Sid-project smear-Blumenthal advises Hillary on Tea Party

What a bloody shame that Sidney Blumenthal could not see the Democrat Party is what he was describing, while trying to smear the Tea Party and Republicans.
The Blaze — Only a few excerpts.

“The Republican Party today is a captive party. It is captive to the swamp fevers of the extreme right,” Blumenthal wrote at the outset of the memo.

“No one is speaking up for responsible conservatism within the Republican Party.”

“The Republican Party is being purged of moderates, responsible conservatives, anyone who has a thought they don’t like. It’s divide and conquer. Divide the Republican Party. Divide the nation. Region against region, South against North, West against East, rural America against cities, state governments against the federal government, religion against religion, and soon, before you know it, it won’t look or feel like America. Out of loud declarations of love of country, they will break this country apart,” he argued.

More: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/31/sid-blumenthal-unloaded-on-tea-party-in-confidential-three-page-memo-to-hillary-clinton/

If you listen real closely, to what he is actually saying, you’d think he was talking about the Democrat Party and used the wrong name. Of course they never showed any shocking outrage at Move On when it took the reins of the Democrat Party.

Now it’s only gone way past that with the Occupiers, and the George Soros-funded orgs that litter the Leftscape. No, those groups aren’t a problem for the elitist Left, who play them like a fiddle for votes. They encourage and incubate them.

It seems like Blumenthal could be talking about Dems rather than the Republican Party. Since when did he have concern for Republicans’ survival anyway. It’s all about politics, political gain, for him and the Dem elitists — exactly what he projects on the Right.

Iran’s money bomb…it worked

Remember Ron Paul’s campaign doing what it called those ‘money bombs,’ fundraisers usually involving the internet? Here’s some real irony in Senators raising money or benefiting from Iran’s money bomb of lobbyist funding. “Incoming.” …

The captain of money bombs had nothing on Iran.

Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes

The Democrats are becoming a party of atom bomb spies.
August 25, 2015 — Daniel Greenfield | Front Page Magazine

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

As did Senator Gillibrand, who had benefited from IAPAC money back when she first ran for senator and whose position on the deal should have come as no surprise.

…/

Read more: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259895/traitor-senators-took-money-iran-lobby-back-iran-daniel-greenfield

Follow the money. As it said, in a few cases the money didn’t get the desired result. But for the cases it did, was there ever any doubt? I mean Al Franken. Gee, who would ever figure him for a holdout against the deal? The same can be said for most of the others. Now I wonder what the queen of non-answers, DW Schultz, will do?

The contract on Trump

No holds barred, takedown plans to rub out Trump in September. Wait, well maybe a few holds, like not by reluctant fellow candidates. They don’t want their fingerprints on that. Still it comes from the estabos anyway.
CNN

It’s no secret the Republican establishment is unnerved by Donald Trump and his lead in national and key state polls./…

“So they’re looking to more establishment PACs to potentially take him down in post-Labor Day ads.”

That opens it up to contract for hire. I wonder what the reward is? Rally the pacs to crank out the ads. All this might sound like a conspiracy if I didn’t know better. Knowing Trump and the way he handles things, who can rule out a backfire? They just might take aim to drive his poll numbers up even more.

Remember what Newt did in South Carolina. Now perhaps the same ire as the media got then will be turned on the estabos and their pacs. (their credibility is waning already) Just saying, at this point it is a possibility. And this being only the first unified attempt at the mission.

People are about to find out how nasty the estabos can be in a turf war. Never mind how nasty you think Trump is. That puts lamestream media and the establishment on the same page. Will they conspire (ally) with Democrats? Sounds like a job for the Cosa Nostra.

Iran deal causing fractures

So at the summer DNC meeting it was noted Obama could not even shore up support for his Iran deal. So what was in it for Obama?

CNN reports

The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting is over, and there is something you won’t find in the official minutes: a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement.

The deal has divided the [Democrat] party, to the point where the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, has not made her position clear as yet. As the President heads into a veto battle with Congress on the issue, he needs every Democratic vote he can muster. But Jonathan Martin of The New York Times noted he couldn’t get help from the party he leads.

“The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal,” said Martin. “It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, seeing as how it’s his party. He appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

More at http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/ip-obama-trump-jeb–romney/index.html

So Debbie is playing her cards close to her hairspray, eh? Wow that little deal is causing lots of headaches even at the DNC anti-Israel Party.I wonder if she is suffering from a case of crazyitis too? Or she could be one of those Iranian hardliner allies we hear about?

Why hasn’t she jumped to the head of the line and proudly endorsed Obama’s nuclear deal for Iran? Probably ol’ Debbie does not want to make her endorsement, of Obama’s deal, public as she’d have to explain it. She doesn’t do well on explaining things, or answering questions.

Am I to interpret that family feuds are now fashionable in the DNC?

Obama: family feud over Iran deal

Just like a family gathering or reunion with a little tiff, a little nuclear tiff.

Obama: US-Israel Family Feud Will Abate When Iran Deal in Place

Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax

President Barack Obama is comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and says he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.

“Like all families, sometimes there are going to be disagreements,” Obama said Friday in a webcast with Jewish Americans. “And sometimes people get angrier about disagreements in families than with folks that aren’t family.”

The president’s comments came as momentum for the nuclear accord grew on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution to disapprove of the deal. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., became the 30th senator to publicly back the agreement, saying Friday that it was a good deal for America and for allies like Israel.

