Democrat Maxine Waters, who is a Congressional Representative from California, and an avowed Trump hater, made the following comments at a rally in L.A., over the weekend, and then later again in a TV interview:

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

On MSNBC, she chose to double down on her remarks, saying she has “no sympathy” for members of the Trump administration:

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the President, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.'”

President Trump responded to “Mad Max’s” inflammatory remarks via Twitter:

“Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 25, 2018

As to be expected, Republicans criticized her remarks, while many Democrats tried to deflect criticism from Waters to President Trump. While still other Democrats showed their support of her instigating comments with their silence.

Here are some of the responses to “Whacky Max’s” comments:

Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy called her remarks “very dangerous” and called upon Waters to issue a public apology.

Meghan McCain, daughter of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, called Waters’ comments “absolutely insane” and “extremely dangerous.” She also asked, “Does this mean when we go out to dinner we should be ambushed?!?”

Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to Waters’ comments as “unacceptable” but, of course, eventually blamed President Trump’s “daily lack of civility” for provoking responses like those of Waters.

“In the crucial months ahead, we must strive to make America beautiful again. Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable. As we go forward, we must conduct elections in a way that achieves unity from sea to shining sea,” Pelosi tweeted.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) June 25, 2018

(Thank you, again, Congresswoman “Moonbeam,” for your disconnected and hallucinogenic comments.)

Democrat House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said, “The American people have the right to speak their mind, and I agree that they ought to express their deep frustration with the Trump Administration’s policies,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement, adding, “We can do so while maintaining respect, notwithstanding President Trump’s lack of civility. We should rise above his hatefulness.”

(Again, according to Mr. Hoyer, everyone is allowed to “speak their mind,” as long as they are a liberal, of course, otherwise we are spouting “hatefulness.”)

(And speaking of “hatefulness,” can there be any doubt from where the overwhelming majority of “hatefulness” is coming from? No, there is no doubt.  The overwhelming majority of “hatefulness” is coming from democrats.)  

Democrat Rep. Adriano Espaillat of New York would not criticize Waters. “To get sidetracked into these debates about whether or not somebody was welcome at a restaurant takes our eyes off of what’s going on in America today,” Espaillat said, adding, “Maxine Waters is entitled to her opinion and I respect that.”

(Excuse me Mr. Espaillat, but that is all the democrats do is attempt to “sidetrack” the accomplishments and issues of the day. Oh, and just like all of your liberal democrat friends, you believe, “Maxine Waters is entitled to her opinion and I respect that.”  Again, and again, and again, you believe everyone is “entitled to their opinion,” as long as they are a liberal, of course.)

Ok, well there you have it.

Ms. Waters and the democrats want “push back?” WE can do some pushing back too.

Ms. Waters and the democrats want to “tell us we’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Well, WE can tell you “you’re not welcome anymore, anywhere” too.

Ms. Waters and the democrats want to “absolutely harass us?” Well, WE can “absolutely harass” you too.

You asked for it, and now you got it. “We The People” are tired of your crap, and we‘re not sitting back and taking it anymore.

“You called down the thunder, well now you’ve got it.”

Enjoy.

“Be good, but if you can’t be good, at least be careful.” – MrEricksonRules’ Dad

“We should look for reasons and opportunities to accept, help, encourage and promote others, rather than look for reasons to deny, blame, criticize and hinder them.” – MrEricksonRules

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…, or the one.” – Spock and Captain Kirk (from “Star Trek – The Wrath of Khan”)

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.” — Yoda (From the movie “Star Wars – The Phantom Menace,” describing our liberal friends I think!)

“I always wondered why somebody didn’t do something about this or that; but then I realized that I am somebody.” – Unknown author

President Trump has officially and formally begun the process of establishing a U.S. Space Force!

President Trump’s supporters were way out front on this, and apparently love the idea, as they shouted “Space Force! Space Force!” during his recent rally in Duluth, Minnesota.

The military, in general, relies quite a bit on space, but cooperation and coordination between the military branches leaves something to be desired.

