Election

Eric Holder and the Deep State Liberal Wingman

posted by Jeffrey Lord - 2.07.18

April, 2013. The fifth year of the Obama Administration.

And on the nationally syndicated Tom Joyner radio show – Joyner an Obama-supporting liberal – the Attorney General of the United States is discussing his plans for the future. Having served through the Obama first term, the question posed is whether Holder is planning to depart the government at the beginning of the second term. Politico headlined the story this way:

Eric Holder: ‘I’m still the president’s wingman’

The story began:

“Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off a question Thursday about when he might leave the administration. Instead, the top lawman professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama.

‘I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see,’ Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.”

Holder would, in fact, leave two years later, to be replaced by fellow liberal Loretta Lynch.

Recall now when President Trump scolded Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the latter’s recusal from the Russia collusion business. Here is Sally Yates, the Obama Deputy Attorney General who was briefly Trump’s Acting Attorney General pending Session’s confirmation. Trump would fire Yates for insubordination over the issue of the so-called “travel ban.”

When Trump’s attack on Sessions was in the news, The Huffington Post reported the following of Yates:

“Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates said that Trump’s attack on Sessions’ recusal on Russia ‘reveals yet again his violation of the essential independence of DOJ, a bedrock principle of our democracy.’”

Catch the game? There is Yates’s one-time Obama-appointed boss, Eric Holder, saying quite publicly that he is Obama’s “wingman” at the Department of Justice. Yet there wasn’t a peep at the time from Yates that Holder’s statement ‘reveals yet again his violation of the essential independence of DOJ, a bedrock principle of our democracy.’”

Then there’s this story that emerged in the wake of the release of the House Intelligence Committee “Nunes Memo.” Congressman Devin Nunes, the Committee chairman, appeared on Fox with host Brett Baier. This following this tweet from former Obama Secretary of State John Kerry. Said Kerry:

“The Nunes memo is dangerous, ugly, and an assault on the integrity of the institutions of our country,” he tweeted. “I lived through Watergate/Nixon: America pays a very steep price when a political party tries to undermine the institutions that hold us together …”

And what did Nunes have to say to Baier? This:

“We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this.

That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation.”

Notice the pattern?

On the one hand, Yates and Kerry are trying to tell the American people that the institutions in which they worked – the Justice and State Departments respectively – are all about the non-partisan, unbiased execution of the law. Strictly non-political.

[the_ad_group id=”132″]

But in fact? In fact what we have is no less than Attorney General Holder himself personally contradicting Yates and confirming that his job is, yes indeed, not to be professional and non-partisan but rather to be the President’s decidedly political (and Left-wing) “wingman” in the running of the Department of Justice. And there is the former Secretary of State talking indignantly about “when a political party tries to undermine the institutions that hold us together…” – meaning in his case the State Department – while we learn from Chairman Nunes that in fact there is a congressional investigation into just “what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation.”

And before Kerry was Secretary of State? When was Hillary Clinton running the Department? Here is this jewel about the conduct of then-Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, a career diplomat no less. Kennedy joined the Foreign Service in 1973 and worked his way through the ranks of career diplomats before leaving office in January 2017. The subject: Benghazi and Clinton’s role in that episode which cost the lives of four Americans. Reported the Washington Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio:

“Newly released FBI documents depict Kennedy seeking to reverse the classification of one of Clinton’s emails related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Kennedy promised to “archive the document in the basement of [the State Department] never to be seen again.”

Meanwhile over in yet another part of the federal government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the pattern appears yet again. Climate Depot, an environmentalist website sponsored by a group called the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), headlined this:

Career EPA employees to fight Trump: ‘We will resist in whatever way, shape or form that we can’

Trump had been in office a mere eleven days when the Washington Post was headlining:

Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump

The article begins this way:

“The signs of popular dissent from President Trump’s opening volley of actions have been plain to see on the nation’s streets, at airports in the aftermath of his refu­gee and visa ban, and in the blizzard of outrage on social media. But there’s another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with implementing any new president’s agenda.

Less than two weeks into Trump’s administration, federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.

…The signs of resistance in federal offices range from low-level grumbling and angry opposition posted online to anonymous promises of outright insubordination as new policies develop.”

