The most irritating two words

Democrats use so much language that really offends me, but there are two words that stand out as probably the most irritating.

Every time you hear the Democrats cry about needing this legislation, regulation or that bureaucracy those same two words rear their ugly head almost every time.

The words are Common Sense:–“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

One of the biggest culprits of this egregious offense is Hillary. She loves those words and works the phrase into almost any issue. The more unpleasant the issue or their ideas are, the more they use the words common sense to cover their butts and detract from their ideas. If the ideas aren’t popular, then throw out the word common sense a lot. Ask a Democrat their position on a very difficult and controversial issue and you are sooner or later likely to get the standard “I support a common sense approach.” Does it tell you anything? Does it define their position? Well, I suppose it defines the fact that they want to be sneaky and slippery about the issue. It sounds so good.

And that is exactly the problem, it sounds good to way too many people. First, the idea that these people are actually guided by common sense is ludicrous. I mean if there were a competition for lies that would be in the top 10. Or then the idea that whatever approach they do take must be therefore based on common sense because they told you they support a common sense approach. It’s crazy. Second, they are filler words; or it’s more like an empty vessel into which they can pour anything they want under that label. Want to buy affordable healthcare anyone? That’s the kind of plan those words are cover for.

The latest case in point is Hillary using them in her response about gun control. She said:

“It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks would fail in Congress despite overwhelming bipartisan support. It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense, and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.”

“The president is right — the politics on this issue have been poison. But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear, and I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”

All that sense from someone who obfuscates and hides the truth about Benghazi, a person who short circuited the State department by having her private email server. Someone who ran around blaming a video no one had seen for an attack, and telling the victims family they would get the guy who made it.

A person who scolded Congress “what difference at this point does it make” in response to questions on the Benghazi terrorist attack. This professor of “common sense” is lecturing everyone on what “makes no sense”, after scrubbing her private server clean after email requests on Benghazi – where an ambassador and 3 Americans were killed under her authority, while setting up an outpost under her orders.
“Once again racist rhetoric has metastasized into racist violence,” then she dove into race issues of the Charleston shootings. “America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”

For a little background from Dan O’Donnell at 1130 -WISN:

Even as her husband’s term in office was ending, Hillary was still trying to profit from it. She had furniture from the White House shipped to her personal home in Chappaqua, New York. She said they were donated, but when the manufacturers were contacted, it became clear that they were donated to the White House, not the Clintons, and meant to stay there. — Read more

But remember at that time the real story Hillary claimed news should be covering was the vast right-wing conspiracy, which was after her and her husband for all their escapades. This is probably the phoniest woman on the planet, lecturing on moral high ground.

At Texas Southern University earlier in June, Hillary said.

“Now, all of these reforms, from expanded early voting to modernized registration, are common sense ways to strengthen our democracy. But I’ll be candid here, none of them will come easily.”

But apparently real common sense does not come easily or frequently to Hillary Clinton.

Lecturing about law enforcement’s need to use cameras for “transparency she said,

“It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more than remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented by cameras but this is a common sense step we should take.”

So it’s “common sense,” we need cameras on Hillary Clinton to provide transparency.

Hillary’s alternate reality on Benghazi

Hillary will certainly set the record for revision. She now paints herself — not four dead American patriots — as the victim of the Benghazi terrorism attack.

Hillary Clinton: I’m the Real Victim of Benghazi

by Ben Shapiro30 May 2014 | Breitbart

Hillary Clinton may not be much at administering the State Department, but she’s certainly a pro when it comes to expressing outrage at her own persecution. For the woman who is supposedly the world’s most powerful feminist, her sense of victimhood remains surprisingly strong. That’s never been more true than in her new book, Hard Choices, which points out that she – not the four men who died in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of September 11, 2012 – is the victim.

The Clinton camp reportedly leaked the 34-page Benghazi chapter of Hillary’s latest tome to favored outlet Politico. The portions quoted by Politico demonstrate an offputting self-pity and a false righteous indignation utterly at odds with Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State.

According to Politico, Clinton writes, “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country.” Of course, the sacrifice of those who served our country wouldn’t have been necessary if Clinton had done her basic duty in protecting diplomatic facilities overseas. And when it comes to politicizing Benghazi, it was the Obama administration that repeatedly lied for weeks to the American people about the source of the attacks to continue portraying President Obama as tough on terror during election season. […/]

More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/30/hillary-im-the-real-victim-of-benghazi/

I’m pretty sure out of even all the tangent “victims,” like millions of Americans, that she is not one of them. No, I’m absolutely positive about it. There’s no doubt in any cosmic reality.

Even her taking full “responsibility” for Benghazi was a giant Bernie-Madoff-sized lie.

“As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day,” Hillary writes.

But donning her victim shoes on Benghazi takes the cake. Reality should have no place for either Clinton to hide, especially anywhere near the Oval Office. Madoff got hard time and Hillary pens “Hard Choices”(aka selfish ambition) then runs for president. No scruples or morals whatsoever.

Hillary Road Tour Roundup

Surprise, surprise, Hillary has a staged and choreographed meeting with Iowans. Problem is they passed it off as meeting with average, everyday Americans.

Only in a world where “everyday Americans” are all Democrat organizers or activists. Yea, that’s the ticket. That could happen, sure.