President Trump’s idea is to create a new, standalone military branch, called “The Space Force,” whose primary purpose would be to achieve space superiority.

According to the Bloomberg Editorial Board, “Space is an increasingly critical battlefield. Across its five branches, the U.S. military uses space-based technology for navigation, reconnaissance, weather forecasting, intelligence collection, communications, command and control, precision targeting, and much else. Its reliance on satellite-guided munitions has increased with each new conflict in recent years.”

“This growing dependency also creates risks, however. Satellites are vulnerable to attack, as are the ground systems that support them.  By treaty and convention, countries have long avoided conducting strikes in space, but U.S. adversaries have been investing heavily in anti-satellite weapons for years, and with good reason, without adequate defenses, space could become an ‘Achilles’ heel’ for America’s high-tech forces.”

No single group is fully in charge of U.S. space operations. Historically, “…most responsibility falls to the Air Force.  But in practice, authorities are fragmented across some 60 different entities.  Among other problems, this has made acquiring new technology a painfully slow and expensive process, which results in the U.S. chronically sending obsolete stuff into orbit.  It has made it harder to set coherent priorities and pursue a broader strategy for space.  And plenty of critics have argued, persuasively, that the current arrangement is impeding much-needed change and innovation.”

“That said, the President must now garner the support of Congress to move on the initiative, through both funding and authorization.”

“That last part may prove difficult, but the President seemed committed to the idea when he signed a “space policy directive” last week.”

“It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space,” President Trump said at the time. “We must have American dominance in space. We are going to have the Air Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal.”

“A fight is ahead, on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon, over roles, missions and budgets, and creating a Space Force would be the most ambitious reorganization of the U.S. military since 1947.”

Financial services provider, Morgan Stanley, says that President Donald Trump’s proposed “Space Force” could help fuel the $1 trillion intergalactic economy.

Graham Rapier of The Business Insider, reports that, “Morgan Stanley is tracking 100 private companies poised to profit from interstellar industries.”

“Space is already a $350 billion economy, and as more investments pour into technologies like reusable rockets that make space exploration cheaper, that economy could grow to $1 trillion, especially as countries recognize the need for a space presence to maintain national security.”

Based on everything I’ve learned about “Space Force,” it seems like this is a “no brainer.” Military leaders from Sun Tzu (author of “The Art of War), to General George S. Patton all know the value of commanding the high ground.  What higher ground is there than space?  Knowledge is power, and our key to communications and knowledge these days travels via our satellites.  If we can’t protect our satellites and limit the satellite usage by others, we are not in a favorable position.

In addition, having one group coordinating our overall space-based technology usages and operations, as well as development and procurement, is reason enough to justify Space Force.

“If you ain’t first, your last.” – Reese Bobby (Ricky Bobby’s dad in the movie “Talladega Nights – The Ballad of Ricky Bobby”)

That is especially true in the case of controlling space.

This is a concept whose time has arrived.

Say it with me, “Space Force! Space Force! Space Force!”

Mark Levin, the newly inducted radio hall of fame member and host of the FOX TV show “Life, Liberty and Levin,” thinks so.

Mark Levin is EXTREMELY knowledgeable when it comes to matters of The U.S. Constitution. If he thinks the Mueller Probe was established unconstitutionally, my money is on him.

Let’s take a look at why Mark Levin feels this way.

According to Larry O’Connor of The Washington Times, “Former Justice Department official and syndicated radio host Mark Levin made a concrete argument against the constitutionality of the Robert Mueller investigation Tuesday night on Fox News’ Hannity program.”

“The crux of Levin’s argument revolves around the revelation, in ‘Politico,’ that many of the attorneys on Mueller’s team have registered as “Special Assistant US Attorneys” in a Virginia federal court:”

“Several court filings indicate that when lawyers from Mueller’s office appeared in federal court in Alexandria earlier this year, they did so not only as representatives of Mueller’s office but as special assistant United States attorneys (SAUSAs) attached to the United States attorney’s office there.”

