Visit Counter

Friday, April 28, 2017

The Former: Hypocrite in Chief

Obama's $400G Wall Street speech leaves liberal base stunned

This was the 'old' Barry:

"We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world just by rewarding greed and recklessness. We didn't come this far by letting the special interests run wild. We didn't do it just by gambling and chasing paper profits on Wall Street. We built this country by making things, by producing goods we could sell."

This too:

"I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

This is what the ambassador of OWS had to say in 2009 about those revolting Wall Street "fat cats".

Video 339

Now Barry has become what he claimed to despise...a true Capitalist. 


Former President Obama's upcoming speech to Wall Streeters is putting $400,000 in his pocket - and putting longtime supporters in a difficult situation.

Democratic Party leaders and grass roots activists alike are at a loss to explain how the onetime champion of the 99 percent could cash in with a September address at a health care conference run by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

“Spiritual leader of the people’s #Resistance cashes in with $400k speech to Wall Street bankers,” read one tweet.

"[Money] is a snake that slithers through Washington.” 

- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

“Obama’s $400,000 Wall Street speech will cost @TheDemocrats much more than that," read another. "It reinforces everything progressives hate about Democrats.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said she “was troubled by that,” when asked her opinion on Sirius XM’s “Alter Family Politics” radio show this morning. But she held back from criticizing the president directly while referring repeatedly to her new book, “This Fight is Our Fight,” in which she outlines her concerns about big money’s influence on American politics.

“One of the things I talk about in the book is the influence of money. It’s a snake that slithers through Washington,” Warren said.

Calls to other prominent liberal elected officials, including Sen Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent who ran hard for the Democratic presidential nomination by championing the middle class and denouncing Wall Street, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were not immediately returned.

While Obama's longtime allies in Washington were taciturn, far-left groups that viewed him as their champion could not hide their bitterness. 

"Even if he donates the money from this Wall Street firm to charity, his speech and remuneration reminds 'ordinary' working class people that both major political parties are in bed with Big Business," said David Michael Smith, of the Houston Socialist Movement. "In my view, our country needs a new kind of political party and social movement to represent the vast majority of the population, not the wealthy few." 

The fee - equal to one year's presidential salary - was not the issue with critics so much as the idea a leader the Democratic base always considered beyond the reach of Wall Street taking it.

“Now Democrats are being put in the position of deciding whether their former president should take $400,000 from Wall Street for a speech," the left-leaning Washington Post wrote. "At the least, it risks suggesting the party's anti-Wall Street posture is in some cases just that — posturing.”

Some of Obama's supporters saw nothing wrong with the former president's pay day.

"He served us faithfully and well for 8 years as President - he doesn't work for us anymore. More power to him," one supporter wrote on Twitter.

(Shortly after this statement he was admitted to the psych ward at Bellview.)

Still, the development seemed a far cry from sentiments Obama expressed in his 2006 memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.”

“The path of least resistance - of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops - starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes,” then-Sen. Obama wrote. “The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.”

Obama will have an opportunity to reconcile his evolving position on money and politics in his next memoir, for which he has already signed a $60 million deal.


Thursday, April 27, 2017

Guess this is no surprise

Sanctuary cities fight: Judge who blocked Trump order a Democrat activist

Judge William Orrick is a longtime Democratic activist. 
(US District Court for the District of Northern California)

Appointed by Barry

Orrick's claim of impartiality:

 "I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”

...and if you believe him then surely Clinton and lard ass really did talk about golf and grandchildren!


The judge who struck down a Trump administration crack down on sanctuary cities is a hard-core Democrat activist whose life has been steeped in liberal politics since childhood.

Judge William Orrick III, 63, who on Tuesday blocked the administration from withholding federal funds from cities that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials, attended the landmark 1968 Democratic National Convention as a teen and more recently raised money for 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry.

“I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice," Orrick assured lawmakers in 2013 when he was confirmed as a federal judge on the District of Northern California. "I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”

On Tuesday, in a suit brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara, Calif., Orrick blocked President Trump's executive order withholding funding from sanctuary cities, saying the president lacked the authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

“He’s definitely one of the more openly liberal-leaning judges on the bench based on several rulings he’s made over the years."

- Attorney who has argued cases before Orrick

Liberal-Leaning? More like set in concrete with additional rebar.

