Russia’s infowars by media and Left

CNN has put on its thinking cap again, or not, in reporting this about Russia’s agenda.

(CNN)A former National Security Council employee who served in the White House under President Barack Obama has issued a harsh rebuke of Russia President Vladimir Putin, saying his actions during the 2016 election amount to “21st-century information warfare.”

Responding to reports that 126 million Americans saw Russian-linked Facebook content during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, Samantha Vinograd told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on “New Day” Tuesday that “Putin is engaging in digital psyops, or psychological operations.”

She continued, “He’s using misinformation to try to sow divisions in the United States. His view is, the more divided we are here at home, the weaker we’re going to be.”

Information warfare, really, from the folks who weaponized everything against the people, including information. And they did it with the help of the media. Remember those polls, reports, dirty dossier and accepting results? The more divided the weaker? Digest that.

From the mouths of babs. (Obama babs) Lets review this because some media are super-thick. If the objective was sowing division in the US, then clear the deck media has done a bang up job. It doesn’t need Russia’s interference for that — thank you very much.

It’s a laugh to hear them worried and warning about division. From people who boycotted Trump’s inauguration and emotionally crumbled when Hillary lost. And they haven’t accepted it any better since. But listen to them talk about Putin sowing division in the US, using an Obamafile to do it. It’s laughable. Then media carries their narrative as if they are a credible authority. Talk about psy-ops, that is rich.

I’d also like to remind them that the electorate decides elections, not Facebook ads.

But then who needs Facebook when we have a candidate and DNC to create a dirty dossier, with Russian sources, and then inject it into the bloodstream of media and government?

Advertisements

Beyond reasonable sympathy

I’m going to link to this article even though it is pretty insulting to the American public, but then it is what the left does. Of course they are never responsible for the moral decay or lack of civility in society and culture today.

The person he is trying to channel, John McCain, is another source of irritation.

A op-ed by John Kirby appeared at CNN praising McCain’s speech. It has issues of its own.

“John Kirby: John McCain’s speech accepting the Liberty Medal was about leadership, more than it was a rebuke of Trumpism”

In what has been largely read as a denunciation of President Trump’s world view — the senator derided “half-baked, spurious nationalism” — McCain also reminded us who we are as a people and, perhaps more importantly, who we were.

We’re not just a nation divided. We’ve become a nation afraid. …equal parts paranoid and paralyzing.

There are real threats and challenges out there, to be sure. But shame on us for letting them rip us apart this way.

[turn lecture on] You can read McCain’s speech as a slap at Trump. And maybe it is. You could also read it as the musings of an old man near the end of a long, storied, heroic life — a man unburdened by the vagaries of electoral politics. And maybe it is that as well.

Although, to be fair, McCain has never been one to shy away from taking an independent stand.

I choose to believe he is appealing to who we know, deep down, we really are as Americans — even if we don’t want to admit it: Pioneers. Explorers. Innovators. Entrepreneurs.

Appealing to? No, what it was is a treatise aimed directly at Trump, his views or philosophy, though McCain is too timid to use his name. Trump. But that is also why it was praised the way Kirby and other MSM hacks did.

That makes his speech a full-throated example of the political hatchetry it attempts to rail against. Hypocrisy. No wonder the Left would embrace it the way they did. And note the parts they highlight — those explicit angry attacks at Trump. Loving it.

Of course I will take it as the Slap it was meant to be ( I should be used to these slaps by now, since circa 2000) because what good is a shot, after all, if it is totally lost or missed? And it fits true to McCain’s past vindictive at those he disagrees with. You can’t have it both ways: praise it as the hit it is and call it benign on the other hand.

I share the concerns of many about the President’s dangerous ignorance of the world, his diminishing — if not vacant — curiosity and his general disdain for any thoughtful, balanced approach to governance.

“If we hear the words of leaders like McCain as a reminder of who we are as a nation, rather than just as a rebuke of the divisions Trump has brought”….”we’ll come out of all this stronger and better than we were before.”

So Kirby tells us how we are supposed to read his speech, in some innocuous way, to see the divisions he calls out — which will make us stronger. Stronger to ignore someone directly attacking your motives that belong in a dustbin of history. Pay no attention to that. Meanwhile, the press and media will point out how incisively he attacked you and the president.

What schizophrenic alternate reality. Kirby you take the cake. So it’s okay for McCain to make a broadsided attack, but we are at fault for seeing it as one. Did anyone ever try that with Obama….and get away with it? Never.

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/opinions/john-mccain-speech-pay-heed-kirby-opinion/index.html

Trump calls out Media, Weak-Kneed Rupublicans

Looking for the Truth in a forest of lies? Trump’s got you. Any time the media is called out they go into a nuclear meltdown. Elites don’t like that.

