CNN had a navel-gazing moment

A moment of ironic revelation? You decide.

Something remotely interesting happened last night on CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Stars must have been allighned in just the right way.

Anderson had Dana Loesh and posed this question to her:

That was a great setup for Dana to put her foot in the door and push it open.

She did a good job telling him how people don’t share media’s obsession with the Russia story. Dana said they don’t care about it the way the media cares. People care about other things, she said: the jobs agenda, taxes, healthcare. “Show me something actionable…show me some evidence!” They want to know, where are the other stories?

Of course he tried to challenge that but the important thing is he asked the question. Do you think they suddenly decided to entertain the question do Americans care? They didn’t care this far. They thrust it on us as if there were no other news to cover.

Now they wonder if Americans care? Something must have happened in their poll machine interpreter in the backroom. CNN has gotten a lot of push back from the Trump people about other news and other stories about Trump. But they pooh-poohed those complaints. Now, suddenly they pose the question and have a discussion about it.

Turns out that CNN has a a poll and only 27% are very concerned about Russia story.
And 33% are not at all concerned. (between is mixed) Yep, they’ve been polling.

My brief reply to their question is to ask a few questions: (since they asked)

1) Tell us why it is supposed to be so important? Media haven’t made the case yet. Then where is the substance or evidence? What collaboration?

2) Then why it is more important than everything else that I care about? Why is Russia more important than election results? In 8 months they haven’t told us.

3) People are practical and rational. They just want to know why the Russia story is so 5-alarm important? They don’t see it. Is it too much to explain why this is important enough to jeopardize a brand new presidency? Why does Russia trump that?

Funny it was not that long ago, just last year in fact, that Dems said they didn’t care about the 30 thousand emails. They told us people don’t care about that. Even the Media repeatedly told us, at the time, that people care about issues that effect them. Much of the time mainstream media refused to talk about it claiming “there are so many other news stories to cover.” “We only have so much time,” they said.

But stop the presses and news cycle now because no other stories matter or deserve coverage that interrupts their Trumpathon bash about Russia. 24/7 They even claim to know what is important and to hell with what people think, we decide what to cover.

Now vs. then is night and day. People just want a good reason to care about Russia.

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

What’s in the news numbers?

Gee, you could have reversed those numbers under Obama. But I’m sure it would be even worse with the sycophant media. I’d like to help them out.

So given that I think there are some questions reporters need to be asking Trump:

What type of phone do you prefer?

What is your golf handicap? What’s your best score?

What is your favorite room in the White House and why?

What is your favorite meal in the White House?

Who is your very favorite late night show host?

What is your favorite singer?

Do you like boxers or briefs?

Do you sing in the shower?

What is your favorite monument on the Mall?

What do you want to be remembered for most?

What is your least favorite thing about the White House?

Do you ever send out for food? If so, what?

Do you ever use the balcony in the residence?

Do you use the theater regularly, and what movie did you watch last?

Who’s your favorite actor?

What is your typical morning like?

If you could change one thing in the White House, what would it be?

…. feel free to add your own inquisitive question. Inquiring minds need to know.

Ref: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641

Let’s just call her ‘Spreadsheet Suzie’

Report: Susan Rice Ordered ‘Spreadsheets’ of Trump Campaign Calls

by Joel B. Pollak4 Apr 2017 | Breitbart

President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign aides during the last election, and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.

The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by blogger Mike Cernovich and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides’ names to be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. The alleged “unmasking” may have been legal, but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the aim of leaking them to the press.

At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News compiled the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking — all based on mainstream media reports — the mainstream media dismissed the story as a “conspiracy theory.”

Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of the Obama administration’s alleged surveillance continue to emerge.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/report-susan-rice-ordered-spreadsheets-trump-campaign-calls/

Oh no, nothing to see here, media can go back to sleep. Spreadsheet Suzie’s got this!

More on another Breitbart article on Rice’s interview with Andrea Mitchel (lovefest)

“I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would.”