But Orrick's latest ruling, which Trump blasted as a case of "judge shopping" in a Wednesday tweet, and a prior ruling granting Planned Parenthood an injunction barring the Center for Medical Progress from releasing damning undercover videotapes of the abortion provider's employees and contractors, have raised questions about his impartiality.

“He’s definitely one of the more openly liberal-leaning judges on the bench based on several rulings he’s made over the years," said one California lawyer who has argued cases before Orrick and requested anonymity. "Many of our [9th Circuit] judges are Democratic appointees, and with most of them you feel like you would get a fair shake.

"Judge Orrick is one of the ones I feel uncomfortable having a politically charged case in front of,” he added.

Orrick got one of his first tastes of hard-knuckle politics when he was just 15 years old. He went with his father, a delegate for Robert Kennedy, who had been assassinated two months before, to the riotous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

“There was fighting going on inside” the convention, as well as outside, Orrick told the Recorder in a story about prominent left-wing bundlers in August 2004.

Orrick would go on to attend Yale and Boston College Law School.

At the time of the Recorder report, Orrick was a lawyer for a San Francisco firm with deep ties to Democratic politics. He had helped organize a nationwide effort dubbed "Lawyers for Kerry” and was credited with raising more than $1 million for Kerry in the San Francisco area alone.

When Kerry announced he would not seek his party’s nomination in January 2007, a core group of a dozen or so attorneys met at Orrick’s firm, San Francisco-based Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, and “effectively became 'Lawyers for Obama,'” according to the Recorder. The group “became this kind of built-in network of fundraisers,” attorney Thomas McInerney told the Recorder. Obama wasn’t even officially in the race yet.

As a bundler for Obama, Orrick raised at least $200,000 according to records obtained by the watchdog group Public Citizen. A bundler, according to Public Citizen, “plays an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns and are apt to receive preferential treatment if their candidate wins.”

A few months after President Obama moved into the White House, Orrick told a reporter that he wanted a job in the new administration. “I contacted anybody I could think of to say: Let me serve.”

McInerney was quoted as saying, "He's not in it for glory. He's doing it because he really believes in Obama."

Orrick's first position was in the Civil Division of President Obama’s Department of Justice. Near the end of Obama's second term, he was appointed to his current post.

Other attorneys, also anonymously, have complained publicly about Orrick. One commenter on the blog The Robing Room called Orrick a “social justice activist for whom the rule of law is a quaint, malleable notion of no import.”

The Robing Room is a nationwide database of judges that contains 100,000 state and federal reviews of judges. “Posters are attorneys, litigants, and court personnel,” said Robing Room Vice President Nicholas Kaizer, an attorney in New York.

“The comments reflect the judge’s bias,” said Kaizer, who acknowledged he has no professional experience with Orrick, but analyzed the comments for Fox News. “The general flavor reflects a judge that values form over substance, is results-oriented, and somebody that directs litigation to a preordained, predetermined outcome. And that reflects a judge that is not well regarded by counsel.”

Kaizer believes comments on his site paint an accurate picture of Orrick.

“If there’s one or two critical comments it’s anomalous, but we’re seeing 4 or 5 or more," he said. "I think you can draw conclusions that what each individual reviewer is saying is accurate and it’s buttressed by the other reviewers.”

While Orrick's latest decision may earn him more detractors, it will likely also prompt others to agree with an earlier assessment by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

“William Orrick will be an outstanding addition to the Northern District bench," Boxer said after recommending him for his current post. "He brings a depth of legal experience in both the public and private sectors.”


Tuesday, April 25, 2017

What an asshole

Every time she opens her mouth her IQ drops 20 points.

How is it immoral to have a border wall? When she goes home, after another hard day of lying, isn't she protected by walls which surround her own home? If it's right for her why is it NOT right for America to defend itself from foreign invaders? 

Video 338

She was indispensable... when it came to Trump taking over the WH.
Thanks, Nancy and keep up the good work.



On a tip from Ed Kilbane


Friday, April 21, 2017

The irony

But in did get a parting gift of $25 million.


Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Calling It an Extremist Group

The pinnacle of cowardly stupidity. Why didn't they ban Islam?  How many Jehovah’s Witnesses killed their comrades compared to Muslims the last two decades? If you had a choice between a Jehovah’s Witness or a Muslim for a neighbor...guess I didn't have to ask. 


Jehovahs Witnesses gathered last month in a house in the village of Vorokhobino, north of Moscow, where they meet for services. 

