Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

Cryin’ Ryan

Ryan says he can’t support Trump, at this time.

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Ryan said he wants Trump to unify “all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement” and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to “have something that they’re proud to support and proud to be a part of.”
“And we’ve got a ways to go from here to there,” Ryan said.

– May 05, 2016 –
Donald J. Trump Responds to Speaker Paul Ryan

“I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda. Perhaps in the future we can work together and come to an agreement about what is best for the American people. They have been treated so badly for so long that it is about time for politicians to put them first!”

Donald J. Trump

Friday, Trump told Fox:

“I was very, very surprised. He talks about unity, but what is this about unity? With millions of people coming into the party obviously I’m saying the right thing,”

“So many great endorsements yesterday, except for Paul Ryan! We must put America first and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump said.

So let me understand, Ryan demands Trump unify “all wings” of the Republican Party? What elite arrogance. One of the guys responsible for the ongoing Party failures, causing conservatives’ grievances, blames Trump and then expects him to fix it.

This from the guy who was plastering self-promoting videos of himself on social media. What is going on with Ryan and what’s his problem?

Then comes news of a meeting between Trump and members of Congress for next Thursday. Once again, Ryan injects himself in the news cycle. Meanwhile, with all the grief people have over Ryan’s performance, he is pointing at Trump. I’m glad, with all the problems, Ryan finds a convenient scapegoat and whipping post in Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney takes a stand for unity.

http://www.allenbwest.com/michellejesse/just-in-former-vp-cheney-reveals-who-hell-support-for-president

When reality catches hell

So we have a man in the Oval Office who believes winning is everything in politics and elections, but sees victory in a war against evil as a meaningless pursuit.

The proverbial question always comes to: is Obama stupid and incompetent, or is he intentionally undermining the country? After much thought I came to the conclusion that yes he’s dumb in many ways, but what he’s doing is very intentional, despite the disastrous results and effects of it all. That could be a good definition of ideologue.

But it is even worse than that. Along with his ideology that permeates everything, which alone would make it hard to defend our country, I believe he is incapable of defending the country. He is not mentally and physically capable, meaning it could come to refusal if someone tried to coerce him into it. So he flat out doesn’t have the will and is incapable, whatever the cost, of doing what is necessary and securing this country. I don’t think we ever saw that with any other President or Commander-in-Chief.

Contrary to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly calling Obama incompetent at every turn, which by now that is almost a laughable insult. The man is incapable of defending this country.

Another thing creeps into the media narrative. The pundits say these policies are political correctness run amok. I almost wish it were that simple. The actions from the justice department — executive amnesty, workplace violence, detainees, enemy swapping, Islam apologetics, anti-police policies, anti-whistle blowers, batched IRS investigations, sanctuary city policy, refugees, lack of accountability, biased civil rights investigations, gun control — are far more sinister than just political correctness run amok. There is a subversive agenda, they only use political correctness as the justification. They’ would like us to think political correctness was the cause of their policies when it is just the means.

Incompetence and political correctness became insults, cheep excuses. I only wish it were.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Rendezvous with Terrorism Speech

Dr. Evil acted the part delivering his post terrorism address. But after assorted tries he finally attempts to nail down a message — a message but not a strategy. 4-Point BS.

First, was his comment he would call the president of France later to express his sentiments on the Paris attack. Then, when in Paris, he had a failed press conference getting hammered by questions on terrorism. Then he went to Manila and made statements on the terrorism attack, refusing as he does to call it Islamic terrorism. Then after San Bernardino was labeled an act of terror, he delivers his Saturday address talking about gun control So third bite at the terrorism apple, he has an address on terrorism. He finally called it terrorism only when he could not deny it.

Obama needed to mute the criticism of not making a formal announcement about it. Alas, still, maybe it is Americans fault for the non-inclusive prejudice against Muslims and our rampant Islamophobia? Hardly, they threw the terrorist couple a baby shower just months before. That’s a sure sign of Islamophobia.

All’s fair in warfare, or maybe not.

Obama has become the problem in the way Islam has become the problem. Complacency has led to being complicit. If he wants to manage this homeland terrorism how he managed ISIS, then we are certainly in for more pain with no gain. Obama’s complacency has brought us to this point. So if Sen. Blumenthal can declare Congress complicit for failing to enact gun control, then he should see the reality that Obama is complicit by his failures.

Islam is complicit by their complacency for years to do anything about it. There is a war within Islam, except there is only one side fighting it. Radical Islam is at war with us and only one side is really fighting it. But Obama is building a Climate Caliphate saying that will prove something to ISIS and Islamists.

The San Bernardino attack proved the fallacy in the administration’s terrorism theology. Remember that one? They claimed terrorists are caused by lack of jobs and poor socioeconomic conditions. Syed Farook was working for the government, with all the perks, as a so-called public servant. Scrap that theory, or label government employment a prerequisite for terrorism too. Nope. Oh, then it was droughts are the cause terrorism. There must have been a drought in San Bernardino. He was a health inspector of restaurants. But if only we could give them good jobs and good economic conditions, and prevent the climate from causing droughts. Then stop them from being victims, too.

Obama spoke from the Oval office:

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

Again he refers to it as a tragedy. Can we move on to the terrorism it was?