Rice: “I can’t get into any specific reports … what I can say is there is an established process.”

Well, so there’s an “established process” for surveillance, I take it?
And Spreadsheet Suzie was right on it.

Obama Exits To Go Nowhere

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

No, it’s not a trick question.

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

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

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

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

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

Not gone, not forgotten… just ____________ (there)

RightRing | Bullright

Delegitimizing Obama’s Legacy

Obama always worried about someone trying to undermine his presidency and legacy.

Remember Mitch McConnell’s well-worn quote that his #1 job was making Obama a one-term president, which never did work out? Obama overused that one.

It turns out that the one person who has done more to delegitimize Obama and undermine his presidency was Obama. Being too stupid to realize it is just icing on the cake.

Spending all his time to get Hillary elected only illustrated the case against his legacy.

RightRing | Bullright

Stocking the Cabinet of Deployables

Let’s review what Obama’s administration looks like: cabinet secretaries, sub cabinet, and all those influential and controversial Czars.

In order of succession to the Presidency: 15 cabinet, 6 sub cabinet, 32 czars

Vice President of the United States

Department of State

Department of the Treasury

Department of Defense

Department of Justice

Department of the Interior

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

Department of Energy

Department of Education

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Homeland Security

The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:

White House Chief of Staff

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Management & Budget

United States Trade Representative

United States Mission to the United Nations

Council of Economic Advisers

Small Business Administration

Then there were all those controversial Czars which Obama denied were czars.

“Green Jobs Czar” ————- “Diversity Czar”

“Car Czar” ————————- “Cyber Czar”

“Intelligence Czar” ————– “Regulatory Czar”

“Safe Schools Czar” ————- “Border Czar”

“Science Czar” ——————— “Climate Czar”

“Energy Czar” ——————— “Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar”

“Pay Czar” ————————–  “Health Czar”

“Homeland Security Czar” or “Drones Czar”

“AIDS Czar” ————————- “Manufacturing Czar”

“Weapons Czar” ——————– “WMD Czar”

“California Water Czar” ——— “Asian Carp Czar”

“Great Lakes Czar” ————— “Information Czar”

“Technology Czar” —————– “Auto Recovery Czar”

“Drug Czar” ————————–  “Domestic Violence Czar”

“Urban Affairs Czar” ————– “Gitmo Czar”

“Mideast Czar” ———————- “Iran Czar”

“Stimulus Accountability Czar”

What’s missing? I know, how about a “Hope Czar” – Ambassador of Hope?

Oh but the Obama administration pushed back on using the term Czar. Maybe he just didn’t want to call them czars. Let’s hope Trump — or no other president for that matter — ever has a penchant for czars like Obama.

Newt on the Fundation case

On a The Laura Ingraham Show, Newt Gingrich said:

“[Lifezette] The Clintons run what is in effect the equivalent of organized crime,” [Gingrich] said. “They had methodically figured out every way to fleece people. They did so at the expense of the people of Haiti. They did so at the expense of poor people everywhere.”

“It is astonishing to me that the level of corruption is so deep that neither the FBI nor the IRS nor anyone has taken apart this whole operation,” [Newt] said. “The more we learn from WikiLeaks, the clearer it is that these people engaged in routine, illegal behavior for personal enrichment. ”

Read More: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/gingrich-clinton-foundation-equivalent-organized-crime/

Good for Newt stating the obvious. Why not call the Clintons’ Cosa Nostra what it is?

Personal enrichment is the name of the game. Cha ching. I am so done questioning why Hillary does what she does. It’s enough to know this is just the way she is. That is what we have to expect if she gets into the Oval Office. What ways could she abuse more power? I don’t know if I can count them all.

What is the Terrorism debate about numbers?

What is this numbers game over the number of dead Muslims verses the non-Muslims?

