Defending the Indefensible

I’m almost amused by the political dialogue — to use the term loosely — of the left these days but if one thing sums it up, it would be defending the indefensible.

They apply those talents to Obamacare. What is there to defend? It is a total mess even for doctors and healthcare professionals, and prices are going through the roof. But if anyone can defend that it would be Democrats or the liberal left. Calling that a success is sort of like calling the burnig of Rome a strategic victory.

It isn’t the only place they’ve applied their expertise.They defend Obama’s sham legacy, his leading from behind foreign policy. He doubled the national debt….. “winning!”

Finally, Trump has taken the opportunity to say he was left a big mess all over. That was a strange way of securing Obama’s legacy. Now that Trump elegantly points that out, shrieks come from thhe heckler section. Dare he say that? Mess is an understatement.

Remember Obama’s doctrine was “don’t do stupid shit!” Apparently they didn’t follow their own doctrine. Unless fertilized evil was their idea of smart?

The Democrat party is in a scorched-earth campaign to deny the effects of the last 8 years, and to defend the entire scandalous, evil hole called Obama’s legacy. But it was a pretty big giveaway how bad it is when their biggest claim was Obama had a scandal-free administration for eight years. And Valerie Jarrett echoed that across liberaldom.

Leading from behind and “don’t do stupid shit” being pillars of that tenure. If it looks like and quacks like a duck, guess what? It ain’t a pig. Besides, there isn’t enough lipstick to cover this mess. But who’s trying? How quick their perspective changed from a yellow brick road under a rainbow; to a black plague in every corner with red-alert problems everywhere, just as he leaves. They can complain about leadership now.

On one hand they’ll be defending, on the other they’ll be condemning everything, everywhere. Their hope and change turned to Mope and Complain.

RightRing | Bullright

The Day That Lives In Infamy

History.com

Just before 8 a.m. on December 7, 1941, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaii. The barrage lasted just two hours, but it was devastating: The Japanese managed to destroy nearly 20 American naval vessels, including eight enormous battleships, and more than 300 airplanes.

More than 2,000 Americans soldiers and sailors died in the attack, and another 1,000 were wounded. The day after the assault, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan; Congress approved his declaration with just one dissenting vote.

Read more: http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/pearl-harbor

Coverage and Speech

Obama lectures live from Germany

Speaking from Germany with Angela Merkel, Obama exercised his pro-protest voice. (probably wondering if his marching shoes were still ready in the closet)

When asked directly about the protestors to Trump back home, Obama could find no words to object to it. In fact, he said that it was standard fare that he thinks every president has probably been faced with. He encouraged protest as a (healthy) sign of freedom in a democracy.

Then he pivoted to call cynicism and dissent agents of disruption, chaos or evil in global politics. (my paraphrasing) Not much place for dissent there. How does he square his circular thinking? He doesn’t. No greater contrast could be made. It shows where he puts his interests. It was a broadsided way to condemn Brexit or the fractures in the European Union. That dissent must be called out….but not the dissent of a presidential election.

But Obama would reject any notion that protests of himself were constructive — even though we did not take to the streets or riot upon his election. Now he refuses to call for restraint of protests. Instead he tried to normalize them. So he is all for unity only when it suits his ideological purpose. Obama’s sole outreach after his elections was saying “I won.”

For weeks he lectured from the presidential podium about accepting the results of the election. Now his respect for protestors trumps all. Obama lectured about accepting election results but then says nothing to those who don’t.

Obama is way to obsessive about the White House.He lectured on the sober seriousness of the job. I guess that’s why he is always off playing golf or on vacation when there is a national or world crisis. Nothing interrupts his vacation, be it floods, riots or international military issues, or terrorism.

Yet post Benghazi coverup, he now portends seriousness about not taking one’s eye off problems. We’ve been treated to pictures of Obama skipping off for ice cream in Martha’s Vineyard, or Barry doing the Wave at a ball game with Castro in Cuba, or doing a dance in SA as international events rage around him. Then his politicizing our entire government.