A Democrat operative and a Planned Parenthood official sit down for a cozy chat, after being summoned, as just ordinary Americans. What’s another staged event between Democrats? The Left asks what’s the matter with that? How about everything.

Then once again, we have to read it from British news because media here dare not report the obvious truth. That would be traitorous. That is not the worst of it. Just look at Hillary’s statements vs. reality. She’s almost as good at escaping reality as Obama.

Statements that all her grandparents immigrated here. Well, not really. But her campaign explanation is that Hillary always thought of it that way. (and she always thought of herself as being president, too, so that means…) Yes, the explanation is as bad as her lie.

“All my grandparents, you know, came over here,” she said. A spokesperson said her “grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

Just like she ran for cover in Bosnia under sniper fire, when there really was no sniper fire. Oops. So reality is only a figment of our imagination. About that misspeak, she said, “I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement.”

“We’ve got to figure out in our country how to get back on the right track.”

That’s as rich as it gets. She was part of Obama’s administration and admits we are not on the right track. Of course, polls reveal people do not believe we’re on the right track. (29.6 – right vs. 60.5 – wrong, after Obamacare) But sooner or later she will have to state where all she agrees with the administration and that she will continue those plans. Well, maybe a different day. Now she’ll say we need to get our country back on the right track. If we were serious about doing that, she is the last person the people should elect. Then she aimed at our broken political system.

“We have to start breaking down the divisions that have paralyzed our politics.”

Right, and who is that directed at? She’s been one of the most divisive persons in Washington, next to Obama. Hillary talked about getting dark money out of politics.

“We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment.”

But while she is raising 2.5 billion dollars, she will spend as much money as needed to win. Then we can talk about limiting money. Now, she will talk about it while doing the opposite. Hillary is almost as big of Hypocrite as Obama. If she was not a hypocrite she couldn’t run. That’s a pregnant thought. There is no way she could run if she was honest. Start there.

At an Iowa event she said, lecturing about those at the top:

“The deck is still staked in favor of those already at the top. There’s something wrong when the CEOs make 300 times the typical worker. I want to stand up and fight for people…so that they can get ahead and they can stay ahead.” -[…stacked deck?]

“I’ve been fighting for children and families my entire adult life. I was thinking about the lessons I learned from my church. You are supposed to give back, you are supposed to do what you can to help others.”

That is, unless those others happen to be in a consulate in Benghazi asking for luxuries like more security, then she has to draw the line there. Once attacked, she has to lie about what happened for the good of those she is helping.

She listed her resume experience, adding, “and then as Secretary of State, standing up for our country.” Oh, is that what she calls it? As we knew then and know now, she was standing up for herself, to protect herself. Which means like setting up her own private server in NY and deleting what she chose from the record. I’d call that standing up for our country, like she did for an ambassador and three American heroes in Benghazi. Then being accountable (lack thereof) in the aftermath.

“So when I look at where we are as a country, I’m just so absolutely convinced that there isn’t anybody anywhere who can out-compete us, who has better values, who can do more to provide more people the chance to live up to their God-given potential. But we can’t take that for granted, and so I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas, four big fights that I think we have to take on because there are those who don’t agree with what I think we should be doing. And they are pretty powerful forces.”

1-We need to build the economy of tomorrow not yesterday.

2-We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s where it all starts.

3-We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a Constitutional amendment.

4-And we need to protect our country from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.

Fights, she calls them. Can you imagine the inner conflict going on in her head? Right, there is none, no conscience. The buzz word is always “fight”. From the woman who could not fight for those in a real fight in Benghazi, with their lives on the line for the country and her policies. But Democrats love to use the word fight all the time.

The only threats she is worried about are those which threaten her or the Clintons, i.e. emanating from the vast right-wing conspiracy — not the country. Iran, ISIS, Islamic terrorism, Boko Haram, or Russia… not so much.

Hillary’s campaign trail of lies, misspeaks, hypocrisy, double speak, double standards, evasion, and staged events. Void of the substance she claims to stand for.

RightRing | Bullright

And the Show must go on

Hillary is cranking up the campaign presses but this is her theme in announcing her run.

Hillary campaign

Oh yes, she has decided we need a champion, and she has decided she will be that champion. Oh that smell, I can never get used to it — and hope I don’t.

Americans needed a champion in 2012, to get to the bottom of Benghazi which still hasn’t happened. “Everyday Americans” needed an investigation and explanation of what happened. They got lies about a video and protest in return. Hillary said “what difference at this point does it make anyway?” Champion?

They needed a champion to take on the IRS and the scandal it has become, to stop it from targeting private citizens out of political motives. They needed a champion to stop the usurpation and executive abuse of Obama’s assault on America with his pen and phone. They needed a real Dep of Justice — not a Just-Us department.

They needed a champion to stop the unconstitutional amnesty programs, to force government to enforce the law. They needed a champion to enforce our borders. Anyone? But government told them their perception was the problem.

“We the people” needed a champion to protect us from Obamacare: the creation, the law, the roll out, continued executive fiat, and the damage it is causing. We needed a champion to prevent government abuse of our tax dollars on boondoggles that lost our money.

In short, they need a champion and advocate to protect them from the Federal Leviathan, not someone promising more of the same.