And apparently the media left don’t like Trump calling out weak-kneed Republicans either. Media loves weak Republicans – useful idiots. Like McCain and Flake, but there’s also Corker, Graham, Susan Collins, or even McConnell and Ryan.

NYT tries to handicap what I call the McConnell problem.

“I think he’s[Trump] going to blow up, self-implode,” Mr. Hoffman [former finance chair of RNC] said of Mr. Trump. “I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnell pulls back his support of Trump and tries to go it alone.”

McConnell going it alone? The guy who lost the repeal bill, and who promised to make Obama a one-term president. Yeah, ‘go it alone, Mitch.’ Good luck on that strategy.

So when Trump goes to a rally in Phoenix to call out media and Republican failures on dealing with Obamacare, all their collective heads explode. From media press rooms to incompetent RINOS and swamp animals. He refuses to use proper names, ha ha.

Right on cue media runs to the rescue, to help out all the above.

CNN and Don Lemon began calling him a liar right after, then launched the entire show into condemnation of Trump’s sanity. To complete the triggered panel of CNN regulars, who all challenged Trump’s sanity, they brought out discredited contributor, James Clapper. Let the fireworks begin. Take that.

How about James Clapper on CNN right after Trump’s rally in Arizona. He questions Trump’s Fitness to be in the office and adds:

“How much longer does the country have to, to borrow a phrase, “endure this nightmare?”” — [Trump as a Freddy Krueger nightmare of DC Swampland]

“He should have quit while he was ahead after last night,” Clapper referring to Trump’s announcement on US strategy in Afghanistan. “Again, I think the real Trump came through.” — [from Obama’s Dir of National Inelligence]

Then spewing out the Nuclear Codes fear mantra, Clapper said:

“In a fit of pique he decides to do something about Kim Jong Un, there’s actually very little to stop him,” Clapper said. “The whole system is built to ensure rapid response if necessary. So there’s very little in the way of controls over exercising a nuclear option, which is pretty damn scary.”

Clapper also said he is not sure what the definition of crisis is?

Trump really broke media’s triggered hearts by giving a shout out to Jeffrey Lord, fired for mocking Media Matters’ Nazi projection from the left. The guy who they still demand apologize but refuses to. A ““Sieg heil” tweet at the president of Media Matters,” is bad enough, but then refusing to publicly apologize for it is a capital offense to the Left.

Leftists claim another scalp

Real signs of how the left thinks and feels about speech, and racism.

Steve Bannon Encourages Jeffrey Lord to ‘Keep Fighting’ on ‘No Apologies Tour’ After CNN Purge

Hours after CNN fired pro-Trump commentator Jeffrey Lord for mocking Nazis and fascists with a “Sieg Heil” tweet, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon reportedly called Lord to encourage him to “keep fighting” on what Lord said would be his “no apologies tour.”

As Breitbart News reported, “CNN—the network that allowed anchor Brooke Baldwin to falsely smear Breitbart News as the “most prominent platform” for the ‘Nazi salute’ and enabled New York Times columnist Charles Blow just a few weeks ago to falsely defame Breitbart News as the home of ‘Neo-Nazism’”—purged Lord for his clearly sarcastic tweet “directed at a Media Matters activist who is trying remove Sean Hannity from the airwaves and has called for Lord’s firing in the past.”
…/

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/08/12/steve-bannon-encourages-jeffrey-lord-to-keep-fighting-on-no-apologies-tour/

Even when someone mocks the Nazis or Supremacists while also mocking the left, which one wins? You got it, absolutely no tolerance for mockery or jokes. All mockery of the left and their stands is just, well, intolerable — like the Third Reich.

When the left uses Hitler analogies or calls someone Nazis, that is endorsed.
Mock the Left’s SS troops at Media Matters, you get smeared.

So they want any pro-Trump person banished from the air. Keep the airwaves clean — more like dirty. There are no limits to what you can say about the right, Trump, or his supporter/voters. But criticism for the ‘opposition’ of the left needs to be strictly regulated on what one can say. Any means to purge it is acceptable.

When were Obama critics coddled, shielded and protected?

There is hardly anyone less racist or boggoted than Lord. But that is not the impression they want to convey. (smear) Yet CNN is one of the most biased in media.

On the Charleston rally all the Nazi comparisons came out, while they called the “counter protestors” defenders of racial justice. See how that works? Counter protestors is Antifa, commie anarchos et al. But now lets refer to all those as racial justice warriors.

Also: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/11/cnn-cuts-ties-with-commentator-jeffrey-lord-after-twitter-blowout.html

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

175 & Counting Lawsuit and Blackmail

Who are the 175? Well, it’s the beginning, and growing, number of plaintiffs who are part of a class action lawsuit against CNN for its discriminatory practices.