Not to forget his invisible red line in Syria or calling ISIS a JV team. Or his refusals to call terrorists what they are — that’s way too controversial. Now he is lecturing Trump, from Germany, on dealing with sober realities? Benghazi is only a distant, alien memory to him. Not a word about calming the unrest, from Obama, except toward justified fears of global warming schemes and their fierce ‘urgency of now’ politics.

What a two-faced hypocrite.

RightRing | Bullright

What Difference At This Point Does It Make? — Plenty and she’s not done

Below are two informative videos. First one is the abbreviated biography background on Huma Abedin. The bottom one is like a dossier of Hillary’s scandalous record: from cattle futures to her Senate, to her term as Secretary of State. Scandal should be the Queen of Corruption’s middle name. Consider the first only a primer, and a partner in crime.

Any Senate campaign that is kicked off by Peter Paul and Hsu is probably not going in the right direction. From there it only got worse. She was brought in front of the ethics committee on various things. She then took her national bid for president in 2008 in much the same spirit. Then on to scheming her server to avoid FOIA as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is running on her record of running from her record.

Think up a scandal and it’s probably in her dossier because that’s just how Hillary rolls.

Even William Safire, in his 1996 “Blizzard of Lies” essay in NY Times, branded Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar”. Now she is running on her record of “fighting for kids” and families as the heart of her focus. Give me a break. As Bill Clinton said, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Or as Hillary could admit — if she actually had a shred of conscience — that she “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

As Safire put it in ’96:

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Does all that sound familiar? Pack on top of Safire’s list everything she has done since, adding a mountain of new lies to the old. How about pulling 900 FBI files on her enemies for an appetizer? Smell that abusive power. It eventually comes to her real record, even if you could put aside her trail of scandals, which basically leads to a long Legacy of Lies.

H/T to see Political Insider

Clinton’s bribery attempt and mainstreaming corruption

Who wants four more years of lies and corruption from Clinton?

The latest story confirms only the idea of the Clinton political game nightmare. The sad truth is we know what she is and what Clintons are. There is no doubt about that.

The great Clinton Caper, I’m calling it, is to literally mainstream corruption and their patented ‘pay to play’ politics. Hillary’s shadow gov’t of Wall St influence and corruption in waiting has long been ready to get [back] into power.

Obama mainstreamed radicalism and corruption – emphasis on radicalism. Now that that is done Hillary plans to take corruption to new highs — mainstreaming the process. But now she already has built her personal defenses for it with people who are predisposed to defend her deeds as political witchhunts, partisan attacks, and ‘lack of evidence’ nothingburgers. Now comes the real objective, to make all that corruption mainstream.

So far, America still frowns on and is sickened by it. “Mainstreaming” would take it to levels where they not only accept it all but cheer it on, actually rooting for her. Throw in some Alinsky tactics to accomplish it and, voila… the great Clinton Caper complete.

One of a long list of Exhibits:

Former Haitian Senate President Speaks: “Hillary Tried to Bribe Me,”

(Video)
Saturday, September 17, 2016 | Before It’s News

Is it just me, or is It beginning to seem like with every passing moment, we learn another new story about the vile and wretched levels of corruption the Clinton’s will stoop to in order to line their own pockets off the backs of other people? It’s long been suspected there was some “funny business” going on with the Clinton’s and their “charity work” in Haiti, so in the video below, the former Haitian senate president sets the record straight.

In the time that has passed since his dealings with the King and Queen of corruption, the former Haitian senate president has since become a United States citizen, and to say he’s excited about that would be an understatement. In addition to the passion with which he beams about this new citizenship in the greatest country on earth, how can you not love a guy who refers to the Clinton’s arrival in Haiti for alleged charity work as, “The Clinton Invasion?”

God bless sir! Welcome to America!