One could go on. And on and on. In that same Post article former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich summed up the problem:

“Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a Trump adviser and longtime critic of the bureaucracy, said the pushback against the new administration reveals how firmly entrenched liberals are and how threatened they feel by the new regime. He cited an analysis by the Hill newspaper that showed that 95 percent of campaign donations from employees at 14 federal agencies went to Hillary Clinton last fall.

‘This is essentially the opposition in waiting,’ Gingrich said. ‘He may have to clean out the Justice Department because there are so many left-wingers there. State is even worse.’

Gingrich said Trump might push for civil service revisions to make it easier to fire federal workers. He predicted that the public would back the president over federal employees.”

What does all of this have to do with the Nunes Intelligence Committee memo?

Everything.

[the_ad id=”31779″]

The hard, very blunt fact of the matter is that Eric Holder’s self-description of his role as Attorney General of the United States as the “wingman” for a Leftwing president is, in fact, the mindset of a great many of those who work and run the entire federal bureaucracy. They are in fact the “Deep State.” They see themselves as the opposition to any conservative or Republican president. And they will do whatever it takes to thwart if not covertly sabotage the duly elected president.

Which in turn makes the entire Nunes investigation into the FBI and the Justice Department totally relevant to a serious problem with the operation of the entire federal government. The now-famous texts between FBI counterintelligence expert Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said, among other things of candidate and then-President Trump, that Trump was an “idiot”, a “d*uche” and, oh yes, “God(,) Trump is a loathsome human.” There was more – oh so much more. But rest assured, they were not alone in these sentiments.

The real problem here isn’t simply the manipulation of the FBI and the Justice Department to thwart or unseat a duly elected President of the United States in the fashion of a banana republic-style insider/silent coup. And make no mistake, that is one huge problem.

No, the real problem here is that hundreds if not thousands of employees of the federal bureaucracy of the United States government see themselves – in whatever department or agency they may serve – as some version of Eric Holder’s self-description of his role as the Obama Attorney General. These federal bureaucrats see themselves as the wingman of the American Left. Their role in government is not to be unbiased or straight-shooting career professionals. Far from it. They see their role as ensuring that Leftist dogma on whatever progressive agenda item is relevant to their job is strictly followed. And as with the FBI’s Peter Strzok there is no limit to which they will not go to achieve that end. They are the Deep state personified.

[the_ad_group id=”132”]

All of which says there must be one serious addition to the Trump agenda. Which Newt Gingrich has summed up well. As the Post noted, “Trump might push for civil service revisions to make it easier to fire federal workers.”

The dangerous “Deep State” FBI-Department of Justice conduct and what Nunes is saying about the State Department makes it clear. American government at the federal level has a very, very serious problem. Now is the time to start fixing it. To overhaul the Deep State completely to ensure as best as can be done that this never happens again.

President Trump is exactly the president who could do it.

The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sean Hannity or Hannity.com

Jeffrey Lord is a frequent contributor to Hannity.com.  You can follow him on Twitter @realJeffreyLord

Liberal State Media Attacks Fox

posted by Jeffrey Lord - 1.30.18

They have lost their monopoly and their mandate. And they are not happy.

“They” would be what can most accurately be called the “Liberal State Media.” The place where once Ronald Reagan was the “amiable dunce” in the White House is now the go-to for all stories anti-Trump or, even better, Never Trump.

The difference between the Reagan era and today’s Trump era is, of course, in the media – among other places. In the 1980’s there was no Fox News and no talk radio. As a veteran of the Reagan White House I can say that battles like the furious assault on Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork or over Reagan’s showdown with the “Evil Empire” that was the Soviet Union would surely have played out differently if, say, Sean Hannity was on radio for three hours a day followed by an hour of primetime television. Bork could well have been confirmed and the constant deluge of criticism at Reagan’s opposition to the Soviets would have at a minimum been balanced out with a rational, factual analysis of the reality behind what Winston Churchill had decades earlier called the Iron Curtain.

“The Liberal State Media have lost their monopoly and their mandate. And they are not happy”

But today? Look no further than the furious liberal assaults on the outstanding coverage of the Clinton-FBI collusion scandal led by Hannity and a platoon of serious investigative journalists like Fox’s Sara Carter and The Hill’s John Solomon to see just how unsettling the end of the Liberal State Media monopoly (the LSM, as we will call it here) has been to the elites that run it.

