Give Me A Break

Give me a freaking break is one of my favorite lines I repeat to myself lately. No one hears me. It just flows out of my mouth more frequently than any other phrase. There are hosts of reasons for it.

The main one is outrage, mostly at Democrat talking points or narratives. It seems almost every time you turn on the TV news or read something, there is that reaction in there. Someone is trying to con someone or twists something completely wrong. Show me any subject and I’ll have a “give me a break” moment somewhere about it.

Why is partly the way politics has become. And in part because of how low down the ladder we have gotten, or in many cases how backwards everything now is.

Judging by what I see on Twitter and media, I’d say a lot of people probably think the same thing and feel the same way. I also think most people see what is going on and understand it. They wouldn’t need anyone to explain it to them because they know what this movie is about and where it is going. In short, they are not dummies.

Now the media might think people are dumb, that they can spoon feed people along to believe what they want about issues. Whoa, do they underestimate the knowledge of regular informed people? Maybe at one time, years ago, they could get away with that but not today. I see it in focus groups and in conversations on social media. They’re in no mood to be bullied around on politics either. They know too much and have too much experience to be duped. All that said, those are not everyone.

Now I say this because these are the parameters for my conclusions. Others, like media, have different parameters that lead them to believe people are impressionable and pliable on their central basic opinions, based on information and narratives they selectively curate to give them. The media may be right about some percentage of voters on the Left. But I know that theory does not hold up on the conservative right. Here on the right people have preformed opinions for a reason.


Another idea I have given lots of thought to is conspiracy theories in general and people that hold them. I have concluded some people prefer to dabble in them. And we have had a lot of reason these days to give rise to conspiracies. Maybe they’re trendy and cool? The JFK thing, while decades old, is still a viable high water mark.

But for the last several years, there is another big one on the horizon. The moon landing. I might have been surprised at hearing that one many years ago. But it has a following. Of course there is now the 911 conspiracies, too. So there are many of them and they range from environment to government. But I have noticed a trend that for some people, if they carry one conspiracy they likely have several.

Now we saw the media for 2 and a half years promote the Russia Trump collusion conspiracy with little to base it on. And that there was no push back on it, even from some media, was astounding. But these are the same media people who lectured us about anything we said about Obama for the previous eight years that we were crazy. Actually, the truth was much crazier than fiction. Now it turns out some of those conspiracies were not so crazy after all. They have now been validated by the facts.

Suffice it to say that if you traveled off of the central narratives the media was carrying in the Obama years, you were labeled a conspiracy nut. It was their enforcement mechanism to try to coral people on their main narrative — constructed also in tandem with the White House and West Wing. They, the media, didn’t mind doing it either. They were as heavily invested in creating the narrative as the Obama administration was. But anyone who ventured outside that narrative was the enemy, and they usually let you know it, using all the tools of the mainstream media.

You were mocked, ridiculed, ostracized and marginalized, attacked, humiliated, ruined, and robbed of your good reputation and character. In other words, you were destroyed if you were not on their bandwagon of misinformation. To call that a conspiracy theory was, well, Orwellian. It was 1984-ish. To think in terms of questioning Obama or their carefully crafted narrative was sedition and treasonous. It was as if we completely lost the press. And we did, though it was right from the beginning.

I don’t know if conspiracies represent a threat, given the amount of people that buy into them? But the moon one sort of stunned me. It sneaked up over the last 20 years. If it is cool or whatever that still puzzles me. Though now the left has demonstrated the real danger of a conspiracy with the Russia thing. They’ve shown how you can push a narrative whether it is believable or not. And they showed what mainstreaming conspiracy theories looks like.

You know, it is normally those on the margins who buy into a conspiracy. Now I am back to thinking about what the real point of them is. This Russia one was a matter of convenience and extreme importance, cooked up for convenience and served to masses as established fact. (Intelligence agencies like CIA know how to do that) If it is possible to push a fake narrative until it is mainstream, then what about skeptics who don’t believe in it?. Those who require proof or evidence… or doesn’t that even matter anymore?

Can a conspiracy theory be totally false, yet who cares that it is not true? And what would it take to rupture that huge conspiracy? It went on for over 2 and half years and still goes on. We are in a whole new realm. The Moon landing might have been an achievement for conspiracies but we have gone way past the dark side of the moon now.

Maybe the only point that matters is who believes in it and who doesn’t? To say nothing about the scenario of media and government teaming up on a conspiracy theory.

You can now call me conspiratorial but that is where we are at now. Who exactly believes in it? You would have been considered a wacko-bird for saying Obama was not born in America. But if you want to think the President is a Russian agent, then you would be welcomed by mainstream media and elites alike. It might help your career.

Strange how this conspiracy thing really works, isn’t it? In fact, lets go out of our way to avoid all the evidence to the contrary. And let’s go way out to block real facts and truth as it comes out. No need for that! Which one will write history? I think I know.