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Yes, thank goodness the FBI already determined it was terrorism, so you are a little late informing us of that. Still he emphasizes coworkers, as if that really had anything to do with it, except to provide them an opportunity for a soft target. But there he goes parsing the words that we have no evidence of connection to a wider conspiracy at home. (Disclaimer alert) Tell that to the dead and victims in San Bernardino. We know they were connected to terrorism abroad and she swore allegiance to the Caliphate. Pay no attention to that or his trip to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The obvious money connections mean nothing either. Oh, it must have been a lucrative government job to amass that arsenal of supplies by his lonesome, making that socioeconomic cause even more ridiculous. They must have dumped all that income into Islamic radical terrorism. So just lip service calling it radical terrorism.

Then he finally admits it is an act of terrorism, born of a radical religious ideology. The “perverted interpretation” some argue is more common and mainstream than many people accept. So this was cover for Obama’s ass to call it terrorism and implying a radical element to it. They were not just walking along, minding their own business, and fell victim to this perverted radical Islam, as victims themselves. No, there were only those real victims and the shooters were not victims. An ISIS spokesman prayed God would accept them as martyrs. Yep, martyrs that kill 14 and wound others in an ambush attack? Definitions shift like Obama.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.

Wait, you mean the War On Terror term that you abolished in political correctness and naive strategic failure. A war you tried to undermine by scrubbing any reference to radical Islamism in our strategy, plans, or rules. And your war on the term “terrorism?”

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe.

Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been hampered and crippled by your P/C-fied policies and playing politics with our nations security. Treasonous by nature. If someone would have hindered our response after Pearl Harbor would we have allowed it? You mean those counter-terrorism measures our people carried out in spite of your undermining the central objective to root out Islamic terrorism in and out of the country. Kudos to them for that.

And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

No, most of us know that, though it could be called a cancer, there is a cure even a short term one you are unwilling to commit to. And making statements calling it a JV team is not the prescription, nor is the denial about the source of this terrorism and ideology. That even inspires the cancer to grow. Pampering Muslims does little to combat it in the immediate future and makes it harder to confront in the longer term. An effect not lost on the terrorists.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

You do not have to tell us the threat is real. That is confirmed in real time. You’ve been in denial about it all along, deceiving, saying things like the world has always been a dangerous place. Seems you have no issue with tough talk when it comes to Republicans or even shutting down the government, or getting your way — any way you can, even abusing the Executive-Order pen. Tell us what groups like ISIS are hoping for. Inaction is what they are hoping for and counting on. We are being smart, then, by denying the severity of the threat, by relentlessly criticizing our own people for calling it a threat? Drawing upon every aspect of American power? Really, that is the height of deception you’ve been engaged in. You have constrained and criticized the use of American power. Instead, you use the bully pulpit to chastise American patriots. You take shots at Congress from foreign shores and play politics with our resources, including our military.

So in that manner we will succeed? This blind faith in you strategy has not been working to date, but still you say just believe and stay the course. (the one that brought us to this point) Strong, smart, resilient, relentless. Being strong and smart is not something we lack. It is you that has buried your head in the sand, as in Benghazi blaming it on a video for political reasons. Being nowhere to be found on the night of the Benghazi attack. Or going into Libya by sidestepping Congress. And look where that has led. Or your support and direct involvement in the Arab Spring from the beginning, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, a fruitful exercise.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.

But it is not just the social planners of terrorism who are a problem. It is the terrorists on the street, in sleeper cells that do the damage, and lone wolves.

In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

You mean the lackluster politically correct effort you made so far? But now France and others have stepped in to do something besides return armed bombers. Since now you have finally allowed hitting oil tankers. Wouldn’t it have been achievement if you had done some of that before, when ISIS columns were moving into the neighborhood?

Second, training and equipping to the tune of 500 million that produced four warriors.

Third, working with friends and allies sounds a lot like the first. Wait for others, lead from behind. Works every time.

Fourth, more American leadership from behind in the international community “to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.” Let’s hope that proves more productive than the Iran deal. A leadership that you, Obama, have failed to demonstrate so far. I only wish you would show the same passion for that as you have for the global warming agenda.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.

You mean those changes you have been so stubbornly against? Yeah, more of that. Or you mean the job of leaving it for the next president to deal with after you removed the thousands of support troops from Iraq and grew the numbers and support for ISIS?

That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Finally, after an DHS spokesperson said they stand by that policy, you will now “review”(look at) that visa program. Lets hope you don’t look at it like you did the Keystone Pipeline.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

It is actually a red herring. A great talking point on the left. We have a program plagued with problems now which you want to use to control gun screening.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

Another red herring, the Constitution or anything else has not stopped or prevented you before from acting, such as in Libya.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield.

That makes no real sense. If they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, why would they want us there? I get it, you are not interested in a war, even if they have declared one on us. Yet you call on Congress to declare authorization for you to act.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional.

Right never forget what makes us exceptional, while denying we are exceptional. That makes sense. By the way, a good many people wish they could trust you.

Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear;

Let’s talk about that. We aren’t forgetting and haven’t. Just that we value our freedom and sovereignty more than you do. You want to entangle us and give away our sovereignty. How does that make us free or freer?

Now that you mention fear, you are building a Climate Caliphate based and founded on fear. And it seeks to limit our freedom and economic freedoms. How is that compatible with what you advocate? More specious words meant more to deceive rather than heal a climate of frustration with your use(abuse) of power.