“That designation gives the Mueller prosecutors a kind of dual status that could complicate any attempt by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to try to shift the case to federal prosecutors based in Alexandria, a possibility the judge mentioned on a couple of occasions during a contentious hearing earlier this month.”

“That designation may make the (Paul) Manafort indictment immune to Judge Ellis’ questions regarding Mueller’s jurisdiction and the scope of his investigation, but, Levin points out, it triggers some serious Article II constitutional conflicts:”

“‘Rosenstein usurped the authority of the president of the United States to nominate whoever he wants as a prosecutor,’ Levin said. ‘Mr. Mueller is serving unconstitutionally in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the way (acting FBI Director) Rod Rosenstein appointed him.’”

“‘Article II of the constitution makes clear that principal executive branch positions are to be filled directly by the President. If Mueller’s attorneys are Special Assistant US Attorneys: that makes Mueller a defacto Roving U.S. Attorney’ Levin explained.”

“His appointment is subject to Article II of the constitution and the President should have been the one to make his appointment, not Rod Rosenstein.”

Anybody being harassed by the Mueller Probe may be wise to challenge its constitutionality in court, based on Levin’s beliefs.

I’m President Trump and his team are aware of this now and keeping this in their back pockets, should the need arise.

In any case, the sham of an investigation called the Mueller probe needs to end.

Drain the Swamp! Drain the Swamp!  Drain the Swamp!

According to Greg Price of “Weaknews” (Ooops, I mean Newsweek), a new poll suggests that Democrats and Independents are turning against the Mueller Investigation.

“President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election may be taking hold not only among Republicans but Democrats and independents as well, according to a poll released last Wednesday.”

(The real problem for Mueller is he’s NOT investigating “Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” at least not where there was any (Hint, hint…, Hillary and the Democrats). It HAS turned into a Trump related witch hunt of anything they can turn up to harm The President (nothing so far) and anyone that can even remotely be associated with him.)

“Overall, a record 53 percent of the poll’s respondents shared an unfavorable reaction to Mueller, a 26-point jump since Politico/Morning Consult first started polling the special counsel’s favorable and unfavorable rating among registered voters.”

(Hmmm. As this number climbs higher, the anticipated height of the mythical “blue wave” in November grows smaller.)

“Still, 50 percent of Democrats view Muller favorably and approve of his work.”

(Ha! Ya…, 50 percent of Democrats say Mueller is great 100% of the time!)

“But, as President Trump continues to label Mueller’s investigation as a ‘witch hunt’ led by ‘13 angry Democrats,’ more voters now believe the probe is being ‘handled unfairly.’”

“In the latest poll, 40 percent of voters, compared to 34 percent in February, question the probe’s ‘integrity and fairness.’”

(A majority of the American people do tend to come around eventually.)

Drain “the swamp!”

Drain “the swamp!”

Drain “the swamp!”

As a result of the IG report on the Clinton email probe, we really have not learned much that we didn’t already know. It just made a few things “officially known.”

“The swamp” is only going to reveal what it is forced to reveal, or what it deems advantageous to reveal.

That’s what brings us back to the need for a special prosecutor. If we didn’t have a “swampy mole” (Jeff Sessions) serving as the Attorney General right now, we would have already had a special counsel assigned to this whole mess.

As it stands, many of the people involved in this mess may never be held accountable for their actions. As we have learned, some people have to obey the law (you and I), while others really do not (“the swamp”).

As reported by Alex Pappas of Fox News, “Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, in a comprehensive and at-times scathing report on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, exposed extraordinary text messages by a top FBI official vowing to ‘stop’ Donald Trump, while calling then FBI Director James Comey’s actions in the case ‘insubordinate.’”

“The long-awaited report was released Thursday afternoon, spanning nearly 600 pages and scrutinizing the actions of numerous figures who played a key role in the Justice Department and FBI’s investigation. It is the product of an 18-month review, incorporating dozens of witness interviews and hundreds of thousands of documents.”

