To the electoral map 2016

First, a big hat tip to Dave for forwarding this reference article to me some time back. This is as good a time as any for it. He contemplates the general election.

Ted has been running around for months saying he should be elected because he is the one that can win against Hillary. Since he has said it so often and it is his greatest talking point, then how about it? Can Ted beat Hillary? It is not a popularity contest… on popular vote.

Popular vote is one thing but it comes to the electoral college, as we know. So take a look at the Romney map of 2012, below. Now Cruz has to explain what state(s) he could win above what Romney did to get the 64 more electoral votes of the 270 needed?

The article above from Washington Post says, under the current map Democrats use, they have built in 242 votes. Hillary has to provide the balance. But the question is what more could Cruz do  than Romney did since he had 206. (Romney 2012 map–  270towin.com)


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Or how much differently could Cruz make the map to get the 270. There is an interactive map here to build your own. Below is the tossup map example.(a good start)


Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

One such hypothetical for Cruz, in the article, would be Oh, Va, Fla, Co. But, as he explains, “Obama won all those states twice.” Still, it pays to see the article.

Source maps http://www.270towin.com/

Garland linked to Benghazi coverup

Obama’s SCOTUS pick claimed video cause of Benghazi long after disproven

April 1, 2016 | Michael Dorstewitz | BizPac Review

During a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) hearing held four months after the terrorist attack on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, President Obama’s appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court claimed it was the anti-Muslim Internet video that sparked the attack.

More: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/04/01/obamas-scotus-pick-claimed-video-cause-of-benghazi-long-after-disproven-323997

Mums the word…. just vote

Let me travel a little further down the evolutionary trail from Obama. You can blame him so far, for so long. So this is a tribute to the sycophant publik that put him in office, first and foremost the Democrats, progressives, liberals, whatever pseudonym they use. If you cast a ballot for him this post is to you.

What amazes me is how they geared up to vote for this pretender and then stepped back – twice. It’s typical of what Dems do, they elect them and then get out of town. When problems come they plead ignorance and, worse yet, have no clue what he is actually doing. But it is nothing new, they did the same thing with Bill Clinton. And sure enough, they are getting “ready” to do the same thing with Hillary-Bubba-Obama-Clinton.

Obama has plenty of problems, most of which were forecasted. But did the Libs care about that? They didn’t want to hear it. Now they revert to the fingers in the ears and don’t want to hear it as the catastrophe on steroids unfolds. In fact, they “moved on.” Now they are back into organizing to elect the next dictocrat. But in between times, or elections, they block out anything related to the decision they made.(just tune out) They assume no responsibility as the shit begins to hit the fan.

When the stories of scandal and abuse of power come out, where are they? Long gone. “I can’t hear you from here, I’m busy, isn’t the sky a beautiful shade?” Or then you get the boilerplate: “oh, they all do that.” Then comes the denials, “those aren’t scandals, it’s made up by Republicans, who just hate him. Next!” And that is about as far as you get.

Hell, they won’t even admit there are problems. So there is no responsibility for putting the guy in office in the first place. Yet in their arrogant defiance, they turn right to the next election and candidate. Hillary looks good! They’ve “moved on” alright. They left the building long ago. They know nothing after pulling the lever — all that’s required.

The only analogy I can think of is a dog peeing on the carpet. You point to it and say “see what you did, bad!” Even a dog will give you that look, he/she knows. Or when the broom comes out, they know what you are doing. They see that. A liberal or Democrat? There’s nobody home there. “La-ti-da-duh!” And they keep doing the same routine over and over. No accountability for the results; no responsibility for their decision. Just a blank stare.

So then when the King Barry prepares to burn down the suburbs just as predicted, they don’t have a clue or care. “Affirmatively further fair housing,” what problem? They think take the money and that will be that but they don’t know it comes with strings, as it always does. Play dumb, which they are very adept at. Then blame anyone but Obama’s policy for the results — or their support for him.

When feds take over local police departments, they say ‘show me the problem with that.’ Draw them a picture. Then they proceed to blame anyone else. Their willful ignorance is so very convenient. Benghazi popped up before an election. Dems didn’t care one bit. That shall not affect their mind in any way. When the IRS goes out of control, same m/o. Whistling past the graveyard….just as long as there are no whistle blowers playing a different tune. But in that event, attack them. Delay any investigations. Call it under investigation. And “move on” to worrying about the next election. “That is old news”.

The Dems pride themselves on their get out the vote campaigns. Resurrect the dead if you have to. Vote, and then get out of town. Whatever you do, do not take any responsibility for the person you elected to office. That is not part of the deal. You are absolved of any and all responsibility. Hey, what’s not to like about that arrangement of convenience?

RightRing | Bullright

Forewarnings of midterms

Shall we look back to see if there may have been indications of 2014 midterms landslide?

Even as far back as 2012 primaries there were stunning warnings — which might have shaken libs’ status quo even then. No, they were busy whistling past the graveyard. Townhall had a piece in May, 2012 that Pepperhawk forwarded me then. “(H/T)

Remember this is early 2012:

Little attention is being paid by the national news media to the Democrats’ presidential primaries because Obama is assured of his nomination. But the large size of the anti-Obama vote — exposing deep unrest in his party’s political base — has shaken his campaign’s high command.