Right Ring | Bullright

Brilliant Mueller Takeaways

So it was a giant wind up before the delivery pitch Wednesday on the Mueller hearings. But in the end, what big thing did I learn? A few things.

Well, after a 2 and a half year investigation, it turns out they were investigating the wrong person all along. The Democrats agreed with Mueller at least 3 times that “it would be a crime” to do exactly what Hillary Clinton did. He said that would be a crime. Plus she could have been indicted immediately and there are no rules against it.

So now I am waiting to see and wondering why she has not been charged yet? They better get busy now with that investigation though. No time to waste, and we cannot allow crime(s) like that to stand. I expect the Democrats will be all over it the same way.

Another thing occurred to me: the only people who do know the whole ordeal about this investigation and the facts of it, from the beginning, would be Fox News viewers or a few very competent, resourceful people on the Internet with critical thinking skills.

That’s because the Democrats and media have not talked about any of those things. So there should be a whole bunch of people who did learn some things they didn’t know. Anyone who watches CNN or MSNBC for starters. They must have been shocked.

In other words, all that stuff Democrats called conspiracy theories. I do give media credit for doing such a job blocking that information from the public. It must have been very hard. Only enlightened people who have been watching Fox knew any of that.

I’ll be waiting, especially for the no-knock raids part on Hillary’s inner circle. I think media needs to stake out their homes. Any day now.

Right Ring | Bullright

What’s Going On: Truth Boomerangs




Or in Hillary’s words, campaigning:




At the third debate, 20 days from the election:



Peaceful Transfer












Right Ring | Bullright

Now that Mueller’s Report is out, I can’t feel any relief

Trips down memory lane are not always positive or don’t always end that way.

Now that the report is out, I can’t feel any relief. It should be relief that it is over but it isn’t because it goes on and on. It is meant to continue ad nauseam.

Why did they do an exhaustive investigation on Russia’s election meddling without talking about what Obama did? But they can talk about every detail of what Trump did?

Weeks ago, Comey the persistent talked about “so many questions.After the Report, he says “so many answers.” I think he has it exactly backwards. We knew so much before the report came out. Now that it is published it poses so many questions. The jig is up.

Why haven’t those who committed offenses been brought to justice? Like Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Glenn Simpson, Steele, Comey, McCabe? And don’t think we forgot about it; what was all the unmasking by Obama officials doing for it all? Where was Loretta Lynch when all this was going on? What about meetings between DOJ officials and Obama in the Oval Office, like on January 5th 2017?

But if you follow mainstream media’s lead now, this report information is all so important. It is alarming. All this should bother you and me. This influence of Russia is so severe that Blumenthal now says our democracy is under siege, still is, and that it is an act of war. And then prizewinner congresswoman Jackie Speier says that it shows we would actually not have Trump as President but for Russia’s actions. Talk about a dramatic stretch.

So in my hypothetical mind, I’m trying to figure out if Russia was that influential and the deciding factor in 2016, then I have a few questions. It represents Russia as winning. Doesn’t it make our democracy fragile? Haven’t you given Russia way too much credit? And if Speier thinks that Russia succeeded, then whom did they beat? Wasn’t the guy who was in the Oval Office responsible for what they did? So why is the blame coming down on an outsider, incoming president?

Now Comey has another seismic revelation about “so many answers.” What are they? How does Trump being pissed off about appointing a Special Counsel answer any questions? Sure he would be mad that they would do that to him. He was only in office for months. What the hell is there really to investigate in the White House if this is about Russia?

When I was much younger, I remember people would wait for the next new phrase or word to be coined so that they could run out and start using it. Well, it seemed like they were just waiting for the next one. You know them all, slang and urban lingo. Using the lingo made one seem popular or cool.

One of the things some of those trendier people would do is travel to another area and use their newly slung slang to others there to see if it was popular, and so it could hopefully be picked up as cool. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. Sometimes people looked at them and said “what did you say?” Language is like a joke, if you have to explain it then it’s a dud and falls flat.

Comey is like one of those guys trying to set a trend. Get everyone to repeat something, whether they know the meaning of it or not. This would prove him hip and popular. He is desperate. He wants to be right even when he’s wrong – a thinker and an artisan.

Seems to me mainstream media is a lot like that too. Just get everyone repeat a bunch of nonsense so it can seem like a popular thought or idea. And that does work many times. Minions repeat the talking points of the Left with amazing clarity and regularity, right to the phraseology. Well, it is almost a dialect.

But then eventually one learns that the language is not really the thing to control, the dialogue is. Whoever controls that wins the game.

When Comey was pondering “so many questions,” he insinuated that there were so many questions to be asked. But not any we didn’t already know the answers to. The only relevant questions left were “why aren’t people in jail and why are these corrupt people still in their top tier jobs?” We wanted to know who was doing this witch hunt “investigation” and why? The who is almost easier than the why.

So many questions.