“But one of the most stunning findings concerns texts between agent Peter Strzok and bureau colleague Lisa Page.”

“According to the report, Page texted Strzok in August 2016 and said: ‘[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?’!”

“’No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,’ Strzok responded.”

“Strzok was a lead investigator on the Clinton case and later worked the Russia investigation before being removed from that assignment.”

“Still, the report said investigators found ’no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations.’”

(No, of course not. Saying “they’ll stop Trump from becoming president,” shows no level of bias or improper behavior.)

“Comey responded to the report on Thursday by tweeting that he believes the ‘conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some.’”

“’I respect the DOJ IG office, which is why I urged them to do this review. The conclusions are reasonable, even though I disagree with some. People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently. I pray no Director faces it again. Thanks to IG’s people for hard work. — James Comey (@Comey) June 14, 2018’”

“’People of good faith can see an unprecedented situation differently,’ Comey said.”

(We certainly do Mr. Comey. We certainly do.)

“The report also faults the FBI, and specifically Strzok, for not acting quickly enough after the discovery of Clinton emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the fall of 2016. The report says Strzok and others argued that the Russia investigation was a “higher priority” at the time than reviewing the laptop.”

“’We found this explanation unpersuasive and concerning,’ the report said, noting the FBI could have gotten a search warrant in late September, but waited more than a month to do so, ultimately revisiting the case days before the election. Clinton has long said that announcement contributed to her defeat. But the report also suggested that Strzok, ironically, may have acted out of bias for Clinton in slow-walking the laptop review.”

(Ya think?!)

“In the report, Horowitz also criticized, then, Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous meeting on an Arizona tarmac with former President Bill Clinton just days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.”

“The report said investigators ‘found no evidence’ of an “inappropriate discussion. But it found that Lynch’s ‘failure to recognize the appearance problem created by former President Clinton’s visit and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.’”

(Of course not. A meeting with the Attorney General at the time and a former president, whose wife just happened to be running for president, but was also under investigation by the FBI at the time, should be considered completely normal. Really, how stupid do these people think we are? Pretty stupid, apparently.)

“House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement the report shows, ‘an alarming and destructive level of animus displayed by top officials at the FBI.’”

(To say the least.)

“Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned. Page later resigned.”

(Ha! Well that’s a pretty good indicator of the type of people they were looking to fill spots in the Mueller Probe with.)

“An attorney for Strzok, Aitan Goelman, denied the agent’s personal political views influenced his work. ‘His dedication to unbiased service is a fact that would be universally echoed by the thousands of people who have worked with Pete during his 26 years of service in the FBI and U.S. Army,’ Goelman said.”

(Oh yes…, Peter Strzok should be considered an American hero! More importantly, he is considered a hero by “the swamp!”)

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the report ‘reveals a number of significant errors by the senior leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI during the previous administration.’”

(Don’t you just love it how “the swamp” refers to its crimes? They’re called “errors,” they’re referred to as “concerning behavior,” “insubordinate behavior,” improper behavior,” inappropriate behavior,” and my favorite, as, “a failure to recognize the appearance of a problem!”)

Thank you to Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, Judson Berger, Bill Mears, Jake Gibson and Brooke Singman who contributed to this report and information used in this article.

Mr. Michael E. Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 16, 2012 (during Obama’s second term). He is also about as “swampy” as they come. As Inspector General, Mr. Horowitz oversees a nationwide workforce of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors, attorneys, and support staff whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in DOJ programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in Department operations.

His history with the DOJ goes all the way back to 1991.

In the famous words of Clark Griswold, “ “I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, d***less, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey sh** he is! Hallelujah!”

What’s in a name…, or a title? Let’s take a look.

In the last few hundred years, the titles of “Professor” and “Doctor” have been hijacked by various professional organizations and educational systems that require we submit our “pound of flesh,” along with a generous amount of money, so that they may deem us worthy of the title that they have appointed only themselves worthy to bequeath upon us.