The latest explosions came in Tuesday’s Kentucky and Arkansas primaries which of course he won easily. But a stunning 42 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted” on their ballot.

In yellow-dog Democrat Arkansas, 42 percent voted for a little- known Tennessee lawyer, John Wolfe, over the president of the United States.

And two weeks ago in the West Virginia primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon and now Texas prison inmate got 41 percent of the vote.

Some smarty-pants political pundits who think they know everything say some of this is about race and that these states are firmly in the GOP column anyway.

It went on to say, and quote, what the Washington Post had said:

Such strong antipathy toward Obama at this end point in his trouble-plagued presidency is “an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party,” writes The Washington Post’s campaign trackers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake.

Racial factors “may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.” And they quote Democrats who point to growing grievances that many in their party have over the political direction Obama is taking the country.

“The most significant factor is the perception/reality the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left,” says former Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/05/25/are_democrats_deserting_obama/page/full

With all they have done since, this should have told them not to take support for granted. But the institutionalized Left ignored all that and doubled down on race-baiting, claiming opposition to Obama’s agenda was due to racism. Well, they wore out that excuse. But it didn’t reflect the rising narrative or reality.  And it didn’t fit the reality in 2014. The meme was racism, women, Hispanics, oh my. (Dems refer to as their ‘core’ constituents)

Sure they can always make that claim, as overused as it is, but sooner or later it loses its sting. Just as the ‘war on women’ narrative lost its sting in the 2014 elections. And the ideal of hope and change was lost as well — proving you can overuse a term even if it is vague. Hope and change was redefined as failure. War on women drew yawns and boos at debates. Racism is still a euphemism for disagreement with Obama, but believable? Hardly. Racism is used for an excuse for losing, as an excuse for violent protests, and as an  excuse to oppose election integrity.

So “these are states with large populations of low income, blue collar, “working class” Americans who have been hit hardest by Obama’s economic policies” were instrumental in 2014, too. It seems working class Americans overall are disenchanted with Democrats as revealed in 2014 results. But want more proof? Dems rushed to have a pow wow over the midterm results. They emerged with the message they have to do a better job relating to “middle-class” working people. Well, duh. Their policies have been a thumb in the eye to the so-called middle class.

They don’t want to do anything to actually help the middle class, they just want to talk about it, while trudging on with their elitist policies. But talk about it they will, which rings as hollow as all their other talking point messages of late. We can count on that because it was the consensus of their 2014 autopsy.

When you can’t blame yourselves, then blame the middle class for not quite understanding your message. In effect, they blamed all their special interests. But they dare not blame the teachers’ unions, who dumped record amounts of cash into their coffers.

More insight, another article from Forbes, they analyzed 2014 results:

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ class warfare message has been further undermined by the nature of the recovery; while failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds.

What’s it mean? “Middle class” will be the most used words in Dem’s vocabulary.

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi: administration busted again

Explosive New Report About Benghazi: They Heard the Terrorists on the Phones While it Happened…

By Caroline Schaeffer | IJReview

A damaging new report from the Air Force pilot who transported embassy officials from Libya discloses that the terrorists who attacked the Benghazi compound and murdered four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, two Navy SEALs, and one information officer, stole State Department cell phones to call their higher-ups and declare their operation a success.

Because they were using State Department phones, U.S. spy agencies overheard their conversations in real time, he says, and knew they were talking to terrorist leaders about a planned mission.

This new information, reports Fox News, will damage the State Department and White House claim that initial intelligence suggested that the attack was over an anti-Islam video, instead of a coordinated attack. Administration officials including National Security Adviser Susan Rice maintained this “anti-Islam video” claim for weeks after the attacks.

Fox News host Bret Baier interviewed retired Air Force Major Eric Stahl, who commanded and piloted the C-17 which transported the bodies of the four victims of the Benghazi attack, as well as survivors.

In the interview, Stahl says that members of the CIA were confused by the Administration’s claims, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” And this claim was backed up by another official.

The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

Furthermore, Stahl wonders why his quick-ready team wasn’t called up sooner, if the State Department knew of the terrorist attack as it was happening.

Hillary Clinton may wonder what difference it makes whether it was a planned terrorist attack or a spontaneous riot which caused the murder of four Americans.

MORE>
 

As Hillary slithers out on the campaign trail, it’s obvious we haven’t heard the last of this. Neither has she. Once again, it counters their entire flimsy narrative. Her supporters will be screaming “but people don’t care about that”.

She didn’t like to do media appearances, so they sent Susan Rice. Now she’s on book tour doing media everywhere. She also does 200k speeches. So maybe they didn’t pay her the right price. They criticized Mitt Romney for his statements on the attack. Everyone piled on to criticize Romney at the time, when he said:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Oh, they swung on a pivot attacking him and his “campaign” for that. But Obama and Hillary were in office and aware of what was going on. Plausible denial is just not plausible. Yet it was open season to criticize Romney at the time.

Flash forward, they are all criticizing the soldiers for telling the truth about Bergdahl. It’s always amazing when they find their voice on issues. They were not happy about pictures leaked out on the border scandal either. Before that, not a word about it. They weren’t happy about the news of VA, but before that nothing. Just as Hillary has a selective voice.

RightRing | Bullright

Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright