Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Campaign rats’ nest of who’s who

So Hillary Clinton — under FBI investigation — has her husband, former president Bill Clinton, the sitting president, Obama with AF-1, the sitting Vice President, a former Vice President, the current First Lady, Moochele, and a slew of assorted sitting elected officials all out campaigning for her to help drag her over the line.

Who’s paying for AF-1? Don’t people find this a bit top heavy? That’s enough; it’s all I have to say about it. And their biggest complaint is Donald Trump talking about a rigged system. Has anyone ever ran against a candidate, a sitting president and VP, and former president at the same time? We’re breaking history everywhere.

Crazy system, Obamacare

“They are getting whacked.” Hoodwinked, bamboozled, whatever. Crazy Bill opines.

More a case that the Crazy Clintons are running for denial.

Of course people have been whacked by Obamacare since the beginning, as Jonathan Gruber admitted. It’s built on lies.

They’d rather have Obamacare than the truth. New Econ 101: Lie and keep on lying.

“Give me a break, this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Time for a word about Deplorables

Occasionally Democrats come right out and tell you what they thinnk of people, or in this case the voters. They remove the shallow mask then they dig in.

That’s exactly what Hillary did with her “basket of deplorables” comment. She only excused herself from the term half. Well, Hillary what part is it then that you despise as deplorable?

Of course you would never hear her condemn the BDS supporters which are a big chunk of her base. That’s a real question. But she did pander to AIPAC that she disagreed with the BDS movement. Anyone really believe that? When it is a base issue of their platform, I doubt she would ever do that.

Hillary went to the deplorable level in a practiced line she thought was clever. But it shows they have no problem attacking Americans. So she is such a Basket of Desporation that her campaign lashes out to attack voters — not only her. Bill campaigned for Hillary calling people racists, particularly southerners. (interesting that they are trying to roll Georgia into Clinton’s column) Then bubbling Bubba went to Pennsylvania to attack “coal people.” Then Hillary made up a whole list of deplorables, trying to cover them all.

As Bill Clinton put it, the coal people voted for him twice, now they bash Hillary and Obama. So they deserve to be attacked and slurred. Anyone who opposes Hillary will have a name thrown at them, just as Obama did the bitter gun toting, Bible thumpers, then repeatedly bashed Christians. Why any Christians support Obamoa is beyond me.

Then we are called Birthers, and now we are grouped into the Alt-Right as their latest label if we are critical thinkers who think outside mainstream media parameters. So take your pick for names. Like Peppermint Farm said a while back, there is a list of names and phobias for us and more on the way. However, they succeeded in defining themselves.

This is the elite establishment view and nothing new. They despise the people especially when they are in their way or a threat to their power. We become names and charicatures. That’s what they think of us. We are the scourge. Obama poked fun at us that we just don’t understand — we are dummies — if we disagree with them. We are stupid, uneducated, racists and bigots since they want to define our sinister motives for opposing them.

We’ve even been called names from the right. Some Repubs play right into the Left’s script and do the work for Dems. Never Trumpers called us names, even appear as headliners in Hillary ads condemning Trump and his supporters. Now there is even a Never Trumper pac running ads against Trump.

So we’ve seen it across the board. Tea Partiers were a pejorative. Racism happens to be their favorite. Now Dems have gone beyond that to labeling people unwitting agents of the Russian Federation. We are called ignorant traitors for questioning Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy. You can’t get much lower than that. Though some Republicans have proved to be willing dupes of the Marxist left — too masny.

RightRing | Bullright

I have a story for you: a couple from Arkansas goes to Washington…

Bill Clinton got super rich, and his “bimbo eruptions” (er victims) literally got the shaft. What’s wrong with that? But that isn’t the whole story.

Bill did the dirty. Hillary and Bill attacked the victims as bimbos, trailer trash and threatened them. Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and you never know what you will get. Bill was impeached by the people’s house, not for his sexcapades but for lying to judge. He was disbarred.

They made a fortune off their career. Money literally rolled in, still does. Hillary had her Secretary of State appointment, touting women’s rights, then she cashed in big time.

Now Bill and Hillary want back in the White House.

Hillary and Bill are running around the country to campaign on reproductive rights for women, fair wages and equal treatment of women. Hillary “broke the glass ceiling.”

So Hillary lectures on Women’s Rights, misogyny and discrimination of women, especially regarding their reproductive organs and work place. We have to put her in the Oval Office because she’s a women, or else we will be called names and discriminating against, well, rapists. They are out campaigning for the vagina vote, pandering as usual.