RightRing | Bullright

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Organized chaos

The description coming out of the media about Republicans is utter “chaos” or fractured body. Well, Chris Wallace described it as chaos when just last Sunday he lampooned Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the candidates for speaker. He hit him with every bomb-throwing question he could think of, namely government shutdown. Sure it was an attempt to skewer McCarthy’s competition. It was obvious to me anyway.

Now that McCarthy withdraws his name, they call it chaos and fractured. Most of the conservatives know the establishment does not give up any ground without a fight. And it has to be a formidable resistance to make that fight effective. That’s just the way it is. So these can be seen as significant but small victories for conservatives. Does it look chaotic? Does it look pretty? No, but it is what it is. I’d worry more if things were going smooth as butter — that would send a message.

I’d call it constructive chaos, if anything. Even if we haven’t seen real positive results yet, I still see it as constructive. If you want to believe in the process, you could say that.

So McCarthy steps aside and withdraws his name, to conservative applause. He then tweeted his kudos for Ryan, who also supported him. The last thing to do is: if we don’t want him, we don’t want him endorsing anyone else. (that’s the part establishment usually don’t get.) Now McCarthy tries to hang on to salvage his majority leader job.

So it’s only really chaos or turmoil — “in complete disarray” according to Chris Wallace — to media and to Democrats. Dems don’t like not knowing something, or not being able to choose for Republicans. Nor do they like this many candidates in the presidential race to confuse them.

The big problem, of course, is when you announce the person who succeeds Boehner, they will descend like vultures on him. Then the person’s 2016 election suddenly blows up into a mega race, with mega money. You have to wonder if any congressman wants that to happen as he is rolls into the campaign? Boehner ran from a safe seat in Ohio. Still it makes one’s race a target for the Democrats — something they are good at.

Virginia Congressman, Dave Brat, has initiated some general principles as something a new leader should sign on to. (facebook)

With that in mind, here are some key commitments that new leadership should be willing to make to ensure the American people are given a seat at the table, and that we are serving their best interests – not the wishes of Washington’s political class.

— Oversee a budget process that leads to a balanced budget, and enforce it through regular order.
— Facilitate free market reforms that replace Obamacare and get the federal government out of the health insurance mandate business.
— Make border security a top priority, and ensure that amnesty for illegal immigrants is off the table.
— Promote a limited government agenda, and encourage committees to look for ways to get government out of the way.
— Rein in presidential overreach and enforce the Constitutional separation of powers.
— Require bills brought to the floor have the support of the majority of the Republican conference.
— Ensure that members are allowed to vote in line with their conscience and with their constituents without fear of retaliation by leadership.

Now that is a start. What they call chaos can be a good thing, the way it works in markets.

Rendezvous with Reagan and Destiny

Flashback to the convention in 1964 and Reagan’s infamous “A Time For Choosing” speech. So many takeaway lines that would just as much apply to us today, even more so.

The point is not whether there are any Reagans today but whether this kind of common sense is now mainstream or deemed dead? Government rewrites the Constitution so that anything in their schemes can mean public use for confiscation of private property.

Government rules by fiat to suite it’s own interests. If you haven’t seen that your eyes aren’t open. It’s the same old story…

Excerpt from A Time for Choosing: (video below)

“Now it doesn’t require expropriation and confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean if you own the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists; the government can find some charge against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment.

“Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government. And freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men, that we’re to choose between just two personalities. Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear.”

It picks winners and losers in the markets and business. It decides what businesses will be allowed to succeed and which are considered antiquated, such as the war on coal. By “government,” none is more prevalent than the federal one which rules by strong arm.

It dictates which laws states will be allowed to have, and which it will abolish. It determines what healthcare policies should be, what marriage certificates they can issue, what water they can drink, which lands they must preserve. What government giveth government can taketh, so it decides which funds it will withhold to twist the arms of states.

It decides how much of federal dollars it will dispense back to the state from whence they came. It decides what school curriculum we shall have — if you want to play by Washington’s rules, or if you will be considered an enemy of the State and lose funding.

See speech, a timeless indictment.

The Hillary Email Hustle

Just some random statements and comments on Hillary and servergate.

Now she gives an interview to Andrea Mitchel. In it she made a few whoppers. I’m not putting a link up, you can look it up.

She trotted out her old excuse that she didn’t want two different devices. You know, that was never the reason. No one can be stupid enopugh to believe this. Hasn’t this already been knocked down everywhere? Yet she brings it again.

Hillary said it wasn’t the best choice. Ya think? No, it was her deliberate choice. It was a schemed, premeditated choice. Did she admit as a woman making a wrong choice?

She said the server was approved by the State Dep. Really? Then again, she was the Secretary of State. Therefore is she basically saying she approved of it? If it was approved, and under the authority of the State Dep., then what was the purpose for setting it up in the first place? It was to circumvent. Did they approve of her circumventing or annexing their State system? When did State authorize that? Did State approve her lawyer’s copy?

Bryan Pagliano (former State employee) is the IT guy who maintained it and now is pleading the fifth. Cut the chase, he is likely the guy who did the deleting and scrubbed the server, per her orders. One can see a big reason he would not testify. Short of the server testifying, he is the next best thing. Did he make the thumb-drive copy for her attorney?