It’s a good gig if you can get it!

Merriam-Webster defines a professor as:

1: one that professes, avows, or declares

2a: a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education

2b: a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school

2c: one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill

Merriam-Webster defines a doctor as:

1a: in Christianity: an eminent theologian declared a sound expounder of doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church, called also doctor of the church

1b: a learned or authoritative teacher

1c: a person who has earned one of the highest academic degrees (such as a PhD) conferred by a university ·Most of the college’s faculty members are doctors in their fields.

1d: a person awarded an honorary doctorate (such as an LLD or Litt D) by a college or university

2a: a person skilled or specializing in healing arts; especially: one (such as a physician, dentist, or veterinarian) who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to practice ·See your doctor if the condition worsens.

2b: medicine man

3a: material added (as to food) to produce a desired effect

3b: a blade (as of metal) for spreading a coating or scraping a surface

4: a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things

Based on the definitions here, I feel completely comfortable affording myself the title of Professor, and even the title of Doctor. Hey…, I didn’t write these definitions, I’m just going by them!

The Ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, was one of the earliest recorded “professors.”

The term “professor” was first used in the late 14th century (1300’s). The word comes from the “old French” word “professeur” and directly from the Latin “professor,” for “person who professes to be an expert in some art or science; teacher of highest rank.” The Latin term came from “profiteri,” which means to lay claim to, or declare openly. As a title that is prefixed to a name, it dates back to 1706.

Beyond holding the proper “academic title,” universities in many countries also give notable artists, athletes and foreign dignitaries the title “honorary professor,” even if these persons do not have the “academic qualifications” typically necessary for professorship.

Hmmm. Like I said before, these words were hijacked by certain institutions, and now they think they own them. Most people have to pay dearly for these titles, but then some are given the titles as “gifts?” What then is the true “value” or “determination” of these institutionally given titles?

These institutions only have control of these titles if everyone else allows them to. I, for one, do not recognize their self-proclaimed authority and monopolization of these terms and titles. Therefore, I am free to claim any title I would like to for myself. In this case, I feel particularly justified in doing so.

If I am anything, I’m a “professor” of the truth. I profess truth, justice, conservative values, and protecting our “American” way of life.

Signed:

Professor MrEricksonRules

p.s. It has a nice ring to it, don’t you think!?

TIME magazine and the rest of the ”fake news” are depicting and telling an interesting story, but the problem is IT ISN’T TRUE! IT’S A SHAM! AND THEY KNOW IT, AND THEY DON’T CARE!

As reported by Gustavo Palencia of Reuters, “From TEGUCIGALPA (The capitol city of Honduras), the Honduran toddler pictured sobbing in a pink jacket before U.S. President Donald Trump on an upcoming cover of Time magazine WAS NOT separated from her mother at the U.S. border, according to a man who says he is the girl’s father.”

“The powerful original photograph, taken at the scene of a border detention by Getty Images photographer John Moore, became one of the iconic images in the flurry of media coverage about the separation of families by the Trump administration.”

(Ya, but it’s disingenuous! It’s a false icon! It’s just a crying little girl. She isn’t being separated from her mother.)

“Dozens of newspapers and magazines around the globe published the picture, swelling the tide of outrage that pushed Trump to back down Wednesday and say families would no longer be separated.”

(Ya, but it’s disingenuous! It’s a false icon! It’s just a crying little girl. She isn’t being separated from her mother.)

“’My daughter has become a symbol of the … separation of children at the U.S. border. She may have even touched President Trump’s heart,’ Denis Valera told Reuters in a telephone interview.”

(Ya, but it’s disingenuous! It’s a false icon! It’s just a crying little girl. She isn’t being separated from her mother.)

“Valera said the little girl and her mother, Sandra Sanchez, have been detained together in the Texas border town of McAllen, where Sanchez has applied for asylum, and they were not separated after being detained near the border.”