Her claim is that it’s her turn and the coronation went without a hitch. Now its a matter of getting the nasty misogynists and bigoted discriminators out the way. After all, they know who they are. Her other claim is that her opponent is unfit, and can not to be trusted. He does not have the temperament to be the President, she says. She claims he’s misled and fooled people into voting for him. One of her main themes is to wisely set a good example for our children. She said she “wants to write the next chapter in American greatness.”

Sorry, there is no punch line.

Well, are you getting the message, America? But that is only one chapter in the story.

RightRing | Bullright

Mixed messages at DNC smearing bitter America

Now wait a minute, Obama, you’re always talking about “that’s not the America that I know.” Then there is always the “that’s not who we are” criticism.

Well if we, a large percentage of America, are not the “America that [he] knows” then I wonder what America Obama knows? I don’t think I’d recognize it. I don’t recognize the America he keeps talking about, foisting on us, and pointing to — or his faux reality.

Obama’s DNC speech aimed at Republicans painting his dim picture of us.

But what we heard in Cleveland last week wasn’t particularly Republican – and it sure wasn’t conservative. What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other, and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems – just the fanning of resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate.

And that is not the America I know.

So America, you’ve been broadsided again by Obama and labeled haters.

A week ago, at his White House Summit on Global Development, Obama claimed that America has never been more respected and the world never been more tolerant than now. Anything other than that is a figment of our flawed perception.

CNS News Summit on Global Development

And all of this creates legitimate fears and anxieties that have to be addressed, and at least a feeling, a perception that people don’t have full control over a rapidly changing world. So it is worth reminding ourselves of how lucky we are to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history.

Once againn, we have a perception problem. We are in the middle of a peace surge. Enjoy. Travel at your own risk. He said that is hard to absorb. I guess it is for us dummies who, you know, don’t have the right perspective. The problems always seems to come down to our flawed perspective. If we could only fix that?

Like we were told the border has never been more secure and our perspective was the problem. You have to wonder if he’d be saying that if he wasn’t in office? His perspective would be much different. We know the way he campaigned against Bush.

Here’s more from his Global Development speech:

Now, that’s hard to absorb if we’re watching the newscasts every night, because there’s heartbreak and terrible things taking place at any given moment across the globe. But it’s important for us to remember, not so that we become complacent but so that we understand that good works can make a difference. Think about it. It has been decades since a war between major powers. More people live in democracies. More people are linked by technology.

And sometimes when I’m talking to young interns at the White House who are still immunizing themselves from the cynicism that’s so chronic in this town–I remind them, if you had to choose a moment in history to be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be, you’d choose now. Because the world has never been less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant, with more opportunity for more people, and more connected than it is today….

Well look, American dummies, we haven’t had a nuclear bomb go off anywhere. Okay, so anything short of war of major powers and losing democracies is a good thing. Be happy, people. Though Islamists have waged war against the civilized world, and it is spreading even through these democracies. But fear not, our perception is the real problem. Like Neville Chamerlain, never mind what you see, ignore that because we have “peace in our time.” It tells us something about the America Obama knows, like us always blowing things out of proper perspective. When America disagrees with him, we just don’t get it. We’re dumb and ignorant. That must be the America Obama knows that he is talking about.

He never misses an opportunity to criticize or lecture us. Sorry, Obama, but the America we know is not dependent on your perspective adjustment. We get it.

Obama mocked that we don’t have a single ruler or dictator. Wow, look in mirror. We have a perpetual ruling class elite– that are above the law — who must be kept in power to keep us from hurting ourselves with our flawed perception and all.

Then he went on at the DNC to try to identify with the problems we are facing. Talk about a conflicted message, less than a week later.

There are pockets of America that never recovered from factory closures; men who took pride in hard work and providing for their families who now feel forgotten; parents who wonder whether their kids will have the same opportunities we had.

All that is real. We’re challenged to do better; to be better. But as I’ve traveled this country, through all fifty states; as I’ve rejoiced with you and mourned with you, what I’ve also seen, more than anything, is what is right with America.

“Pockets,” is that what we are? Then he tries to validate our concerns saying “all that is real.” I don’t need him to validate it. Then he asserts what we need to do is continue the status quo by making sure Hillary gets elected, to continue this legacy of malaise.

Bill called Hillary a great change agent, and Obama talked about Hillary continuing his legacy. Then he talks about “not the America I know.” Well, talk about conflicted.

Keep this legacy of failure going. Keep the same people in power that have not done anything to fix the problems for 8 years. The most divisive duo in politics.

Talk about fear: there is so much fear mongering and demagoguery about Trump you can’t miss it. For people who claim to want change, they are awful fearful of those bringing it or anyone who represents it. No, the status quo establishment must rule.