H/T to Before It’s News

Not even 2% of all that donated money, after 2010 earthquake, went to Haiti. Red Cross raised a half billion dollars and built six homes.

Testimony from a sourse on the Clintons’ Haiti connections.

Clinton corruption has left its fingerprints all over the landscape.

How many people have to plead their fifth amendment rights to protect the Clintons?

Yet we the people — resistance –are labeled “irredeemable” and deplorable by her.

RightRing | Bullright

Former Military leaders support Trump

88 former military leaders and Generals support Trump, in a letter released.

CNN

The group, which was organized by Maj. Gen. Sidney Shachnow and Rear Admiral Charles Williams, praised Trump and declared that “the 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy.”

“enemies have become emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington … in our professional judgment, the combined effort is potentially extremely perilous.”

[in their national security letter] “As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world. For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief.”

Cooked Books on ISIS and beyond

Yet another symptom of the national disease rears its ugly head.

Scathing House Intel Report on ISIS Fuels Trump’s Attack

Foreign Policy Magazine
A new report showing the Pentagon exaggerated its battlefield successes gives the GOP nominee fresh ammunition in the political fight over the terror group’s rise.

A new congressional investigation has concluded that senior military officials presented an overly positive spin on the progress of the U.S. fight against the Islamic State, but its initial findings stopped short of explicitly charging the Obama administration with cooking the books.

The White House shouldn’t break out the champagne: The findings could still be a lose-lose proposition for both the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton just as Donald Trump appeared to be on the ropes amid plunging poll numbers and sharp attacks from members of his own party. […./]

Read more

Funny how media always stops short of accusing Obama or Hillary of cooking the books. Where else does the direction come from? Well, FBI Dir Comey stopped short of saying Hillary should be prosecuted. However, Hillary and Obama are the two people most in need of prosecution in America. But that has been turned into a taboo.

A new area of investigation of Hillary’s Clinton Fundation corruption popped up and what happened? Loretta Lynch said it was more political so a case is not warranted. But the media can come out afterward to (1)clean up the news damage and (2)to say they did cover and talk about it, to say there was not much there. See that is the racket: no one can say MSM actually buried it, they just buried the truth about it.

The next step is Hillary and Bill will try to claim that DoJ’s failure to open the investigation was a validation that they did nothing wrong. (they’ve played that game for years) Who else could use a taxpayer-funded investigation failure as a political victory? Can you say Clintons? Look how much time and money these two cretins cost taxpayers.

Now we have the confirmation of cooking the books with false intelligence on ISIS progress. Nothing to see there for media. Except when the US uses phony intelligence to make policy it is very dangerous. Trump’s statement about Obama and Hillary being honorary founders of ISIS is a serious, egregious charge. Cooking our intelligence, because the C-in-C does not want bad news about ISIS, is no big problem to media. Imagine a Republican doing that? It must go to the President because he is in charge. We knew this was going on but when confirmation comes out it gets whisked away, like ISIS, as if it didn’t exist.

What scares many people is we know how important intelligence is. To have that cooked is akin to aiding and abetting the enemy.It puts our nation and military at risk because our policy and strategy is based on that intelligence. A foreign agent would like to taint our intelligence to compromise our mission. What is Obama doing then?

Obama vacations in style at Martha’s Vineyard preparing for his exit with faulty intelligence at his fingertips, which could jeopardize our country and future missions. He’s the Margaretta Commander in Chief. We even have an enemy he cannot name.

Accountability means nothing to Obama or the perfumed heiress Hillary. So he’s with her, she’s with him, Dems are with her and we are screwed. Where do they get off calling Trump a risk? Where are military, CIA, national security spokesmen who politically attacked Trump as unqualified? …It makes me sick.

RightRing | Bullright

The Politicization of Government

Hello, class, today our 8th-grade social studies continues our series on ‘the politicization of our government.’ For review: we already discussed particular areas in past lessons from EPA to the Justice Department, to the border control, to the IRS, to enforcing the laws just to name a few topics. You can review your notes on them.