MOSCOW — Russia’s Supreme Court on Thursday declared Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination that rejects violence, an extremist organization, banning the group from operating on Russian territory and putting its more than 170,000 Russian worshipers in the same category as Islamic State militants.

The ruling, which confirmed an order last month by the Justice Ministry that the denomination be “liquidated” — essentially eliminated or disbanded — had been widely expected. Russian courts rarely challenge government decisions, no matter what the evidence.

Viktor Zhenkov, a lawyer for the denomination, said Jehovah’s Witnesses would appeal the ruling. He said it had focused on the activities of the organization’s so-called administrative center, a complex of offices outside St. Petersburg, but also branded all of its nearly 400 regional branches as extremist.

“We consider this decision an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia,” Mr. Zhenkov said in a telephone interview. “We will, of course, appeal.”

An initial appeal will be made to the Supreme Court’s appellate division, Mr. Zhenkov said, and if that fails, Jehovah’s Witnesses will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France.

Hard-line followers of Russia’s dominant faith, the Orthodox Church, have lobbied for years to have Jehovah’s Witnesses outlawed or at least curbed as a heretical sect, but the main impetus for the current campaign to crush a Christian group active in Russia for more than a century seems to have come from the country’s increasingly assertive security apparatus.

Founded in the United States in the 19th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses has its worldwide headquarters in the United States and, along with all foreign-led groups outside the control of the state, is viewed with deep suspicion by Russia’s post-Soviet version of the KGB: the Federal Security Service, or F.S.B.

Summing up the Justice Ministry’s case against the denomination, the ministry’s representative, Svetlana Borisova, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that Jehovah’s Witnesses had shown “signs of extremist activity that represent a threat to the rights of citizens, social order and the security of society.”

During six days of hearings over two weeks, lawyers and witnesses for the religious group repeatedly dismissed the extremist allegation as absurd, arguing that reading the Bible and promoting its nonviolent message could in no way be construed as extremist.

Human Rights Watch, in a statement issued in Moscow, condemned the court ruling as “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Rachel Denber, the human rights group’s deputy director for Europe and Central Asia, said the decision delivered “a terrible blow to freedom of religion and association in Russia.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses shuns political activity and has no record of even peaceful — never mind violent — hostility to the Russian authorities. But it has faced growing hostility from the state since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia began his third term in 2012 and put the Orthodox Church at the center of his push to assert Russia as a great military and moral power.

The denomination suffered relentless persecution by the KGB during the Soviet era, and after more than a decade of relative peace following the collapse of Communism in 1991, it again became a target for official harassment under a 2002 anti-extremism law. That law makes it illegal for any group, other than the Orthodox Church and other traditional religious institutions, to proclaim itself as offering a true path to religious or political salvation.


Thursday, April 20, 2017

General Motors says Venezuela illegally seizes auto plant

This is the president of  Venezuela Nicolás Maduro a protégé of Chavez. You could say he is the Venezuelan Bernie Sanders. Proof that all the 'free stuff' has to be paid for by hook or by crook.

BTW...with Venezuela teetering on financial collapse what message does this latest 'acquisition' send to foreign investment? Venezuela is cutting its own throat. If you were the CEO of a large company after reading this article would you even consider opening a plant in Venezuela? 


General Motors said on Wednesday that Venezuelan authorities had illegally seized its plant in the industrial hub of Valencia and vowed to "take all legal actions" to defend its rights.

The seizure comes amid a deepening economic crisis in leftist-led Venezuela that has already roiled many U.S. companies.

"Yesterday, GMV's (General Motors Venezolana) plant was unexpectedly taken by the public authorities, preventing normal operations. In addition, other assets of the company, such as vehicles, have been illegally taken from its facilities," the company said in a statement.

It said the seizure would cause irreparable damage to the company, its 2,678 workers, its 79 dealers and to its suppliers.

Venezuela's Information Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for information.

Venezuela's car industry has been in freefall, hit by a lack of raw materials stemming from complex currency controls and stagnant local production, and many plants are barely producing at all.

In early 2015, Ford Motor wrote off its investment in Venezuela when it took an $800 million pre-tax writedown.

The country's economic crisis has hurt many other U.S. companies, including food makers and pharmaceutical firms. A growing number are taking their Venezuelan operations out off their consolidated accounts.