Obama seems to have a lot of problems with this America he knows so well.

RightRing | Bullright

Dem Convention highlights Hillary’s legacy and collides with Obama’s

I’ll mention only some highlights of the Dem-Hillary-Convention. Change-maker in waiting is auditioning for her grand performance, how did she do? Yes America, when searching for a change-maker, the first person on any list should be named Clinton. Ignore her resume.

First up, Michelle came out to make a speech to support Hillary. Her key idea was voting for Hillary for your kids. Okay, vote for her as some national nanny for the kids. That your children, or your emotional ties to them, should lead you to vote for Hillary.

Clinton promoting Clinton

Bill Clinton laboriously told a personal story of his courtship with Hillary. However, it started with a video that was more a campaign ad for Bill Clinton than for Hillary. If you wondered who was really running, I don’t blame you. His seventies’ squeeze should be elected because of who she is. Then he left an entire part of Hillary’s story out. Maybe he’ll have a sequel because he left out all the scandals and her pork future instincts.

He attempted to humanize Hillary but she needs a whole lot of humanization for obvious reasons. Hillary was considered the most widely known, female candidate and yet he has to tell us who she is. Problem is the Hill we all know is not trustable or honest.

Running with Bill Clinton on one hand and Obama on the other, Hillary has staked her campaign in conflict. The two Presidents don’t have a lot in common. So which is it? She is going to continue the legacy of Obama while being another Clinton Presidency, just sounds stupid. Oh, its both. But she could be the worst in both of those worlds.

Change-maker is that Hillary has changed her mind more than any other politician I can think of. Here is Bill Clinton and Obama now campaigning for Hillary. Then Bill calling her an agent of Change, change-maker is laughable. She is part of the establishment.

Here is what I mean. Contrast Hillary running as a change-agent with Hillary in Bubba’s bio. You had a 60’s radical, arguably a co-called ‘change agent’ fascinated and obsessed with Saul Alinsky, which Bill conveniently leaves out. (better to think of her with cutoff shorts and flowers in her hair) Then you have Hillary, the pantsuit queen, on the campaign trail today. Now look at her opposition from Bernie. No doubt who is who. The new establishment radical opposed by the insurgent radicals. Hillary has an optics problem.

Bold Radicals and radicalism

The Democrats are nothing if not bold when it comes to politics. At the convention, on the second night, they trot our the Attorney General who was held in contempt for defying the court and oversight.Then they had the President who was impeached by Congress. And those are supposed to be respected as two of her biggest surrogates.

So here is Hillary of now running against Bernie — today’s version of the 60s radicals — 40 years later. She clearly represents the establishment and the insider, pay to play system. We are to believe she is a change-maker with all her ties to Wall Street as her bank account expanded over 20 million bucks in just the last couple years. But now she is presented as a change-maker, and “the best darn change-maker ever.”

What kind of change have we gotten from Hillary? She has made us more corrupt, and distrusting, than ever. She was the change-maker as Sec of State when the world ignited, ISIS expanded on the global stage, a caliphate was formed, Egypt disintegrated under Muslim Brotherhood with her support, and Libya was transformed into a failed state under her excellent leadership — losing four Americans as she lied about the event — and Syria turned into an all out war zone with a President she said was a reformer. She wants you to conjure up all your emotions to vote for Hillary. Now see her as a change-maker.

I finally understand the convention theme. Democrats decided not to run Hillary Clinton, but instead to resurrect Mother Teresa and run her for President. Hillary was everywhere doing everything. She single-handedly solved every problem in her path. Why do we even need a government or anyone else, just have Hillary do everything? As Bill said, drop her anywhere in the world and come back 30 days later and she will have made it better. But how does that comport with reality? She had four years, not 30 days, and was everywhere. Look at the results.

Now she’s actually running on that record and results — or running from them.

The Tuesday convention trotted out one person after another to bolster Hillary’s record, to personalize her controversial political career. She was behind everything done in the last 20 years that helped people. Over the top? Never mind she stood with Obama and Democrats’ policies that injure people. Controversy and scandal were everywhere.

Obama pulled the same strategy in 2012 when David Plouffe ran Obama as an insurgency candidate, while he was the sitting President with one full term under his belt. How likely is that to get away with? Now Hillary is following the same playbook trying to run as an outsider, riding to the rescue from the very problems she helped create as Sec of State. But do people follow and accept this narrative? Of course Democrats think so. That tells you something about what Democrats think of Democrat voters: they’ll buy anything if you package it right and put it in front of them. What stooges Dems are.