Other than that, we didn’t want to know about some setup meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian who was collaborating and working with Simpson – months before the election. We weren’t asking what Flynn was doing before or after Trump took office? Those were planted questions. We weren’t hanging on the edge of our seats wondering who spoke to a Russian and exactly what they said, word for word?

We might have long wondered that if all this was going on since 2014, then what did that last president do about it? If he did nothing, why not? What was he waiting for? What was the answer to the probing Russia problem? If all these officials had a degree of certainty what was going on, then what did they do and/or why didn’t they do something? You know, those kind of pertinent questions. And we didn’t need all the drama about the inner workings of Trump’s campaign about what they were doing.

Do you smell the deflection and diversion?

Well, only if this entire thing was a setup from the beginning, aimed at Trump, would we need to know all that. We should have wondered what Obama did to stop it, or why not? We should have wondered what did Obama know and when did we know it? See, so many things just don’t make sense like a language barrier.

A naïve person may wonder why such a barrier exists?

But most of us know, because they want to rearrange our language and thoughts about it. In other words, they want to change our perception of events. Normally that is called revision, only they were trying to do it in real time. Before we could know or understand events as they happened, they wanted to train our thoughts to see them in another way, through an alternative reality. And they wanted us to believe it and not what we were seeing or what we already knew. It does sound a lot like Benghazi too.

See, Obama was already skilled in the art of controlling the dialogue or manipulating events for his benefit. In fact, there was a certain pride in being able to do that. To this day, if you mention Benghazi or Hillary’s servergate, you get the same tired response from the left. “Oh, there were multiple investigations about that and it found nothing.” Nothing? Really? People died and yet there was no problem with it and nothing sinister. With Hillary they say “but you cannot let it go. She was investigated and cleared of any wrong doing.” Right, cleared? Remember how the video caused Benghazi, a spontaneous attack?

Notice what they did in both those cases. They immediately began to try to control the narrative, since narrative is all that matters. They substitute an alternate narrative and spread it far and wide. The saturation point is when someone mentions the event and hoards of people immediately respond with the same promoted answer.

So Comey now says, “so many answers.” Naturally that is what he sees, answers to what happened, when it really gives you none. What we got were alternative sound bites substituted for answers that tell you nothing. But yet they are not done because they tell us they are going to continue this investigation, now in Congress. They call the Mueller Report a “roadmap for Congress”. Was that how it worked for Hillary or Benghazi? Of course not. The investigation was supposed to be the definitive end.

Answers, Comey? McCabe also did his first interview, since his book, on MSNBC. He said the same thing, agreeing that Mueller’s Report was a “roadmap” for congress to use and follow. A roadmap to where? Yes, we know that too. Another answer it provided.

But the real questions still exist, just as they did while they rolled this charade out, but concentrate on their substituted answers. Because the real questions are about them and not Trump. And they are about Obama’s administration.

Well, one can conclude the whole ordeal was used as a coverup, which is still going on, for Obama and Hillary. It was a convenient use of Russia meddling to hang it around Trump and pretend he is the problem, while they wall off an entire warehouse of abuses from the public under Obama’s administration. But this placeholder is wearing very thin. In fact, it is hard to believe they could have kept this entire thing up as long and hard as they have. It is now going into the next election cycle. Of course this Report will also provide opposition material against Trump. But that is what it was all along from the beginning.

Obama found a use for another problem, Russia, to use it against his opponent, and cover up all his other problems. Meanwhile, Obama’s personal records are sealed from public while all Trump’s personal records are to be annexed, and then spread far and wide to the public. Funny how these truth-challenged people don’t care about the real answers.

Right Ring | Bullright

Follow The Corruption: Clintons

Gateway Pundit has this expose. It ain’t over yet. It was a multi-part series.

MEDIA SILENT: Clinton Foundation Connected AGT Forwarded Top Secret US Intel to RUSSIA – FBI/DOJ Covered It Up – PART V

by Jim Hoft March 2, 2019 | Gateway Pundit



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.”

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.

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

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.

Yates drops inadvertent truth bomb

Yates sat down for an interview with Morning Joe sharpening her critique on President Trump, for his asking DOJ to look into investigation abuse of his presidential campaign.

The Hill

Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday said President Trump has taken his “assault on the rule of law to a new level” by demanding the Justice Department (DOJ) look into alleged surveillance abuses of his 2016 presidential campaign.



Let’s talk about “Shocking” Sally.

No matter how coy Sally Yates tries to play with her words, the truth is still clear: “Investigators who are [investigating] his own campaign.” Think about that.

That is called investigating Trump’s campaign, and that is what they are/were doing. That is by definition what investigators do. It is Precisely the same predicament Comey had with Loretta Lynch over the Hillary Clinton investigation. They wanted to call it a matter, when in reality it was an investigation — intentionally botched one but an investigation.

See the problem now? They have been trying to tell us it is an investigation into Russia but from the mouths of babes, Yates slipped out the truth that it is an investigation of the Trump campaign, no matter how innocuously she tries to phrase it.