The looming congressional confrontation has sparked a summer of intense debate between supporters and opponents of the nuclear accord. The deliberations have also divided Jewish Americans, with leaders of many organizations expressing concern about long-term damage to the community.

Read more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Obama-Iran-Nuclear/2015/08/29/id/672541/

Oh, because we are good family members is why they are opposed to his deal? Yes, if we weren’t so close, Israel wouldn’t be so upset. Then why were Arabs/Saudis so against it?

With just 34 votes, Democrats could block the bill to prevent the Iran Deal. Obama compares it to a family feud. He’s so confident Israel will be right back on board once the deal is lodged into place. What an arrogant soul he is, if he has one. How is it, too, that he can speak for another sovereign country? Yet he used none of that prophetic vision in negotiating the deal. Why, it was to get a deal at any cost. Any deal that is.

But this is his M/O after all: scorched easrth politics at any cost, then assume the opponent will just live with it after he gets his way. The means to that end is lying, early and often.

After lighting the Mid East ablaze, Obama reaches for the marshmallows and says relax, enjoy the show and don’t worry about the effects, it’ll all be good. You’ll get used to it.

Bush Dynasty dying on the vine, Hillary is in her swan song

The only thing optimistic in the establishment 2016 race now is it looks like both dynasty types are being flushed at the same time — or trying to be — in conjoined toilets At least according to assorted media reports anyway. It’s still worth broadcasting.

Hillary is going down in flames, even white women are aborting Hillary. So her prized constituency of estrogen is not so stimulated with Hillary’s “war on women” demagoguery. If that can’t keep them on board, what can?

The Planned Parenthood’s videos didn’t help much. Even NY Times announced she is now in danger of losing the primary. Seems Hillary’s presumptive anointing is being canceled with no rain date.

CNN said

So, what is going on among women voters? What seems clear is that Hillary is trying to appeal to women in an old-fashioned way that doesn’t work as well as it once did. Her team apparently thinks that by aggressively selling hard facts, advancing policies or giving her version of the email controversy, Hillary’s campaign will have women flocking to her banner.

Depends on the definition of “facts.” But we’ve heard the Hillary death rattles before.

Jeb, for his part — if he ever did get off the ground – is stumbling over itself on the way to the exit. His fundraisers and bundlers are now bailing out. But his campaign says not to worry, they were let go because that phase of the campaign is over. Say what? Ushering in the end of presumptive nominee Jeb era.

Politico

Earlier this week, the New York Times revealed that it had taken steps to rein in some of its spending and had gone so far as to cut some employee salaries. And POLITICO reported one Bush fundraiser expressed concerns about the slowing pace of the campaign’s fundraising after Bush’s shaky debate performance.

Since when did anyone throw out his bundlers and fundraisers? Especially a big money guy like Jeb Bush. What phase of his campaign is he in then, the postmortem phase or digging part? Sounds like another “Read My Lips” moment for another Bush.

Could it also be that the people – for their phase – have decided they really don’t like the idea of a Clinton vs Bush ticket? (and it does seem to be one ticket)

Well, the low-energy Bush is getting rolled by high-energy Marxists anyway.

One heck of a comparison, Obama

As Obama memorialized, or whatever is is he does, the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, it sends a chilling message.

I think there is so much rich irony in the photo-op picture of Obama visiting New Orleans at the anniversary of Katrina. Obama has done far worse damage to the entire nation.(everything he touches)

But there he is offering what I assume is sympathy to people who have been through so much in the past years. Every time I see the Captain of Disaster skipping down AF-1 steps I think of what more damage is he doing now? Can he possibly cause even more damage?

The answer is very disturbing, it’s catastrophic. That’s really heartbreaking.

Iran, say it isn’t so

So many truths lurk in the background of all Obama’s lies. It’s amazing how he is trying to spin this Iran deal around.

Memo to Obama: It’s Not Iran Deal Critics Who Are the ‘Crazy’ Ones

Nile Gardiner / August 25, 2015

Just back from his annual summer vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, President Barack Obama has returned to disparaging his political adversaries and anyone who happens to disagree with him on policy.

According to a report in Politico, the president has taken to describing opponents of the hugely controversial Iran deal as “crazies.” The so-called “crazies” now include a majority of members of the House and Senate, a large chunk of the American electorate according to opinion polls, and the government of Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

More at http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/25/memo-to-obama-its-not-iran-deal-critics-who-are-the-crazy-ones/

Now we’re the crazies when the crazy administration just made about the worst deal possible with Iran. He accused us of actually siding with the hard-liners in Iran when that is who he and Kerry made the deal with. And they are quite happy with it. Doesn’t that tell us anything? But it gets worse, the closer you look.

He made a deal that just doesn’t allow the terrorism to continue but makes us partners in promoting their terrorism around the globe. We are actually subsidizing and funding their activity. But then blame us because he cannot ram it through. The name-calling comes out. What a ruthless bastid Obama is. No one can even reason with him while he attacks and calls everyone names who disagrees with him. (probably his intent)

Start with a big lie though, just to make it fly easier. Call it something other than a treaty. Then Kerry issues the lame excuse that we can’t pass treaties anymore. So they had to lie to us. Notice a pattern here? Lie first, then say it’s our fault they had to lie to us. It’s probably true Obama is trying to drive people crazy with his schemes and blame machine, to silence the opposition. It hasn’t worked. So they just have to lie harder.