She uses the excuse that she was trying to simplify things when in reality she complicates everything. If it was part of and extension of the State, then why would she put her personal emails and information on it? Why would she want to include all her personal email and information as well on a government tied, State authorized system?

She explained that Bryan was tasked to keep their server and their personal information maintained, and personally employed by her and Bill. Was he also authorized and approved by State? Why would she want to entangle her personal information with the State? Does that make any sense? No one made her give up a personal email account or her own server system to use the State system. She could have had her own or multiple personal accounts outside the State. Read not tied to the State Department. Why tie her personal to State?

Records always were a problem with Hillary. Or Hillary’s records always were a problem. Obama and Axelrod went after her records. She was always hiding and obscuring her records. Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008 asked “what is she hiding?”

She is sorry that all this has been confusing to people. Really? By design; it was obviously not confusing enough, as she hoped, to have it lost in the smoke and mirrors. She is sorry people are confused! Ha ha.

The important point is no one forced her to give up a personal email account.

About Benghazi, she said she has been asking and hounding the investigations to testify to them. She was just looking for every opportunity to volunteer herself to help in the Benghazi case. They declined her offers all the time. Is that somewhere in writing? (probably one of the deleted emails)

The answers are obvious to anyone not smoking the ganja or guzzling the Kool Aid.

Weeks ago Mitchel started the pondering by asking the central question:

Andea Mitchel: no one can explain why she had a private server.
Not even Hillary, apparently. And the guy who maintained it isn’t talking.

Hard Choices

A home-brew system with Hillary Clinton is toxic.

Update Also see Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

Asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday whether anyone in her inner circle ever expressed concern about the setup, Clinton responded, “I was not thinking a lot when I got in.”

“There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama: family feud over Iran deal

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

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

Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s about that time with Obama on Iran deal

What time is it? It must be Obama slime time. Time to get the slime machine in mach speed, like the centrifuges in Iran.

He’s using every nasty slur and label he can to attack anyone, including Jews, who don’t support his Iran “peace in our time” nuclear deal. What’s behind door number one, nuclear bomb. What’s behind door number two, the Ayatolah and a nuclear bomb. Never mind what’s behind the third because you’ll never get passed the first two.

Jewish Magazine Accuses White House of Using ‘Jew-Baiting’ and ‘Bigotry’ to Smear Iran Deal Critics

Aug. 9, 2015 10:08am Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze

The Jewish online magazine Tablet has accused the White House of engaging in “Jew-baiting” and “racial and ethnic prejudice” to slander critics of the Iran deal, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

The magazine’s editors compared the behavior of the White House to “the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally.”

Schumer, a Jewish Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was breaking with President Barack Obama and would vote to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

In the editorial, titled “Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,” the editors of Tablet on Friday asserted that the “White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews — and a sitting senator — as dual loyalists to make their case.”

While the editors noted that they “support the president” and “sympathize” with his efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit, they wrote, “What we increasingly can’t stomach — and feel obliged to speak out about right now — is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.”

“Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South,” the editors wrote.

“This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives,” Tablet wrote. “Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.”

“It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it,” the editors wrote.

“Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry — no matter who does it,” the editors added.

Read more The Blaze

Time for Obama to unleash another divisive attack campaign on his opponents — even if they be Democrats.  The White House has threatened that anyone vying for leadership would be held to account for past positions. Dems have already announced they will oppose Schumer for leader based on this position. Of Course if Schumer was not such a racist, bigot, backed by Jew billionaire lobby, anti-peace extremist, dual loyalist, war monger, and ally to the radicalized “death to America” Islamists in Iran. Any questions?

Same old song and dance

It’s been a little while since I did an essay, and pontificating is really not in vogue at the moment. I’ll bust the boundaries and meet in the middle with personal commentary on this process that looks more like helter-skelter than an election year roll out. Plus a rant.

First off though I’d compare the situation to 2012, and most of the same issues are in the mix. Coincidence. How many years now have we been running on ObamaCare, political dysfunction or corrupt beltway politics. Frankly, I am sick of hearing the same things about upcoming elections: it’s this issue or that. It may always be about it but in the aftermath “it” never gets addressed. Next election.

When you do think you got a mandate on something at the polls, you are disappointed to learn later on that the election did not mean what you thought — or should have meant. We send people to congress with a message but that “tin can & and string” magically turns into a fundraiser speed-dial campaign once they hit Washington. So we get letter after letter of what they are concerned about, with reasons for raising money for their campaign coffers. Who doesn’t have a pet issue to pander for dollars about? Pick one, any one.

If I could sum up the political climate across the board it’s a lyin’ and cryin’ campaign. Lying about what they’ll do and crying for mo’ money.

So with that as the backdrop, its pretty hard to be optimistic about the people’s business. The subliminal message is expect what you have always gotten. We heard “if we change Congress things will change.” Have they, you decide? We heard “we will repeal Obamacare.” We heard that will not stand with a change in leadership. We heard Obama will finally be challenged or stopped. Executive tyranny will be opposed. (Benghazi, IRS, Iran, ISIS, Israel, amnesty, same sex marriage, 1st amendment, drilling, Keystone, VA hospitals, nominees, cronyism, scandals.) Well, all meant to keep our hopes up. We even had our hopes in the process and courts. How many Independence Days have we celebrated while wondering if that sacred covenant must be renewed? If election IOUs we’re given were frequent flier miles, then we would have been home-free long ago.