And when has this occurred before in history? How about never.

Sure autopsies on campaigns are done in politics by candidates post-election, but an FBI investigation of a presidential campaign, begun while in process some time before the election? Look for some precedent on that. I’m pretty sure there isn’t one. Even in Hillary’s case, they were investigating her prior conduct not the campaign itself.

During the 2016 campaign, remember how much they made out of the fact that we don’t go after political opponents in this country. Presuming an investigation against Hillary, after the election, was the subject. No, in this case they opened and carried on an active investigation of the Trump campaign long before the election. Then carried it right into his presidency. He had never been a public official or even in a major campaign before. So the conduct they were looking at was before he even got into office.

Imagine what all those investigators were thinking as they watched the campaign go on, knowing full well they had a spy or paid informant working with FBI in their investigation into the campaign? And knowing they were using the dosssier of his political opponent as their reason and evidence for FISA warrants. Then they lied about it all the way.

Right Ring | Bullright

Big Picture, Big Story

After Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation comes this second installment.

I think this is a big story. And I think Trump was right that it is a big story, bigger than people know. Home run, we got us a story here.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

Rice denies engaging in improper political spying
BY: Bill Gertz | September 19, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a House committee this month she requested the identities of Trump transition aides that were hidden in sensitive intelligence reports to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

Rice testified before a closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Sept. 6 that she asked U.S. intelligence agencies for the names of Trump advisers to be unmasked in transcripts of communications intercepts.

Rice asked for names to be unmasked in a transcript of an electronic intercept involving a meeting between three senior Trump aides and a United Arab Emirates official who had traveled to the United States for an informal visit.

The three officials included candidate Donald Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; presidential campaign chief executive Steve Bannon; and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, according to CNN, which first reported on Rice’s closed-door testimony.

Details of Rice’s testimony on the unmasking of Trump aides were made public Sept. 14, quoting unidentified government sources, and included comments from members of Congress who did not dispute the closed-door testimony.

Rice’s disclosures before the intelligence panel appear to contradict earlier statements she made asserting that she had no knowledge of the unmasking of Americans, the process of identifying the names of Americans who are protected by privacy laws and who are incidentally spied on during sensitive foreign electronic intelligence operations. …/

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story. I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world,” Trump said, adding cryptically, “it’s a bigger story than you know.”

Rice’s testimony before the House committee is part of a committee investigation into allegations of improper intelligence gathering by the Obama administration, as well as Russian influence operations targeting the 2016 election.

“We know the unmasking investigation is moving forward, and that the intel committee has amassed a lot of information about it,” said one congressional official. “It seems like you had Obama officials doing this and thinking they wouldn’t get caught.”


Maybe we knew or heard most of that before. The difference is context. No, it isn’t in the reporting or events. It seems the momentum has changed. Now, with Rice’s testimony, it is hard to overlook the obvious: that there was some surveillance at Trump Tower and that the names were suspiciously unmasked around the events of the campaign. So there was a meeting with a Saudi prince, which supposedly tripped Rice’s trigger to have to know everyone who was there. Or that is her excuse. Why? Your guess.

They only know everyone that was there, who is masked, because of surveillance. It is so blatantly political you cannot deny it, even if you wanted to. Then Rice refuses to say why she needed to know, saying it would involve classified information. If this is not worthy of investigation — why they were worried about all this — then what is worthy to know?

And now the people know too. See what changed was we were not supposed to get caught up in the how or why they got the information. We were just supposed to hear it trickled out from the Obama perspective, unquestioned. We were supposed to concentrate on their intentional outcome — not the means to it. Get it?

That makes all this smell more like the set up that it is. My explanation:

Maybe this investigation was loosely planned or not? At the least, the information was supposed to come out, somehow, at some point, to make Trump look bad. But it was to be by slight of hand, then passed right through so we couldn’t really question where it came from or how. Then we would be so busy in looking at its implications on Trump, shocked, to be bothered with the questionable means and/or their motives.

This, I believe, was cooked up some time ago. Before or right after election makes little difference. It may have been the ‘just in case plan.’ (JICP) Call it an insurance policy. In fact, they could have discovered enough info on the way they thought could be useful blackmail material. Maybe not a lot, just enough to cause major discomfort, or at least keep people answering questions as a distraction or diversion. But any information found along the way could be useful. The damage is in how the information is used, not whether it is damning or not. That is the weaponizing part. The time and purpose they used it for, the goal, would be up to them. But we would not be able to track down exactly where the information came from — not for a long time with a lot of effort.

That is where there was a problem. It didn’t unfold just the way it was supposed to. When Trump shot off a tweet about being wiretapped at the Trump Tower, it was like a canon going off around the world. We didn’t know why that was such a big deal, since it was obvious to most of us that there was some type of surveillance around Trump and the Trump Tower. We knew enough already. Maybe we didn’t know how deep it went, or who was involved, but we knew it took place. It interrupted the plot. Any incoming Republican would have faced the same thing.