Here is just one of the headlines, this one from Real Clear Politics:

CNN’s Brian Stelter: “Conservative Media Is Fueling The Divide” In America With Attacks On Mueller Probe

RCP quotes Stelter as saying this:

BRIAN STELTER: “You can’t understand fully how the Mueller probe is being perceived, how the public is understanding it, without understanding how conservative media is trying to discredit Mueller, discredit the FBI, and discredit the DoJ.

There is this concerted effort from pro-Trump hosts on Fox News, from radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and from right-wing bloggers and social media stars, to tear down Mueller, demand his firing, and in some cases even demand his arrest.

It is like watching an alternate universe. You mention Jeanine Pirro, the woman who Pirro Doubles Down: Andrew McCabe Is “Consigliere” last week called for them to be led out in handcuffs. Let’s take a look at what she is saying this week. Here’s how she’s framing this for her audience — which includes President Trump…”

Notice. “Conservative media” is portrayed here as “like watching an alternate universe.” And the headline is that “Conservative Media Is Fueling The Divide.”

There is no reflection – none – that maybe, just maybe, the LSM’s year-plus long empty effort to portray President Trump as the secret puppeteer behind a sinister “collusion” with Russia to steal the presidential election is not only flatly false with zero proof but, yes – gasp! – “fueling the divide” in America. No expressed thought that maybe, just maybe, it is the Liberal State Media that is the real “alternate universe.” An alternate universe that has its own “concerted effort” to bring down a president they hate.

Take the idea that President Trump is somehow unique when it comes to attacking the media. Over here at Townhall, a year ago writer Caleb Parke took the time to assemble a reminder to LSM stars of another President who declared war on the media. That would be, of course, President Obama and his constant war on Fox News.

Even before he was elected, Parke reminds then-presidential nominee Obama was complaining in October of 2008 as follows:

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told liberal journalist Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine. “[T]he way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latté-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

That was only the beginning. Once elected President Obama personally led an eight-year war on Fox. An attack exemplified by this quote from a “senior” Obama official in Time magazine in 2009 – Obama’s very first year in office.

“They (Fox News) are the paid political programming for a party, and occasionally a couple of news stories break out in the midst of 23 hours and 45 minutes of political rantings and opinion,” said one senior administration official. “Everything about it is one-sided political opinion directed at a base. Period.”

This, of course, is more or less the view of the Trump White House about the Liberal State Media. While CNN famously gets the most Trump attention in this regard it has been said in some form about a number of LSM outlets which have made it their business to defend whatever item on the liberal agenda they perceive as being under attack. It could be illegal immigration, tax cuts, the EPA, the FBI or even the NFL and the LSM will instantly throw up a protective media shield to defend whoever or whatever they perceive as under assault from the Trump White House. It is – and this is most important to understand – the way the Liberal State Media has always responded.

Let’s hop in the time machine and go back to a moment long, long ago when Donald Trump was still literally in grad school and not even close to being on even the business horizon, let along the political horizon. The moment fifty years ago was written up just this week of 2018 in the Wall Street Journal by William Luti, whom the WSJ identifies as “a retired career naval officer and former special assistant to President George W. Bush for defense policy and strategy.”

The year: 1968. The Vietnam War rages. Democrat Lyndon Johnson is in the White House. And Mr. Luti headlines:

Did Fake News Lose the Vietnam War?

Journalists wrongly portrayed the Tet Offensive as a U.S. defeat and never corrected the record.

Luti writes, in part, this:

“Seemingly out of nowhere, a shock wave hit South Vietnam on Jan. 30, 1968. In a coordinated assault unprecedented in ferocity and scale, more than 100,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers stormed out of their sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia. They went on to attack more than 100 towns and cities across South Vietnam.

The following 77 days changed the course of the Vietnam War. The American people were bombarded with a nightly stream of devastating television and daily print reporting. Yet what they saw was so at odds with the reality on the ground that many Vietnam veterans believe truth itself was under attack.