What does it say about Hillary and Democrats in general? Just follow their bouncing-ball narrative. She has all the sitting and past government officials come out and endorse her. Then they come to the convention and gush praises all over her. (Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Michelle Obama) Yet she is this super star change-maker?

Demonrats called the Republican Convention dark. But the darkest shadow hanging like a plague over this election is Hillary Clinton’s legacy of scandal and corruption.

So Obama, Bill Clinton, Eric Holder, and Joe Biden come in to endorse — prop up — and campaign for Hillary. Let’s make history again. Even David Axelrod suggested they were going to far to blatantly ask people to vote for her just because she is a woman. Then comes the other bombshell that her disapproval and distrust numbers are mainly due to her being a woman. I hope you get that because I don’t want to explain it — i.e. bigotry.

Hillary is super woman and her womb gives birth to all this great and wonderful fruit we have been seeing. Mother nature, Mother Teresa eat your hearts out.

Perception is reality to Democrats.

There is a constant theme in this election. One part of it is that Dems are creatures of perception. They simply believe things are perceived by the public to be whatever perception they can create. Whenever reality intervenes or votes to the contrary they get furious. This convention with Hillary’s campaign is no different. Hillary’s campaign and Obama constructed a narrative of peace, historical achievement, a secure world, terrorism in decline, civil rights on the rise, multiculturalism works, Globalism is our friend, a more perfect union, America united instead of divided due to their policies. Their vision.

America’s strength is in its weakness, according to Obama, and leading from behind is a positive, successful doctrine. Indeed the big one is that we are better off and safer now than anytime in history. But it’s all a big lie. It is not what people see.

Sure you can believe it — it was change you can believe in, after all, emphasis on your belief in it that Obama used as his campaign. Based on nothing. Now they simply assert that everything they say is true. And that the only thing to do is elect Hillary and keep their “winning” streak going. Just ignore everything that disagrees.

Now we are supposed to take our voting cues and marching orders from Obama with this band of politicians and all these establishment operatives. Embedded in that is stay the course and continue the status quo that got us to this peak we are all enjoying.

The other subtext: the justice narrative

The new definition of due process in America is when Liberals get the results they want. If they don’t, then that is injustice. (and that needs to be fixed) Injustice is whatever does not suit their fancy. But it is all outcome based. All that matters is that they get the outcome they want — whether it is politics, voting or elections, income distribution, or reversing Citizens United and Heller — and the justices needed to do it.

Until then, their perception should rule. Ignore reality, the condition of the world, the failed policies, the consequences of leading from behind, or their treasonous acts. Just ignore it all and whistle past the graveyard. All together now. It’s all beautiful all the time.

RightRing | Bullright

Rare natural phenomena and the Clintons

A strange phenomena occurred on Monday at a Phoenix airport. All the natural and political forces were aligned in such a rare way that a 1-in-millions chance that two planes on the tarmac were magnetically attracted to one another and that the occupants of each were then driven on an unavoidable collision course. They both survived impact.

As I said as rare a chance as that ‘is’. It needs to be appreciated in that light that it may never happen again — rarer than a solar eclipse and less predictable.

So it really doesn’t matter that it was former impeached President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Pay no mind to who they are, this could have happened to anyone. Pay no attention to their unique relationship being both involved in opposite sides of the investigation or pending case against the spouse of Bill Clinton. That also makes this such a rare event. That should raise the odds to like 20 Trillion to 1.

Since words really cannot explain this adequately — and it did leave many speechless — about all one can say is if not for a chance tipoff from a reporter, we wouldn’t even know it occurred. An event like this does not even leave chem trails. The brief, rare encounter lasted about 30 minutes, until they could pull their magnetic forces from each other to go their separate ways. We’re so privileged to know it happened. How lucky we are it was documented — and no emails, servers, or subpoenas were necessary to validate it.

But the AG didn’t try to deny it, only that no pending investigations or details were discussed. Well, I guess the chance that none of those things even came up makes this chance encounter all the more rare. How could all those natural forces involved avoid the subject? Close encounters of the rarest kind.

Apologetic for the close encounter, Lynch now says she regrets that it cast a “shadow” over the pending investigation and process. Those phenomena can do that. Sounds like another perception problem on our part.

Friends that they are, I mean this kind of thing happens — a social meeting. She was in the moment did not view it the same way onlookers may have viewed it. That’s right, folks, this meteor would leave no marks or traces at all. That is why it is so important that it was caught and documented that it did happen. Lucky we are, experiencing history like that.

I know, maybe this was part of what Hillary said was a “security review”?

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary would appoint Bill on economy

Hillary Clinton will put Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy” turns into a twofer.