Their problem was Trump pulled the trigger calling it out, untimely as it was, which set off a sequence of events and reactions to his accusation. That began the ball rolling, even though they mocked and attacked him for having said it.

He was not to be so bold as make that claim. It didn’t fit their plans. Then, surely, no one was supposed to believe it anyway. So it went on for weeks, as they tried to put Trump’s charge to bed quickly and permanently. (they: Democrats, Left, media and Obamafiles) It mostly did work; they tamped it down where only people brought it up to mock Trump’s ridiculous assertion. even demanding apologies. That started to screw things up.

That was about the time we were hearing Obama was traveling the globe and kite surfing somewhere in the Caribbean. So statements came out from Ben Rhodes and others calling wiretapping preposterous. But why wouldn’t Obama and his cronies be willing to spy on Trump, especially after he won, when they had been willing to do most anything during the campaign to aid Hillary? Why stop now when it is even more critical to them?

SO their loose plans were interrupted, inconveniently. And they couldn’t put the lid back on it. Suddenly the public outrage kicked up saying ‘wait a minute, he was under some kind of surveillance.’ We already knew that much. Remember how nasty they got in denials?

Now people were questioning the means of the information, not just whether Trump did something. Ah oh. People wanted that investigated with the other. Well, that wasn’t in the script at all. Actually, that was the one thing that could not be worked into their script. It messed everything up when it looks as if there was some agenda all along against Trump. No, they wanted us to only see a Russia agenda. (just as they did during the campaign.)

Anything else was very inconvenient. Must demonize Trump. Put him down and keep him down. Delegitimize him. But do not expose their creative, political, informational techniques. It usually does come down to narrative to the left. When they can control the narrative, they are ahead. But interrupt or change their narrative, they have a problem.

This was a big shift exposing the corrupt means, machinery, behind their Russia narrative. Like in Wizard of Oz, we weren’t supposed to see that part. That changes their whole story line. We were supposed to see the what, not the how or why. It blew up their plot.

The same applies to the Mueller and company. The investigation was to justify itself. The fact that they got a special counsel established — not the how or why — was supposed to convey legitimate authority for it and perception of “must be some wrong doing” then. Democrats and media touted that it exists therefore is justified — or else it wouldn’t.

The same rules, or lack of, also applied to Manafort’s no-knock raid. “If they got that warrant then it was justified.” If FISA or any judge issued it, there were legitimate grounds. And we certainly need not know why. The process is supposed to justify itself.

The same faulty premises applied to the surveillance. If there was surveillance, then obviously it must have been (a)legal and (b) justified by its existence alone. Never mind the reason. Which, in the case of Democrats, an outgoing president, a radicalized administration and party, after a terrible election loss, is entirely questionable.

Especially if the entire basis for said investigation is due to Democrats losing the election — or Trump winning. Never mind all the shenanigans that happened repeatedly on the left.

Therefore, it makes it easy for them to say any surveillance would have to be justified — or it wouldn’t have happened. See this is the way of using the process, corrupted as it is, to justify all their misconduct. That process and their creativity using it, is not to be questioned in any way, according to Dems. ‘Trust us.’ Then, as a backdoor guardian, if anyone can explain or sell this way of thinking, it would be media — their chief ally.

Meanwhile, let’s also pretend not to have noticed what is really taking place in front of us: the complete litigation of the election and outcome of it.

Right Ring | Bullright

One flew over the Kremlin in 2016




You decide what to make of it.

How the GOP became the party of Putin

Hot Air [excerpt]






A primer thought on Russia talk

No there is no plural to ‘talk,’ yet. Anyway, we come from different points. First off, one has to know Russia is listening to every public dialogue or conversation we may have. An open society does have its downsides.

Who cares what I think? I already read liberal egotists’ papers on how Trump should ‘proceed’. Arrogant, aren’t they, for people who got nothing done in the last eight years? Or have any thing of value to show for it.

Principles are different. We are generally concerned about benefits. Russia obsesses over opportunities. Those can be far apart. We see benefit, Russia sees opportunity. Having a namesake the “Art of the Deal” doesn’t quite translate the same way to this subject. In it, Trump emphasizes a benefit to each side as grounds for a deal. Russia fixates on opportunity in any given scenario — even chaos. Best to know that going in.

We, typically, want to benefit or appease both parties. That was the way it has been seen in the recent past. Face it, Russia rolled Obama. That has to change. It’s like “carrots and sticks” vs, shovels. Then libs’ election debacle, that matters to Russia?

Secondarily, economics is not a driving force to Russia’s policy. It is not an economic debate to them. Putin is not obsessed with, and has little use for economic principles. He’s always been rather bored with them. It was not Obama’s wheelhouse either. So there should be no illusions that this can be based on economics. Russia would have to see the appeal or opportunity for them, which escapes him now.

The liberals have been offering all these suggestions to the administration on what it should do. Helpful sadists. More dysfunctional crap. But agreeing on any basic groundwork for discussions? That’s the big question. Is it even possible? My doubts remain.