Is it our fault?

For years we could have only looked back at ourselves saying we get the government we deserve, and we’d be right. We’ve allowed it and brought it on. But now I think we are a little past that. We may stand accused for a lot and haven’t been vigilant, however, can we really be blamed for the entire current condition? I think not. We told them and did our best to hold them responsible. We sent them a message that we aren’t going to take it anymore. But afterward we endure a relapse of the same systemic failures we’ve seen for over a decade.

The standard answer is always, “if you don’t like it vote them out next election. That’s the process.” No kidding? After the fact, right. But the damage can’t be undone easily.

Many of us have been waiting, hoping, praying for something different. We always hear “next election” and that’s where we put our emphasis. So maybe now, this time, it finally is “next election.” If so, I hope it’s like Groundhog Day and keeps happening over and over.

Why do I think that is against the odds? I’m not really sure. But this year one candidate came in different from the cookie cutter politicians, and from an unlikely place. You know which one I mean, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders, with the initials DT.

But let’s back up a moment. Trump has made noises about running for years. He was an almost in 2012. Last election it stirred curiosity. Naysayers said he wouldn’t run and they were right. I was dismissive about his prospects then. I didn’t think he would make much difference anyway. He was not my favorite.

Remember Newt at South Carolina?

When Newt Gingrich ran he was not an odds on favorite either but something happened in South Carolina that made us take another, closer look. It was that question from the media which Newt turned into his moment. Against all odds he shot up and made everyone take notice. Sure, it didn’t last or turn out well. Maybe lightning in a bottle cannot be repeated at will. But it did happen for a moment in South Carolina, where the sky opened and people took a deep breath, just for a moment. They were on notice. When media blushed and the blame turned on them it caught them off guard. It didn’t last but it was a spotlight on the whole process while it lasted.

Alluding in his South Carolina victory speech to elites and media influence Newt said, “But we do have ideas, and we do have people and we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money.” Or so we’d like to think. We’d like to believe the right ideas do win, too. Incidentally, Romney’s answer to SC was to turn up the heat against Newt, who probably wasn’t prepared for the barrage. (cue attack ads)

Years ago, I used to hear the line: you dance all night someone has to pay the fiddler. They’ve been doing a lot of dancing in DC.

One of the worst things IMO has been that we were led to believe they were going to do things, namely resist Obama’s agenda, pursue accountability, hold spending, oppose amnesty, restore the separation of powers. What difference at this point has it made? And they wonder why people are angry with Washington? It’s been almost a year and we still hear talk. So then comes Trump but they take issue with Donald for pointing it out.

It’s already been said if this much effort they use to oppose Trump were focused on holding Obama to account, like they said they were going to do, then we would see fruits from their labor. But no, instead Obama is going on now another victory tour for his Iran deal disaster. He’s taking an international bow while they cast Israel to the curb. And Republicans gave him fast track authority. It’s a one lane highway, or a freeway.

Obama now says from Ethiopia that: “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys, I want to make sure I’m turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.” Say what? Now he’s the guard for our safety or security, after making a miserable deal with Iran, saturating government in radicalism, scandal upon scandal, and watching ISIS explode across the Middle East. Who in the hell does he think he is? This must be some kind of a joke like… “Live from Africa, its Obamerika!”

So is there anything new here? Have our efforts been fruitful? Rather than oppose Obama’s radical agenda Republicans give him Fast Track. Amnesty without a whimper. Republicans poured gas on the flames instead. They’ve given but haven’t gotten a damn thing back. Oh, we have gotten these public attacks and vengeance from Obama, and threats. Now its a nuclear deal with Iran on the table. Do we really have an irrelevant Congress like Obama promised to do — at State of the Union no less. He’s rolling out the EPA jihad. He’s declared a war on energy, and war on the economy.

Yep, we had elections on issues. Now we’re going to campaign on most of the same things. How many years has Obamacare been an election issue. In Live from Obamerika debut, Barry claimed the outrage and disagreement with his Iran nuke deal was just to divert attention from Trump. Say what? He must think people cannot do more than one thing at a time? That’s what he hoped: that people would be too preoccupied with election politics to pay lip service to his Iran giveaway. The UN rubber stamp was a nice touch.

RightRing | Bullright

When in Rome, 2015 and the climate it’s a changin’

Well, 2015 is already shaping up as a significant year. It’s gotten off to a rocky start as we see, in the first quarter we had 0.2 percent GDP growth. (subject to later revision) That could basically be considered flat-lining and a few whiskers short of contraction. Hey, what’s a few tenths of a percent? Everything .

Then politically it is filled with the same turmoil that got us a new and improved Congress in 2014, and the disenchantment the left and the White House has over that. It’s a little more than a year before the next presidential election, without an incumbent — unless you consider Hillary an incumbent. All of it raising questions about the future.

We’re already deep into protest-palooza spreading across state lines, across the country. They are now a greater threat than natural disasters and storms. National security and terrorism is right back on the front burner with all the hot items the left would like to accentuate.