Wonder why you don’t hear about this and it never comes up on their own news network when they talk about discrimination? Funny how that is.

Here’s Something You Don’t Hear Much About: The 175 People Suing CNN For Racial Discrimination

By: Joseph Curl | Daily Wire

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings)…./

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings).

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as “It’s hard to manage black people” and “Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?,” according to a complaint by former workers Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert Jr. filed in Atlanta federal court.

Colbert Jr. also claims he was paid thousands less than white colleagues as a manager at the affiliated Turner Broadcasting System.

Henley, a former CNN executive assistant, says she was fired in 2014 for complaining that black employees were being paid less than white counterparts.

See more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16140/heres-something-you-dont-hear-much-about-175-joseph-curl

 

Another Offensive Move from CNN media

Compounding their injury, CNN has now engaged in a blackmail campaign against the meme-maker of the CNN – WWE smackdown video, featuring Trump. These people apparently have no sense of humor whatsoever. And they cannot take any mockery at all, even while they ridicule and mock the American people and White House daily.

They threatened this social media person, a 15 yr-old kid man, with exposing his real identity and other posts they found objectionable. How they got the information, supposedly from ISP via TWC, adds to it. They basically made him agree to shut up.

But what difference does it make who made the clever little video joke that went viral? Only CNN cares because they claim it “incites violence.” They also want Twitter to shut down Trump’s Twitter account for posting it. Now they claim they’ll continue asking Twitter why they haven’t taken action? Whew-wee, have they taken it too far or what?

That is the same network chronically complaining about ‘off-camera’ White House press briefings. That curtails their grandstanding and filibuster capabilities. Even though there is no such requirement in our US Constitution to them.

The same network who daily uses more anonymous sources than freckles. They demand protection and guarantee it to “sources,” no matter how controversial their leaks are. No problem, the leakers need Constitutional protections.

However, a private citizen who made a clever, funny meme on the internet is sought, bullied, threatened and blackmailed by CNN into silence. (Read, threaten to turn left-wing goons on him) They don’t really have a clue on the first amendment or the Constitution.

So the lesson, class, is no free speech in the first amendment for the people. Only plenty of far-reaching protections for the MSM elite media, “press” though.

Conclusion: CNN has become 1st Amendment Assassins — my first amendment view.

(*Correction: so it was not a 15 yr old kid, but again that only matters to CNN)

The Skinny on Media Leftinistas

I admit to occasionally watching CNN, but only so you never have to. I also have a part time therapist for it. Kids, don’t do that. Well, all their antics are not new except they are upping them to another level. Hey, it’s what they do.

Hard to believe though that 6 months or a year ago, resistance to the president — as taboo as it was even to say then — was everything liberals were against. Suddenly, they are certified experts on presidential resistance, no holds barred. They’ve gone into full-blown government-resistance mode. This from the very people who depend on it most.

So CNN sent reporters out to talk to people in America, which they are now wont to to do. You couldn’t have paid them to talk to the people before. Remember those phony interview narratives with the Tea Party? They could not hide their disgust.

First, reporters ceremoniously went to speak to Trump supporters. You know, just to gawk at their mistaken nature, perhaps to blame them, and probe their election conscience for signs of second thoughts. Then to mock them, in the media way, finally in editing. Then portray them like zoo animals. (which supporters are fully aware of, but don’t care)

To compliment that, CNN had on air interviews with JD Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy — cultural expert of working people and Appalachia — in its panel discussions. To paraphrase, ‘We must understand those people, but only so far.’ (wrong as they are)

But in this latest episode it sent a team to California, LA area, Maryland, Baltimore area, then Massachusetts, only this time to talk to the voices of the resistance in blue states. You knew they would get around to the apologists for the Resistance, diehard anti-Trumpers and opposition. They sound just as grieved as the night of the election results. Whaah.

Now Trump is being called unAmerican… so that’s the reason. Oh, we couldn’t say that about Obama. You know, we were mocked even for opposing Obama. Now they are justified to resist everything Trump as a sacred opposition. Actually, they blame Trump for their hatred. Ingenious. Gee, we should have thought of that; we might have gotten further. Maybe limiting Captain O to one term. Yet remember how McConnell was mocked, over and over, just for wanting to make Obama a one-term president?.

The Resistance say as long “as he is in office, they are going to keep fighting at [Trump’s] door.” No hatred there. But hey, at least I am not blaming their bitter hatred on racism because Trump is white. No, they do that themselves, The Left claims they are against white supremacist policies. Who knew law and order and treating everyone the same was supremacist? So they redefine things as they go along. But that is what they do.