They needed a champion on their side standing up to the tyrant in the White House, and out of control administration with a justice department corrupted from within. They were treated to one scandal after another but told there were no scandals, and that there was not a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS.

What Americans needed and wanted they never got. Americans wanted the ear of their government and got lectures instead. We were told “you didn’t build that”. Obama said we were angry and cling to guns and religion, holding antipathy toward others. We got lectured and called racists. We were told we just didn’t understand Obamacare etc. Middle class Americans and everyone else were lied to, repeatedly. Then they were mocked.

Finally, we got lectured about the Crusades when our national security was threatened, as Americans and Christians were slaughtered in the name of Islamic terrorism. We got an administration refusing to state the objective of Islamic terrorism.

What Americans needed was economic stability but what they got was an assault on the economy and a war on energy, sponsored by their own government.

She tells us what “everyday Americans” really need is a champion. Thanks. Government taking its boot off the throat of the economy and ending its assault on us would help.

So Hillary will stand up for middle-class Americans … from the back of her limousine.

PS: Americans don’t need a champion, they need government to stop its abuse.

Past is prologue with Hillary

The problem with Hillary is we don’t have to look far from her for a parallel. She wants us to think this is all about nothing. She wants us to think she was not trying to bypass the national archives.(and certainly their filing system to comply with FOIA requests.)

But just take a trip back to the Clinton years and who pops up? Good old Sandy Berger, notorious document thief. He was caught stealing documents from national archives.

Sandy Berger fined $50,000 for taking documents
Thursday, September 8, 2005 | CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

Berger must perform 100 hours of community service and pay the fine as well as $6,905 for the administrative costs of his two-year probation, a district court judge ruled.

“I deeply regret the actions that I took at the National Archives two years ago, and I accept the judgment of the court,” Berger said outside the courthouse after his sentencing.

According to the charges, Berger — between September 2 and October 2, 2003 — “knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places,” such as his private Washington office. – More>

With that in mind, Hillary just started out from a point of securing information on her private server. Problem solved. In the event of a problem, she has control over the records she kept there. Sandy Berger had nothing on Hillary. And his pants were probably not large enough to hold those documents.

Hillary’s fun tour preempts her listening tour

Call it a scheduling change. Hillary, well known for her listening tours, now recommends therapeutic fun for what ails you. The irony of the humor-challenged Clinton discovering the need for fun, now that’s funny! According to Hillary, we need a break.

Eureka, she’s discovered the mother load fun deficit. And she has the cure.

Hillary seems to be on a roll. Never a ‘dull‘ moment for someone trying to shake the baggage of her ‘really old‘ narrative. So she schemed up a diversion an idea ripe for today, she wants to start a fun camp. (and we thought she was already a laughing stock)

Apparently she’s given this some thought. Well, what passes for thought from Hillary.

Let the fun begin. She wants her peeps to be happy campers. And what a spokesperson for the cause, eh?

She stumbled upon a central problem with Dems: when their politics suck and they are losing ground, they are the most unhappy crowd you’ve ever seen. Now she plans on rectifying all that. The question is can she escalate it into bread and circuses?

But at least her idea has supplied lots of fodder for the right, and they are getting some laughs out of it. I doubt very much the Elizabeth Warren crowd is very amused though.

Instead of that fun deficit, how about we fix the truth deficit? Start by releasing the server and Benghazi emails that apparently, to Hillary, were not ready for prime time disclosure. Or were they too funny for prime time? Then she can do her “dirty dancing” tour.

Now maybe I can petition that Blue Toy company to come up with a “Hostess Hillary” fun doll version to fit in the Clinton collection? So now she wants to be the Comic-in-Chief.

So this is a new idea. But she did look like she was having a little too much fun on State Dept’s dole already, now we know why. Are these separate cabins going to have separate servers? Will all records be “private”? Maybe Biden and Bubba can be the welcoming committee? Rumor is when Hillary said “camp for adults” Bill Clinton’s eyes lit up.

Hillary settles emailgate

What problem?

I opted for convenience… it didn’t seem like an issue. Only after I left, they asked and I provided my emails.

We went through and delivered them. You don’t want to see my Yoga routines, trust me.

I don’t know why all the fuss?
I told the State Depart to make public whatever I(we) gave them.

I met all my responsibilities. I complied with all the rules.

 

Now as far as needing to see the server, I have no problem with that….

Here it is:

[public domain – wiki commons]


So now you’ve seen it! Humph!

There is one set of rules for you all, and another set for me. What’s wrong with that?

Signed,
ReadyForHillary@mars.com

What Oversight at State ?

Lack of oversight and Inspector General in the State Department. Surprise.

Obama chained State watchdog while Clinton sent emails

By Susan Crabtree | March 10, 2015 | Washington Examiiner

President Obama made sure there was no official watchdog supervising the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretly sending her emails using a private server.

The president has a duty to appoint independent inspectors general at every federal agency, but Obama left the position vacant at the State Department throughout Clinton’s entire four-year tenure.

The White House has deflected responsibility for more than a week for Clinton’s use of private emails while she was secretary of state.

But Obama bears direct responsibility for a lax ethics environment that may have allowed Clinton to work without any real oversight, government accountability groups say.

“The White House is saying that the State Department has responsibility for making sure their officials and staff follow the law, but the White House is responsible for making sure they have the tools to do that and they fell down on that job in making sure they have the No. 1 tool, and that’s an inspector general,” John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan open-government group, told the Washington Examiner.

Continue reading at Examiner>

Compound that with all the questions regarding the missing 6 billion dollars at State under Hillary’s tenure as Secretary. That has been another question since at least April 2014. Just so happens and all of it purely coincidental. (wink-wink, nod-nod) The second article above reports State went without IG for 5 years, an historical record.

What didn’t they know and when didn’t they know it?

Hillary ushers in Clinton 3.0

Once again, liberals are in a position they’ve grown to dislike: they have to defend the Clintons. While she has positioned herself to run for president, Hillary has an albatross hanging over her.

To the Clintons, this may seem like a great rally cry to round everyone up behind her. But it is a task liberals would rather not have. It’s bad enough they have to defend the Clinton’s entire record anyway but to intentionally give them something else which they must defend her on, against the vast right-wing conspiracy, is an added job on top pf it all.

Remember in the Clinton years she lectured the press telling them the big story media should care to talk and write about is the one about the vast right-wing conspiracy victimizing the Clintons. She scolded them to do that with righteous ambition, which would suit their fancy just fine. They did.

Now again she issues the call to arms after committing an intentional offense while in office — offending even progressives. And she expects that since they have grown used to the job, are experienced at it — and since she is a woman of historic potential — that it will be all the easier for them to jump to her defense. Well, they really have no choice with all the marbles on her — just how she wants it. Let the talking points begin.

Hillary and Iran, two peas in a pod

Hillary’s email problem has a parallel with the Iran negotiations. Both are more matters of illusion than substance. Clinton defenders lecture us not to criticize her emails because we don’t know what is in them. That’s the Dems favorite shell game. With Iran, they say you don’t know what the deal is so you cannot criticize it. They say we must see the deal or emails before passing judgement.(and they aren’t anxious for us to see either)

So, in other words, Hilllary’s email content will determine if she did anything wrong? Both parties have about zero credibility. Where Iran operates on religious motivations, Hillary operates on political ones.

Yet this is the tack the Democrats are taking with Hillary. Wait and see, never mind that she is already outside any ethics or the law itself. Never mind she negotiated 4 months to turn over what she did. Iran negotiations were extended at least twice and they still refuse to allow inspectors full access. We won’t get to see Hillary’s server either.

In both cases the obfuscation is obvious. In both we’re told to withhold judgement and that they are in compliance so far. Hillary was not compliant when she set the whole thing up. She will point to Colinn Powell, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Iran will point to ISIS as the big problem. Neither is to be trusted by any rational thinking person. (Democrats are irrational) Both claim to be in compliance with all the rules that they did nothing wrong, and have no ulterior motives. Right.

Both “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

RightRing | Bullright

Values of Obama

Obama came out this week to blast the perceptions known as the torture report.

The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests. Moreover, these techniques did significant damage to America’s standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners. That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again.

As Commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the safety and security of the American people. We will therefore continue to be relentless in our fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremists. We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals.

But last year another revelation was taking shape. That was statements Obama made to top aides, revealed in a new book. The Washington Times reported:

The president’s specific words: I’m “really good at killing people,” authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write in “Double Down: Game Change 2012,” The Daily Mail reported. They get their claim from a Washington Post report that buries the statement as a brief anecdote in an article, in which the president is described as speaking to aides about the drone program and then making the claim.

So when he wants to talk about “harsh” methods, I guess Obama is all over the statements — being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. But if talking about drones and killing people, Obama prides himself on that. Whether it was an off hand remark or not it shows the duplicitous attitude of Obama. On one hand, he actually made a campaign theme on his ability to kill people. Oh that’s right, he made another, earlier campaign about interrogation methods and closing Gitmo.

But droning people? He has weekly meetings about killing people, as revealed in 2012. He is personally involved in the process. Well, with all the practice, he should be good at it by now. Yet he condemns those interrogation tactics as inconsistent with our values.

It’s ironic that this 2012 NYT report was to bolster confidence in his national security credentials in the midst of a long, tough reelection campaign.

President Obama, overseeing the regular Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two dozen security officials in the White House Situation Room, took a moment to study the faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first year in office punctuated by terrorist plots and culminating in a brush with catastrophe over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder that a successful attack could derail his presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without uniforms, often indistinguishable from the civilians around them.

“How old are these people?” he asked, according to two officials present. “If they are starting to use children,” he said of Al Qaeda, “we are moving into a whole different phase.”

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical.

Well the values of protecting US citizens, like in Benghazi, hardly rank high on his list. His whereabouts on the night of the attack are still undetermined. The lies after about what it was did not seal his commitment to Americans’ security, or our values.

But now he stands for American “values”? Toss in the values of his Obamacare sales pitch, in most places called lying, repeated with precision. He implies that he read the Democrat’s report version at least, as opposed to pesky briefings he cannot be bothered with.
“Values”…got some?

“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

RightRing | Bullright

What’s the definition of “In fact”?

Trey Gowdy severely excoriates Susan Rice and Carney and demands answers from Obama’s administration for Benghazi massacre cover-up.

It must mean that everything this administration decides to say is fact: your premiums will go down; if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; it was a transparent process; there “is not a smidgen of corruption” in IRS scandal.

And they still repeat those assertions as if they are true. Now Benghazi goes to Ferguson. One of the best comments I’ve seen is: so if …”Obama made Gov.Nixon not send in the National Guard Monday night, that would make Ferguson Obama’s domestic Benghazi.’

RightRing | Bullright

Perception deception: Obama argues with the world

According to Buzz Feed reporting, Obama had those terse words about the world and it’s relativity to social media. If my critique sounds condescending that is not my fault. It is the only suitable way to respond to Obama’s inflammatory rhetoric.

Speaking at a private Democratic fundraiser in Purchase, N.Y., the president told donors, “if you watch the nightly news, it feels like the world is falling apart … And I can see why a lot of folks are troubled.”

But, Obama lectured, “the truth of the matter is, is that the world has always been messy.”

“In part, we’re just noticing now because of social media and our capacity to see in intimate detail the hardships that people are going through,” the president told donors, who paid up to $32,400 a plate to attend the event. “The good news is that American leadership has never been more necessary, and there’s really no competition out there for the ideas and the values that can create the sort of order that we need in this world.”

Now that we see real “hardships that people are going through”… like having their heads chopped off for their faith. Yep, we missed all that gory stuff before. Just maybe it is because it’s so prevalent now that it is impossible to ignore – unless you are Obama.

Imagine how many brutal beheadings we missed all because social media hadn’t focused our attention on it until now. They’ve been lobbing off heads for decades, where in the hell have we been? Oh we didn’t know about those other genocides before now.

If it is explanation time with Obama, it must be lecture time. That’s how he rolls. Bush used the 9/11 term “let’s roll”. Under Obama, roll out deceptive lectures

(Hot Air)Americans are waiting, too. Instead of clarity, we get condescending lectures, like the one Obama gave rich supporters about a messy world and social media.

Obama widened his blame of social media and our consciousness of hardships, which apparently color our vision and thought process. Call it the social media – hardships worldview. He’s quite the psychologist at diagnosing us. We’ve never had an Oval Office therapist before.

Sure, we are not reading the PDB(briefings) but we do have some command on the condition of the world. Is Obama really reading those, or putting them in the classified hopper? We may never know, but if he was reading them, he is once again playing fast and furious with the facts. Or he knows and hopes we’re stupid.

No one can now say that we are a relatively safer world now than when he took office. One cannot say people feel we are. And confidence in or approval of his “leadership” is swirling in the toilet. I guess that is where social media rears its ugly head in this.

He is telling us the world is still the same but our perception is tainted by social media. We just think the world has gotten worse – nastier. It is a good thing when we are more aware as opposed to being passively ignorant. There can be no denying that the world is bad and his policies haven't helped. Blame media

Obama said “folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

That's one hell of a comforting thought. No strategy like a delayed strategy. Hopefully we are ahead of Obama, who relies on network reports for his information, as to what is going on. Right, there was that lecture about our cable news addiction – just turn it off.

As Obama contemplates using a 5 iron or 7, we’re suppposed to be confident in his decisions. After all, he didn't start playing golf till he was president either. No, the thing about Obama is he always requires a lot of faith or hope. He thinks as long as he has that 30% of hope-sters that pay no attention to his score, everything will be hunky dory. They'll keep on believing and he'll keep on deceiving.

It’s a good thing he referred to social media. He couldn’t have meant MSM. If we had to depend on them, they would continue their candy-coated coverage of the world Obama wishes it was, instead the world as it is. But “social media” is always butting up against his utopian narrative.

Then along came the perception problem

Remember when Janet Napalm Napolitano insisted there was no problem on the southern border. She said the real problem was a perception one. Even then it set off a firestorm of debate and outrage on, where else but, social media. She continued on her perception that the border was never more secure than ever, yada yada.

“There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been. That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been,” she said.

We had similar denials and lectures about the state of the economy and effects of Obamacare. It’s just those critics beating away at Obamacare that made it appear bad. Similarly, it was critics and their perception who made Benghazi a “phony scandal”. IRS, spending, gun control, the border, and we’re just global warming deniers.

Now that we have freshened our memories, we don’t have to review every episode of his reign only to find the problem is always us. We have perceptionitis. And that is no doubt what is causing social media cancer to spread throughout our consciousness. Besides we are just suffering those ill-effects of an economy which was supposed to be in full-bloom recovery. Again, our perception.

So the jayvee team is out on the court ready — regardless what uniforms– and Obama’s A-team is on the bench still planning their game strategy. That is not just our perception.

RightRing | Bullright

Summer of Scandal

Well, it’s the beginning of summer. It’s always a special time in the changes of the season. Unless you are a climate change cultist.

But it is a great season. Some of us have been waiting for months for it, after a winter of discontent. Previously, Biden dubbed it “the summer of recovery’. Then we needed a recovery from the non-recovery.

So I thought thought this year should be labeled “the summer of scandals”. Maybe there could be theme barbecues? You know throw another one on the grill, can’t have enough. Declare it scandal-palooza.