But then there’s Obama, in whatever scorched earth agenda he has left, trying to navigate the issues in the social chaos he ushered in. His favorite theme of late is there is no greater threat to the world than global warming or climate change. But its a crowd pleaser. Among his leftist base it is on par with income disparity and their demonize the rich campaign. (except for uber-rich leftists)

Reminds me of the old song, Times they are a changin’ (’64). In the words of Bob Dylan, “There’s a battle outside, And it is ragin’.”

Then there’s the creation-worshiping cult of the left. Speaking of religiosity of the faith-based global warming, climate change, or its broader globalism theory, the Pope of Rome has decided to weigh in on the subject.

Pope Francis poised to weigh in on climate change with major document

By Michelle Boorstein — April 27 | Washington Post

The largely secular climate movement is about to get what some predict will be a historic boost from an intriguing source: Pope Francis.
Francis is putting the final touches on what may be the most authoritative papal teaching ever on the environment, a topic bound up with economics, global development and politics and thus very controversial. …/
The encyclical is expected to be published in early summer and,… to influence a civil process — in this case, a major U.N. summit in December on climate change. …/
Continue reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-poised-to-weigh-in-on-climate-change-with-major-document/2015/04/27/d5c268b2-df81-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

So we’ll be in a holding pattern for the encyclical, and the left will be building the hype and suspense until it comes. Meanwhile, they can cite the Pope as a global warming colleague.

Just when you thought the year seemed chock full of turmoil and political fodder — dark enough to block sunlight — it is going to get a whole lot more “heated” before it’s over. If you thought smoldering buildings and looting from protests-gone-rad were bad, stay tuned for the uber-sized battle of global warming coming down the pike – scorched earth style. Now that the Pope is officially joining the fray, it will enlist all the resources it can.

The Climate Caliphate is getting very restless. Jihad is on. If Obama has an unwavering appetite for war on anything, it is for war on coal, energy, the economy, rural America, conservatives and anything standing in his way — he takes no prisoners. It’s a nice diversion from real, immediate problems and threats. ( like an 18 tillion-$ diversion)

Speak up, if you are a Leftocrat or theocrat ruler

First we had Ahmadinejad come to speak at Columbia University. That went over well, if you were a Leftist academic that is. They seemed to enjoy that. They hailed it as a great day for freedom of speech.

“It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas…

It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.”– Lee C. Bollinger

Then along came Netanyahu speaking at Congress and the Left booed & hissed about that. Pelosi turned her back to Bibi. Congress writes a letter to Tehran telling them how our system works, so the Left cried foul again and Obama’s White House called it unhelpful meddling. Some called it treasonous. What right did Congress have to do that?

Ali Khamenei writes a letter to our youth back in January that the Left made no fuss over. Two months later, Obama gives an oration to the people of Iran. I’m sure the Left has no criticism for it either. (not a Cairo Speech but they’ll take whatever Obama shovels out) Since Obama’s favorite audience is young people, we know his Tehran tribute was mainly aimed at young people in Iran.

Obama would do well to talk to the leaders in the country that rule with an iron hand. But now he opts for a conversation with young people, even though he ignored them years ago in their uprising. At this point the Iranians are trying to figure out if this is live or just a very delayed response to their earlier pleas. Maybe since Ali Khamenei took the time to write such a thoughtful, inspiring letter to our youth Obama felt inclined to reciprocate?

So we do seem to have this back and forth. But it is only ‘not helpful’ when anyone on the right speaks out. Funny how the subject of his speech was “speaking out” about the “future”. Why that seems to only apply to Liberals, I don’t know? If you are a conservative, “shut up, you have no right to speak on/to that”. If you are a diehard Leftist, your voice is always welcomed even needed. It’s called a double standard, something the left loves. (call it the Hillary or Obama standard)

With all Liberal “dialogue,” as they call it, it never matters if any good comes of it. It is speech. If it is from the Right or conservatives, “hold your horses.” It is wrong-based and wrong-headed. As Heiress in waiting, no doubt Hillary has her watchful eye on this back and forth. In fact, we know because she lampooned Republicans for sending their letter in her speech. That came spontaneously, not like the Keystone Pipeline or anything — not even a Hard Choice. That her response came while she was also trying to explain her Servergate fiasco was purely coincidental. (wink)

    Hillary: Republicans were either trying to help the Iranians or hurt President Barack Obama. (Maureen Dowd replied to Hillary with an open letter of her own.)

This freedom of speech is very tricky, even hazardous. I hope maybe Obama can issue one of his necessary Executive edicts to clarify it. That would be ever so helpful.

A few words about the SOTU

You may think you know what Obama will say in his SOTU speech, but I know what he will say. (…so says my satirical pen)

  • Valerie Jarrett could not speak tonight, so I will.
  • The only war we will engage in is class warfare. And that war will never end.
  • I’m officially changing the name “Uncle Sam” to Uncle Obama.
  • Peace through appeasement.
  • Now, for my next trick I will pull out my veto pen.
  • Stealing people’s money and spending it is now called investment.
  • Elections have reactions not consequences.
  • You didn’t build that, but I did.
  • If memory serves me,  and it should….

Just a few of the highlights. The WH has been asking its minions to sign up “are you in?” to say they will watch, so expect much more. Word is some straw men will be attending, too.

Obama parsing on Iran “deal”

Holding their fire does not mean holding Obama’s feet to the fire.