When Steve Bannon called them the opposition party, there was a good reason.

RightRing | Bullright

Protest to Protest and F-bombs

Media swivels on its head like the exorcist movie to cover the “massive protests” going on everywhere and “all over the world.”

Before they get too full of themselves, just listen and no one knows exactly what they are protesting. (I think we know it is basically anti–Trump) Actions of a man who was just sworn in, when they organized protests weeks before.

Funny how they describe the “energy” of the protest march as infectious but failed to read the energy levels of the election, even in blue states.

Nevertheless, leave it to CNN in their breaking news coverage on protests, the anchor said: “Oh, Madonna is speaking … we HAVE to go to Madonna.” (just have to go there)

Madonna said welcome to the “revolution of love” before listing off reasons she is upset. Then to saying F-U not once, not twice but three times before they cut it off. She got the trifecta. Not even a voice-over when it happened. “Revolution of Love” to F-bomb?

What is wrong with that? Throwing to Madonna live at a campaign rally, what did they think she was going to say? What happened to media’s concerns about young children listening, at the protest or on TV, being offended by hearing that language?

Yet they did not cut it on the first F-bomb, or the second, but the third F-bomb.

CNN, Wolf Blitzer want Trump to tone down attacks on the press

Here’s Wolf Blitzer, who says he is on a steering committee and he believes in the Freedom of the press. Fine Wolf, but we the people believe very much in free speech. That includes the right to call you out for your blatant bias.

I have an idea. Maybe if you weren’t so bias, and colluding with political allies the way you’ve been, then you might receive different treatment. Dial that in Wolf.

Wolf Blitzer pleads with Trump’s campaign manager to dial back attacks on reporters

By Christina Manduley, CNN

Washington (CNN)CNN’s Wolf Blitzer pleaded Tuesday with Donald Trump’s campaign manager for her to ask the GOP nominee to dial back his harassment against the media, saying it endangers reporters.

Kellyanne Conway responded by saying that part of the responsibility lies with reporters who tweet “negative” against Trump.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has lashed out at the media during his rallies, calling reporters a variety of insults including “dishonest,” “sick,” and “corrupt.”

More: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/wolf-blitzer-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway/

Now let’s talk about all the reporters taking to the front pages to attack Trump and his supporters too — that’s us. And the closer it gets to election the worse. Just look at all the things he’s been called and the fear mongering about him. Oh Wolf calls that business as usual, and that’s to be expected. Well, Wolfy, I hope you get used to it.

The problem is that this time there is finally someone willing to fire back and Wolf doesn’t like it. Are we now like other countries where press is just another arm of the political power, and where it does the handiwork for the power brokers? It looks like it is.

Notice how Wolf calls criticism “attacks” on the press. But their bias and selective editorial control delivers attacks on Trump and the people every day. They even nuclearized the threat adding Russia and the nuclear arsenal into the mix.

Since people are now protesting CNN and others by saying “CNN sucks,” they don’t like the idea of protesting or our freedom of speech anymore. But they are all for the protestors of BLM and others in what media labels “mostly peaceful protests,” even when they end in burning property or violence. Just like they treated Tea Party protests, painting them all as sccary, angry, crazies — with liberals like the SPLC sounding terrorist warnings.

Now that Trump is in their sights, the same thing applies to him and his supporters. But mainstream media’s problem is people criticizing the media. That’s so not fair!

Game On: Trump leads

Its a real bad “dark” day for CNN when they have to report that even in their own poll, Trump is up. Of course they refer to that as even.

All things sure are not even between Hillary and Trump. We know that.

So it appears the extended Vacation from Truth is over.

CNN

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton start the race to November 8 on essentially even ground, with Trump edging Clinton by a scant two points among likely voters, and the contest sparking sharp divisions along demographic lines in a new CNN/ORC Poll.
Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey… [w/ 3rd parties]

Trump has his largest edge of the campaign as the more honest and trustworthy of the two major candidates (50% say he is more honest and trustworthy vs. just 35% choosing Clinton) and as the stronger leader, 50% to 42%. MORE

I’ll refer to this one as the Drip, Drip and Dump effect.

Nan Pelosi, meanwhile, declares Hillary’s email problems “much ado about something, but much ado.” What’s Nancy smoking? Never mind, I don’t want to know.

Hillary says there’s alot of smoke and no fire. Well, Dearest Hillary, just where the hell did all that smoke come from?

Strange response reporting a news story

What happened as CNN’s “Poppy Harlow began a story about US President Barack Obama and a CNN/ORC poll that found that 74% of respondents didn’t approve of how he’s handling the fight on terrorism?”

Well, she fainted on air. It was probably medical reasons but get that story coincidence. 74% of people don’t approve. That means only 26 percent or less support his job. Maybe that is what scared her or CNN? It does take one’s breath away.

Thanks to CNN for making this a twofer-Tuesday story (or 2 stories in one)

Made for production Dem Debate

Not that hypocrisy ever matters to Democrats or the media liberals.

The story going into the 1st Democrat debate was how Democrats should not attack each other. The whole objective of the two Republican debates was to have them attacking each other.(cannibalizing is a better word) They suggested because Sanders is so low compared to Hillary, that she should let it go even if Bernie attacks her. They asked why elevate him by dignifying it with a response?

On Republicans, they insisted that all the attacks should be responded to, or wave the white flag and forfeit. Now it’s why show any disharmony or disunity in the Democrat Party ranks? Don’t need to do that, even if they are running against each other for control of the Marxist Party.

On the other hand, if they want to talk about rough and tumble Party infighting, point to Republicans. That was surely the script going in.

The debate went according to plan, featuring Hillary in the lead role that will win her an academy award. She’s as gifted at denial as the present Oval Office Occupant. Everyone else was a supporting role. Who cares who they were? Jim Webb didn’t stand a chance with a socialist audience. They made sure not to applaud any of his answers except for a handful that appreciated his pro-gun message. Note, there are a few stragglers left. In their after coverage, they talked about odd moments and pointed to Jim Webb’s answer to who was his biggest enemy? Webb said it would be the enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded him. But CNN and their pundits thought that a strangely odd answer.

Debate is over, gun control is the answer. Hillary chimed in she’d make the rich people pay. What emails, or server? Bernie came to Hill’s rescue saying “enough with the emails”. Case closed. Gateway Pundit reported the press room cheered at that line. He is “sick and tired” of hearing about her “emails”.

Later, everyone fawned all over Hillary for how well she had done. Someone who failed at every job she had in the last decade and a half, always claiming to take full responsibility, wink wink.

For people that are forward looking they spent most of the time in the rear view mirror, the last 20 years worth. Hillary said her chief enemies are the NRA and Republicans. Yea so much gainful news there, over the back-biting long nails of Republican infighting. (so the narrative goes) Only Black Lives Matter was declared honorary winner by Van Jones after the debate, for keeping them all on message. Hillary never answered the question.

At one point, I didn’t think it was a debate, I thought Hillary was giving a press conference. Post debate focus group focused on Hillary, surprise surprise. Hillary “absorbs new information”… good cover for lying and flip flopping like a pancake.

And Las Vegas the gambling capitol was the perfect backdrop for a Dem debate. It’s no longer an election, Dems are betting voters really are that stupid.

United Socialists of America have spoken. The debate is over, just as it is on Climate Change, global warming and gun control. (science and facts be damned) The two most hated things in America, according to that crowd, are flat earth deniers and the NRA. Rich people are a close second — unless you happen to be a socialist Democrat. Gun control, socialism, global warming… what’s not to like?

Trump letter to CNN prez

What ad revenue, rates!? They should take him up on the offer, win win.
And if not, it will make them disliked even more.

Sexist web of infighting circling Jarrett

Still more post election lashing out by the Liberal Left, now to defend the first female of the White House. Not Michele but Valerie Jarrett.

Enter old strategist turned pundit from the Clinton era, Donna Brazile, who seems to think Jarrett is being martyred by the media and pundits — i.e. scapegoated. Golly, Valerie is like the most powerful female in the White House, and she is exempt from critique?

Veteran strategist Brazile writes on CNN:

No sooner was the hunt on for a fall guy for the Democratic midterm losses than some in the press predictably went after a fall gal — President Barack Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

Reporter Carol Felsenthal in Politico and others have decided that the best way to address Democratic losses is to have a “shake-up” at the White House, and the person they most want to see shaken out is Jarrett.

She is pilloried for everything from run-ins with other staffers to playing herself in a cameo role on CBS’ “The Good Wife.” That’s how much they object to the job Valerie Jarrett is doing — they don’t even want her doing it in the fictional realm. The Politico story, headlined “Fire Valerie Jarrett,” even notes that “nobody knows precisely what Jarrett does in the White House.” But whatever it is, it’s wrong enough that she needs to be fired.

(she suggested Holder receives more palatable criticism than Jarrett)

So let the friendly fire begin. The Politico story said:

” The morning after the elections, Democrats and their top staffers were hopping mad, blaming Obama and, by extension, his staff for the defeat…. We’re at that point in an already long-toothed presidency when things inside really need to change.”

No scorn like the scorn of a Liberal.