There is a small tactic to consider. Twice in the past months, both Lavrov and Putin have used humor. One was a smack down of Andrea Mitchel about manners. Funny. Turn that ‘no manners’ claim and joke back on Russia. It could be a humiliating tactic. Very useful. But a tactic cannot be a strategy.

RightRing | Bullright

Don’t give me an M-e-g-y-n

The wandering little Megyn Kelly got her debut “exclusive” interview with Putin and she coined a new standard: Premiere Failure.

The Horn News

Six months and $20 million later, Kelly debuted her much anticipated news magazine show Saturday Night with Megyn Kelly on June 4th — and critics were not impressed.

“Megyn Kelly off to rough start with NBC show’s premiere,” wrote Newsday, who called Kelly “overwhelmed” by Russian President Vladimir Putin during their one-on-one interview. Their final assessment? “Bottom line: Rough launch for Megyn Kelly, but score one for Vladimir Putin.”

First of all, she is notorious for not living up to her hype. (and by now she is the only one still hyping herself) So the Megyn ‘parade of one’ struck out on getting anything of value from a Putin interview. Or maybe it was really her debut in comedy?

The crazy part is that libs were mad at her for other reasons too. And you know how libs get when they are mad at someone. They are offended that she and NBC gave Putin a platform. “Why?” is all they keep saying. Then not to learn a thing by the exercise. She managed to tick off liberals and those on the right, in the know.

She’s in that sweet spot where everyone is hating her — and she did it without putting makeup on a mocked severed head acting like a jihadi. She really blew it. Can she recover? Well, who cares anyway?

The Premiere Failure of Megyn Kelly, does have sort of a ring to it. Scratch world leaders and dignitaries off her list. Should Kathy Griffin be her next interview? It might register more than a yawn. Besides Griffin, Megyn is the undisputed Queen of Fail for the week.
(they both need therapy — both are extreme publicity hounds)

Cooper illustates the Russian debacle

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

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

Stephen Cohen —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Taking A Long Walk With Stupid

If you are expecting a self-deprecating apology piece here, you might be disappointed.

My current theory, which I will try to prove, is that when you post a few thousand things on the internet, you are entitled to make a couple stupid things. Seems like that should be a certainty. I’ll just amuse myself by taking a walk down that road.

I’m not sure yet what the ratio is, for example 2 per thousand or five or whatever, but there must be some scientific number that could be applied to it.I suddenly noticed that I may be seriously short of my quota and will try to catch up on it.

With a healthy dose of imagination and lack of reality, I’ll give you a glimpse of what passes for stupid. The rest is up to your judgement.

I will attempt to leave truth behind because, hey, you cannot do stupid too well without a fair denial of reality at certain points.

We came through what is declared as an unprecedented election that no one could have predicted or expected. Then comes the realm of filling the role people elected him for.

Post election, about the only thing we heard a lot about is Russia. If you were one who could not find Russia on a map before the election, I bet you at least can now. If you didn’t know anything about this strange (apparently) unexplored place on earth, then you were in for a real treat in 2017.

I’ll take stupid for 500, Alex.

Hey, how many people know the presidents or leaders of countries around the world? But now we all know who is president of Russia. Even the dumbest liberals do. (Boris Yeltsin not so much) He’s probably better recognized than Oprah Winfrey.

But then that is the beauty, you don’t have to know anything else — and nothing is required — only that Putin is in control of Russia. And that probably is not changing anytime soon. You don’t have to know their political system or their policy on any issue. What is Putin’s world view? That’s irrelevant, again.

If you follow the mainstream media coverage, one thing you probably have learned in this adventure is that Putin is Right-wing and his political platform is “conservative.” There can be little debate about that, they tell us. Anything else must be wrong or a lie.

Its’ enough to know that Russia is evil and Putin is their leader. Well, that about sums it up. No need to clog up brain cells with any nuance or moral equivilance of Russia to our own country. That could cloud the matter.

It’s not just for foreign policy. It’s a home game too.

Now that I have a craving for stupid, why not go all out and say that actively defying federal law makes sanctuary cities safer? Add to that the more illegals you can bring in — to protect at the expense of others — the more safe that community will be.

I made mistakes and even been stupid before, but I don’t think it ever reached this level.

While I am drinking the stupid juice, I should make a judgement about the Trump administration. Normally the beginning of a presidency gets a honeymoon period. Now I see this president not only will not have one but that in even a shorter time he will have to accomplish everything he said he would do. That’s hardly too much to ask. And he should also have to fix all the problems created and festering for at least eight years. That’s fair.

And then, let me try this for stupid: just say all the things that Obama was not challenged on for eight years, how about we challenge and hold the new president accountable for all that? Being no one had the guts to do that before, lets all feign righteous indignation over all the problems we turned a blind eye to for 8 years — while whistling past the graveyard.