Rather-be-biased takes jabs at Trump and Fox (tin foil hat zone)

Then referring to the Fox Trump dust-up, Dan Rather told the same network he could not be sure that Trump and Fox did not preplan their dispute.(conspiracy zone) Rather went on to compare Trump to George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Perot, denying he was directly comparing them of course. (Maddow had already done a Nixon-media comparison to Trump vs. Jorge Ramos)

Too bad it went against their narrative that the Fox is in collusion with Trump and that Fox decides, or runs, elections on the right. But immediately coming to mind is Obama’s sycophant media advocates who thought it was their job to get Obama elected.

Dan Rather ‘Suspicious’ Trump and Fox Are Faking Feud

By Mark Finkelstein | August 26, 2015 | MRC Newsbusters

When it comes to fake news stories, if anyone’s an expert it’s Dan Rather . . . The disgraced former CBS News anchor has a new twist on the vast right-wing conspiracy. Instead of plotting against poor innocents like Bill and Hillary, those conspiratorial conservatives are now creating phony feuds among themselves!

On Rachel Maddow’s show tonight, Rather declared himself “suspicious” about the battle between Donald Trump and Fox News, suggesting that Trump and Roger Ailes might have “gotten together and planned out” the feud for their mutual benefit.

For good measure, Rather went on to analogize Trump to segregationist presidential candidates George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

Note: while floating his conspiracy theory, Rather admitted that he was “without very much evidence.” But when has that ever deterred Dan from attacking a Republican?

**See video interview

RACHEL MADDOW: Could Donald Trump, or could any of these candidates win the Republican nomination while also being at war with the Fox News channel specifically? Never really had anything like the Fox News channel in a previous era in history. It seems to me, that I believe that there can’t be a nominee without Fox’s support.

DAN RATHER: I tend to agree with that. However, Trump is raising that question anew. Now, having said that, and keeping in mind that reporters such as myself get paid not to be cynical, never cynical, but to be skeptical.

I’m a little suspicious, without very much evidence, but I’m a little suspicious of this battle between Trump and Fox. What we do know is that Trump is really smart. As I said when he started this run, don’t underestimate him. And Roger Ailes, whether you agree with his politics or not, another smart guy. Whether they’ve gotten together and planned this out or not, it works to their mutual benefit right now. Fox can argue, listen, we don’t give sweetheart deals to every Republican candidate and Trump can say: I tell you I’m independent and when I say I’m independent I’m really independent. Cause look at even Fox.

Original see posted at Newsbusters.org

Dan Rather is “a little suspicious.” Well, Dan, we’re more than a little suspicious of you. Keep that tin foil hat shined up,  I’ve a feeling you are going to need it.  Trust me on that,  just a feeling.

I’m learning a lot: Trump is now conspiring with Hillary Clinton, and he’s plotting with Roger Ailes at the same time. Oh, Donald is busy.  And according to some, many of  the pointy hat left, he’s conspiring with the RNC — has been since the Dark Ages.  Rachael said he was created by Fox — who is just a mediabot for RNC.  (that’s a double one) And he cannot get elected without Fox’s approval, per Maddow.(con-spir-acy)  So there we are.

So if Fox is not “rubber stamping” Donald, get ready for Trump’s crash and burn– unbeknownst to him, wait… he must know —  because, presumably if Fox made Trump, they can take him out. But so everyone throws a hissy fit if conservatives simply say, Fox tried to take Donald down. We’re nuts for suspecting that. But the rest of that Wallace, Goldwater, Perot, down the twisty road to the Fox conspiracy stuff….. woo-hoo-hoo!

They haven’t mentioned where Jeb Bush is in all this but it has to be coming. (Rather is drawing the schematic) The network who ran/runs interference for Obama. Is there a complete meltdown coming?

The arrogant ‘Heartbroken’ bastid-in-chief is back in the Spite House

Oh, right, he never left…

Daily Mail reports:

‘It breaks my heart every time’: Obama reacts to shooting of Virginia TV reporter and cameraman as he says gun-related deaths ‘dwarf those that happen through terrorism’

President Obama has revealed he was heartbroken when he learned a TV news reporter and a cameraman were shot dead during a live broadcast in Virginia.

He also slammed the number of gun-related homicides in the United States, adding that it ‘dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism’.

Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were gunned down by former employee of the CBS affiliate Vester Flanagan while filming an on-air, early morning segment.

The 41-year-old shot and wounded himself several hours later as police pursued him on a Virginia highway. He died later at the hospital, police said.

Speaking to ABC, Obama said: ‘It breaks my heart every time you read or hear about these kinds of incidents.’

Still waiting for word from Obama about the shooting death of a girl in Ferguson  doing her homework on her mothers bed. Not like they haven’t had days now to respond. But he took this one off the teletype to harp on gun control. Shameless.  There have been more car accidents than deaths of terrorism, too. So what is the point of that? There isn’t one.

The gun-runner in chief has problems with gun laws — or lack thereof?

Heartbroken in Waiting

Hillary also chimed in interrupting her server defense road tour.

‘So, yes, I feel just great heartache at what happened and I want to reiterate how important it is we not let yet another terrible instance go by without trying to do something more to prevent this incredible killing that is stalking our country.’

Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton also weighed in on the shooting, tweeting to her followers that she was ‘heartbroken and angry.’

‘We must act to stop gun violence, and we cannot wait any longer. Praying for the victims’ families in Virginia,’ the former secretary of state wrote.

More Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3211578/Two-Virginia-television-journalists-fatally-shot-air-attack.html

How long have we been waiting for the Truth about Benghazi to come out? Now she’s the impatient one, having got an ambassador and 3 American patriots killed in Libya, who operated a renegade server as Secretary of State. So she throws out the “war on women” nonsense and she can’t wait any longer. She should be indicted and banned from holding any public office. She won’t even say if she would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. But she has a “war on the Second Amendment”.

See no evil, say no evil, spew no evil vs. Trump phenomenon

By now, unless you’re living under a rock somewhere, you have become keenly aware of the Trump phenomenon. It’s even been referred to as such from the right to the left. The George Wills and Charles Krauthammers have been as flummoxed over all its notions as have been the Occupy, Move On, and Ferguson fanatic Leftists. This has been interesting indeed, with widely different nuances or excuses across the spectrum substituting for reasoning, applied liberally in most cases.

Someone at the Daily Kos put it this way:

I don’t get all the stuff and nonsense about the “Trump Phenomenon”. … He’s been roaming the halls of the Republican mausoleum for more than 25 years, like the doomed servant in some Gothic novel castle. – [read here]

Straight for the dark medieval theme. That’s why I include this example, there are plenty others. (Obama mentioned Crusades) I’m a little more careful with loaded metaphors. Perhaps rather than focusing on gun control, progressives should enforce strict metaphor control on themselves. But it’s heresy to self-regulate their own language.

Who could make sense of or draw political wisdom from the left — or their invective? It’s not so much “nonsense,” or as the Donald would say, “I’m leading in all these polls.” There is more to it than the specious reasoning and slick gimmickry suggested by the left. Probably much of what is wrong in politics is the naivete of people — including some on the right — to be sucked into the wind tunnel of the left that believes it is bestowed with the divine right to frame the political narrative for everyone in earshot, and for mouthpiece-drones who occupy the podiums of the virulent Left. Where what passes for mainstream is the equivalent of mainlining the same communal dose of opiate from a single dirty needle soaked in sulfuric acid. But such is the current political landscape, littered with the corpses of notable challengers that succumbed under the wind tunnel stress test, after their halfhearted attempts to buck the progressive system — or agenda — failed.

Now I don’t expect to be able to completely explain the Trump phenomenon either but offer a little of what it portends for our political future, which may actually be the more important thing. First, look at that ‘one-world wonder,’ Barack Obama. When he rose to prominence it was all about as choreographed as a cattle chute at a stockyard. You basically knew what was going to happen. Not really many surprises there, as impressive as they claim it was. He came, he conquered. Oh and he divided, boy did he divide.

Ah ha, then the way he did it using internet, social media geeks and campaign gurus working in unison to paint the picture they schemed up. That was the major notable achievement. Sure, a lot of people bought into the whole theatrics of it, which were actually mundane but they made it sound and look exciting to people. The marketing was more clever than the substance ever was. Well, that’s because any substance in reality was nothing like the packaging made it appear. Hope and change was just a vessel into which he would pour the endless amounts of trademark Koolaid later.

I can leave it to plenty of others to draw parallels in politics. However, where there is commonality in both Obama and Trump is that it was something new. Both considered a phenomenon, thus the phenomena effect. Well, what was new with Obama was the campaign: the techiness of his staff to seem to be everywhere to put the glitter on the fortuitous pyramid scam he was running, at the same time using his campaign as a resume to qualify for the political office he was running for. Bernie Madoff had a “new” thing working, too. But under the sheets it was just a scam. And under the hood of Obama it was the same old, tired ideas of the left, just new packaging. In fact, the similarities were so close between Obama and Hillary you had a hard time remembering who was who. Much the same ideas, and the roots were almost eerily identical to a T. That became a problem in debates. Hillarycare meet Obamacare 1.0. Choose wisely, grasshopper.

Here is where there is a difference with Trump. It’s not filled with smoke and mirrors as in Obama or Hillary. It’s the uncanny non-political correctness that’s embedded in almost everything. Refreshing as many have said. With the Left, the political correctness is a central ingredient. (or the Cultural Marxism as it is also called) It hurts my brain to force any comparison to Obama’s campaign or euphoric rise — probably being patented by his gurus. Obviously so taken by their own success they have since taken it on the road to Canada and Israel. Its the formula, stupid.

That much is different when it comes to the Trump phenomena: it is not a packaged identity politics recipe for winning. (winning is always the single objective with the left) Plans are a distant second or third, contingent on the first priority, of course. But I didn’t set out to draw a comparison of Obama to Trump. Though it is helpful to see the difference when understanding the whole. Obama’s vague campaign soundbites still echo for nostalgia sake more than their legitimacy. It’s a dangerous thing when you can capture hearts and beliefs of people in empty rhetoric. By the time they realize what happened, they will be caught up in newly orchestrated political pursuits. (or pantsuits as the case me be)

So the Trump wonder is a different animal, and different than the strategist-run backroom operation of most other campaigns. One of Bush W’s operatives has criticized the trump campaign and said a presidential campaign is akin to building one of the largest corporations in the world. Scary when you think of the size and scope of that idea, and money involved. But the Trump model, if we can start calling it that, is different in those respects. It so far has emphasized the actions not campaign organization and rhetoric.

Now we are to what the point of it is, or will be in the future. No, it doesn’t matter if he wins or loses, the point is the model, or the replicable nature of it all. Surely, as it is in business, others are watching now with curiosity wondering how it can be repeated in the future? They see the popularity and the potential, compared to other hum drum campaigns, and want to duplicate those results. Even the Left is studying it, don’t be fooled. Trump has not left a clear path for any followers. But he has, indirectly or not, established some touchstones. For those who have the guts, fortitude, and adventure to try to emulate it, they could have some success. Of course no one has that recognition that Trump has, but still some of the same formula is available to tap.