If the stories all confirm it, Valerie was the one holding down the White House during Benghazi attack. That’s when Obama’s whereabouts were a complete mystery. She was the one who went down to the situation room, according to reports, where the stand down order would have been given. Someone in such an importantly critical role, as top adviser to Obama at every move, duly invites criticism on herself. She was likely key in the video blame strategy. She was instrumental in the bin Laden mission delays on a few occasions, for fear of problems. She’s instrumental on most appointments.

But the critical point with Jarrett is that she is there at every turn. She’s been there with all the controversy, when these policies that were apparently on the ballot — which are all politically driven — were made. She is one of the designers and would have been privy to the Obamacare lies.

Yet Brazile has problems with people picking on blaming her for the fallout post election. If anyone deserves much of the responsibility for our political state, it would be her. (not that there ever is accountability) If ever there was a deserving target for criticism other than Obama it would be Jarrett.

So Brazile does what Liberals do best, turn it into a sexist attack on Jarrett. All the criticism of Valerie is just because of her sex. They lost the election, as many people are growing weary of their war on women mantra. There must be a major estrogen shortage, and women are now on the protected species list. Now she defends one of the chief advisers using the standard “sexist” dribble. Maybe they just haven’t gotten new talking points out yet. Dirty Harry must have bestowed his gun to Donna Brazile. She has a round chambered and the hammer back. She just can’t decide who to aim at first.

Brazile’s piece in CNN is a tortured battlefield of straw men bloodying every trail. It’s a nasty job but someone has to do it. From comparisons with Karl Rove to Condi Rice and back to Hillary Clinton, she lathers on the self-serving criticism of how Jarrett has been skewered by zealots, while knighting her to martyr status. Forget the reality about why she has been a target of blame. The author of “Cooking With Grease” puts the blow torch under this entree, then doubles up on her famous sauce.

She then leans on the titan of spew, Maureen Dowd’s commentary on prior women, for evidence. She tries to pass it off as bipartisan sexism. It’s everywhere. In all the flurry, her grievous examples of “sexist” criticism came from her own kitchen — the Stalingrad Left. If those are her examples, the context is a bit lost. So she succeeded in pointing out the Left’s robust criticism of the ‘other sex’. That would be like turning the gun on herself, or her own allies. It ends up smelling more like friendly fire than a valid indictment of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Always credited with being a smart gal with an instinct for politics, her diatribe sort of fell flat in baking.

So for all the valid Valerie criticism from various inside sources, Brazile chooses to turn it all into a montage on sexism. The author, Carol Felsenthal, rendered sexist as well. Maybe the problem is that it is also other women saying it.

It seems ironic that what Donna vilifies as a menial, sexist job as librarian is probably what Jarrett wants to spend the rest of her prestigious career/life immersed in – after creating the legacy. That doesn’t look like a sexist demotion to me. Considering all the details and Obama’s secrecy of records, it’s more like overseer of the vault. But I won’t hold my breath for any action.

Or maybe this was just Donna Brazile’s folksy way of telling Valerie, “call me.”

RightRing | Bullright

Anger and the walking dead Left

Want to read the complete analysis, see here. But if you want a summary:

Voters are angry — CNN poll

Washington (CNN) — Nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance, two troubling signs for Democrats one week before the midterm elections, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows. …/

The CNN/ORC poll shows that 30% of Americans are “very angry” and 38% are “somewhat angry” about the way things are going in the country, while 31% expressed “no anger” at all. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes the 31% of “very angry” Americans matches the mood of the country in 2010 when Republicans took back control of the House.

In next week’s election, the emotion of anger could be a motivating factor in driving out GOP voters. While 36% of Republican voters said they are “extremely” or “very enthusiastic,” about voting this year, only 26% of Democrats use that language to describe themselves, in the CNN/ORC poll.

That’s enough for me. Just like one of those old rock and roll songs when all you need is the chorus to say it all. A total of 68% have some anger.

I’m going to take the liberty of reading between the lines. There are 31% of voters in this country who are tone deaf, and probably don’t know what is going on, who are not pissed off. Let me see now: if those people are not pissed off yet, then maybe they are the walking dead. What would it take to get them angry? I think we know who they are.

But I have a suspicion most of those same people found plenty of anger during Bush’s terms — and he is the one they directed it at, along with anyone even remotely allied to him. Now, suddenly they are not angry about any of this stuff. Come on! Did they all receive therapy? Are they on medication?

I don’t know but beyond the crew in Washington, this is the part of the populace I have problems with. Let’s also say that if they aren’t feeling the pain yet from this regime, they must be therapeutically numbed — or anger challenged. The rest of us see and feel the pain quite well, and blame the progressive collective for it.

So, 30% of voters will be the walking dead on top of the regular dead vote.