I’ll give anyone the prize of the week if they can tell me why it matters so much that terrorists are (1)killing other Muslims and (2)that they are killing more Muslims than us — prsumably non-Muslims? Might as well watch this before it disappears.

This Georgia Professor goes off that terrorists are killing Muslims.

I confess I don’t understand her point of argument. But it is the same one even Obama uses. Since they are killing other Muslims, is that proof that they are not Muslims, Islamic or terrorists? No. Does it mean we are not a target or that they not are coming after us, as Buck Sexton said? No. Then what could it mean?

Note how the moderator, Don Lemon cuts Buck off and then proposes that maybe the terrorists are also Muslim? Of course, the only ones denying terrorists are Muslims is probably Obama and the White House. But what does that all matter?

Of course they are Muslim, Islamic Terrorists and of course they also kill other Muslims. Is anyone really disagreeing with that? I didn’t think so. But this seems to be their chief talking point, “they are killing Muslims too.” Well, duh! And this means what exactly?

They never tell us what it is supposed to mean. We are supposed to conclude that they are not just after us. Does it mean they aren’t targeting us only other Muslims? No. Whew, I feel better now because they are killing other Muslims too, not just us non-Muslims.

Terrorism, by design, has a certain randomization to it. Maybe that was frowned on at one time, by ethical terrorists, but seems to be justified now. (if there is any justification for terrorism in their minds) Come on, people, we are above this simple numbers game stuff. Why do they tell us all the time that we Americans and Westerners are their targets? Don’t you think they can rationalize killing 100 Muslims if 15 or 20 are non-Muslims? Can’t they also kill other Muslims that are in their way to prove a point and send a message to other Muslims? Of course. So this argument is almost as ridiculous as it sounds. But I am not trying to prove that they do not kill other Muslims. It should make the point that they are plenty evil enough to kill anyone. They’re terrorists, it’s what they do.

Her other point was just as bad, explaining their “lashing out” motivation. It sounds a little like John Kerry. So they kill out of weakness, out of desperation. I get it, the weaker they are the more of these attacks they do. Every time liberals try to explain terrorism they confuse the crap out of it and end up making excuses for terrorists. Like what we are doing is “a recruiting tool,” so stop it. Stop our action and the terrorists will stop? No.

This is to imply a terrorist’s mind is totally logical and rational. But Obama has been making these arguments for years and they don’t sound any better than they did then. And we’re told how logical Obama is. In fact, they are as old as the Saudi sand.

RightRing | Bullright

Heard it on the X and DeRay

How about a greatest hits collection from the DeRay portfolio?

Best in Show

That sort of depends on his definition of “productive.”

Arrest for obstructing a highway, days later a 4.5 hour high-profile conference with the President of the United States.

I hope if he shows up in Cleveland he’s wearing his famous vest. It will make him easier to spot. (well, that and the SS protection he’ll probably have) Then there was this article.

#BlackLivesMatter leader DeRay Mckesson may claim to be leading a grassroots revolution for racial and economic justice, but he has close connections with the privileged and elite.

Mckesson lives in a home owned by philanthropists James and Robin Wood in Baltimore, Maryland.

It’s the same address he used when declaring his residency on his campaign committee registration form for his failed mayoral run in the city’s Democratic primary earlier this year.

On Monday, the Balimore Sun reported the 31-year-old agitator Mckesson is making a handsome salary courtesy of Baltimore school district taxpayers.

In his new role, Mckesson is earning a salary of $165,000 as the district’s third chief of human capital in two years, and manage of a budget of $4 million and 56 employees.

More: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/blacklivesmatter-leader-deray-lives-home-owned-by-soros-connected/

But it’s his idea of “world-class education” that bothers me.

For kicks

Obama to Dallas: I can politicize death of 5 cops at memorial for them

Obama went to Dallas and did what he always does, ripped a fresh scab off the wound.

He lectured about undeniable institutional racism while it was a black nationalist who gunned down 11 cops. Micah said his intent was to kill white people and especially white cops at a Black Lives Matter protest. Therefore, Obama thought we all were in need of another lecture about our institutionalized racism.