I saw some reactions to Trump’s Iowa speech from the left on MSNBC. They had a lot of analysis to do. (none of their simpleton attacks on him have worked yet, which keeps them trying) They decided to frame the whole thing as more of a conspiracy. Rachael Maddow tied him hand in hand to the establishment RNC. She then declared RNC/Fox had designed and built the Donald into the Frankenstein he became, and now he is uncontrollable. Nice try at the ‘built by RNC’ explanation. He is following none of the RNC prototypes. What is it with the Left and their obsession with monster-style analogies?(dark Gothic castles and such) But when they see videos of Planned Parenthood’s culture of death develop a meme of ‘it’s honorable research to benefit humanity.’ And you are anti-medicine, anti-humanity, anti-science and research to argue otherwise. Sacrifice humanity on the altar of science.

Meanwhile, what Trump does is about as far removed from RNC politics as usual as you could get. Funny how they don’t ridicule Bernie Sanders as a creature of the black lagoon, or Godzilla, for being anti-establishment on the left. No dark references. No, in fact they all love that model. See the Left is fine with anything as long as they control it, and it leads back to their central ideological trough. They have that in spades with Sanders. No medieval or foggy Gothic comparisons for Bernie, even though he could have lived through them. No headlines: “The Sand Man cometh, threatens civilization with his speeches.”

There is much more to say on the Trump example in (conservative) politics. I’m not sure the Right studies and applies the lessons? They do on the loony left. Anything that works is analyzed and they try to replicate it. Conservatives need to learn and incorporate lessons learned. The examples in Trump keep unfolding before our eyes. It’s not too early or too late to start taking them in. The attacks wouldn’t be that dark if it wasn’t working.

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

Crazy summer haze, and 2016 dreaming

Sometimes you just couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. Hillary cut short her Hamptons va-k by running out to campaign amid groans even from her left wing cheerleaders about her email scandal. Morning Joe must be on anti-depressants.

Maybe she’ll have to re-reintroduce herself, again?

Rupert Murdoch, harping over Trump’s candidacy, floats an invitation for billionaire Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race.

Bloomberg — greatest mayor. What did I miss? So Rupert immediately backs off a little to mention Guiliani. Still it caused a blowback. Is that an admission on the debate?

Not good enough, he adds he didn’t say he’d vote for him. I bet a smart, wealthy guy like Rupert Murdoch always recommends a candidate he would not vote for. Besides, a Bloomberg could detract support from Jeb not Trump. Rupert had too much sun.

While Hillary cut her fundraising vacation short to head West hoping to strike political gold, opposed to fool’s gold, for her campaign. Because come Friday she will be addressing the DNC in Minneapolis. Meantime, all hands on deck trying to explain away her servergate scandal. Referring to her not-so-private email scandal, NYT reports:

“We do think people have questions about this,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the campaign. “It’s a very confusing topic, and I think as you’ve seen over the last couple of weeks, we have changed our strategy in that we are trying to do more education.”

Yes, the people need educated. Lecture voters on linguistic spin. Works for Obama.

Her plan now seems to be buy enough young people with her college funding schemes. Then make sure to remind women of their reproductive voting power at all points between. With those two, and pandering to a few others, she hopes to keep her 2016 boat afloat. But the bilge pumps are working double duty these days.

It’s about time for another reinforcement from Bubba about her bonafides. The anointing doesn’t seem to be going as smoothly as expected. And Bernie was just a distraction to make voters think there is a choice involved. His circus road tour only leads back to Hillary. She’s just as far left as he is anyway. But don’t educate the people on that.

Maybe Hillary should have stayed in that cocoon in the Hamptons where even they do not believe her but still believe in her. (along with her Wall Street pals)

Bigger than Hillary and her server

The objective of Hillary Clinton setting up her own server — a word to be forever tied to Hillary — was obviously to protect herself from what can be speculated on, with well-deserved suspicion. Was it also the advice of Bill Clinton? He certainly knew of it. In fact, who all knew would be a cadre of people in and out of government. Plus how many people were leery of Hillary’s intentions from the beginning based on seeing that email address, knowing it was not an official State Department or government one?

But that is only one part of the story. I really have been mystified for many months over another matter, the number of hack attacks and loss of personal information through government databases. It’s been troubling, or more like a catastrophic loss the amount of info being pilfered. It’s been our Veterans and their families, active military people, IRS, and finally the big OPM super loss of virtually everyone employed by government or who has worked for government and their families. It’s far into the tens of millions.

The troubling thing is they reported on them, I know I heard it. Not in any detail and we don’t know how it happened yet. But this is a gigantic issue. Then I haven’t heard any of the candidates talking about it. I’ve seen a few IT pundits talk about the ramifications etc on news, but that is about it. Too bad, so sad. What I’d like to see is an outcry from politicians or leaders that we will not sweep this under the rug. I’d expect candidates to talk about it and have ideas and plans on how to handle it. I want to know that they do and that it is on their radar, because up until now I see little sign of it.

Brainstorming the possibilities

But then with Hillary’s server, we don’t know how much she damaged our national security. Just some basic speculation here. If her server was compromised and we should assume it was from the beginning, then what else was compromised or stolen because of it? We know hackers only need a doorway to exploit government systems. Hillary gave them a huge gateway. So far I have not heard anyone make the case that it did not.

