Conspiracies gone wild

After going through some random possibilities (there are a lot of them), I came up with one whacky sort of conspiracy theory. Considering the state of affairs, probably all too logical.

Start with one big coverup, larger than any I ever saw. That’s the Russia, DNC and all the inter-connections to the election, corruption, that we know about so far.

No, not the Trump thing. That all is just part of the massive coverup of the greater scandal on the Left. So Trump and Russia is a diversion. But it doesn’t end there.

I figure on January 2oth the clock started ticking. That was when everything goes, no matter what, to throw at Trump to create this bonfire. That keeps people and hopefully the new administration from looking into what really went on for about eight years.

Now 7 months in we are at code red. They have done a good job dragging out every basic thing so far. Except that more info is oozing out of the woodwork about all those old scandals, the ones that Obama said never existed. More than expected.

But it is getting to such a critical stage now that the only plan B is in full operation. It was to drag, stall, obfuscate, divert, destroy, deconstruct until the 2018 election – by any means. The left has to try to “win” the House. The only way to keep the obfuscation of everything going, and damaging material hidden, is to at least gain control of the House.

Then they reclaim control, the agenda and flow of information. They can ride that until the 2020 election when they must get control of the White House to bury all the evidence starting to ooze out. Sure, it is a long shot but it is the only one they have.

At this current rate, there will be enough stuff coming out it would be hard to overlook or prevent a major special investigation. They probably thought that, with any luck, it would take us longer to uncover what we already know. But that is why the giant diversion is so necessary. All the yelling and screaming on Russia is part of that giant cover up.

The mountain of stuff includes the DNC scandals, the Obama scandals, DOJ and intel scandals, with foreign policy chasers, from the past eight years. It also involves most of Obama’s key operatives, including 2 attorney generals, FBI Director, and intel officials. Those smoking guns seem to be everywhere.

It would all feed into the largest investigation in history and Dems are determined not to let it happen. That requires a giant coverup and diversion. Nothing bigger than Russia. N. Korea is even useful. Hell, they would be happy to use Iran in their smokescreen, too. Then they can throw in military or cultural issues wherever they can.

On top of that we have the mountain of scandal around Hillary, servergate, Clinton Foundation, uranuium, money, and her pay to play scandals — all of which she thinks are safely buried because she lost. But they need to be exhumed and chronicled so it never happens again. “What Happened” should have a giant question mark after it. We need two Independent Counsels. So no election autopsy was desired. The relay race is on.

We are sitting in the middle of this narrative of lies from 8 years. Stench is everywhere. So now they have to bet everything on getting to the next election before the dam breaks. The one plus on their side is that there is a knuckle-dragging reluctance from some Republicans to even look into it. Shell-shocked critters lurking in the Swamp.

But the voices are getting louder and evidence is mounting that is harder all the time for critters to ignore. I think that’s another reason Obama spent most of 7 months out of the country. (he was always out of the country when the SHTF) Obama doesn’t want to be anywhere near this nasty coverup. But all the radicals know what to do.

Because this includes obstructing Congress and the administration’s agenda along with the inner workings of government in various places, it is the equivalent of holding government hostage to the left’s agenda. That is further aided by the activists and holdovers embedded throughout government. Compare those radicals to sleeper cells in common cause with the left, whether they are actionable participants, leakers or disruptors.

A huge coverup it is but nothing like MSM is trying to fabricate and peddle.

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary Books

Rumors say Hillary is already hard at work on a followup book to her excuse exposé coming out, “What [Didn’t] Happen.”

This one will be a shorter, simpler book titled “Lose the Election: All Your Investigations Go Away.” It will be sponsored by Calgon bath products, “Take me Away.”

One flew over the Kremlin in 2016

I’m posting this as an op-ed opinion piece. – for educational and informational purposes.

So I have no personal commentary on or about it for now. Perhaps it deserves a reasoned response, perhaps it speaks for itself and the author?

(since I’ve seriously dabbled on all things Russia for years, I don’t rule it out)

You decide what to make of it.

How the GOP became the party of Putin

Hot Air [excerpt]

“How did the party of Ronald Reagan’s moral clarity morph into that of Donald Trump’s moral vacuity? Russia’s intelligence operatives are among the world’s best. I believe they made a keen study of the American political scene and realized that, during the Obama years, the conservative movement had become ripe for manipulation. Long gone was its principled opposition to the “evil empire.” What was left was an intellectually and morally desiccated carcass populated by con artists, opportunists, entertainers and grifters operating massively profitable book publishers, radio empires, websites, and a TV network whose stock-in-trade are not ideas but resentments.

If a political officer at the Russian Embassy in Washington visited the zoo that is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, they’d see a “movement” that embraces a ludicrous performance artist like Milo Yiannopoulos as some sort of intellectual heavyweight. When conservative bloggers are willing to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from Malaysia’s authoritarian government to launch a smear campaign against a democratic opposition leader they know nothing about, how much of a jump is it to line up and defend what at the very least was attempted collusion on the part of a brain-dead dauphin like Donald Trump Jr.?

Surveying this lamentable scene, why wouldn’t Russia try to “turn” the American right, whose ethical rot necessarily precedes its rank unscrupulousness?”

James Kirchick Posted at 9:00 pm on July 19, 2017

Posted at Hot Air (I’m sure there will be commentary there – from larger Politico)

Hoopla over Russia and the election

Does anyone even care about the uranium theft that Bill Clinton and his friends engaged in with Russia? No investigation about that, no hearings over it.

But we need to have hearings on Russia involvement in our election. I wish they were half as fired up about the uranium deal. If they are going to be concerned about Russia, then how about trying to appear consistent?

Maybe some feigned outrage about the uranium is in order, at least, or all the other government hacks we had. Why aren’t they as concerned about that? Blaming Trump for all this is so childish it is pathetic. None of it would likely matter much if Hillary won. But she didn’t. Russian hacks have nothing over our political hacks around DC.

So the answer is to politicize the election process and the results, and then politicize the truth. Where was their cyber outrage before? Where was Obama’s concern?

Haven’t we yet realized what we are doing, with all this rhetoric about Russia, is handing them the influence they are seeking?

Then there is Harry Reid’s take on it.

“We know from reports we have seen from all of you guys,” [Harry Reid] said to CNN’s Manu Raju, “reports that people in the campaign for Donald Trump were in touch with the Russians. And now it is very clear.” – Real Clear Politics

Let the politicization go on at mach speed. What an idiot.

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Mean and nasty Dems discuss their nasty campaign

As much as what Dems say is irrelevant, I can’t resist calling out some of these statements.

The two campaigns had a meeting at Harvard to discuss the election and results. Whoa, Dems are drinking nasty juice. I always called vodka mean juice but there is something worse, Democrats’ talking points.

They never miss an opportunity to play the race card. If anyone made this election about race, it was Democrats, from the beginning to the last day. No, it continues on.

CNN

Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said the Trump campaign had operated in the world of “dark arts.” As an example, she flashed the final issue of the National Enquirer, essentially describing Clinton as a corrupt criminal who should be thrown in jail.

“I don’t think you guys give yourself enough credit for the negative campaign you ran,” Grunwald said. “I think it was an incredibly effective negative campaign, and you guys don’t get credit for it.”

“Dark arts,” nothing vaguely sinister about all their name-calling, is there? How about Dems’ dark arts of smear and illusion? (with some help) Apparently she missed all the negative media/press coverage about Trump and his campaign. But Trump’s campaign doesn’t get enough credit for actually winning.

Dems favorite word is Dark. Everything Dems do is dark. They labeled the Republican convention “dark” while their convention was mired in scandal before it began. DWS had to resign…. but then she was hired immediately by Hillary. Surprise. Talk about narratives? Even Hillary’s campaign was a scandal.

Over the course of the two-day conference, the Clinton team attributed their general election loss to a myriad of factors. They said they faced huge headwinds within the electorate because of the strong desire for change: “We underestimated the force of that wind of change,” Mook said.

“Underestimated” the force of change” — ya think? Clinton ran on tailwinds of more of the same. Headwinds won, thank God. We didn’t underestimate the force of Hillary and Obama’s WH. Can’t say they did not try everything in their corrupt arsenal.