Obama to Congress: ‘Hold your fire’ on Iran sanctions

Kevin Liptak, CNN
Fri January 16, 2015

“My main message to Congress at this point is just hold your fire. Nobody around the world least of all the Iranians doubt my ability to get additional sanctions pass if these negotiations fail,” Obama added later.

On Iran, Obama turned a question on whether he’d veto additional sanctions on Iran back on his counterparts in Congress — including those in his own party.

“Why is it that we would have to take actions that would jeopardize the possibility of getting a nuclear deal over the next 60 or 90 days?” Obama asked.

Obama added later: “I am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are on immediate war footing should negotiations with Iran fail.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/politics/cameron-obama-press-conference/

 

Go to the tape: (bold my emphasis)

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THE CHANCES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET A DIPLOMATIC DEAL [are] PROBABLY LESS THAN 50/50.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THOSE FOLKS IN MY OWN PARTY, IS WHY IS IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A DEAL OVER THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS?

Let “might jeapordize the possibility of getting a deal” sink in.

The construction of an argument, Obama style:

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE RISKS ARE. I THINK DAVID SHARES MY ASSESSMENT HERE. UNDER THE INTERIM DEAL THAT BROUGHT IRAN TO THE TABLE, WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO INITIATE NEW SANCTIONS. NOW YOU WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS: “THESE TECHNICALLY AREN’T NEW SANCTIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY LAWS PUTTING IN PLACE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS”. — I ASSURE YOU THAT IS NOT HOW IRAN OR OUR PARTNERS WOULD INTERPRET IT. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATIONS COLLAPSE IS VERY HIGH. IF THAT HAPPENS, THERE IS NO CONSTRAINTS ON IRAN GOING BACK AND DOING WHAT THEY CAME TO DO BEFORE THEY CAME TO THE TABLE — DEVELOPING A HEAVY WATER REACTOR THAT ONCE BUILT [IS] EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO DISMANTLE, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO HIT MILITARILY.

So the original deal was to take future sanctions off the table (“all options on the table”?) just to get the ball rolling. But even that wasn’t bad enough, he and Kerry have been dismantling the ‘old’ sanctions. Now he protests the sanctions Congress has in mind.

The question is why would anyone ban more sanctions, let alone remove current ones, before getting any kind of deal? He said taking “new sanctions” off the table was the means to getting them to the table in the first place.

Then he keeps referring to the chance of undermining the “possibility” of a deal. So everything is based on a “possibility” Obama admits is less than a 50/50 chance. Is anyone making the odds on that? But long odds equal appeasement in Obama’s brain.

If the likelihood is not very good, why take anything off the table to start? What did you get for your concession? The same shoddy possibility of getting a deal. But in Iran’s mind it is another concession, more time along with enrichment ability. We get the same “chance”. Keeping score? He also takes credit for Congress’s original sanctions.

It’s a spiraling spider web. Rather than explanations he makes excuses. Tehran was probably sitting there watching saying, “just what we thought all along, and it sounds even better in a White House press conference.”

THAT’S NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID WE LEAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IF THIS DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION FAILS, THE RISKS AND LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS ENDS UP BEING A MILITARY CONFRONTATION IS HEIGHTENED. CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO OWN THAT AS WELL.

Because, either way, he is setting it up so Congress is on the hook for the failure that ensues. The golden rule is never take any responsibility for failures.

ref: http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

RightRing | Bullright

Christmas CRomnibus

Christmas came early this year for Obama. While he attended a Christmas party, the House elves passed the aka CRamnibus bill, which contained funding for Obamacare to next September and the stocking-stuffer funding for his illegal amnesty.christmas bells photo: Christmas bells 3DChristmasbells-1.gif

CROmnibus: The $1 Trillion Betrayal

By James Simpson | December 11, 2014 | American Thinker

Flush from an unprecedented nationwide GOP victory in this November’s elections, House and Senate GOP leadership determined that their essential first course of action should be to snatch defeat from its jaws. They have brought forth a spending bill for 2015 that gives President Obama almost everything he wants, while disenfranchising the very voters who delivered the GOP victory.

The $1.014 trillion Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, (HR 83), has been dubbed “CROmnibus” as it is a combined continuing resolution (CR) and Omnibus spending bill. It will provide full funding for 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills to the end of FY 2015 (September 30th), and a short term continuing resolution to February 27 for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The 1,603 Page Cromnibus

Speaker Boehner has said he would ensure members a minimum of 72 hours to read legislation. Instead, following former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s innovative “pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” policy, there will only be a tiny window of no more than 52 hours to read, analyze and vote on a trillion dollar spending bill that is 1,603 pages long. For reference, the Bible (NKJV) is only 1,200 pages. In 2010, incoming Speaker Boehner sang a different tune, “I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills on the House floor serves anyone’s best interests, not the House, not for the members and certainly not for the American people,” he said. But he also said he was going to cut spending…

Read more in the list of stocking stuffers: American Thinker

They start by writing in the extraordinary ability for appropriations to make changes after its passage.

In what seemed like a game of role reversal, Dems objected to the bill and Queen Elizabeth Warren was leading opposition which would shut down Government — and subsequently time as we know it.

For his part, Boehner was shoveling out a 1600-page bill without allowing time  to actually read it. Boehner was also allying with Obama to push it through, in much the way Obamacare was rammed through.  Maybe it was theater night at the Capitol?