He added his favorite word, Jim Crow to his speech. He kept trying to say what good progress we made while saying we are still habitually racist and should just admit it. Then he nationalized the shooting of these officers by talking about Michigan and Baton Rouge shootings. As if that were the reason the guy it, when he explicitly told them he wanted to kill white people, particularly cops.

But Obama had to insert the connection to those shootings at a memorial for fallen cops. He twisted the honor of the five dead cops, and 11 wounded, into an institutional racism problem. In fact, Dallas is exceptional at the fore on this issue. Wrong police department, but that didn’t matter.

Whoever he is talking to, same lecture. When Obama has a narrative to push, nothing is going to get in his way. Even 5 dead officers who did nothing wrong.

From his trip in Poland, Obama said after news broke:
“Let’s be clear: there is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any violence against law enforcement.”

No, there isn’t. But then why does he imply there is to make the case?

So Jim Crow and Obama do Dallas

In a soliloquy of seduction, he began his way to his greater theme.

(Wa Post) “Your work, the work of police officers across the country, is like no other,” Obama said to the assembled officers. “From the moment you put on that uniform, you have answered a call that at any moment, even in the briefest interaction, may put your life in harm’s way.”

“All of it has left us wounded and angry and hurt.”

“It’s as if the deepest fault lines of our democracy have suddenly been exposed, perhaps even widened.”

Obama continued: “We wonder if an African American community that feels unfairly targeted by police and police departments that feel unfairly maligned for doing their jobs, can ever understand each other’s experience.” — More>

He twisted the honor of those fallen cops into an institutional racism problem.

In the text of his Dallas Memorial speech, he lectured on Jim Crow.
But that is typically a two-step routine for Obama.

“We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn. And when anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased or bigoted, we undermine those officers we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves — well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

First is the setup — anecdotal or straw man — followed by a gut punch he relishes.

We also know that centuries of racial discrimination — of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow — they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed. Race relations have improved dramatically in my lifetime. Those who deny it are dishonoring the struggles that helped us achieve that progress.

But we know, America, we know that bias remains. We know it. Whether you are black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or of Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that.

And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.

And so when African Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment; when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently, so that if you’re black you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested…”

He continued on in his Dallas speech for the fallen heroes:

…”when all this takes place more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.

We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism. To have your experience denied like that, dismissed by those in authority, dismissed perhaps even by your white friends and coworkers and fellow church members again and again and again — it hurts. Surely we can see that, all of us.”

Except it was a racist black nationalist who did this and was certainly not peaceful.

Are police being paranoid about being targeted? But their concerns are routinely dismissed by Obama and his DOJ. “Peaceful” these protests have not been, when violence or shutting down traffic or businesses is routine. Depends on your definition of “peaceful.”

What he has done is anchored his case on feeling and their perception. But we the people are always scolded for our faulty perception, whether it is broken borders and security or being targeted by the IRS — and lectured that there is not a smidgen of corruption.

As usual, he has a very bad habit of losing, ignoring, misplacing, dismissing or transposing blame from the actual shooter for what he had done and why. He’s compulsively reluctant to point his finger of blame, whether it is the Orlando shooter, the San Bernardino couple, or an illegal committing murder. Yet he can cast institutional aspersions on police .

Live from Warsaw, Poland, after the Dallas shootings broke, Obama hadn’t even readied to board the plane when he dropped his signature executive cloud over it — like a fog. Then he issued a slightly veiled preemptive political threat, from abroad as usual.

He started by calling it a “vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement.”

“For now, let me just say that even as yesterday I spoke about our need to be concerned as all Americans about racial disparities in our criminal justice system, I also said our police have an extraordinarily difficult job.”

“We also know when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately, it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic.”

“Let’s be clear: there is no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any violence against law enforcement.”

“In the days ahead, we will have to consider those realities as well.”