Today we will look at just how politicized this all has become. So there was a letter by 50 former Republican officials that worked in various places in administrations. They all agreed to sign this public letter condemning the Republican nominee in this election, as unsuited for the office of President. They say they will not vote for Trump. Many were from national security or homeland security. Experts in their own minds all. They have decades of combined government or bureaucracy experience applying those government credentials to their political opinions.

Before this, a few other individuals also spoke out to condemn this nominee. We can add a former CIA director, Mike Morell, taking a political stand in support of Hillary to the list. It seems fashionable at first. But when you look closer there is something more going on.

They criticized Donald Trump for not having the proper temperament. But it should be noted they have not joined forces in their criticism before with the last Presidents or nominees. So this seems to be a another step in this politicization process. You can all read their letter for homework but I’m talking about the general emphasis. They are mostly criticizing Trump’s character. So that is standard fare now, but it is on the level today we haven’t seen before.

I suppose an extra thing to note is they are very proud of it. This is personal criticism or attacks on character and psychoanalysis. It looks like a cover for various political dissent. So you could see it as partisan political difference but again, it’s more.

We’ve seen that Obama politicized almost every area of government. These national security officials have anted up and then raised him by 50 votes. So it is not just one side of the political isle. The common denominator seems to be their time and experience in government coupled with an unanchored ability to delve into politics, using their experience and recognition, to take a public political position. Finally, to lampoon a nominee as unqualified and unfit for the office. Scale it up to organized groups in opposition.

The other thing worth noting, even though they all have political disagreements with him, is Trump does not appear to be an ideologue driven by partisan politics. In fact, what seems to irritate his opposition is he has been vocal in criticizing both Republicans and Democrats — though establishment in both. What we seem to have is an insurgent candidate who represents a threat to both sides of the establishment coin. Both sides are bent out of shape. This election is flushing out establishment from the others.

And that establishment class in Washington is not happy about these winds of change. It represents a threat, in some cases, to everything they have built their career around. Now we are seeing what they do, lash out at it. In this unfolding process, I think we’ve now seen just how political these people can be. This only dovetails with regular institutional politicization of Obama down through virtually all parts of the administration to his political, ideological agenda. They are proud of it.

Class dismissed. Next time, what happens if they lose?

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Wrong for America

Clinton failed in office. Now she is spewing critique about what it takes to fulfill the duties of office. Her candidacy requires the willing suspense of disbelief. Lying is her moral duty.

Now it is surreal, Hillary making a speech on national security. Is that an oxymoron? Billed as a foreign policy speech, but it wasn’t. It was a political campaign attack speech.

She claimed to be right there in the situation room as Obama made the decision on Bin Laden. Well, I was in the room when my son was born but it doesn’t mean I gave birth to him. See that’s the thing, she’s like a comic book character always there in the picture when something big happened. She lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

But she is not just unfit for any office, she is unfit to be a candidate – a mockery.

She claimed to take full responsibility for Benghazi. What speck of responsibility did she ever take? No one can name any responsibility she took. She evaded any truth and lied.

She said she’d take that 3 am phone call. It went to voice mail and she never responded.

She said her private server arrangement at State Department was allowed. She called the investigation a “security review.” That’s like Hillary giving a national security speech now.

Hillary’s Russian reset set up the Ukraine invasion. Her reset was even a literal failure in choreography. She claimed Trump shouldn’t be trusted with the nuclear codes. Her bloody handprints are all over: from Boko Haram, to Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt to Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the arms running that ended up going to ISIS.

Hillary was chief proponent for action in Libya. Recently she said it was the president’s call. After Benghazi, she claimed to accept all responsibility for it. This is schizophrenic. She didn’t even assume any responsibility while it happened. But then she accepted full responsibility? And now she says we need to do more to help Libya. Hillary, I think you have done enough.