Venezuela's government has taken over factories in the past. In 2014 the government announced the "temporary" takeover of two plants belonging to U.S. cleaning products maker Clorox which had left the country.

Venezuela faces around 20 arbitration cases over nationalizations under late leader Hugo Chavez.


Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Barack Obama snaps photo of Michelle Obama on yacht

Washington (CNN) The Obamas are having the time of their post-White House lives.

 Why do you think this photo was taken from such a great distance?


Former President Barack Obama snapped a photo of former first lady Michelle Obama as she posed on the top deck of a yacht where the couple and celebrity friends spent Friday morning off the island of Mo'orea, in the South Pacific.

The Obamas were vacationing with Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey and spent two hours aboard music mogul David Geffen's luxury yacht, the Rising Sun, before leaving Tahiti. They had been staying in French Polynesia for nearly a month.

In the past few months, his trips have included visiting California for some golf, a private island in the Caribbean -- where he kite-surfed with billionaire Richard Branson -- New York to take in a Broadway play, and then to dine with U2's Bono.


Sunday, April 16, 2017

EXCLUSIVE — Family of Slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry Says Eric Holder Among ‘The Real Criminals’ Responsible

Ever wonder how many cartel members are still killing people with Holder's guns? Will Trump act on his promise to the terry family? I doubt it. Of all the scandals throughout 8 years of Barry, not one person has ever paid a price. 

BTW... as I am writing this Lerner and Koskinen are pounding down margaritas lounging on the beach in Playa del Carmen.

by Bob Price  

Photo: Facebook/Kelly Terry-Willis

The 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by a 7-time previously deported illegal alien could have been prevented, says the agent’s brother Kent Terry in an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas. Terry’s family hopes the Trump Administration will now go after “the real criminals” responsible for putting the “Fast and Furious” guns in the accused killer’s hands.

A task force including Mexican law enforcement officials, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents and U.S. Border Patrol Border Patrol BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit) agents arrested accused killer Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, in Mexico earlier this week, Breitbart Texas reported. Court records obtained by Breitbart Texas stated immigration officials deported Osorio-Arellanes seven times before he returned illegally on December 14, 2010, as part of a Mexican bandit “rip crew.” The accused killer of Agent Terry opened fire on the BORSTAR team in southern Arizona that had been dispatched to find the “rip crew” which had been robbing other drug and human smuggling convoys in the area.

“We just heard that Brian’s shooter had been deported seven times,” Brian Terry’s brother, Kent Terry, told Breitbart Texas. “This is a death that could have been prevented.”

The allegation that Osorio-Arellanes shot Agent Terry with a gun supplied by the U.S. Government in a gun-running operation called “Fast and Furious” made his death even more painful to the family members. To this date, no U.S. law enforcement official involved in supplying over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels under this program have been held to account. The House of Representatives found Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to be in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious program, Breitbart News reported in June 2012. Seventeen House Democrats joined with the Republican majority in finding Holder in contempt.

Photo of Brian Terry in training. (Photo: Brian Terry Foundation)

“Bob, this arrest puts us another step closer to getting those accountable for Brian’s senseless death that could have been prevented,” Kent Terry explained. “But the real criminals that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions need to look at are Eric Holder, Thomas Brandon, Bill Newell, and the rest who started this scandal known as Fast and Furious.”

“Mr. Trump promised me he would open the books in Brian’s death and now is the time,” an exasperated Kent Terry stated. “My family has waited long enough. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for Brian and Zapata.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata was also killed by Mexican cartel members using weapons obtained through the Fast and Furious Program.

“Our family is extremely happy to hear of the capture of one of the subjects involved in Brian’s murder,” Terry’s sister, Michelle Terry-Balogh told Breitbart Texas. “This is just another step forward toward getting the justice he truly deserves.”

“We want to express our gratitude to the Mexican officials and all the divisions of our US law enforcement that made this apprehension possible,” Michelle expressed. She sends a special thank you to Brian’s brothers in green who are part of the elite BORTAC team that assisted in the apprehension of this suspect.”

“The Terry family continues the fight to bring those held accountable for the botched gun program fast n furious that killed my brother and to honor him through the Brian Terry Foundation that was established to honor his legacy,” she said, echoing Kent’s call for justice.

Kent Terry (L) and Michelle Terry-Balogh (R) with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. (Photo: Kent Terry via Facebook)

Brian Terry’s third sibling, Kelly Terry-Willis also expressed her gratitude to all involved in bringing Brian’s accused killer to justice.

“I would like to thank every person involved from day one in the search and apprehension of the latest suspect,” Kelly expressed. “It does not go unnoticed that they put their lives at risk for this mission to be successful. We are closer to justice for Brian.”

“This latest news gave us more hope than we have had in awhile,” she said cautiously. “My guard is still up with this new administration because of all the lies and cover-ups from the previous one, but I more optimistic and hopeful than I have been in six years. Brian cannot and will not be forgotten.”

Nearly one year ago, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump met with the Terry family about their brother’s murder, Breitbart Texas reported.

“He told us how sorry he was about Brian’s senseless death,” Kent Terry told this reporter after the meeting. “Mr. Trump said it was shameful on this administration for starting a scandal like this and shameful for what they’re doing about it.”

“He also is very sincere about Brian’s death. Yes, he promised us if he becomes president, he will open the books on Fast and Furious.”

The Terry family believes it is now time for President Trump and the Republican led Congress do deliver on their promises.


Monday, April 10, 2017


On a tip from 
Ed Kilbane


Sunday, April 9, 2017

Well, Well, Well… LOOK Who Susan Rice’s Husband Works For!

 The taint of corruption adhered to the outgoing regime like super glue to the very end. Don't know how this could get any more obvious before someone finally takes action. Then again, what was the ultimate price paid for the IRS scandal?


Nancy Hayes April 6, 2017

Have you ever seen the MSM work SO hard to cover up one of the biggest stories of the year if not THE biggest? I mean this is just as big if not bigger than Nixon’s Watergate. Could you imagine, G. Gordon Liddy and the Nixon’s Watergate being covered up? For ABC and the rest of the MSM to cover up Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of Trump administrators and Obama spying on Trump to help Hillary get elected…WOW! That’s a BIG League!

It’s been over 40 years since G. Gordon Liddy walked into John Dean’s office and was asked to participate in an operation against the Democratic Party in the ’72 election. But there’s a funny feeling in the air, like it happened just yesterday, only THIS time the MSM is NOT writing the BIG story.

Maybe it has something to do with connections. Maybe it has something to do with Susan Rice’s husband, Ian Cameron and others like him who are pro-Obama and support the “cover up” or silence on the topic. It’s like the crime never happened, but it DID.

(US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice (R) and Ian Cameron)

The mainstream media is working overtime to cover up this week’s ground-breaking scandal involving former national security advisor Susan Rice, and what do you know, her husband was an executive producer at ABC News.

Can you say “conflict of interest”?!

According to The Gateway Pundit, Senior Fox News Correspondent Adam Housley revealed on Friday that Intel Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) knew who unmasked the identities of President Donald Trump’s close associates. Sources also told him that the unmasking was purely for political purposes to embarrass Trump and had NOTHING to do with national security.

Then, over the weekend, it was confirmed that Rice was the culprit who had ordered the unmasking of incoming Trump officials.

In a nutshell, the Obama administration was using spying techniques put in place to protect Americans from terrorists, in their shameless attempt to take down Trump.

So where has the media been on this scandal, which is inarguably the biggest of its kind to ever hit national headlines?

From The Conservative Post:

The coverage in the Main Stream Media (MSM) was apathetic but the coverage at one major MSM outlet was nonexistent. ABC News this morning had no mention of the story on its home page.

Perhaps ABC isn’t covering the story because Susan Rice’s husband, Ian Cameron, is an ABC News Executive Producer?

Is nepotism keeping ABC from reporting on Rice’s illegal actions?

Who IS Ian Cameron, Susan Rice’s husband, you ask?

H/T Heavy:

Ian Cameron has held many prominent positions in ABC News over a 13-year time span.

His LinkedIn page says he was a “Former Executive Producer” for ABC News, from 2008-2011, based in Washington, D.C.

In 2010, TVNewser reported that “Cameron, the executive producer of ABC’s ‘This Week with Christiane Amanpour,’ is leaving the program at the end of the year.” The news site reported then that Cameron “was named executive producer of ‘This Week’ in 2008, and before that served as senior Washington producer for ‘ABC World News with Charles Gibson.’ He had been with ABC News since 1998.”

Prior to his position with ABC, Cameron was a television producer in Toronto for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the time, reported the Times. He also worked at television stations in Eureka, California and Ottawa, Canada, in the 1980s.