…Despite their ferocity, by most objective military standards, the communists achieved none of their goals. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces held fast, regrouped and fought back. By late March they had achieved a decisive victory over the communist forces. Hanoi wouldn’t be able to mount another full-scale invasion of South Vietnam until the 1972 Easter offensive.

But in living rooms across America, the nightly news described an overwhelming American defeat. The late Washington Post Saigon correspondent Peter Braestrup later concluded the event marked a major failure in the history of American journalism.”

Mr. Luti doesn’t mention it, but I will. The news of the day – on the Tet offensive in Vietnam and everything else – came through the filter of the Liberal State Media. There was no balance. There was no Fox, no Sean Hannity, no Rush or Mark and certainly no Internet. There was no one with any kind of a media megaphone who could say to the American people: The Liberal State Media has got it wrong, and here’s how and why.

Now? Look no further than this complaint from President Barack Obama – made in 2016 after the election of Donald Trump. Why did Trump win? Obama groused it was because there was:

“Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

Which is to say, from the beginning to the end of his eight years in the White House, President Obama (and he most certainly wasn’t alone) was furious that the monopoly once owned by the Liberal State Media was gone – and gone for good. Which in turn resulted in coverage of his own White House he could not abide and, in 2016, presented the American people with an entirely different view of Hillary Clinton than the one put out there every day by the fawning Liberal State Media.

All of this is worth bearing in mind as the now-famously unreleased memo on what was really happening behind the scenes in the FBI probe of the phony Trump-Russian collusion presumably gets unclassified and released to the American public.

The memo will doubtless make interesting reading.

But the real point of interest is that thanks to Fox News, talk radio and the Internet the American people will get to read it for themselves – and unlike long ago days, the Liberal State Media will not be able to either stop it or misrepresent it unchallenged.

Which is exactly why their attacks on the conservative media that has broken their monopoly will heat up. And go nowhere.

The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sean Hannity or Hannity.com

Jeffrey Lord is a frequent contributor to Hannity.com.  You can follow him on Twitter @realJeffreyLord

SUPER DUMB: NFL Bans Super Bowl Ad Supporting the Flag

posted by Jeffrey Lord - 1.24.18

The NFL definition of this particular penalty is as follows:

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Definition: Any person (usually a player but occasionally a coach and very rarely one or more spectators) acts or speaks in a manner deemed to be intentionally harmful or especially objectionable by the game officials, or by rule. Unsportsmanlike conduct is a non-contact foul; if contact is involved it becomes a personal foul. Examples include verbal abuse of officials, and taunting, which, since 2004 in the NFL, has included any “prolonged and premeditated celebrations” by players.

Outcome: 15 yards. If committed by the defense, automatic first down.

Got that? “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” as defined by the NFL is about “any person” who “acts or speaks in a manner deemed to be intentionally harmful or especially objectionable by the game official.” And in this case? Quite clearly insulting the flag not to mention members and veterans of the American military are not deemed by the NFL as “intentionally harmful or especially objectionable.” Wow.

“The NFL has been infected by Leftist politics”

Bear this in mind as you grasp this news story with the Super Bowl set to kick off on February 4th. Over here at the Army Times is this headline:

AMVETS says NFL censored its ad against flag protests

The story says in part:

“WASHINGTON — AMVETS officials are decrying ‘corporate censorship’ from the National Football League for their decision not to run an ad in their Super Bowl program which responds to league players’ decision to kneel for the national anthem in protest of national equality issues.

The ad, which would have cost the veterans organization $30,000, features the tag “#PleaseStand” with a picture of service members saluting the American flag and information on how to donate to the congressionally-chartered organization.

Group leaders said NFL officials refused to include the ad in their Super Bowl publication, but did not issue a reason why. In a statement, AMVETS National Commander Marion Polk said the issue is one of fairness and respect.

‘Freedom of speech works both ways,’ he said. ‘We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought — and in many cases died — for.’

‘But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.’”

If anything meets the NFL’s definition of “Unsportsmanlike Conduct” it would be this rejection of an ad from a non-partisan group of American veterans merely asking for the most obvious of courtesies: Stand for the flag during the national anthem.

Let’s back up. Super Bowl LII is scheduled to feature what should be a highly anticipated showdown with Super Bowl perennial Tom Brady and the New England Patriots versus the Philadelphia Eagles. Here in Pennsylvania, to say that Eagles fans are looking forward to this is to understate.