She said she would be forthcoming and cooperate with all the email investigation. No, she never interviewed with Inspector General. She said she would and did cooperate in the Benghazi investigation. But they never even interviewed her.

She sent personal emails at the time noting Benghazi was a terrorist attack, while doing nothing about it, and then she pushed the lie it was caused by a video. She told grieving families it was a video. Responsibility? Then she called them liars.

Hillary told Petreaus that his “testimony required the willing suspension of disbelief.” Her candidacy requires the willing suspension of disbelief. She did far worse than Petraeus ever did and he got charged. Hillary admitted her server was a mistake and then denied she did anything wrong. “It was allowed,” by who?

Hillary’s definition of responsibility is lying. She calls lying cooperating. Her definition of a record of failure is a record of accomplishment. That’s just for starters.

RightRing | Bullright

“Anger” Brian Williams’ newest lie

MSNBC’s Brian Williams Says US Dropped Atomic Bomb ‘In Anger’

Pilot of bomber said: “I sleep clearly every night.”

Randy DeSoto May 27, 2016 | Western Journalism

MSNBC breaking news host Brian Williams once again is finding his on-air comments coming under scrutiny, after characterizing the United States’ use of the atomic bomb against Japan as being “in anger.”

The former NBC Nightly News anchor was responding to a point being made by his colleague, Andrea Mitchell, who was praising former Sens. Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn for their work on nuclear non-proliferation.

“[T]hat is still the threat that people worry about that this material will fall into the wrong hands,” said Williams. “If people have found the U.S. to be preachy in the years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the use of nuclear weapons, it’s because we’re the only nation to have used them in anger.”

“Sometimes, I am amazed that the world has been without these weapons all the years since, but it is a point of great pride by the people who have seen to it,” the MSNBC host added.

Obama observed that 60 million died during the war in all manner of brutality. “Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction,” he said. In other words, the United States, by choosing to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, was just as guilty of brutality as Nazi Germany or the Japanese.

He contended the images of those mushroom clouds, which resulted in the deaths of 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nakasaki, bringing an end to World War II, eclipse the images of the 6 million killed by the Nazis in concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands killed, brutalized and raped by the Japanese in nations throughout Asia.

President Harry S. Truman, who made the decision to drop the atomic bombs in August 1945, said he never lost sleep because of it. In 1963, he penned a letter (see below) expressing appreciation for a columnist who supported the wartime decision against those in the years following who had second-guessed his call.

The former president observed, “You must always remember that people forget, as you said in your column, that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them.”

“All you have to do is to go out and stand on the keel of the Battleship in Pearl Harbor with the 3,000 youngsters underneath it who had no chance whatever of saving their lives. That is true of two or three other battleships that were sunk in Pearl Harbor. Altogether, there were between 3,000 and 6,000 youngsters killed at that time without any declaration of war. It was plain murder,” he continued.

“I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half a million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again — and this letter is not confidential,” Truman concluded.

The pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima also stated he believed he did the right thing. “You’ve got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. … You use anything at your disposal,” Enola Gay B-29 bomber pilot Paul Tibbets said in a 1975 interview. “I sleep clearly every night,” he added.

Thirty years later, on the 60th anniversary of the bombing in 2005, Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch, “I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing. We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible.”

Enola Gay navigator Theodore Van Kirk, who was the last surviving member of the crew, said in a 2010 interview that countless veterans who were slated to invade Japan thanked him over the years for saving their lives.

He added that the Japanese were spared the far greater destruction and death that would have resulted from a full-scale invasion by the United States.

“Whether they will accept it or not, dropping the atomic bomb saved their lives and our lives. If we had had to invade Japan, the Japanese casualties would have been much, much higher,” Van Kirk said.

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/msnbcs-brian-williams-says-anger-caused-us-to-use-atomic-bomb/

Leave it to Williams to say something like that and not be challenged on it, as if it were fact. It is not new for BS Williams, but to have an anchor state this on a TV report is stupidity on steroids.