“Honduran deputy foreign minister Nelly Jerez confirmed Valera’s version of events.”

“Varela said he was awestruck and pained when he first saw the photo of his crying daughter on TV. ‘Seeing what was happening to her in that moment breaks anyone’s heart,’ he said.”

“The photo was used on a Facebook fundraiser that drew more than $17 million dollars in donations from close to half a million people for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), a Texas-based nonprofit that provides legal defense services to immigrants and refugees.”

(Ya, but it’s disingenuous! It’s a false icon! It’s just a crying little girl. She isn’t being separated from her mother.)

I realize that Liberals, Democrats, and the “fake news” don’t let facts get in the way of their narrative…,

… but it’s disingenuous! It’s a false icon! It’s just a crying little girl. She isn’t being separated from her mother.

That’s why the usage of this picture and the fake story that goes along with it, epitomizes the nature of Liberals, Democrats, and the “fake news” in a nutshell!

Remember, stay thirsty my friends…, but don’t drink the Kool-Aid!

These are some very interesting statements and accounting of events that you may not have been aware of.  Let’s take a look.

According to Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, “The Obama White House’s chief cyber official testified Wednesday that proposals he was developing to counter Russia’s attack on the U.S. presidential election were ‘put on a back burner’ after he was ordered to ‘stand down’ his efforts in the summer of 2016.”

“The comments by Michael Daniel, who served as The White House “cyber security coordinator” between 2012 and 2016 (President Obama’s second term), provided his first public confirmation of a much-discussed passage in the book, ‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump,’ co-written by this reporter and David Corn, that detailed his thwarted efforts to respond to the Russian attack.”

(Ok, it’s all clear to me now. This reporter co-wrote a book chronicling this whole episode. That’s the only reason that we are hearing about any of this. On Amazon, this book is describe as, “The incredible, harrowing account of how American democracy was hacked by Moscow as part of a covert operation to influence the U.S. election and help Donald Trump gain the presidency. RUSSIAN ROULETTE is a story of political skullduggery unprecedented in American history. It weaves together tales of international intrigue, cyber espionage, and superpower rivalry. After U.S.-Russia relations soured, as Vladimir Putin moved to reassert Russian strength on the global stage, Moscow trained its best hackers and trolls on U.S. political targets and exploited WikiLeaks to disseminate information that could affect the 2016 election. The Russians were wildly successful and the great break-in of 2016 was no “third-rate burglary.” It was far more sophisticated and sinister, a brazen act of political espionage designed to interfere with American democracy. At the end of the day, Trump, the candidate who pursued business deals in Russia, won. And millions of Americans were left wondering, what the hell happened? This story of high-tech spying and multiple political feuds is told against the backdrop of Trump’s strange relationship with Putin and the curious ties between members of his inner circle, including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, and Russia. RUSSIAN ROULETTE chronicles and explores this bizarre scandal, explains the stakes, and answers one of the biggest questions in American politics: How and why did a foreign government infiltrate the country’s political process and gain influence in Washington?” Little did these guys know that they completely missed, or ignored, the biggest and most scandalous parts of the overall story!)

“They (the comments) came during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing into how the Obama administration dealt with Russian cyber and information warfare attacks in 2016, an issue that has become one of the more politically sensitive subjects in the panel’s ongoing investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election and any links to the Trump campaign.”

“The view that the Obama administration failed to adequately piece together intelligence about the Russian campaign and develop a forceful response has clearly gained traction with the intelligence committee. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the panel, said in an opening statement that “we were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.”

(That’s apparently the way the Democrats want to play this, that they (the Obama administration) “were caught flat-footed at the outset and our collective response was inadequate to meet Russia’s escalation.” It sure seems like they know an awful lot about something they claim to be surprised by.)

“That conclusion was reinforced Wednesday by another witness, Victoria Nuland, who served as assistant secretary of state for Europe during the Obama administration. She told the panel that she had been briefed as early as December 2015 (a whole year before the election) about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, long before senior DNC officials were aware of it, and that the intrusion had all the hallmarks of a Russian operation.”

“As she and other State Department officials became ‘more alarmed’ about what the Russians were up to in the spring of 2016, they were authorized by then Secretary of State John Kerry to develop proposals for ways to deter the Russians. But most of those steps were never taken, in part because officials assumed they would be taken up by the next administration.”

(What? So they assumed the next administration would address it after the fact? That makes no sense…, unless you were assuming Hillary Clinton would win the election, and would cover up all of these sins appropriately.)

“’I believe there were deterrence measures we could have taken and should have taken,’ Nuland testified.”

“As intelligence came in during the late spring and early summer of that year about the Russian attacks, Daniel instructed his staff on the NSC (National Security Council) to begin developing options for aggressive countermeasures to deter the Kremlin’s efforts, including mounting U.S. ‘denial of service’ attacks on Russian news sites and other actions targeting Russian cyber actors.”

“Daniel declined to discuss the details of those options during Wednesday’s open hearing, saying he would share them with the panel during a classified session later in the day. But he described his proposals as ‘the full range of potential actions’ that the U.S. government could use in the cyber arena ‘to impose costs on the Russians, both openly to demonstrate that we could do it as a deterrent and also clandestinely to disrupt their operations as well.’”

(Ok…, here comes the good part!)

“Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked about a passage from the ‘RUSSIAN ROULETTE’ book in which one of Daniel’s staff members, Daniel Prieto, recounted a staff meeting shortly after the cyber coordinator was ordered by Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, to stop his efforts and “stand down.” This order was in part because Rice feared the options would leak and ‘box the president in.’”

(Ok…, so WHO is telling our old friend, Susan “the puppet” Rice, to have these people stop their efforts and to “stand down?” I’ll give you a clue…, his initials are BO, and yes he does stink! Also, a quick translation of that last sentence, “This order was in part because Rice feared the options would leak and ‘box the president in.’” What that meant was that BO didn’t want anyone poking around and asking questions that may hinder or bring to light the illegal spying of the trump campaign that was going on.)

“’I was incredulous and in disbelief,’ Prieto is quoted as saying in the book. ‘It took me a moment to process. In my head, I was like, did I hear that correctly?’ Prieto told the authors he then spoke up, asking Daniel: ‘Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?’”

“Daniel has confirmed that the account was ‘an accurate rendering of what happened’ in his staff meeting.”

“He said his bosses at the NSC, he did not specifically mention Rice in his testimony, had concerns about ‘how many people were working on the options,’ so the ‘decision’ from his superiors at the Obama White House was to ‘neck down the number of people that were involved in developing our ongoing response options.’”

“Daniel added that “it’s not accurate to say that all activity ceased at that point.” He and his staff “shifted our focus” to assisting state governments to protect against Russian cyberattacks against state and local election systems.”

(Really? I would be interested to learn exactly how they did that.)

“But as for his work on developing cyber deterrence measures, ‘those actions were put on a back burner and that was not the focus of our activity during that time period.’”

(Ok, hold on…, I thought they said they were, “assisting state governments to protect against Russian cyberattacks against state and local election systems.” Now they’re saying, “But as for his work on developing cyber deterrence measures, ‘those actions were put on a back burner and that was not the focus of our activity during that time period.’” Which one is it? Do “cyber deterrence measures” not mean the same thing as “”protecting against Russian cyberattacks?” If not, then what other “cyber deterrence measures” are you talking about? Again, I believe what that meant was that BO didn’t want anyone poking around and asking questions that may hinder or bring to light the illegal spying of the trump campaign that was going on.)

“Instead, Obama officials chose another course of action (this means BO chose another course of action) after becoming frustrated that Republican leaders on Capitol Hill would not endorse a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference and fearful that any unilateral action by them would feed then candidate Donald Trump’s claims that the election was rigged.”

(Translation: BO feared it would come out that the election really was rigged, just like Donald Trump was claiming.)