But.

The entire football season was something any ordinary American not to mention any NFL executive could reasonably have expected to be the traditional big sporting deal of the fall. And it wasn’t – because the NFL decided to tangle itself in Left-wing politics.

There is nothing wrong with protest. Protest is as American as apple pie. But successful protests have to be run by people who have a sense of when – and where – to protest. And if ever there was a big fail on the part of the NFL in the 2017 season it was in not grasping that the take-a-knee controversy, in which players knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality, would quickly be seen as something altogether different by NFL fans. To wit: the sight of rich athletes kneeling during a salute to the flag for which Americans have died was quickly seen by average fans as nothing less than a decided and quite intended insult to the flag – and veterans.

The reaction was predictable. It was so furious that across the pond the UK’s Daily Mail felt compelled to cover the story, headlining it this way:

‘My great uncle’s bones are lying at the bottom of Pearl Harbor’: NFL fans BURN their merchandise in disgust over anthem protests

• More than 200 players in the league knelt or sat down during the national anthem on Sunday’s NFL games including

• Teams include New Orleans Saints, Oakland Raiders, and New England Patriots

• Only one Pittsburgh Steeler player stood on the field during anthem as remainder stayed behind in tunnel or locker room

• Now, NFL fans across the country are upset with athletes who protested

• People have filmed themselves burning their memorabilia in support of the national anthem and what it means to them

And the reaction would get worse.

No less than President Trump, a football fan who once considered buying an NFL franchise, was incensed. Never one to mince words the country heard the President this way, as headlined in his hometown New York Post:

Trump on NFL player protests: Owners should get those SOBs off the field

The Post duly reported Trump’s blunt language:

“President Trump on Friday lashed out at pro football players who don’t stand during the national anthem – and urged team owners to remove those silent protesters from the field.

Trump, appearing at a campaign rally for US Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) said he wished NFL suits would take a hard-line stance against players who take a knee while “The Star-Spangled Banner” is played before kickoff.

“We’re proud of our country, we respect our flag,” Trump told supporters in Huntsville.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when someone disrespects our flag to say, `Get that son of a bitch off the field right now! Out. He’s fired! He’s fired!“

Trump then pranced around the stage, arms extended, to soak up wild applause from supporters chanting, “USA, USA, USA!”

Photos began circulating of heretofore jammed NFL stadiums with whole sections of empty seats. Not to be forgotten was television. Here’s the Fox headline that sums up the NFL’s bad news:

NFL TV ratings drop nearly 10 percent during tumultuous season

Fox began its report this way:

“National Football League executives looking to stop a ratings skid continued to lose more yardage during the 2016-2017 season, as television viewership fell 9.7 percent across all networks, according to Nielsen data.

An average NFL game was watched by 1.6 million fewer people compared to last year, declining overall from 16.5 million to 14.9 million, ESPN reported.”

You would think with all of this the NFL would not simply make it plain to players that they must take their protests off the field – where they can protest to their heart’s content – but that the NFL had no intention of insulting either the flag or its fans.

But…you would think wrong.

Now comes the news that in the most important game on the NFL schedule – the Super Bowl – the NFL is going out of its way to ban an ad from veterans that simply asks that Americans stand for the national anthem. The AMVETS ad, by the way, was run during both the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball coverage, respectively the hockey and baseball all-star games’ programs.

What effect will this have on Super Bowl ratings? We will see. But without doubt whatever else this football season has shown is that like all manner of American institutions – college campuses, federal courts, the media and more – the NFL has been infected by Leftist politics. Unsportsmanlike Conduct be damned.

Which is not just a shame. It is also Super Dumb.

The views and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sean Hannity or Hannity.com

Jeffrey Lord is a frequent contributor to Hannity.com.  You can follow him on Twitter @realJeffreyLord

What you Think

+
Thank you for visiting Hannity.com. You are about to leave
Hannity.com and proceed to a site owned and operated by a third party.
Hannity.com has no control over the content of this third-party site.
Click OK to proceed.
OK
X
You may if you would no longer like to receive a newsletter.
You have been successfully unsubscribed!
Please see our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice .
If you have any questions or concerns please contact us.