After talking to a my friend Pepp, who noted the word angry is also a common euphemism used for Trump and his supporters, I think that could be part of the impetus for it. So could that have been part of Williams political motivation for saying it? But he was wrong anyway. And he’s not far from Obama’s rhetoric either.

What emotion could have caused Williams’ labyrinth of lies?

Putin puttin’ on the ritz

Documents leaked from Panama display offshore wealth of VIPs

Leaked Panama Docs: Putin Has Vast Offshore Wealth

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has called on his citizens to bring all their offshore wealth back into the country, but he has sat least $2 billion in wealth squirreled away overseas, The Guardian reports.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/putin-millions-offshore-hidden/2016/04/03/id/722053/

Somehow the top name on the list of interest is Putin. The guy who claimed his income in 2013 was 102,000. Putin charged then, “It’s simply rubbish. They picked everything out of someone’s nose and smeared it on their little papers.”

The Panama documents include 2 billion tied to Putin, among others.

More http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore

But then this would come as a surprise to who?

How a North American Union is born

Ted Cruz – Wolf in Sheep Clothing!!!

So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.

Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)

Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?

But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’

Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.

And watch Hillary distance herself from NAFTA.

No, not a bad April Fools’ joke

The Left’s Love Affair With Castro

Obama’s Cuban policy is just a continuation of an old left narrative. The Left is always looking for ideals in all the wrong places. Obama brought it full circle.

Forgetting Castro’s Crimes

Review: Rafael Rojas, ‘Fighting Over Fidel: The New York Intellectuals and the Cuban Revolution’
BY: Joseph Bottum | Washington Free Beacon | January 30, 2016

Between the Old Left and the New Left, between the radicalism of the 1930s and the radicalism of the 1970s, there comes the curious figure of Fidel Castro. A celebrated revolutionary thinker. The absolute ruler of Cuba—and, for a time, the man believed to have finally solved the Communist dilemma: finding a way of being Marxist without becoming Stalinist, creating a fully socialist state that would not harden into totalitarianism.
He didn’t, of course. Soon after it seized power in 1959, Castro’s revolutionary government became a socialist dictatorship, barely distinguishable from all the other Communist states of its time. But the surprising lesson of Rafael Rojas’s new book, Fighting Over Fidel, is how brief was the time, how narrow the window, that serious leftists actually believed in Castro’s exceptionalism.
Oh, as late as the 1980s, the Soviets were still insisting that Cuba was a socialist paradise, impoverished only because the United States had isolated the island with economic boycotts and military threats. And that Russian propaganda would have a lingering effect on American leftism, leaving Cuba a convenient symbol around which to unite pro-Communist radicals and anti-anti-Communist liberals. From Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton, Democratic presidents all toyed with the notion of regularizing Cuban relations, although they were thwarted by congressional opposition. In 2015, President Obama simply ignored Congress and unilaterally reestablished diplomacy and trade with the island nation—the culmination of a decades-long rejection of the idea that Cuba was a threat and Communism a disease.

Read more: http://freebeacon.com/culture/forgetting-castros-crimes/

That’s a great article on the background.

Debate summary

In NH Republican debate, they ask what would you do about Syria, ISIS, Libya, Iran?
And interesting that all are products of the Obama administration.

Dems debate, by contrast, is who is more progressive than the other socialist?

Haven’t we seen enough results and consequences of progressive government?

RightRing | Bullright

Russia today

An investigation in the UK peering into the death of former agent has raised eyebrows. Apparently the US Treasury department has weighed in generically calling Putin corrupt, which is leading to denials.

Read at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35385445

White House attempts to undermine Putin’s grip on power by L. Todd Wood, Wa Times

Remembering the old debate statement to Romney: “The 80’s called and they want their foreign policy back.” (and he so rehearsed that line) That should be a conversation starter in the White House about now.