The Hill

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is beginning to hint at what role her husband, former President Bill Clinton, could have in her administration if elected president.

At a campaign stop in Fort Mitchell, Ky., Clinton said her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”

ABC news

“My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, ’cause you know he knows how to do it,” Clinton told the crowd at an outdoor organizing rally. “And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”

So Lady Estrogen wants to put Bill in charge of the economy? Well, Bill’s experience with/in the private sector is almost as absent as hers. She’s running on his record and accomplishments? Many people don’t think he deserves a feather in his hat there.

It all sort of depends on the definition of “economy,” doesn’t it?

 

I’m sorry, did I forget about her earning millions for speeches to Goldman and Wall Street? Or Bill earning loads of cash for speeches and running a fraud charity? That experience could come in handy. Selling influence takes loads of practice… to do it right.

Hillary made around 20 million in speeches just since 2013. Hillary’s net worth is about 31 million and Bill’s is about 80 million. Just the middle-class paupers people think they are.

When Hillary talks about economic woes and 2009 with the recession, it is interesting that her income was not hindered in any way in 2009. Hill and Bill did quite fine. Then much better when she left office — after lighting up and burning down the Middle East.

According to MoneyNation reports here and here:

In 2009, Bill and Hill earned $10,084,843, Hillary earned $227,195. She made 52.7k in book sales in 2009. Then after leaving office. she cashed in on speaking fees. “In 2013 Hillary Clinton’s per year earnings from speeches was $9.7 million. In 2014 Mrs. Clinton earned $10.5 million in income from speaking fees.” (MoneyNation) Hill’s net worth peaked in 2009 at about 30 million. A sudden unexplained drop between 2010-2011 has people wondering where a big chunk of money went or if she transferred it, perhaps to Bill? No market forces appear to have caused the significant drop. She’s out of touch.

So Hillary now decided it a great campaigning point to bring in Bill on the economy, an area she knows nothing about. And Bill, with the Clinton Foundation, doesn’t impress anyone as the gold standard of economic virtue. Haiti voodoo-economics? They speciously prosper as America disintegrates around them. Not to omit their NAFTA and trade policies.

After cornering the market on speaking fees — influence peddling — Hill and Bill are just what we need to put the car back on the economic road. (achem) Wasn’t it Bill who built “the Bridge to the 21st Century?” The Onion satirized it this way back then.

Hillary’s philosophy is drink up, America, “what difference at this point does it make?
Of course, it does make one wonder what the market value of bullshit is these days?

Let me recap their design theme: The Bridge to the 21st Century will intersect with the Hillary Highway to Hell at 1600 Penna. Ave., Washington, DC. — Plan accordingly.

Hillary’s collapse or truth alert

While everyone is consumed by so-called ‘sirens of anger’ of the Right, another siren is being completely ignored by media. The giant sucking sound Ross Perot spoke of may be back, but this time it is sucking the lifeblood out of the Ready for Hillary campaign. It may turn out that maybe the Dems aren’t so ready for the She-Beast.

Dem Panic: Hillary’s Catastrophic Collapse In One Chart

Breitbart
by John Nolte  | 15 Jan 2016

The Democrat National Committee has done everything it can to make Hillary Clinton president. The DC Media has done everything it can to make Hillary Clinton president. But in this glorious country of ours, We The People still matter, and due to that inconvenient truth, Democrats are now panicking as they watch a repeat of 2008. Only this time, Hillary isn’t losing to a charismatic black celebrity. This time she is losing to a 74 year-old white socialist.

In fact, nationally and in New Hampshire, things are actually worse for Hillary than they were in 2008:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/2008-redux-dems-panic-as-hillary-loses-lead-to-socialist-bernie-sanders/

As she employs her secret weapon, Bill- “I’m with you”-Clinton, even that doesn’t seem to be helping. Yes, the only thing that could properly beat back a Democrat Socialist is a sex-crazed pervert. That’s the ticket. (who cares who she picks as VP?)

That makes sense to the Hillary campaign. The unindicted duo plans their insurgency into the White House based on “we’re back, look at all the good we did.” They want to take us back to the nineties while talking about the future and leaving no pile of cash behind. Oh, the good old days.

Turns out that maybe Democrats are opting for the old socialist anyway. What’s Bill have to do do convince them? A 3rd-term for Obama and Bill Clinton in one may be in jeopardy.

Spinning Failure as Success

The Obama administration has got one tactic down to a science. In their efforts to defend Obama or anything he does, you can count on one thing, their ability to spin their own failures into success.