Speaking of whistles, maybe we can now reward and pat so-called whistle blowers on the back when we couldn’t even encourage any under Obama, since that concealed the flood of corruption and politicization which went undeterred.

Being stupid now, I almost forgot the central tenant: we need to pound the podium at every chance to push impeachment. No, there aren’t enough votes but repetition equals reality. At least get some indictments now, which we couldn’t dare have under Obama’s Legacy of Lies,

There’s a new doctrine: elections do have consequences, i.e. denial and impeachment.

To complete my trip to Stupidville, I must rely on mainstream media and trust them as the sole information source. Their objectivity really impresses me. And if in doubt, when questions do arise, I can always count on former Obama mouthpieces to clarify them.

I also see I need to trust the FBI and intelligence, including the deep state, in what remains of the administrative state to keep everything running smoothly. Yeah, let me put all my trust in that despite what Trump attempts to do. How helpful are they? Fortunately for us, we didn’t need them, the dissent, or whistle blowers in the last administration… but times now have changed. Investigations are now heroes.

And with classified information and intelligence being spread across 17 intelligence agencies, at breakneck speed, they should be quick to point out all the flaws in real time. Having that whole cabal trying to “Factcheck” reality saves on revision later. Let’s just distort reality right from the beginning.

Now that I really look at it, maybe this stupid thing is just not my cup of tea, even for a temporary stint.

RightRing | Bullright

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

The Obama Agenda: Trumping Reality

Let’s boil it down to what this whole assorted affair is about — and I mean all the political dissent and consternation. Well, it is pretty simple.

It is really just two things. Almost all of the hyper political climate and fear mongering is over Obama’s legacy of disaster and 2)his last famed achievement, the Iran deal.

That too simple? Some might say duh, we knew that. Maybe, but it really is that simple. At least that is all that is driving it — aside from some powerful egos marinated in Obama’s legacy of lies. I mean what would you expect from those people surrounding the Captain of Treason?

Remember the schoolyard meme that one person is merely putting down another in order to build himself up? That must be an elementary lesson people learn. In this case, it’s one Obamafiles need to fully utilize — to preserve all that they did.

Or as Steve Bannon told CPAC “if you think they are going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.” They aren’t. “Everyday it is going to be a fight.”


Insiders: Obama Holdover ‘Shadow Government’ Plotting to Undermine Trump

by John Hayward17 Feb 201 | Breitbart




Schaffer said it was clear that sensitive information that could compromise U.S. intelligence-gathering methods was divulged to the media as part of the campaign to bring down Flynn, by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material. That should narrow the list of suspects considerably.

The Washington Free Beacon quoted “multiple sources in and out of the White House” on Tuesday to describe a “secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran.”

Since all news coverage is now driven by leaks of dubious accuracy from anonymous sources seemingly above evaluation, it seems only fair to entertain some insiders who wish to leak on the leakers.

According to the Free Beacon’s sources, the Obama loyalists are highly organized, under the direction of former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, famed for his ability to sell false narratives about Iran to credulous reporters. His critique of media types as young “know nothings” whose only experience “consists of being around political campaigns” would seem validated by a press corps that eagerly runs with just about anything an anonymous source hostile to Trump feeds them.

Rhodes shoveled a lot of manure to cultivate the Iran nuclear deal, and he is not going to let it go without a fight. According to the Free Beacon’s sources – one of whom is identified as a “veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House” – Flynn was targeted because he was preparing to “publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal.”

Another official who purportedly sits on the National Security Council said “the drumbeat of leaks of sensitive material related to General Flynn has been building since he was named to his position,” and his resignation was “not the result of a series of random events.”

“Last night’s resignation was their first major win, but unless the Trump people get serious about cleaning house, it won’t be the last,” warned a third source, suggesting these Obama loyalists are just getting warmed up.

More –


Here’s what frames it in context — aside from the fact this author is not calling it a shadow government. Proof of that seems to be in the pudding. (daily)

Revenge of Obama’s ‘Former Officials’

Obama officials are waging war on the Trump White House.

For a president who has a uniquely hostile relationship with the press, positive news cycles are both rare and fleeting. The Trump team displayed remarkable discipline by refusing to step on the president’s well-received address to a joint session of Congress. A lot of good discipline did them. Just 24 hours after Trump’s address, a series of troubling reports involving links among those in Trump’s orbit to Russian officials reset the national discourse. Those stories make for a trend, though, that has little to do with Trump and a lot to do with his predecessor. The Obama administration’s foreign-policy team seems to be campaigning to rehabilitate itself one leak at a time, and the press is helping.

The frenzy on Wednesday night began with a revelation in the New York Times that members of Barack Obama’s administration had left a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators who happen to be looking into the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russian government. The report revealed that intelligence officials intercepted communications between Russian officials and “Trump associates,” and that the administration worked frantically in the final days to ensure those revelations could not be buried and forgotten after they left office.