As for the rest of the awake among us…

RightRing | Bullright

Goal Posts and WH strategy

The goal posts are moving, again, now almost daily.

At first they said there was nothing to suggest the White House changed or had anything to do with altering the talking points on Benghazi.

Here you have a chief WH staffer, Ben Rhodes, telling and suggesting what Susan Rice should say in her Sunday talk-a-thon. Then Rice goes out on the talk shows blaming Benghazi attack on the video, per script.

Carney telling us that the email had nothing to do with Benghazi is like… well, and they claim we dabble in conspiracies? Am I to believe he wrote the email to Rice, prior to her talk-a-thon, and was explicitly NOT talking about Benghazi? (Sure) Why would he exempt Benghazi… where 4 Americans were viciously killed, and all the attention was focused, and what Susan Rice mostly talked about? Then they claim the Benghazi blame points came from the CIA, not so per Morell. So then she would have had to inject that video reason for Benghazi all by her lonesome. (that’s a wild theory)

That Rhodes was not even referring to Benghazi, even though he did mention it, doesn’t pass the smell test. In fact, it wreaks. The other absurdity on its face is that if in fact he did mean the video was the reason for the protests and violence, anywhere, then that really blames us and supplies terrorists a universal excuse. That was Mitt Romney’s problem as it was happening. But they would rather cling to some flimsy excuse for the perpetrators of violence than admit there was a real terrorist attack in Benghazi — unattached to a video.

If Rhodes was making the point about protests excluding Benghazi, then wouldn’t you think he (the WH) would have made a point to lay out a real cause for Benghazi itself, alone, untied to the other protests? No, he was referring to Benghazi.

But the goal post did move. The left said there was nothing connecting the WH to what was said in the talking points. Hello, there it is. Now they say it doesn’t. Their co-opting of the talking points were not even about Benghazi. Jay must have thought that one up by himself. Just connect what Rice said, explicitly referring to Benghazi, to Rhodes instructions in the email. Voila. She followed the script perfectly. Now they merely dismiss deny that Rhodes’ email, copied to everyone, had anything at all to do with Benghazi. Nancy says there is “nothing new”. Lets just say they stretched the goal posts from one place to another. Now they will claim this means nothing — denial.

Liars and liars, and liars. “No substantive changes…”- Jay Carney.

It’s pretty bad when CNN, with its own queen of spin, Crowley, thinks it’s absurd.

(…see if CNN gets anymore special interviews!)

RightRing | Bullright

Cable news recession

It is the best topic besides corrupt politics in DC, but goes hand in hand with it. The media and their “news” coverage these days deserves all the ridicule it gets.

Pew: MSNBC Loses Quarter of Primetime Audience

by John Nolte 26 Mar 2014 | Brietbart

According to Pew, year-over-year numbers show that the business of left-wing cable news is in trouble. The cable news viewing audience overall declined for everyone, but MSNBC lost 24% of its primetime audience. CNN dropped 13%. Fox only lost 6%.

Those percentages are even more graphic when you consider how few viewers CNN and MSNBC have to begin with, especially when compared to Fox News. Fox beats both of its left-wing competitors combined with 1.75 million viewers. Only 619k tune into MSNBC, while CNN comes in third (for the fourth year) with 543k viewers.

Daytime viewership was especially bad for MSNBC. Both CNN and Fox News increased viewers over last year: 12% and 2%, respectively. MSNBC lost a whopping 15.5% of its daytime audience.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/26/pew-msnbc-loses-quarter-primetime-audience

They are all losing, including Fox. The only explanation I can think of is less people are watching and/or more people are unplugging from cable. The shocker is that MSNBC could beat CNN in anything. But it demonstrates no matter what, there are some dumb people out there and that sensational attacks work — even if anchors get canned for saying the raunchiest things they can think up.

Other meaningless commentary: another symptom of the sick media is the cable news war. MSNBC is forever attacking Fox. Fox responds attacking MSNBC’s and NBC’s sycophant coverage. The White House defense team spends the balance of their time attacking Democrats’ number one enemy — besides the Koch brothers — Fox news. And Fox covers the Left’s media antics.

It’s sort of a self-serving war. they all complain about each other and CNN just jumps on anything that looks like a story it can use. (I’d love to attend one of their meetings) So their critiques become the theme. It’s reality news.

Are people keeping score though? If the Nixon era was the low point of politics, then this one is determined to set a bigger low in media coverage, even if its about… themselves.

On the positive side, no one wants to miss a train wreck.

RightRing | Bullright

Whiplash post Trayvon

People who claimed all along Trayvon’s shooting was about race, go out of their way to say this is not about race, as two black teens and one white shoot Australian college student, Christopher Lane, out of boredom.