The same tactics are used in their press statements or in the State of the Union Speech. It’s a flaming example to the world. Not only don’t they like the idea of peace through strength, they want to do the opposite to disprove it any time they have the chance.

We’ve always known the progressives, Democrats, Liberal Left whatever are good at spinning things. They’ve had lots of practice. But now, in power, they can even spin their failures as success. We saw it the Clinton administration. One of the last statements of Bill Clinton leaving the White House was, we done a lot of good. And we’ve seen it ever since Obaama took office. Every time there is bad news they spin like tops.

It’s been a talking point for Clinton even to the present with his foundation that they do a lot of good with the money. I suppose that somehow makes up for the misuse. In their crazy world it does. Like in an interview with Bloomberg News last year:

“Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable? No. Have we done a lot of good things with this money? Yes.” — Bill Clinton said.

Obamites have to go to the ultimate. They will spin an intentionally provocative act of our enemy into a success, when it suits them. Of course it is treasonous by any measure. They would spin that too. It’s what they do. So a provocative act of war by North Korea, Iran, Cuba or any dictatorship can simply be spun into a success somehow, to disguise the administration’s failures.

Iran seizes our boat and sailors in a highly provocative act, so we spin it into a success of diplomacy. It shows what they are doing is working. Actually it validates their failure — making excuses for the enemy. But spin it they will. They twist it into a validation that the failed Iran deal is really a success. And on and on it goes playing into the hands of our enemy. Is it any wonder they act the way they do? Then Obama accuses his opponents and critics of aiding the enemy, or being a recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists.(the enemy he cannot name) It’s a pattern.

RightRing | Bullright

Bigger than Hillary and her server

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

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

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

Brainstorming the possibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton Flag is us

Ah, the Democrats have SO much trouble with that Confederate flag. Maybe they should have spoken to Bubba first, or their famous loser candidate Al Gore. Those two Southern racists.

Clinton Gore 1992Button-296x300

Can’t leave Hillary out of the picture,  whatever her latest fruit-salad opinion is on it.

https://i0.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-22-at-10.58.39-PM.png

Hillary photos Breitbart

 

Tip toe through the history, with me…

Clinton Legisl

See: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/22/hillary-clintons-history-with-the-confederate-flag/
and twitter H/T @ https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/612390569847967744/photo/1

I’m thinking “Dixie loves Hillary” will not be her new slogan. Poor Hillary, she’s probably chugging Southern Comfort about now.

Mums the word…. just vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Bill Clinton’s charity

But of course there was money involved in Bill Clinton speaking at the Happy Hearts Fund charity fund-raiser. What other reason could there possibly be?

I suppose I’ll go back to wondering why someone doesn’t set up a sting to see how far the Bubbster will go? You can’t tell me there is not a celeb or official who would work with them as an informant.

Well, you can’t expect either Clinton to actually do a speech for nothcharity. That would be so taboo. On the other hand, not like they really care what it is or how it looks.

Soccer Scandal

Arrests made involving corruption probe that appears to go all the way back to the 1990’s. Only in soccer could anything be so serious — and treated as such.

(AP – AOL)”The indictment alleges corruption that is rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted both abroad and here in the United States,” Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in the statement. “It spans at least two generations of soccer officials who, as alleged, have abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks.”

14 indicted in total: 9 soccer officials, 4 in sports marketing, 1 in sports broadcasting.

Gee, I wonder if anything will turn up that ties to Bill Clinton in any way? Well, odds on that are slim. Rather than World Cup it sounds more like World Corruption scandal.

And people wonder whatever could make folks leery about world government, or globalism? Gee, I wonder? “Goal…!”

Obama’s War of Women

This means Warren: Obama backs challenger to Hillary

By Edward Klein July 6, 2014 | NY Post

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities. …/

More http://nypost.com/2014/07/06/this-means-warren-obama-backs-challenger-to-hillary/

The war is on it seems. What else can be said? If it means it takes another slap at Bill Clinton while dissing Hillary, that’s just another reason to support her. Is Valerie Jarrett now in charge of the Democrat Party? She seems to be the self-appointed Czar.

I heard MSNBC applaud Warren campaigning for Tennant in West Virginia. They took issue that W Va, who once supported Dukakis, now favors Republicans. Yes, they believe she is the one to rectify that situation. The people that declared war on energy want to win back W. Virginia. Can even Democrats follow these “bob and weave” politics?