Right out with “racial disparities.” Well, what about disparities when good, career police are gunned down? Cops who are protecting rights of actors like Black Lives Matter? Still, about the shooting of cops, the first words out of his mouth are about disparity.

Days later, Obama is having a meeting with BLM leaders and civil rights organizers.
I’d call BLM urban terrorists, which now earns them a meeting with the President.

RightRing | Bullright

PETITION on BLM

Formally recognize Black Lives Matter as a terrorist organization.

Created by Y.S. on July 06, 2016

terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. Black Lives Matter has earned this title due to its actions in Ferguson, Baltimore, and even at a Bernie Sanders rally, as well as all over the United States and Canada. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare Black Lives Matter a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

Petition here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/formally-recognize-black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization

Benghazi select committee stonewalled

The Benghazi attack happened a few months before the 2012 Election. Now four years later, with a few months left in his term, the administration continues to run out the clock on the Select Committees investigation. We still don’t know what Obama was doing or what exactly Hillary did.

Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“Its justifications…are imaginary.”Western Journalism

The Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has been seeking emails and records from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her senior staff at the State Department for over one year, including the findings of an Accountability Review Board but has yet to receive anything substantial.

“Whatever the administration is hiding, its justifications for doing so are imaginary and appear to be invented for the sake of convenience. That’s not how complying with a congressional subpoena works, and it’s well past time the department stops stonewalling,” he said.

More: Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“There is only one reason why these facts are now available to the American people: thorough congressional oversight, including the Select Committee on Benghazi’s insistence that any truly comprehensive review of what happened before, during, and after the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya must include public records from the former Secretary of State and her senior staff,” said Gowdy.

“If anyone wonders why the investigation is not yet complete, the malfeasance and numerous problems identified in this report are Exhibit A, and prove the committee has faced serial delays from Day One at the hands of public officials who sought to avoid transparency and accountability,” added Gowdy.

We’re set to go into another election, four years later, without critical answers. At this point, to expect the answers or accountability from Obama’s administration would require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Maybe we will not get the answers but only an explanation as to why we didn’t get the answers or accountability.

Radical Islamic agenda and gun control

Eric Bolling filled in on the O’Reilly Factor. A former Obama advisor, Nayyera Haq, argued for more gun control laws. Eric laid out the Islamist problem spreading like wild fire. Well, it’s hard to deny, hard as libs try.

The terrorist was “a homophobic who clearly had mental health issues”.

She claimed we are making progress on ISIS, but that as we make gains in the ME, ISIS gets desperate calling for lone wolf attacks. “As you beat back ISIS on the ground in Syria and Iraq, they spread to Europe and US. So that’s a separate problem,” she said.

Then came the revelations of CIA Director Brennan. He tells us the are coming here and scheming to exploit the refugee program and immigration. Nayyera Haq said:

“I think a big part of the answer is: now that it’s coming to America homeland, let’s not make it easy for people to get weapons like AR-15s or any other weapons… now, absolutely.”

Did she make that loud and clear? We have to sacrifice our rights and guns because the terrorists are coming here. That might have been a Freudian slip, but it’s the ugly truth. They must crack down on our rights because of Radical Islamic Terrorists and jihadis — which they can’t even mention — are obsessed with killing. Target guns not terrorists.

Let me flush that out further. Immigrants, real immigrants, typically come here to assimilate into America. Islamic radicals come here to assimilate America to them, Islam. They don’t want any part of assimilation and if we have to sacrifice or lose things because of them coming here, all the better. That is not immigration, that’s an invasion, a hostile takeover. But Islamists already declared war on us, so it’s no surprise.

Incidentally, the Radicals and Muslims are some of the most vocal supporters of gun control, why is that? I’ve read articles by so-called moderate, liberal Muslims for gun control. Stop looking at their Islam faith, blame our gun laws, they say. Absurd.