2016: The most dangerous year since ‘62 Cuban Missile Crisis – L. Todd Wood, Wa Times

Hillary tough as nails?

Bill Clinton says Hill’s 11 hour hearing shows she is tough enough.

Maybe she should have screened Bill’s material better before he took it on the road?

BPR Review

“It’s amazing what they put her through,” he told a cheering crowd. “But in those 11 hours she stood with the seventh committee she proved she was tough enough to be president. I don’t think there’s another figure in America (that) could’ve done that.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/23/forget-13-hours-hillarys-11-hour-benghazi-testimony-makes-her-the-hero-says-bill-clinton-297924/

I don’t think there’s another figure in America that could lie like her. I guess getting 4 Americans killed, then lying about it, makes you “tough”.

Egypt: Mo Bro terrorists on the cusp of revolution

Take a look at the lovely, peaceful Mo-Bro (Muslim Brotherhood et al) that the Obama administration has been in bed with. Serious stuff.

Muslim Brotherhood hired terrorist elements from Sinai to carry out terror attacks in Cairo — by Eman Nabih

On the 21st of January 2016, Muslim brotherhood terrorist organization threatened the Egyptian people through many statements published on their social networks accounts and their websites, that they are going to slaughter anyone whether from civilians, police or army individuals, if they stand in their way in their intended “rage and armed revolution” in the memory of the 25th of Jan 2016.

In their statements they added that only those who will stay in their homes on the 25th of Jan, will be safe from slaughtering.– Read

The countdown goes on. Obama and his fellow Mo-Bro sympathizers will look the other way. I won’t hold my breath for a WH statement. That might offend his Mo-Bro brothers. As is well known, the western media will play down the relevance and consequences.

Moscow has no room for Soros

Apparently, George Soros is receiving a persona non grata from Russia. But not to worry, he has friends in high places.

State Department ‘troubled’ by Moscow’s move against Soros groups

Fox News

The U.S. State Department says it is “troubled” by Russia’s decision to ban two of liberal billionaire George Soros’ pro-democracy charities and label the organizations a threat to national security.

“Today’s designation of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation as so-called ‘undesirable’ organizations will only further restrict the work of civil society in Russia for the benefit of the Russian people,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday. “This action is yet another example of the Russian Government’s growing crackdown on independent voices and a deliberate step to further isolate the Russian people from the world.”

See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/01/state-department-troubled-by-moscows-move-against-soros-groups.html

Moscow, we have a problem.

Since when is it necessary for the State Dept to stand up and defend Soros and his meddling? How dare Russia restrict the progressive Marxist’s ‘main-squeeze’ Soros!

Gotta love that: the pro-gay, same-sex marriage pushing, George Soros led, meddling State Department has issues with Moscow. Obama’s State turned foreign affairs into, well, ‘Foreign Affairs‘. How much help will Obama’s executive pen be with this?

Take A Number!

Obama’s baffling passivity on Jason Rezaian

Opinion writerOctober 16 | Washington Post

The consequences of President Obama’s passive foreign policy came close to home this week.

My Post colleague Jason Rezaian, the paper’s Tehran bureau chief, has been languishing in an Iranian jail for 15 months on bogus charges of espionage. He was put on secret trial by a kangaroo court. On Sunday, Iranian state TV reported that he had been convicted.

And Obama said . . . nothing. He didn’t go to the briefing room and make a statement. He didn’t even release a written statement. On Tuesday, his press secretary, in response to a reporter’s question at the briefing, responded with what might have been described as minor annoyance with the Iranian regime.

“We’ve got a number of concerns,” the spokesman said, mentioning the “unjust” detention and “opaque” process.

More: http://wpo.st/0Fph0

That’s the White House, Obama’s message. Pick a number, any number…

Which of that number is just wrong and causes Obama to say something? 0

But it’s really not so baffling, for Obama. Yet he can come out to “politicize” a shooting in Oregon before the bodies are moved. Speaking of opaque.