Their reasons, according to Wa Po:

1. Tennant needs every Democratic base voter to turn out
2. Tennant needs the money. (only had 1.5 mil on hand)
3. Warren’s economic populist message is a nice fit for the state. Yes, Warren is more liberal than the average West Virginian. And, her views on coal are not in line with most residents in the state. But, on economic inequality — the issue with which she is most closely associated — Warren is likely standing right with most West Virginians. (West Virginia was the third poorest state in 2013.) “Our job is to fight for the families of America,” Warren said at the Tennant event. “Stitch up the tax loopholes so that millionaires and billionaires pay at the same tax rate as the people in this room.” That’s a message that can work in West Virginia.
4. The event was in the Panhandle. West Virginia has moved heavily toward Republicans over the past decade or so. But, the entire state is not solidly Republican. The eastern Panhandle, which includes the town of Shepherdstown where the event was held, probably has more in common with Washington, D.C. than Charleston, West Virginia.

“None of the above means Tennant is going to win. She’s a long shot. And long shots need to take risks. This one makes political sense,” says Chris Cillizza.

 

There you have it, the rosy optimism for why Warren was a great fit for Virginia voters. Just the one to speak to them. Well, that percentage on the extreme Eastern border that leans Liberal anyway. What’s not to like? And she’s their presidential poster-child?

Don’t laugh, they are serious on both. Forget that Dems want to nuke the coal and energy industries and their extreme anti-gun, anti-second amendment, abortion ideology that comes with them. Insulting. One can only hope it’s not “change they believe in”.

RightRing | Bullright

Clintons vs. Obamas — the cold war

Bill Clinton: ‘I Hate that Man Obama’

June 21, 2014 8:12 pm

Obama Nation

Journalist reveals dysfunctional, jealous relationship

(NY Post) – In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — and how it could explode in 2016.

Outwardly, they put on a show of unity — but privately, the Obamas and Clintons, the two power couples of the Democrat Party, loathe each other.

“I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion, adding he would never forgive Obama for suggesting he was a racist during the 2008 campaign.

The feeling is mutual. Obama made ­excuses not to talk to Bill, while the first lady privately sniped about Hillary.

On most evenings, Michelle Obama and her trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett, met in a quiet corner of the White House residence. They’d usually open a bottle of Chardonnay, catch up on news about Sasha and Malia, and gossip about people who gave them heartburn.

Their favorite bête noire was Hillary Clinton, whom they nicknamed “Hildebeest,” after the menacing and shaggy-maned gnu that roams the Serengeti.

‘Michelle could be president’

The animosity came to a head in the run-up to the 2012 election, when Obama’s inner circle insisted he needed the former president’s support to win. Obama finally telephoned Bill Clinton in September 2011 and invited him out for a round of golf.

“I’m not going to enjoy this,” Bill told Hillary when they gathered with a group of friends and political associates at Whitehaven, their neo-Georgian home on Embassy Row in Washington, DC.

“I’ve had two successors since I left the White House — Bush and Obama — and I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama. I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever,” Clinton said.

“I really can’t stand the way Obama ­always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me,” Clinton added, according to someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Sometimes we just stare at each other. It’s pretty damn awkward. Now we both have favors to ask each other, and it’s going to be very unpleasant. But I’ve got to get this guy to owe me and to be on our side.”

During the golf game, Clinton didn’t waste any time reminding Obama that as president he had presided over eight years of prosperity, while Obama had been unable to dig the country out of the longest financial ­doldrums since the Great Depression.

“Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.

“And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications . . . and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’

“Bill was speechless. Was Barack comparing Michelle’s qualifications to Hillary’s? Bill said that if he hadn’t been on a mission to strike a deal with Barack, he might have stormed off the golf course then and there.”

[then intentional snubs and Obama’s desire for a mini-me to replace him]

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/bill-clinton-hate-man-obama-45132/

Original Ref: http://nypost.com/2014/06/21/inside-the-jealous-feud-between-the-obamas-and-hildebeest-clintons/

That’s why Bill Clinton’s infamous line is so extraordinary: “This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” There is a lot more implied with “fairy tale” than Hillary’s vote supporting military action in Iraq — that was never the whole context for Bill’s quote, and most of us knew that. To believe that explanation one has to be in the la-la land of make believe. (which by nature most Obama supporters were and still are)

The thought of all Barry Soetoro and Michele have been is bad enough, but the idea he gets to choose his replacement is repulsive and sickening. That is the psychosis we have slithering in the White House. We all thought Clintons, and all their problems, were bad enough. Well, in a twist of ironic fate we finally have someone even the Clintons find revolting. So you have to figure Clintons still have a finger on Democrats’ pulse. But where else is it, who’s talking? It seems to be MIA.

CBS goes off script… what’s in a legacy?

(Photo credit: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Who is the worst president since WWII?