We’re almost up to a scandal a week. There are so many scandals that you could get lost on which is more import, or which one to talk about. Is it Benghazi, NSA, fast and furious, the IRS, Gitmo-gate? Or maybe it’s the outing the CIA chief in Afghanistan?

So many to choose from. Is it the flood of illegal aliens across the borders, and dispersing them around the country? Or will it be the VA scandal, still gathering steam? Maybe its ObamaCare? Obama’s executive rewrite? Is it “I didn’t know”-gate? The executive order Dream Act? Or how about the Dep of Injustice and ever-contemptible Holder? Or the new EPA roll out in the war on energy? Or will it be I got a pen and a phone. Or could it be Obama’s denials that there are any scandals? Or maybe the Muslim Brotherhood insurgency in this administration? Or maybe it’s those recess appointments with no recess. Or administration suits against Christians like Hobby Lobby, or the Catholic nuns? Or everything surrounding his secretive records and election to office, to the non-transparency of now? One thing that you cannot be anymore is shocked .

But it would be pretty hard not to talk about any of them. Which brings us to the lamestream media. I anticipate in the next few weeks Barry has a meeting with the press, you know, to give them a little direction. What is increasingly difficult though is not talking about any of it, which is the predicament the media is in.

Maybe some are so stymied by it all that they can’t talk about any of it. They could be one of those that when mentioned in conversation h/she says: “oh, I don’t follow that stuff.” That’s always a good reply.

We can just call any that disagree deniers. But at some point, we are going to need a recovery from scandal. That seems far away. It all reminds me of Paine’s piece:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” — “The Crisis” by Thomas Paine, 1776

And he said:

There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.

Enjoy the summer of scandal. Don’t get a sunburn.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s choices, what difference does it make

Hillary has a new book. Didn’t she have books before? (aka., ‘it takes a village of socialists’; ‘uncomfortable with history’; ‘history on life support’) They act as if its some new insight. It’s called “hard choices”. She really dug deep for a title. Bush had a book called “Decision Points”. Sound similar? It could just as well be called ‘soft choices’, ‘no choices’, or ‘political choices’. Dare I say “wrong choices”? Look at all the fun Libs had attacking Bush’s book.

Ironically, Hillary as an authoritative source “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”, as does Obama. The Left complains about Republicans’ succession of candidates running the next person in line. This is Hillary’s turn. Damn the person who gets in her way.

Her book is only posturing. Except “Hard Choices”? Pulease! Her lack of wanting to make choices….and maybe that’s hard. (Let’s start off with a lie) What she supported she’s against, and what she was against she is really for, for now. It is “the evolution of a candidate.” Maybe that would have suited the title better? One thing Hillary should be noted for, her inability to make hard choices.

Like Jay Rockefeller, she supported the Iraq action it was convenient until it wasn’t. But she was hoodwinked. How abut Benghazi? Why do they like to emphasize what they are not good at? — Obama on foreign policy and budget issues.

She says one major accomplishment was restoring US leadership in the world. I always appreciate Liberals talent for revision. It never stops. Want to know their position on something? After the fact they’ll tell you. That’s leadership. Hillary declares she helped clean up Bush’s mess. But who cleans up Hillary’s messes? Now in her wisdom of reflection, she says:

“The most important thing I did was to help restore America’s leadership in the world. And I think that was a very important accomplishment. We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time.

We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values, as being economically hobbled. And we had to get out there and once again promote American values and pursue our interests and protect national security. Because of the eight years that preceded us — it was the economic collapse, it was two wars, it was the war on terror that led to some very unfortunate, un-American actions being taken. That was my biggest challenge. It was why the president asked me to be secretary of state.”

Yea, values like abortion, appeasement, and leaving no Islamist behind, spying on angela Merkel’s cell phone, gun running to Mexico, rewriting immigration law from the Oval Office, getting an ambassador and three Americans killed and secretive arms running, lying about it, ignoring security threats in Libya (Obama’s war), supporting terrorists and thugs in Egypt. Values like that.

Now the scary thing is what more tricks she might have learned from Marxist-in-Chief. We’re heading for a trifecta: a combination of Bill Clinton politics, Obama politics, and her own.(triangulation on estrogen) She wants to sell it as a 3rd term for Bill and a continuum of Obama. And throw in some Elizabeth Warren and Al Gore for seasoning.

Obama, now what has not been said about him? Well, now he releases five top Taliban, for one deserter. Make sense? It does to the Liberal mind, which generally runs contrary to all logic. Oh, here’s something that hasn’t been said. Start by remembering the Clintons. Could the Taliban Five be Obama’s bin Laden. I know, he supposedly killed bin Laden. But that’s not the point. These five could be Obama’s bin Laden. Get it now?

Clinton was criticized for failure to get bin Laden. And how about the Cole? Remember the missiles where he just missed him? Everyone asked how he let bin Laden slip away. Yea, now these five are released. What does Zero’s act portend for the future? But Democrats have offered, ‘don’t worry, we can get them, kill them, drone them’. Remember the illusive bin Laden… it wasn’t easy, was it? Barry has no concept of the future or how he will be liable. He can’t even remember the lesson from bin Laden . All that matters to Democrats is the politics of now.

