of who Democrats and the commie Left are.

Clown Express: last call to Washington elites for 2018

The increasingly irrelevant George Will may be defrocked but he is still bloviating about his political strategy — supposedly to stop Republicans.

Ed Morrow tore it up in this piece. George Will’s satchel of descriptors

George Will Willfully Wills Defeat

Consider the first paragraph of [George Wills’] recent Washington Post column, “Vote Against the GOP”:

Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans—these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively—fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

“Carnage,” “telegenic,” “temperate Republicans,” “expanding and contracting cohorts,” “fresh if redundant,” and two uses of “misrule”—all in two sentences!

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/25/george-will-willfully-wills-defeat/

Will, indeed, is laying it on thick. Not content with opposing Republicans in 2016, he is back now opposing Repubs in 2018, counseling you to do exactly that. Sure he can explain his 3-cushion (attempted) bank shot. But why would anyone take Will seriously now?

Russian Election Meddling

Democrats want us to know that Russians tried to and meddled in our 2016 election. Gasp, “Holy Cow, Batman!” … feigned outrage wearing my best Casablanca face, “Shocked!”

This report article is excellent reading and a good resource.

Russia Meddled and Almost Nobody Cared, Until . .

By Steven J. Allen | June 23rd, 2018

Political leaders and journalists are deeply concerned about Russian meddling in U.S. elections. Took ’em long enough.

The Russians have been meddling in U.S. elections for at least 70 years. see

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/23/russia-meddled-and-almost-nobody-cared-until/

Serving up a heaping helping of care for anyone interested. And the Dems have been in on, colluding in, the meddling about as long. Their cohorts in the media have been right there with them as long.

Which is why Ted Kennedy could have promised the US media’s help to Andropov, leader of the Communist Party, so they could speak directly to the American people in hopes of undermining Reagan. They demurred. But accepted Obama’s flexibility pledge.

That’s another thing that is not new with the left: the traitorous schemes of their commie roots. Now they are outraged? The Left suffers from a severe case of exposure.

Stranger In My Country

How people feel outcasts in their own homeland.

Democrats, and progressives and academics of the left, love to trot out the analogous poem on the statue of liberty. In fact, they like to use the statue as an arbiter of the immigration debacle. Of course that fits with their whole imagery campaign, closely aligned with their propaganda about America. It was just a poem, after all, not a law as they suggest. Law is too much for Leftists to grasp. We know not everyone has innocent or righteous motives. People cannot afford to be that naïve. Believing that all people, even immigrants, should follow the parameters of US law is disconcerting to the Left.

The problem I have with it is the disingenuous lie of it all. “Progressives” stand on that premise that this borderless, open-door policy disguised as a statue in the harbor makes America into some ideal, altruistic society. That actually makes me sick. You know, with the rhetoric that securing the border is unAmerican,

I wonder why it is that we as civil law-abiding people, with generally good aspirations and dreams, are turned into second-class citizens in our own country right before our eyes? It does not seem fair or right. Increasingly, it is clear that their great admiration for those ideals interpreted from the Stature of Liberty do not apply to the citizens who are already here residing all across America. That would be crazy if it were not so.

Think of all the ways conservatives or apolitical people are told that their desires or opinions don’t matter. We are the problem not the solution. Our yearnings are dismissed as irrelevant. But if you are one of the swashbuckling invaders of the US, you are suddenly the intended target of the Statue’s message. You are the new chosen, even though you or I have no choice about it.

That is the idea. Progressives are turning these “immigrants,” or whatever term you want to use, into the privileged class. Then, the only question would be is if it is intentional or not? Naturally, I happen to believe it is.

But if regular American citizens want to internalize those ideals, why do those aspirations stop at waters edge – right at border’s edge? Why do noble attributes about downtrodden and huddled masses only apply to incoming, however they get here?

Maybe someone should inform any real immigrants, perhaps sometime during their naturalization studies, that those perks or aspirations end when you become a US citizen — i.e. an American. So that point at immigrating or transition (illegal status) is as good as it gets. After that you become the problem, the toxic US citizenry. Soon we may no longer be the American dream, we might be dreaming of America.,

Right Ring | Bullright

The voices in Lois Lerner’s ear

Once again, we have to thank Tom Fitton for rooting this out. Like everything else the Obama administration tried to bury, the IRS targeting was no different. Go figure, the FBI and DOJ under Obama was involved with this, too.