Continue reading at (may need subscription)


Donald Trump may be busy but so is the Democrat Left.(what remains of the political left) While Trump works long days on his agenda for the people — who elected him by 306 electoral votes — the fiction writing, revisionist Left is as busy creating a means to oppose him. Though there is a deeper reason why they oppose him.

Obama’s agenda needs to trump reality for Obamafiles to succeed.

See, they are not happy with opposition alone but set their sights on undermining, destroying, ousting or overthrowing him. And that, according to their radical base, is “by any means necessary.” Labeling these conspiracy theories is dangerously naive.

Sure they have openly called for and mentioned a slew of hopes and schemes, including political ones for the midterm elections. But the threats that are far more credible, in my opinion, are the ones many people want to poo-poo.

According to the author above, the theory goes that there are nine designated Obamafiles to cover the tracks and rewrite the dismal mess of foreign policy failures they made of things. Cleanup in isle one! From Syria to Yemen, and Ukraine to Iran, and all their applied negligence along the way. Protecting the Iran deal is job #1.

There is one solution, besides rewriting history, to divert all attention to Trump. Then to photoshop Trump into the entire foreign policy picture. Yes, remember Ben Rhodes also has that idea of journalists as young and pliable know-nothings, which he can lead on Obama’s narrative. They can write it as fast as media can report and cover it.

That only begs the question: does media realize it is being led on this narrative? They have yet to ask Obama and his people any questions. Did you notice how quickly the N Korea nuclear issue became an “immediate short-term” crisis? They dispensed Obamafiles to news channels to defend the Obama legacy by setting off all these alarm bells about immediate problems across the globe. Meanwhile, applauding their foreign policy disaster.

But while the Iran Deal from Hell was being negotiated, no one could say anything about the problems or what to do about them because, in their minds, everything hinged on securing Obama’s legacy deal. Of course, there was no time for anything else. They only cared about one thing, and sacrificed everything else in order to get it. Never mind that it was a failure too. Even liberals are restless and tired of defending Obama’s record.

As every group has a de facto leader, the comrade in charge of the nine elite Obamafiles is fiction writer Ben Rhodes. It only makes sense. He in turn would answer to Valerie Jarrett and Obama. This group would be the lead defenders for Obama’s holy grail, his legacy. As Iran is the living monument of that, it requires lots of protection — by any means necessary. Russia is just a choice diversion.

What is odd here is that for years Obama refused and avoided any action toward Russia in hopes of getting the Iran deal done. In Syria, he did much the same: he ignored Iran’s meddling in Syria and elsewhere, with their agents of terrorism that flows across the Mid-East. He would not upset that to get an Iran deal done. So basically he sold us and our security out to terrorism, in order to get his deal. Now we know that; the intelligence community has to know that, Iran knows that, and Russia knew that.

The irony is Obama needs an entire apparatus(Shadow Gov) to protect his legacy of lies.

This is something we need to get used to. It’s not going away. If I read one I read five articles just today that concluded this is not going to change. This is what the left is. They are in perpetual protest.There always has to be something to protest. It’s how they get what they want, how they exist.

However, now they are merely doing it to protect their legacy of policy failures. The problem is that the left does not understand the whole paradigm. They see one thing at a time and that’s all they care to see. They don’t care about the big picture so it’s a challenge just to break through. It is on the media, it is that way to youth and a whole lot of regular working people. So Bannon is right, we have to fight this thing and this mental subterfuge every day and not fall for the simple, colorful narrative.

Goose and gander: Obama vs. Trump

Okay, “Russians interfered in our election” is the talking point. I get it. It’s the outrage of the decade, sure. Interference in our elections or policies is offensive. That’s the big issue.

Then why is Obama’s former presidency trying to sabotage the new sitting president somehow not a problem? Not a concern? How could you ignore that if you were so worried about the sovereignty of something like elections and the stability of our government?

News flash, elections were never really threatened. If you cannot weather some secondary outside probing, then your election system is really frail and in trouble. Hearing them say "our Democracy was at risk" is a huge leap. Russia could have destroyed our democracy. Then why is sabotage and undermining by the former administration not a threat?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s information spreading campaign

Even before he made his grand exit, Obama did all he could to set the stage for Trump. It’s called sabotage most places. But it’s just a day in office for the radical-in-chief, Obama.

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking








The real story is there for all to see of Obama’s shadow government and its expansive influence. He would not be happy to give up power. And he isn’t finished.

Maxine Waters Stirring Her Impeachment Latte

Some things just defy words.

And then there is Maxine Waters, which is why we have video today.

“Eventually, we’ve got to do something about him [Trump].”

She failed to say if that was North or South Korea. I’m sure it was an oversight.

But just keep leading the way, Maxine, for the DCC and DNC to follow.

Problem is CA, LA, America needs to do something about Maxine… before it’s too late.

Telling Teen Vogue magazine on the subject of impeachment, she said:

“I think we should go for it.”

Negative Impact On The Election





RightRing | Bullright