So now for a message to our Commander and Denier:

Mr. Obama, if you really want Americans to resent Muslims, then take our rights away and demand we sacrifice our guns because the Radical Islamists’ political agenda cannot be controlled or defeated. That will make Americans respect Muslims more, won’t it?

That is not a wise trade off: making new rights and protections for Muslims while you take away our Constitutional rights. Then again, Obama will not enforce the laws there now, and scrubbed regulations for offensive words. What these radicals and terrorists are doing is treason, something like what you’ve been doing. But here is the king of deception himself.

“The reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism,” Obama lectured us after Orlando.

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam. It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.”

“It wouldn’t make us more safe, it would make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” – NOLA

Even within that rebuttal he could only call it extremism. Obama is an extremist obfuscater of the first degree. Our greatest threat is still sitting in the Oval Office.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary unfit to run

Hillary is unfit for even staging a run to the presidency let alone being a serious candidate.

5 Reasons Hillary Clinton Isn’t Fit To Be President

John Hawkins | May 21, 2016 | Townhall

Only a living, breathing Hindenburg disaster like Hillary Clinton could make a 74-year-old socialist like Bernie Sanders seem like a fresh and charismatic “new face.” All over America, people are looking at the ancient wife of Bill Clinton and wondering how out of 320 million people, the Democrats could have possibly picked her as their nominee. This is a woman who is simply not fit to be President of the United States. Why?

1) She’s responsible for Benghazi. There have been endless Benghazi investigations and if you believe the mainstream media, you’d think nothing came out of them.However, we did learn that over 600 requests were made for more security. In the end, four men died and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body was dragged through the street because Hillary Clinton never acted to safeguard their lives. Since when do we reward government officials with a promotion after their negligence has gotten people killed?

2) She hasn’t accomplished anything. Sean Hannity has a bit on his radio show where he challenges liberal callers to name Hillary’s three greatest accomplishments. Listening to them hem and haw while they try to come up with anything is hilarious. What her fans don’t want to admit is that despite her mediocre tenure in the Senate and as secretary of state, her real “accomplishments” are being married to Bill Clinton and being female. Take those two “non-accomplishments” away from her and she wouldn’t be in the top 1,000 people considered to be president.

3) She’s a liar’s liar. Merely calling Hillary Clinton a “liar” makes her sound too much like an ordinary politician. To the contrary, Hillary is what a lying liar who spent all her days working at the lie factory on a lying machine would sound like. She lies about the big stuff, the little stuff and everything in-between. This is a woman who falsely claimed that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. A roughly equivalent lie turned Brian Williams into a running joke, but there’s so much more with Hillary. After Benghazi, she told the American people that a video was responsible when she was privately telling people it was a terrorist attack. She claimed that she came out of the White House dead broke and in debt. She said she applied for the Marines in 1975 and was turned down. She claimed she was named after the explorer Sir Edmund Hillary who became famous when she was six years old. You can go on and on with the list. Yes, nobody expects politicians to be as scrupulously honest as pastors, but how can you vote for someone who’s so dishonest you can’t ever take anything she says at face value?

4) She belongs in jail. In America, no one is supposed to be “above the law.” Not you, not me, not the president of the United States. Yet, if Hillary Clinton doesn’t go to jail over having classified emails sent to her private server, it will be purely for political reasons. She knew what she was doing was highly illegal from day one. Not only are there people in jail for doing less than she has, any normal person with a government security clearance who did what she did would EXPECT to go to jail if he were caught. How can anyone be okay with voting for someone to be President who would be in jail if she weren’t married to a former president and running for office herself?

5) She is utterly corrupt. Back when Bill Clinton was in the White House, Hillary received $100,000 in bribes in return for putting $1,000 into the cattle futures market. The odds that Hillary did that honestly have been computed at 1 in 31 trillion. That was small potatoes compared to the deals Bill and Hillary appear to have cut with foreign governments. Enormous sums went directly into Bill’s pockets for doing speeches or to the scammy Clinton Foundation and next thing you know, the State Department was doing favors for those shady deep pocketed donors.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

With Obama in office, Hillary will never be investigated and prosecuted for what she’s done, but she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. She should be running for president of her cellblock, not president of the United States.