Now with all of the recent hacking, we must wonder what did Hillary and her server have to do with any of that? Is it possible they got into her server then migrated from there, using information and intelligence, into the government system with that information? Experts have said Clinton’s server could create a backdoor into the entire system.

Then another step down this path is, if Hillary’s server was in any way connected to the other hacks, how much damage has Hillary then caused to our entire government and systems? Will we ever know how much damage Hillary caused us, all by herself? But there are times when you have to assume the worst until evidence shows otherwise.

So then go back to Hillary and her original sin, or reason to setup that server in the first place. She was obviously trying to protect herself. What she did, in the process, was to jeopardize our entire nation’s security and potentially all of us. We are way beyond Democrats usual Clinton defense: nothing shows she broke the law or did anything wrong.

The term servergate is fitting because she quite probably opened a gate-wide door into the government system. Whether intended to or not, she should have known she jeopardized the entire federal systems. Then, according to her spokesperson, her best excuse is she “didn’t really think it through” and that she would do things differently, given the chance. Oh well…she would? Think of the time, money and energy she put into setting this thing up. She didn’t do it by accident, not realizing what she was doing. Maybe her next excuse will be: she accidentally and inadvertently set up a private server? She never planned or intended to do that, it just happened. All those subsequent hacks and losses of  information just happened, too.

She did it to protect herself, by putting the nation at risk. Was it worth it?

RightRing | Bullright

Common Core word games coming soon

We probably cannot expect much change in Common Core policies, but it seems we can expect them to play word games about Common Core. This new poll survey was released describing different nuances in results depending on the wording of the questions. The wording was regarding varied substitutions that replaced Common Core like “standards”.

And guess what they found? Yes, they could fool some people into supporting it. A small amount, but hey. So what do you think they are going to do? You guessed it. I guess it was not a very tough question, or answer. And it’s not a tough decision for big-government elitists.

Republicans hate the words ‘Common Core’ more than they hate education standards

By Jason Russell • 8/18/15 | Washington Examiner

How much do Republicans hate Common Core? It depends how you ask them.

The results of the 2015 Education Next Poll were released Tuesday, with three groups of respondents answering questions about Common Core.

One group of respondents was asked simply whether they support or oppose Common Core. Half of the Republicans in the group opposed Common Core, with 30 percent in favor. Before asking if respondents support or oppose Common Core, the question explained, “In the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states.”

Continue reading

Actually the emphasis seemed to be not in winning people over to it, which is practically impossible, but in toning down the fierce opposition to it. So they know we don’t like it but can they make us not like it less, based on careful wording they use? They’ll be going for the gold on that, I’m sure. You can bank on that change until Common Core is hardly recognizable, in speech at least, dumbing down the name They didn’t poll it for nothing.

What I’d like to know is just who are these 30% of people who always seem to support or sympathize with this stuff, no matter how bad it is? If it were a disease we would have mapped the dna of it by now — and probably had some treatment for it. We are already used to our politicians playing word games with us. I guess anything Federal Government related just naturally follows suit. As the article said, they cannot reverse the opposition to it based on removal of the word. But if your thing is bureaucracy, get what support you can and let progressives do the rest. Sounds like their plan.

Hillary servergate, trail of scandal

Here are some basic defense talking points on the growing Hillary server scandal — herein and in other places referred to as servergate.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As “Classified” Or “Top Secret”

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself

“Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as “top secret” to push myths about Clinton’s handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.” — Media Matters.

The retroactively thing does not work. The emails from the intelligence agencies would be generated with that stamp or classification. If it was not on the documents on her server, then it had to be removed. That is just a fact. Our agencies do not willy nilly go out and put info out to be classified by others — retroactively. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

“FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use. “

They were not originated in State Department but in the various intelligence agencies that created them. Questions would have occurred regardless of Clinton’s server use? If State controlled that info how they should, there would not be a problem with it. It was her server, and information on it, being out of their loop that causes the risk and scrutiny. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes”

Regardless, the similariies involve classified information. Was her server company, vendor, cleared for such info? Did they have or create backups for it? That is why they investigated the Denver based company. So where the comparison does not work is that this was worse.

She stored them on a device, not approved, which could be compromised– or even lost. Petraeus didn’t destroy said information. (who can validate the destruction of it?) Indeed, she made copies of said information, apparently without the classification on it, electronically to another device and gave it to her lawyer. Additionally, we don’t know if she made other copies or distributed it to anyone else. Plus the emails she tried to keep from everyone.

Comparisons that might fit to any degree of similarity:

  • General Petraeus — giving notebooks to mistress with classified info in them (probation 100,000 fine)
  • Snowden — took classified documents and dispersed them to others.(currently on the lam – many calling it treason)
  • Sandy Berger with national archives — removed documents and destroyed documents.  (50,000 fine, loss of security clearance, forfeited law license, probation)

Now, it seems unlikely if not impossible that the information of classified nature could have come directly from the intelligence agencies. They would not have stripped the labeling off. And IF, big IF it arrived unmarked on her server, then someone, somewhere would have to remove it.(since it was generated with that labeling) So it would have to go through someone’s hand to remove it. The likely place being within the State Department itself. (especially as she is lecturing others not to use their private email accounts.) So if within State, someone had to remove the labeling prior to sending it to another system, unsecured out of the government loop and control. (two actions to consider) And was it the same person? Was it routinely done? That would make any others comparisons look pale. Now long this information was there and who all saw it or had access to it from there, makes her server use highly questionable.(and illegal)

“FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself.” — Really?