BySteve Chaggaris | CBS News –July 2, 2014

As if President Obama doesn’t have enough to worry about running the country day-to-day, now his legacy can be added to his laundry list of concerns.

Mr. Obama edges out former President George W. Bush as the worst president since World War II, American voters say, according to a new Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-three percent chose Mr. Obama as the worst among the 12 presidents since Harry Truman, with 28 percent choosing George W. Bush and Richard Nixon tallying 13 percent. In 2006, Mr. Bush led the pack with 34 percent over Richard Nixon at 17 percent and Bill Clinton at 16 percent, much higher than the scant 3 percent who currently think Clinton is the worst.

But his legacy was always a top concern. I don’t see how he can add what was his driving force, even if tarnished by all visible recognition.

When asked who the best president is since World War II, 35 percent of American voters chose Ronald Reagan, 18 percent picked Clinton and 15 percent selected John F. Kennedy. Only 8 percent said Mr. Obama was the best since World War II and George W. Bush barely registered on the “best” list with 1 percent.

To add insult to injury for Mr. Obama, more voters say the country would be better off if 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won the election. Forty-five percent feel America would be better off with a President Romney; 38 percent said the country would be worse off. – CBS

What’s amazing is how he helps make Clinton look good. The ridiculed Nixon is way down on the list. But he did resign. There’s a hot tip for Obama’s legacy concerns. If he doesn’t care about the resurrecting Russian Union, Iran’s nuclear breakout, or the new caliphate formed in the Middle East, then how significant is his legacy, relatively speaking? However, I’m sure his golf game has improved, since he didn’t have one before.

It seems to me that some of the stragglers who still think Obama is a good president also think we’d be worse off with Mitt Romney, with nothing to base that on. Yet they cannot seem to find their hand in front of their face.

Obama’s pass being revoked by card-carrying Leftists

…its sort of looking that way.

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible

By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014

We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold. Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too.

This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise:

There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be.

And back it up with a good quote:

“If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.

Continuing with this line of thought, the writer puts in a little historical context. Obama doesn’t have a trademark on being hated:

But modern presidents have all triggered strong negative reactions. John F. Kennedy met with rhetoric from the John Birch Society that in some ways mirrors Tea Party responses to Obama. Militia movements expanded and grew during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while George W. Bush’s presidency inspired hatred on the left and a novel fantasizing about his assassination.

“Bill Clinton was vilified and hated more, with more passion,” says David Carney, a Republican consultant. “It was much more personal and negative than anything about Obama.”

This is actually true. Clinton was impeached and Obama has not been even though he deserves it more.

More:  Downtrend.com

Now maybe they are finally catching on, after 5 and a half years. That’s something I questioned about Obama for years. First, why was he so passionate about running when he knew the consequences of being president? He wasted no time either, starting in ’06 right after getting elected Senator.

And why he expected he would be different from any of those, Democrats or Republicans? Right off the bat were his ties with Wright and a slew of other radicals, achem terrorists. That’s always an icebreaker with any crowd. Yea, the speech where he said “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America” to plead his case. Yea, a speech changes all that “history”– is that a derogatory word now? Then again in his “race speech” saying “words, just words?” Those were just words, to Obama anyway.

But no other president has been afforded the privilege of a built-in excuse he (or those around him) flaunted by playing the race card to explain any opposition to him. I predict no future president will have that same opportunity, given how Obama overused and abused it. He kept it in front of him as a shield ready to hoist against any critics. That is a shallow character who does that.

The main point was always: “Obama, have you noticed how just the last few presidents were treated?”

It wouldn’t even be as much of a contradiction or hypocrisy if Obama was not leading the charge in attacking the last president. He assumed the role in the Senate in ’05 . Then he ran against an outgoing president, not McCain, when Bush wasn’t even on the ballot. How none of this ever occurred to the minds of the Left is baffling. If he were anyone else, he would not have gotten that far. He would have been voted out of American Idol based on performance. And this guy who was granted such wide berth hasn’t even appreciated all that effort, including from the media. The media did not lock horns, it lock-stepped right down Obama’s path. Show me the precedent for that.

His disconnect with most of America is because of his own radical ideology and actions. What others think never was Obama’s real problem. No, he believed he was guaranteed the prize for being “present”, like his record in Illinois, despite any facts. Let’s not even mention the records, and zero experience at anything even in the Senate. Pitiful that only now some in the left media admit the “racism” charade. Now if they could find a way to justify what they’ve done for the last five years.

It may be just a start, as they didn’t throw “racism” completely out the window. Well, who wants to throw a perfectly good race card away? But the possibility of the race card as the sole explanation for opposition might be on life support.

RightRing | Bullright