“They chose a private ‘stern’ warning (Ooooh, those “stern” warnings are sooo scary!) by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China in early September 2016 to stop his country’s campaign to disrupt the U.S. election.”

“Obama officials were also worried that a vigorous cyber response along the lines Daniel had proposed could escalate into a full scale cyber war. And, they have since argued, they believed that the president’s warning had some impact, noting, as Daniel did in his testimony, that they saw some tamping down in Russian probing of state election data systems after Obama’s private talk with Putin.”

(Wow. For not being able to deter all of this, so called, Russian activity, they sure seem to know it when they see it, and have the ability to even analyze it.)

“After the November 2016 election, in which Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Obama did impose new sanctions on Russia’s intelligence services and expelled diplomats.”

(Now BO really had to look like he was taking real action, to help promote the false narrative that they were planning on unleashing against, now, President-elect Trump. Which was the Russians tampered with the election, and President-elect Trump colluded with them in order to win the election.)

“But Nuland testified that most in the administration saw that as only a beginning of what needed to be done. “It’s fair to say that all of us in the process assumed what was done in December and January would be a starting point for what the incoming administration would then build on.”

(Of course. You know what happens when you assume don’t you?)

“The Wednesday hearing by the intelligence panel did not touch steps the Trump administration has taken, or in many cases, failed to take, to respond to the Russian election attack.”

(Ha! Oh yes, please, let’s now talk about steps the Trump administration has “failed to take!” These people are unbelievable!)

Oh what a tangled web BO and his friends had to weave, and continue to weave. The Clintons are much better at these kinds of things.

Again, stay thirsty my friends, but remember…, don’t drink the Kool-Aid!

So, now we have “news” story after “news” story being produced by the biased mainstream media, complaining about the treatment of children and families at our southern border, who have illegally crossed the border, and were apprehended.

It’s funny how this was not an issue last year, or during any of the years during the Obama administration.

This story has now suddenly become “an issue” when it is politically advantageous for the democrats to use it as such.

It is also funny how the democrats can create a situation and then get away with complaining about that situation, while shifting blame to others. That’s the advantage of having a complicit media who are willing to play along with your game plan.

We see people comparing President Trump to Hitler, and our Border Agents to Nazis. We see people with signs characterizing President Trump and his followers as heartless, when in actuality these laws were signed by President Clinton and have been in effect ever since. Where was the protests of President Obama and his administration?

How sad it is that these “children,” many of whom are teenagers closer to being adults than not, are separated from their families. Of course, we are provided with pictures of cute little girls and boys desperately clinging-on to someone for help.

The biased liberal media will not tell you, however, that, in truth, the majority of these children did not even cross our southern border with their real families, but with people using them in an effort to gain some level of sympathy to their situation or as a “get out of jail free” card. Or even worse, they’re bringing these kids with them to sell them as slave labor doing only God knows what.

In many cases, the only families that are being broken-up are their crime “families.”

In all cases, they are receiving better treatment than they have seen in a while, or probably ever, and no one should be feeling too sorry for them.

In any case, the one thing they all have in common is that they chose to disrespect the people of our country, ignore and break our laws, and enter our country illegally. They made that choice.

There are four things that are very sad here:

The first one is the choice these individuals made to break our laws and, in some cases, put their children at risk, or other people’s children at risk in doing so.

The second one is the democrats’ willingness to use the lives of these illegal immigrants as pawns in their sick and twisted political game.

The third one is the disingenuous, hypocritical and selective outrage the liberals are choosing to employ here.

And, the fourth one is the attempted cover-up of the IG and, most probably, only one part of the biggest scandal in American political history by the democrats, the deep state, and the biased mainstream media.

The whole thing is just shameful. But “the swamp” has no shame.

President Trump has addressed this issue now, however, so “the swamp” will just continue to beat this dead horse until they can come up with the next distracting issue. Stay tuned.

Build that wall and drain the swamp!

Build that wall and drain the swamp!

Build that wall and drain the swamp!