Article at Townhall

Garland linked to Benghazi coverup

Obama’s SCOTUS pick claimed video cause of Benghazi long after disproven

April 1, 2016 | Michael Dorstewitz | BizPac Review

During a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) hearing held four months after the terrorist attack on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, President Obama’s appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court claimed it was the anti-Muslim Internet video that sparked the attack.

More: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/04/01/obamas-scotus-pick-claimed-video-cause-of-benghazi-long-after-disproven-323997

State censorship alive and well in WH

White House Says ‘Technical Issue’ Caused Censorship of ‘Islamist terrorism’ From Video

by Tammy Bruce on April 2, 2016

Yeah, the technical issue of being like Stalin. After all, don’t all ‘technical issues’ magically eliminate the words Obama especially hates and refuses to use, and only those word, like “Islamic terrorism,” from the comments of visiting Heads of State?

Washington Times

It appeared this week that the White House censored a video of the French president to omit him saying the words “Islamist terrorism” during a speech at a bilateral meeting, but officials claim a technical glitch caused the ill-timed dropped audio. […]

See http://tammybruce.com/2016/04/white-house-says-technical-issue-caused-censorship-of-islamist-terrorism-from-video.html

Oh that word that causes the White House to lose their cool, giving them them heartburn and headaches. The people should be protected from such dangerous words.

WH refuses to use Genocide word

White House says it is not convinced ISIS ethnic cleansing we’ve seen is “genocide”.
CNS News

The reporter asked Earnest, “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in this situation?”

“The — my understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has, at this point, not been reached. But we’ve been quite candid and direct, exactly, about how — how ISIL’s tactics are worthy of the kind of international, robust response that the international community is leading. And those tactics include a willingness to target religious minorities, including Christians.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-spokesman-cant-say-if-isis-slaughter-christians-genocide

Well, what number triggers that word, or definition? What kind of atrocity does it have to be? He can parse all he wants. People know a program when they see one. And what he qualified as the beginning at Mount Sinjar was not the beginning of the atrocities. So that is to admit that they had ignored it pretty much until that situation.

Funny though that they can toss around and use the word “torture” so loosely to suit, whenever they want to make a case of it. “Worthy” but not of using the ‘g’- word.

Obama, mosques R US

Daniel Pipes has written an excellent analysis of Obama’s mosque speech.

Assessing Obama’s Mosque Speech on Islam

by Daniel Pipes
Special to IPT News
February 8, 2016

Wishing to address growing anti-Islamic sentiments among the American public, Barack Obama ventured on Feb. 3 to the Islamic Society of Baltimore (sadly, a mosque with unsavory Islamist associations) to talk about Islam and Muslims. The 5,000-word speech contains much of interest. Here’s an in-depth assessment of its key points:

Obama:… “the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

How can a person in a position of responsibility say something so patently wrong? Islam means submission, and does not derive from peace. As I explained in 2005, “There is no connection in meaning between salām and islām, peace and submission. These are two distinct words with unrelated meetings.” Shame on Obama.

Obama: “the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character.”

By this infantile logic, Hitler could not have been at war with Judaism because Jews were part of the very fabric of Germany.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/5151/assessing-obama-mosque-speech-on-islam#

Obama also said in his [errant and arrogant] mosque speech that:

“Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam. I refuse to give them legitimacy.”

Pretty desperate for legitimacy: I think a caliphate gives them legitimacy more than his words, which he refuses to use, would give them. They are religious leaders and holy warriors — not just playing them on TV. Are they acting when they’re running a caliphate, towns, a state and an oil network? Or when they behead rebels and infidels, when they recruit around the world to join their holy war? They’re just begging for legitimacy.

H/T to Counter Jihad Report