Right, it’s the server they are investigating. Those darned rogue things, since Clinton discovered their self-awareness and intelligence. (surely sent chills into the tech sector) A secondary issue/problem is her specious explanation of a server. If all info was being copied back to State, then why did she need the server? It would only create a redundancy and extra unnecessary hassle. We know why, she wanted to circumvent State Dep, and government(not comply with), or the very department she was the head of.

Since the subject is exploitation, what seems to be happening is a shifting of the goal post. It’s a little shrude, but then what isn’t when dealing with Clintons? Here the emphasis is all going on classified information. If, a big if, they can clear that hurdle then she can claim the investigation cleared her. But the whole issue of the server and her keeping information from the government FOIA system is very much an issue, along with the missing and hiding of emails from Benghazi.

So when they zero in focus on that legal problem of classified information it becomes a diversion on the greater server, email, information issue. As reports indicate, many sources have adopted Hillary’s meme that it is not her being investigated but her server. Who’s server was it? Even some reports have joked about the independence of her server. They willingly or not detach her, and her wrongdoing, from the server itself.

This is the opening Hillary is looking for to avoid personal responsibility or accountability. She’s already denied the classification of top secret information on it, creating a loophole to presumably dodge the entire bullet. I hope the smoke of the classified information does not distort the whole issue. It seems the only concern the Feds have and are looking at is the classified one. She must not be allowed to walk away after dumbing down the investigation the same way she did on the initial Benghazi investigation, which didn’t even question her and still made its declaration.

RightRing | Bullright

Conservative poster boy, scape goat

There was an old Helen Reddy song “You and me against the world.”

You and me against the world,
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world,
When all the others turn their backs and walk away,
You can count on me to stay.

Remember when the circus came to town
And you were frightened by the clown,
Wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew,
Someone who was big and strong and looking out for

You and me against the world, …/

 
That’s certainly what it feels like now. Trump rolled out his campaign and it seemed to take on an awareness. However, what it really showed is how far we have to go, and how much establishment really is against (opposed)  to conservatives. You can say what you want how conservative Trump really is or not but he took on the face of conservatism and drew the fire — right or wrong

It only proved what an agenda they have against conservatives or only reminded you, either way. As if all anyone had to do was mention illegals and crimes to light everyone on the left on fire.  All the advocacy groups sneered — media, liberals (is there really any difference), establishment, even some corporate concerns. The outrage was swift and fierce. Much of those real problems are directly a result of Obama’s policies, but who cared about that? They wanted Trump to pay for such statements. Contracts were shredded, endorsements held hostage, deals lost, boycotts and all the rest ensued. Media balked.

Sometimes our memories will have to get us through.

Case in point this race. As much as things change, politically and otherwise, one realizes how much they remain the same. This is as much an us vs. them paradigm as it is a disagreement on issues. It’s an institutional one, the establishment verses the people or voters. It really is that basic. They’ll have us believe that it is only on this issue or that one, but it’s a far bigger problem. And that is what they want us to do, get bogged down saying we are wrong or “out of touch” on a particular position. The default is to support the establishment, across the board, on all these issues. That will eliminate problems.

George Will recently has been making the case all by himself on what the establishment thinks of Trump. They want him gone. But they want all that noisy support of his gone too. Will called himself and his fellow cohorts the adults in the room. Anti-establishment, dissenter types are welcome in the Party, he says, but that it needs to be on their terms. As far as I’m concerned, Will can go back to ABC now.

Beyond comparing Trump to George Wallace and saying that he does not belong near the nuclear football, and his supporters are Birchers and nuts, he also let fly:

Mediaite:

Will also compared Trump to primal scream therapy, a fad from the ’60s in which patients just yelled to make themselves feel better. “He’s a one-trick pony. ‘I’m rich, everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple. Put me in power.’”

“One trick pony [pot meet kettle] and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all the problems are simple,” sounds like the elitist establishment GOP. Yet we are the ones called angry?? How has that establishment GOP been working for you? Not. One trick pony: ‘you must support McCain or doomsday’, “you must elect Romney, he’s the only one…’. Soon to be you must support Jeb Bush and the dynasty or lose.

Sounds like a lot of someones need to have a serious Pogo moment. Aka: “We have met the enemy and they are ours”. This is from an article in the Canada Free Press
(H/T to Pepp for the article).

There is an astounding amount of groupthink among the Washington set – the journalists, pundits, lobbyists, consultants, politicians, and dealmakers. These types of folks – the George Wills and the Steve Schmidts and the Karl Roves and the rest – don’t like new ideas. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. As a result, anyone who threatens to do so, who seek to inject fresh perspectives into the ossified mold of Washington political society, will be viewed with fear and mistrust, and will be demonized and ostracized. This is especially the case when the ideas being injected happen to be popular with the masses (such as ending illegal immigration) but unpopular with the “elites.”

But then it went further than just ridiculing and attacking Trump, they had to go straight at his supporters, or anyone unwilling to join the attack against him. This is the typical establishment style and M/O. It’s herding the cattle into one chute, as opposed to a renegade chute that may stray from the ranch.

So tell me again, how it’s “you and me against the world.” This is a concept Christian conservatives are very familiar with. They understand, at least, that we are in the world but not of the world. We are to be salt and light in the world. A very different thing than being owned by the world or, in this case, by the GOP establishment elites.