Whether you think this shooting is race-related or not, it is amazing how quick they spin around in whiplash to say this has nothing to do with race. (The glove doesn’t fit…)

Then the wider factor: these shooters are essentially victims of a community, culture. They run out to dismiss racism from the conversation after talking about nothing but race for months. And after dismissing the cultural concerns surrounding Trayvon, like Chicago. Now ‘its the culture, stupid.’

Mark Geragos, CNN, suggested in the Zimmerman case that race is embedded in the justice and jury system, so race is unavoidably part of our process. Now he says the criminal justice system has been politicized. We don’t need Obama or pols politicizing this senseless shooting of an Australian college kid.

Now they tell us that it is the wider problems are to blame for this senseless boredom killing. They search for reasons to explain away the conduct of the killers. Remember, it is not race related in any way. But Zimmerman’s actions were driven by race.

See how they spin…whiplash…. what racism? (Video from CNN)

But this part is cut from the video, where Wright explained their change of heart:
KING: Crystal, it’s sad and we can’t jump the gun here, innocent until proven guilty. Sad to look at the young faces. You say that it’s not a gun problem but a breakdown of the Black family. How so?
CRYSTAL WRIGHT, CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER: Well, I want to go back to a little bit what Mark was saying. And you know, this is about race. It might not necessarily be a hate crime but it is very much about race. And what bothers me and strikes me about the media’s whole characterization about this case is never once do we hear about the fact, that two of the killers are Black, two Black teens killing a young White male and when we contrast that to Trayvon Martin, the news media rushed to judgment really quickly. And they said before charges were even brought against George Zimmerman, remember, it was a White man who savagely gunned down a young Black teen. And I think what this tells us is that America has gotten used to and numb to the fact that young Black males are doing the killing.
And that, however, at the same time when the news media reports on a crime, a heinous crime like we see where Christopher Lane, there is no acknowledgement of the reason why young Black males are killing. And you danced — you know, dancing around the fact. Let’s be politically correct.
This was a heinous, savage crime and the fact is, James Edwards did post White hate on his facebook page, on his twitter account, and he glorified hip-hop, which is also part of the problem. So yes, the fact that 73 percent of all Black babies are born into households that where they don’t have two parents is a huge problem. And I want to know when are we going to honestly talk about the problem? And Mark, it’s not — it is open and shut? So it’s open and shut when a Black — when Black kids kill a White boy, it’s open and shut. But it’s not — oh, God, it’s not open and shut when we know that White — and George Zimmerman, by the way, was not White. Remember, he was conveniently recast as a White-Hispanic, right?
I mean, the case should have never been brought to trial. I’m just — this makes me upset to my core because this is a setback for race relations in America on the 50th anniversary of what Martin Luther King fought for. [the video picks up after that]
Description: “As attention on the so called “boredom” killing of college student Christopher Lane grows, so do questions about the role of race. Some are already comparing it to killing of Trayvon Martin, and questioning why the media, and President Obama are not handling it the same way. Criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos, conservative blogger Crystal Wright, and B.E.T. editorial brand manager Michaela Angela Davis weigh in on the case.”

Michaela Angela Davis says “it’s bottom-feeding to make this about race.

This is absolutely not about race, Davis said. Asked about the phone calls Obama has made to others like Trayvon’s family, Davis says “the president felt the entire whole world was mourning for Trayvon”. She says he can’t be calling families of every victim.  But Lane was a student from another country. Its simple, there is no political benefit for the community organizer in chief to wade into it, like everything else he stuck his nose in.

(CBS)
Peter Lane told Australian media there was no explanation for his son’s death.

It is heartless and to try to understand it is a short way to insanity,” he said.

Lesson in responsibility – Clinton style

October 16th Clinton explained in an interview “I take responsibility” for Benghazi.

Lima, Peru (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she’s responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility,” Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

“I take this very personally,” Clinton said. “So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.”

As luck would have it, she is now indisposed to testify about Benghazi, unfortunately. It seems responsibility has a front door and a back door. And this is the time for the back door.

But it does not come as a big surprise.

On a related note:

MSNBC

Hillary Clinton’s possible 2016 bid for the presidency won one high-profile supporter Tuesday in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Pelosi said during an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she hoped Clinton – who will retire soon from her job as secretary of state – would make another bid for the presidency in four years.

“Wouldn’t that be exiting?” Pelosi said. “I hope she goes – why wouldn’t she?

“She could be president of the United States, and she would be great,” added Pelosi, who was speaker of the House and stayed neutral during the 2008 primary between Clinton and Barack Obama. “And if she decided to run, I think she would win. She would go into the White House as well prepared, or better prepared, than almost anybody who has served in that office in a very long time.”.