Team Obama finally gets a mastermind of the Benghazi attack, just short of 2 years, and he wasn’t hiding in a cave in Tora Bora. He did as many interviews as Susan Rice. But don’t worry about the Taliban Five, according to Liberals, we can can repeal their right to life on a moment’s notice. It has taken this long to do anything about Benghazi.

Hillary has the same mindset. Election and winning is all that is in her mind. She is practically anointed to begin with. She’s only looking out for anything that might jeopardize that. It’s the same mindset of Obama, “be on the lookout for anything which could destroy you” Self-preservation is job one. Everything else ranks a distant second to that.

Anything that has the potential to bring you down must be attacked, broken, or destroyed. Using Alinsky tactics of course. Show that any criticism flung at you is faulty. And she’s running to be the easy choice for Democrats. The only choice… what choice? She could have written, “How I created the vast right-wing conspiracy”. Foggy Bottom was only dress rehearsal. She could’ve called it “Rewriting History.”

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

Poetry on the Rose Garden

H/T

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Come to my garden
For a photo op new

I don’t remember seeing the family of Terry, killed with a FAST & FURIOUS weapon at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Ambassador Stevens, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Smith, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Woods, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Doherty, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Martinek, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Bowen, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Walker, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Curtiss, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Andrews, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Murphey, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Fairbairn, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Casillas, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of any veteran murdered at the VA hospitals at the rose garden.

I DO remember seeing the family of Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, at the rose garden.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
If you’re a hero
No garden for you

XL
as always
jj

Brought to you by “change you can believe in”.


H/T

Obama lectured on diffuse terrorist threats

To a captive, unenthusiastic audience at West Point. (the address of the decade fell flat)

Obama found his voice on terrorism, after running around on the campaign, in the second half of his first term, talking as if the threat was dwindling or beaten back badly. Now there is no denying terrorism is alive and thriving. In fact, it is about everywhere. So he tries it out at West Point.

But while he attempts to convince graduating cadets that they could be “sent on murkier missions, helping endangered nations deal with their own terrorist groups”(NYT), he calls Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If he’s afraid to use the terrorism word, after kidnapping almost 300 girls, then the thing that is murky here is Obama.

“We have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stirs up local resentments,” Mr. Obama declared. “We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.”

Sure don’t want to stir up any local resentment by fighting terrorism. If we want to help/train other countries, what do they learn or interpret from calling Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If we can’t call them terrorists, what purpose does he suggest for sending soldiers to remote places on murky missions? We’ve seen how he has the back of his own ambassador in Benghazi. One of Obama’s own missions he sent them on.

Now he is talking about murkier missions after demonstrating how he abandons efforts in places like Iraq, where we invested blood and treasure for years. What an adventure those murky missions sound like. It is Obama making missions murky.

Note that it is New York Times describing “murky missions” for deployment of troops. Still, it sets a fairly accurate tone for Obama’s mission.

Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

To call Somalia or Yemen murky missions would be an understatement. He’s concerned about border patrol and security in Libya?

“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.”

Well, except when certain campaigns, or candidates, render terrorism a non-issue: on the ropes, pretty much defeated. It’s also great to be working with and funding Muslim Brotherhood, or having Mo-Bro operatives in high positions in the administration. Lecture us about real threats of terrorism. Sounds just as murky as those other places.

Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures – without thinking through the consequences; without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required. Tough talk draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947: “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.

Now Obama needs to show us where he sees Eisenhower’s example. Where did we “deliberately provoke” war? No, not Iraq either, that dog doesn’t hunt.

And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak. ….

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader – and especially your Commander-in-Chief – to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. …

Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.

Right, his opponents don’t want to follow international law, and see that as a sign of weakness. Stop with disingenuous straw-man arguments. But we don’t want to rely on it and we must remain a sovereign nation — a nation of laws. And this administration is challenged at following our own laws. He doubled the attack:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

Standing on his phoney American exceptionalism platform, he attacks us for flouting international norms. In fact, it is the other way around: he flouts American norms and our rule of law, even throwing it in our faces. So lecture on Obama. He seems to think what makes him exceptional is flouting our laws and norms.

He also unleashed a critique on places around the globe:

The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

Maybe he should look closer to home? Could he face those problems here, right in front of his nose? But short of trying to ban the word scandal, he hasn’t had much of a response. So with an epidemic of cronyism or corruption right here, it’s hard to imagine how bad it can get elsewhere. Thus, what he proposes is working with other corrupt regimes. But reflexively, he then exempts a “boots on the ground” plan in Syria. If people were not thrilled about Syria involvement, I can only imagine how they’ll feel about missions in Somalia or Yemen.

The NY Times had it right using the word “murky mission”, though what is really murky is Obama. And if he chooses missions the same way he picks winners and losers in the economy, we’re in for a real bumpy ride.

Ref:
NYT: Obama Warns U.S. Faces Diffuse Terrorism Threats
Transcript

Washington Times reported:

“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage.”

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary under fire

Victim Hillary at your service.

All available resources to the rescue.

 

Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER | 5/21/14 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

“Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton world said. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary [John] Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

As Republicans continue their high-profile probe into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Clinton is center stage. Over the next few months, Republicans on the committee will work to build a case against her, and they will attempt to haul her to Capitol Hill to testify.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-democrats-hillary-clinton-106978.html#ixzz32T5e41g7

Obfuscating they will go. Well, if Republicans are not out to make the investigation about Hillary, then Democrats are more than willing to make it all about her defense, whatever they say. So they didn’t want it to be about Hillary, but it can be about her defense.