Judicial Watch Obtains IRS Documents Revealing McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to Engage in “Financially Ruinous” Targeting

Judicial Watch | June 21, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released newly obtained internal IRS documents, including material revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

“Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.”

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/

Is there any scheme against conservatives or Republicans that McCain did not have his hands in? It seems like that was his whole purpose, especially to undermine the Right and disrupt their ability to organize. This one scandal was tailor made to fit his agenda.

And the IRS scandal is not over, as JW says it is still recovering documents. That is called a coverup, too. It is easier to cover up when you have the institutional resources cooperating. But this shows how far Obama’s administration went and who all was involved.

By the time you do get info, leftist Obamafiles then try to bury the exposure in subterfuge.

[screenshot via C-SPAN May 22, 2013]

Wray sails the ship of resistance to Congress

NY Post reports:

Michael Goodwin — June 17, 2018
“FBI head proves Washington has a vendetta against Trump”

As FBI Director Christopher Wray started giving his response to the blistering report on the Hillary Clinton investigation, I hoped he would accept the findings as proof that the agency lost its way and must be shaken to its foundation. By the time he finished talking, I felt ­naive for daring to hope.

Wray’s performance was worse than disappointing. It was infuriating proof that it will take more than one election to change the corrupt culture of Washington. /…

Similarly, Horowitz faults then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for meeting with Bill Clinton before the conclusion, but calls it only “an error in judgment.”

How many errors of judgement can you have before it is a persistent institutional problem? But they don’t want to touch the question of why these egregious breaches of conduct occurred. (or continue) Can it hardly not be evidence of a larger problem?

Guilty pleas and indictments, capped by Paul Manafort’s jailing Friday, show special counsel Robert Mueller is playing prosecutor hardball even though he works under the same Justice Department rules Comey used to give Clinton a free pass. Political bias is the only way to explain the ­disparity.

Read at: https://nypost.com/2018/06/17/fbi-head-proves-washington-has-a-vendetta-against-trump/

No-knock raids, dredging through thousands of records and emails, and a partisan witch hunt of the ghost of collusion continues. Nothing is off limits. Every shadow is chased down. Yet the real conspiring of self-anointed ruling class elites in an entrenched, shadowy government is minimized — despite being exposed as the shills they are.

The Deep State is still running interference for it all by manning the government guns.

And none of it cares what it does to the country. In fact that is the whole point of it, to drive the country into convulsions and hysteria over the results of the last election. But to throw a blanket of normalcy over it is beyond disgusting. So lecture field agents on bias, right?

Switching To Live

You know everyone has times of curiosity and research, reexamining the past, whether it is last decade or a half century ago. People always want to catch up. And there is so much to look into, considering the left’s task of revision is never complete. That is one constant of progressives. At least there is Google. Similarly we ponder the future.

Nothing wrong with that, we need to remember and know what happened. But there are now times when it is better to suspend or forego a quest for historical perspective by just switching to live. The present offers some fascinating perspectives and historical context. It is a time to have one’s eyes wide open, to take it all in, and absorb history in the making. At least you know it is true and real. Maybe it is all too real for some people.

Thus some on the left feel a need to go back into the past to try to dredge up anything they can to spin the current events — events for which there are really no parallels.

This time offers more excitement and interest in all kinds of ways that will need to be remembered. We, as conservatives, have almost a solemn obligation to witness history and memorialize it because we would not like the way progressives are going to write it.

I do not believe a lot of people actually operate in the present. They vacillate someplace between their interests, aspirations, priorities, goals and ideals; and their past experiences and memories. Call it selfishness, but for them it is a personal perspective. Add to that the technology and PDA’s today which everyone is glued to. They have their own perception.

This brings to mind an analogy. Most people know a parent that has claimed to be living vicariously through their child or children. They see their child’s opportunities and root for them. They feel personally invested. All very natural for a variety of reasons. I look at the current President, Trump, much the same way. To that end, he has made this possible by his high visibility and transparency to us. So in that simple scenario, we feel a personal connection with Trump. And we feel a personal interest in his presidency because of it.

That is why this time is different and special at the same time. People have that personal connection to the office. We can also see ourselves through this interconnection.

This all is why it is important today for us to make a good attempt at switching to live. For months this phrase kept echoing in my mind, I didn’t know why, I thought it could be a song lyric I was thinking of. So I spent hours combing through familiar songs or lyrics on the web. Nothing struck me or rang a familiar bell. I dismissed it but it came back, again and again. What was it? It didn’t even dawn on me the message or meaning. That is until I thought of it as “just switch to live.” Then I began to understand the whole concept. I’d call that a message from somewhere, you decide from what and where.