RightRing | Bullright

We reached the point…maybe of no return

We have reached the point. No, not the point of fusion, antimatter, or quantum physics squared, or the missing link. We may have reached the point where estabo candidates think Trump could win Iowa and potentially the nomination and, according to some, possibly the White House. Granted there is a ways to go, but that sort of sentiment is bound to have an effect on the election.

But then leave it to a politico like Mark Halprin to state the obvious, and cause everyone to start to talk about it, gasp, openly. Sea change is here?

Halperin: Trump Reached ‘Turning Point,’ ‘Most’ Estab Cands Think He Can Win Nomination

by Ian Hanchett17 Aug 2015 | Breitbart

Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White House.” And that the campaigns were in “full freak out mode.”

More: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/17/halperin-trump-reached-turning-point-most-estab-cands-think-he-can-win-nomination/

I’m not sure which part scares the estabos most: that he could win the nomination, or that he changed the race? (it may seem like the same thing but I don’t think it is.)  Apparently it has them in scramble mode. Perhaps because they now see anger on both sides?

Is that all it takes a Trump to come along and do this? Heaven knows we’ve been sending them the strongest possible messages for six years, or longer. Finally, maybe because they see it in black and white in the polls and in popular opinion?  Maybe because they see a potential threat with the popularity and money? At any rate, the establishment are finally sitting up and taking notice.  And they don’t like what they are seeing.

Well, they tried dismissing him, ignoring him, calling him names and ridiculing him….. never mind media’s evolution. It’ll be interesting to see if they see him as the problem.

She walks, she talks, she fundraises

Hillary now looks to shore up support(pardon the pun) in the wake of the server seizure. So she is going on a fundraiser vacation, renting a 12 million dollar mansion in “the Hamptons” where they plan to raise lots of cash. The high style of the 1%-ers.

The cost is 100,000 for two weeks…or is that called an investment? Funny how they go on vacation and the money rolls in. That’s not how it works with most people, unfortunately. But nothing Clintons do is like normal people. Going on a fundraiser vacation just makes lots of sense(cents). Even impressive by the “lifestyles of rich and famous” standards.

But nothing with them is normal. They prefer the absurd, extreme, eccentric and extravagant even in politics. They should look around and ask themselves, “how did we become 1%-ers? The prior video was a perfect example. There are times when we occasionally get to see exactly how liberals think — flawed as it is.

There you see media liberals grieving and prognosticating on the political fallout over Hillary’s self-created servergate. Not unexpected but then listen to co-host Mika Brzezinski and let it sink in. There is a transparency and brutal honesty to it.

Mika sounds disgusted sighing in the background. She wonders to the others about how candidates can pretend things(scandals) don’t exist? That might be a good question for Hillary. So after Hillary candidates tell you those things don’t exist, you are supposed to believe them. Then she asks “do they really think the American public is that stupid?” She says “that is very insulting.”

Well, Mika does have some real points. People must accept their denials or excuses. They really do think the public is that stupid. Mika explains the way it works for Dems and leftists. With a sigh she admits that in spite of these problems if Hillary can get the nomination, “I will [still] vote for her.” See, that’s how it is supposed to work for Hillary and Obama. So the only question then is how does she get there?

Hillary Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote that it’s all nonsense.

“The bottom line: This kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”

And according to NY Post, 52% of people polled say Hillary’s email ordeal “should be subject to a criminal investigation.”

So the only objective is for Hillary to get the nomination, however she can. Then, Democrats will still vote for her. That makes the nomination, by any means, the only objective. That’s how it worked so far. She asserted herself as the anointed one, early and often, as the heir apparent. For so long that they all believed her and no formidable challenger came. She locked up support.

But it was also based on stalling along the way. Stall investigations, stall opposition to the point where they finally have no other choice but her. Even if these problems surface, by then she’ll be their only choice. That’s what she wants and got. Obama built his election on the same inevitability premise.(belief) Make the thing, or person, so inevitable there’s no choice. Basically, the theory goes, people do not want to not believe.

The strategy is stall to prevail. After that it becomes only a series of events granting her the prize. Then, nothing that led up to it matters at all. In the end, people will have no choice. The beauty is Democrats fully admit they will still vote for her, no matter what truth outs. It is only a matter of means, just as Hillary believes it is only a matter of getting to the White House. Once there, the means shall matter not one bit. If it takes coming down with a nasty case of lies.(as Islamists justify jihad) After all, she expects Democrats to lie to themselves in order to support her.

Meanwhile, Hillary does the Hamptons. And any means necessary to nimination. Once achieved all the means suddenly become irrelevant. Just like the va-k in the Hamptons.

RightRing | Bullright

Morning Joe grief counseling on Hillary

Morning Joe dumps on reacts to Hillary’s server mess.

Mika says, if she wins the nomination “I’d vote for her.” But then how do you get there?

Mika sounds warnings about “candidates pretending that things don’t exist.” Welcome to Hillary’s world. Then came the sobering proverbial question of the decade: “I’m going to believe you…and you think the American public is that stupid? That’s very insulting.”

Yes, apparently they do if people say they would still vote for her anyway.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager issued a memo August 13th, wherein he said Republicans are mired in a “bizarre and contentious primary”. So it’s the Republicans, stupid! I don’t see any of them mired in scandals, pretending they don’t exist.

Even lamestream media acknowledges the problems and lies contradictions. Strategy: Deny and ignore that Hillary’s problems even exist.