According to The New York Times, Cameron graduated from Stanford, and “received a Master’s in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science.”

The Times reported in the wedding announcement that Cameron’s father was the retired owner of “the Victoria Plywood Company, a lumber company in Victoria.”

According to a Stanford University bio on Rice, “Rice and Cameron met during her freshman orientation at Stanford. He was a senior” and quotes Cameron as saying, “She struck me right away as someone unique. She was more aware and very confident.”

So Ian Cameron and Susan Rice met at Stanford and both came from wealthy backgrounds. They have been married since 1983 and have two children. Cameron worked for ABC and has strong ties to the Obama administration.

Some have seized on Rice’s husband’s media background in their attempt to discredit the media; Trump supporters argue that the major networks, other than Fox, have downplayed the Rice unmasking questions.

However, on April 4th, Rice adamantly denied any wrongdoing; she said unmasking was requested to better understand the context behind reports and not for political purposes; she also denied ever leaking the information, according to The New York Times.

So, let me get this straight. Here’s one of the BIGGEST news stories of the year and ABC chooses NOT to cover it. Like silent crickets. There is nothing.

Even former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the apparent surveilling of Donald Trump and his associates by the Obama administration is “a thousand times worse than Watergate”.

Yet, ABC chose NOT to cover it? Seriously?!

The story is not EVEN MENTIONED on any of it’s pages….anywhere!

Twelve days before, Rice said she didn’t know a thing about it (unmasking). She said she “knew nothing” of Trump data unmasking and “nothing of the sort occurred”. As it happens, SHE requested the unmasking numerous times.

Talk about MSM bias! It’s like you need a chart in front of you to keep track of who’s connected to who. Like this one:

Just at ABC, other than the Ian Cameron and Susan Rice connection, there’s also:

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

ABC News George Stephanopoulos was the chief Washington correspondent for the ABC News and William J. Clinton’s senior adviser.

ABC News Kati Marton was married to Peter Jennings, and Richard C. Holbrooke. Holbrooke was a special envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of State for the Barack Obama administration.

So you see, it’s really no surprise to many of the MSM bias and their alliance to the Obama administration. The list of connections from the MSM to the Obama administration is pretty long. Due to the MSM connections, It’s not alarming then, that ABC would NOT report about Susan Rice and the “unmasking”, especially knowing that Ian Cameron is Susan Rice’s husband, and of course, all of the other MSM connections listed above.

Remember in 2014, CBS News’ investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson resigned in scandal when she grew frustrated with their network’s liberal bias and lack of dedication ot investigative reporting. She released a book titled ‘Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.’

It looks like not much has changed over the last couple years regarding that same MSM bias. It’s just gotten more obvious and blatant.

Most of us don’t even get our news anymore from the MSM – like CBS, ABC or NBC. We look for the ‘real’ news on sites like Joe For America, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, WikiLeaks or blogs. In fact, it was a blogger, Mike Cernovich who first reported the news on Susan Rice.

And the MSM still wonders why their ratings are down? Seriously?!

It’s very clear, the MSM only wants the public to know THEIR side of things. The MSM is very bias especially when it comes to reporting about Obama or his administration. When it comes to the ‘real news’, most days, you really do have to ask yourself, ‘what country do we live in…Russia or America’? That’s how bias the MSM is.

As Sen. Rand Paul said, If it (unmasking) wasn’t for political reasons and Rice was really seeking the information for foreign intelligence reasons, then why wasn’t the FBI involved? And did Obama direct Susan Rice to unmask the names of the Trump administrators?

Americans deserve the REAL news and the REAL truth! Let’s hope AG Jeff Sessions, Sen. Rand Paul and others, along with a formal grand jury can get to the bottom of all of this. Susan Rice should be facing some time. The real question is ‘How much time?”

The Susan Rice story is one of the biggest stories of the year and for the MSM to just ignore it, as it never happened is just INSANE! It’s like we returned in time to witness Nixon’s Watergate all over again. Only THIS time instead of G. Gordon Liddy….we have Susan Rice.

“I saw Democrats as being dangerous to the country,” he said. “I see the Democrats now as being even more dangerous to the country. I wanted to prevent them from being able to damage the country further. So I chose to make use of the special knowledge that I had as a result of the FBI and so forth. That was it.” – G. Gordon Liddy