Never has there been a time that called on people to be an advocate for the present. That is to experience it and speak of it in real time. But not to be led by some misinterpretations of it. Or not to believe a view that does not really comport or make sense, out of an effort to get along for convenience. The present is ours, if we claim it. We don’t need to wait for tomorrow’s interpretation of today to know what we are experiencing. It belongs to us.

Right Ring | Bullright

Gen. Hayden sees DHS as Nazis

So here we go. let the Nazi comparisons begin. But they are done by Obama VIPs and the calcified left.

Gateway Pundit

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden just compared the US to Nazis.

Jim Hoft

Hayden is outraged that immigrants are separated from their children when they come into the country illegally.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/former-cia-director-compares-united-states-to-nazi-germany/

It doesn’t get any lower or worse than that.

I would add, or how many Jews willingly and gleefully jumped on trains to “camps” to try to improve their lives? (or gladly went unaccompanied)

Why should walking through the Resistance portal guarantee the validity of the absurd?

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?

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

Swamp Economy of Politics

Many people laughed at Bill Maher wanting the economy to crash, but it does show something more sinister.

Let’s not forget that the left politicized every department of government under Obama. Let’s not forget he weaponized much of it against his political opponents. Isn’t that what the Left wants government for?

So is it such a leap then that they are wishing for economic collapse to hurt Trump or drive him out, and hurt those supporting him? Not at all.

However, it says a modicum of truth about the left today. Forget all what liberals say they are about and care about. Like everything else, they want an economy politicized and weaponized against their political opponents. That is the economy they have in mind.

The next time they lecture us that they would be better stewards of the economy, they have revealed what they mean — an economy subservient to their political agenda.

They already showed us in all their protests and boycotts how they want to use the economy, to hurt their political enemies or reward their friends and allies. Just that Maher makes it clear. That is what the social justice warriors mean. It is only another extension of their ideological core and lust for power. Goal: a fully politicized, weaponized economy.

Right Ring | Bullright

Maher is now doing the walk of shame

Bill Maher is not letting any opportunity slide to bash Trump. He now hopes for a recession that would oppose Trump’s favorability. It finally came to this.

Well, the moonbats have gone completely crazy.

Bill Maher is ‘hoping for’ an economic collapse so he can ‘get rid of Trump’: ‘Sorry if that hurts people’

HBO host Bill Maher said Friday that he is “hoping for” an economic collapse because that is the only way the president’s opponents can “get rid of Trump.”

Maher first asked guest Shermichael Singleton to asses the current economy under President Trump.

“It is going well,” Singleton answered. “For now.”

“Thank you, that’s my question,” Maher added. “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it.”

“I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”

The economy appears to be improving under President Trump despite his ongoing trade war with both China and U.S. allies.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-maher-is-hoping-for-an-economic-collapse-so-he-can-get-rid-of-trump-sorry-if-that-hurts-people

How about maybe the bottom just fell out of Maher’s common sense reserve tank? He’s running completely on empty. At least now he said it, he is hoping for America’s demise. Are there any sane liberals any more?

First, they claimed the entire economy would collapse on Trump’s election. Now they are hoping it will. What’s left but sabotage? May Maher’s program be the first fatality.

I know, maybe we can fake out the Left somehow? They seemed much happier when the economy was tanking.

The Walk Away movement

Here’s a man on a mission who started a new campaign. (maybe not so new since I’ve already seen some others) But this guy, I think, has it nailed.

It is called the #WalkAway campaign…. from the liberal, Democrat left that is.
The author goes by The Unsilent Minority on Facebook. Powerful. (read post on FB)

“…false narratives and conclusions perpetuated by ‘social justice warriors’….”

Checkout Wayne Dupree’s post on it. H/T for spreading the word.
https://www.waynedupree.com/hes-leaving-the-democratic-party/

Well, when the message comes straight from a former “liberal” it is hard to ignore.

(I had trouble loading and watching the video until I posted it here)

Cake Baker Dump

A major SCOTUS decision came out today about the cake baker in Colorado. But let me take this opportunity to translate and paraphrase the dissent opinion, which is from Ruth Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They hold that the discrimination commission has the all powerful right to validate, or particularly invalidate a person’s religious freedom or beliefs, and its limitations.

I think we’ve seen that movie before… and know how it ends.