The analysis of this Christmas CRamnibus is going to take some time to decipher, especially regarding their rule.  With these Christmas festivities, one wonders what is in store for New Years? With Dems offering their best Scrooge impression, these theatrics won’t be over soon.   This spectator says “bah-humbug” to all their chicanery.

Wait, I think that’s the White House blasting critics: “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch!

RightRing | Bullright

Fleeting election and “immigration”

As soon as the election was over almost everyone was talking about “immigration”, which it is not anyway. But why?

It’s even less understandable if you look at the history. Last year is when approval polls really started going down, just as they were haranguing over “immigration reform” and the Senate was moving a bill. So what have we learned? People really were not happy or interested in doing what they wanted to do. Did they learn the lesson?

Another example of big government. Politicians saw some euphoric “bipartisan support” for it in the Senate, but the unpopularity or dislike for amnesty among the people was high and growing.(blaming them) There were some other events at the time, too, though disapproval spiked from that point remaining to date.

And yet here we are in the 2014 midterm election and its the very first thing they want to talk about. It is now Obama’s unilateral threat, as soon as he can do it.

In my view, it is chief among reasons people are/were angry and distrust pols, yet they are chomping at the bit. Even after we just had an insurgency of over 60,000 more illegals, and people were really ticked off at that. Within 24 hours they were back at it.

We have so many problems: the border is Swiss cheese, enforcement a problem and our security is at risk, yet they are worried about people besides voters. Isn’t that typical? At least by now you would think they could try to call it something besides “immigration”.

RightRing | Bullright

The lady sings the blues

‘Too close to call’ was not the verdict for leadership in Congress.

Said outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, ” The message from voters is clear: They want us to work together.”

Dingy Harry could assume such nonsense after being obstructionist-in-chief. Only he can read those tea leaves.

Maryland and Massachusetts went to Republican governors. Republican Bruce Rauner won in Illinois and Quinn would not concede defeat. “We will never yield until all the votes are in,” Quinn said

[AOL] After years of a sluggish economic recovery and foreign crises aplenty, the voters’ mood was sour.

Nearly two-thirds of voters interviewed after casting ballots said the country was seriously on the wrong track. Only about 30 percent said it was generally going in the right direction.

Someone send out a search party because 30% of the electorate are seriously lost.

And Kay Hagan lost. Oh my, those testy voters.

RightRing | Bullright

Blacks are being used

“You are just a vote” is right. Sadly, and they’ll say anything for it. For years we’ve been trying to make the Dems own Barack Obama and his policies.

But the reality is Barack Obama owns them, lock and stock. They were bought in the “change you can believe in” auction. He’s their master whether they admit it or not.

See the Democrats run away from him? But he arrogantly says the Dems are his voters, too. And he’s right, lockstep they are his along with the Democrats in Congress.

[Roll Call] “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.

“This isn’t a political speech, and I’m not going to tell you who to vote for — even though I suppose it is kind of implied,” Obama said, in a sentence that became an immediate head-scratcher as the president launched into a litany of attacks on the GOP.

Obama said these are the folks who voted with him, and he is going to get that vote out.

“The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress,” Obama said on Al Sharpton’s radio show….

“So, this isn’t about my feelings being hurt,” he said. “These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn up.'” — CNN

Josh Earnest explained:

“Here’s the other thing: the Democrats are going to be counting on Hispanics, African-Americans, young people, young women in particular to turn out [in the midterm] elections. The president got them to turn out in 2008 and 2012.

Why not tell Obama, ‘you didn’t build that’…nor did Democrats, the overseers?

RightRing | Bullright

Anger and the walking dead Left

Want to read the complete analysis, see here. But if you want a summary:

Voters are angry — CNN poll

Washington (CNN) — Nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance, two troubling signs for Democrats one week before the midterm elections, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows. …/

The CNN/ORC poll shows that 30% of Americans are “very angry” and 38% are “somewhat angry” about the way things are going in the country, while 31% expressed “no anger” at all. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes the 31% of “very angry” Americans matches the mood of the country in 2010 when Republicans took back control of the House.

In next week’s election, the emotion of anger could be a motivating factor in driving out GOP voters. While 36% of Republican voters said they are “extremely” or “very enthusiastic,” about voting this year, only 26% of Democrats use that language to describe themselves, in the CNN/ORC poll.

That’s enough for me. Just like one of those old rock and roll songs when all you need is the chorus to say it all. A total of 68% have some anger.

I’m going to take the liberty of reading between the lines. There are 31% of voters in this country who are tone deaf, and probably don’t know what is going on, who are not pissed off. Let me see now: if those people are not pissed off yet, then maybe they are the walking dead. What would it take to get them angry? I think we know who they are.

But I have a suspicion most of those same people found plenty of anger during Bush’s terms — and he is the one they directed it at, along with anyone even remotely allied to him. Now, suddenly they are not angry about any of this stuff. Come on! Did they all receive therapy? Are they on medication?

I don’t know but beyond the crew in Washington, this is the part of the populace I have problems with. Let’s also say that if they aren’t feeling the pain yet from this regime, they must be therapeutically numbed — or anger challenged. The rest of us see and feel the pain quite well, and blame the progressive collective for it.

So, 30% of voters will be the walking dead on top of the regular dead vote.

As for the rest of the awake among us…

RightRing | Bullright