Hillary’s testimony:

“I have to confess here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So, it just isn’t something I normally jump to do.” — why Rice not her did the talk circuit after Benghazi.

Elijah Cummings now: “someone has to be the defender of the truth.”

Of course, it depends what you call the truth, doesn’t it? And when has he defended the truth about Benghazi? The truth is he defends politics.(and the politics that created Benghazi)

Now we can expect Democrats to make it about the defense of Hillary, whatever it takes. They are in to protect Hillary Clinton. They wouldn’t participate to discover the truth on Benghazi, but they will get involved to defend Hillary.

An elite power-hungry politician versus 4 dead Americans. Who wins? But that is what Benghazi was about.

RightRing | Bullright

Select Committee whoas and pose

With the announcement of a Select Committee formed by the House, there was a lot of strategizing going on yesterday. (as many reported)

What with the Democrats Sunday saying they are going to boycott it, they wasted no time. I guess they found something else they can turn into a “civil rights” issue.

Even Jay Carney said he did not know if the White House was going to comply with the investigation. Is this one of those “choice” things? Or is it another Holder thingy?

So thinking about it, you know what? If Dems go along it depends on what way, doesn’t it? Given their inherent radical nature, would you expect them to try to sabotage the investigation? It’s right up their alley. Being on the Select Committee, to do it from the inside. If Obama’s campaign can distort the death of 4 Americans, Dems could do anything. Leaking or supplying intel to the WH, or obstructing the process would fit their radical tactics.

Here’s “drop the radical pose” for the radical ends, Van Jones and Plouffe on Sunday

In fact, the odd thing was that Plouffe on Sunday(above) was talking about campaign strategy, and Jim Messina said early on that they needed to run as an insurgency. That’s the real mode they were in.

President Barack Obama’s supporters must “act like an insurgent campaign” if they want to ensure his 2012 re-election, campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters in a Web video Monday.

Using the charts and graphs that were then-campaign manager David Plouffe’s staple in 2008, Messina said he aims to “really reinvent this campaign” using technology. His goal is to “make 2008 look prehistoric,” Messina said, adding: “If we just run that same campaign, we stand a good chance of losing. We’ve got to run a new campaign.” — Roll Call

Here was his video presentation. Context matters. And that political context took precedence on 9/11/12.

“We ought to not act like an incumbent, we ought to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can…..scratch and claw for those votes.”

Any surprise then that this kind of campaign — and insurgent, scratch and claw mentality — would do anything possible to frame Obama in the best favorable light, even if it meant spinning or revising a terrorist attack on an Embassy facility in Libya killing four Americans? That… while Obama was out claiming al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. After they had promoted and extorted bin Laden’s death for all they could, politically. And after his countless victory laps for it.

Their reaction to Benghazi was scratch ‘n sniff politics, and it looked and smelled rotten. Four dead Americans and their circumstances will not go away.

RightRing | Bullright

When fiction becomes reality

Maybe next the White House could do a project with Dream Works.

Obama Adviser That Edited Benghazi Talking Points Wrote Short Story About A Character That Edits Talking Points

Patrick Howley — 05/04/2014  | Daily Caller

President Obama’s national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who edited the administration’s Benghazi talking points, is a former fiction writer who penned a short story about a supernaturally gifted professional note-taker who rises through the corporate world by taking notes that make other people’s statements sound better.

Rhodes, it was recently revealed, sent a 2012 email after the Benghazi terrorist attack instructing then U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and other administration officials “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Rhodes, who has worked for Obama since the president was a U.S. senator, holds a Masters degree in Fiction from New York University. His one known published short story, “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” was published in Beloit Fiction Journal in the spring 2002 issue. The story was about a man with an incredible gift for note-taking.

“My notes are so impressive that they have taken on the form of ideas…I capture other people’s words in a manner that not only organizes them, but inserts a clarity and purpose that was not present in the original idea,” states the protagonist of Rhodes’ short story.

Obama’s little sensitive artist is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes, whose network prevented investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson from digging too deep into the Benghazi scandal and finding out who edited the administration’s talking points.

Daily Caller

I jokingly said he should be writing fiction on a secluded island, wish he was. I didn’t know how immersed he was in it, with a degree in writing fiction.

Almost too surreal. Except Benghazi was bad enough it didn’t need a fiction writer messing with it. The White House and their cohorts created quite a story line all by themselves. But maybe having a fiction writer on staff, close to the president, should have given them a clue how deep in a plot they were way before 9/11/12. The alarm bells should have been going off at staff meetings and briefings instead of in the Situation Room on 9/11. If Obama even took the briefings.

See, its rather ironic that the story lines contrasted so widely. On one hand, they depicted(wrote) a great victory over terrorism. On the other, reality, they were caught by their own shortfall in taking credible threats seriously. Yes, only a fiction writer could be scheming behind the scenes of that delusion. The real truth here is that nothing was as it was portrayed to be — when fiction becomes reality and reality is fiction.

But  it makes perfect sense that a pretender like Obama would need a fiction writer on his staff all along the way.

RightRing | Bullright