Then they went all out nuclear blaming the FBI and Comey for throwing the election to Republicans.

Clinton advisers also blamed unfair media coverage — noting that it was a struggle every day to get Clinton’s message to break through in a media environment dominated by Trump.

Hillary Clinton went 275 days without a press conference. Is that someone being denied media coverage?

“What hurt us was (the Trump campaign) coming after her or the press picking at us,” Palmieri said.

Press was picking at Hillary’s campaign, really? Where and when was that? They did attack Trump 24/7 and it continues. What alternative reality they live in.

Bush Dynasty dying on the vine, Hillary is in her swan song

The only thing optimistic in the establishment 2016 race now is it looks like both dynasty types are being flushed at the same time — or trying to be — in conjoined toilets At least according to assorted media reports anyway. It’s still worth broadcasting.

Hillary is going down in flames, even white women are aborting Hillary. So her prized constituency of estrogen is not so stimulated with Hillary’s “war on women” demagoguery. If that can’t keep them on board, what can?

The Planned Parenthood’s videos didn’t help much. Even NY Times announced she is now in danger of losing the primary. Seems Hillary’s presumptive anointing is being canceled with no rain date.

CNN said

So, what is going on among women voters? What seems clear is that Hillary is trying to appeal to women in an old-fashioned way that doesn’t work as well as it once did. Her team apparently thinks that by aggressively selling hard facts, advancing policies or giving her version of the email controversy, Hillary’s campaign will have women flocking to her banner.

Depends on the definition of “facts.” But we’ve heard the Hillary death rattles before.

Jeb, for his part — if he ever did get off the ground – is stumbling over itself on the way to the exit. His fundraisers and bundlers are now bailing out. But his campaign says not to worry, they were let go because that phase of the campaign is over. Say what? Ushering in the end of presumptive nominee Jeb era.

Politico

Earlier this week, the New York Times revealed that it had taken steps to rein in some of its spending and had gone so far as to cut some employee salaries. And POLITICO reported one Bush fundraiser expressed concerns about the slowing pace of the campaign’s fundraising after Bush’s shaky debate performance.

Since when did anyone throw out his bundlers and fundraisers? Especially a big money guy like Jeb Bush. What phase of his campaign is he in then, the postmortem phase or digging part? Sounds like another “Read My Lips” moment for another Bush.

Could it also be that the people – for their phase – have decided they really don’t like the idea of a Clinton vs Bush ticket? (and it does seem to be one ticket)

Well, the low-energy Bush is getting rolled by high-energy Marxists anyway.

Obama theory, just brainstorming

Since it is August (Obastid’s birthday — if he has one) and it is time for theory, opinion, even conspiracy theory, I have an interesting one I’ve given some thought.

Now the possibility of this theory, nothing more, may be based on the results one wants to achieve. That is usually the way it works with Dems anyway. Outcome and agenda rule. The theory goes like this, suppose Obama had enough of the political sparing and his trust and approval have taken a hit. Plus he’s on the brink of nasty politics or investigations on multiple levels. So he could decide: (far-fetched maybe… but what if)

Before it gets any worse, why don’t I just resign while there is a little time left on the clock? That would fix them. I could step aside and preempt all their criticism or plans to attack me, especially in an election year. Do I give them that opportunity to run against me? Who do they think I am, George Bush?

I could avoid repercussions for these problems by stepping down. That would put Biden in office for the remainder. He could field these issues. Then he could stage his run from here and consolidate that support seemlessly. It would get people off my back in the immediate and my approvals would start turning around. They would see me more as the victim I am and forget these controversial side issues. Joe could challenge Hillary, who has been a thorn in my side from the beginning.

You know, Hillary would just have to suck it up. Too bad, sucks to be her. I already did plenty for Hellary. I don’t owe her anything. Joe would make a better president for this apparatus I built than she would. Her credibility is shot through anyhow. She didn’t do me any favors. She should have to work for the nomination the way I did. I hope she is not expecting me to campaign for her.

If I stepped down now it sure would put a kink in Hillary’s plans. People would love Joe and he can handle the press. Hillary would be irrelevant. She can deal with all those scandals she has going on. I can fade off and there is nothing they can do to me. I might be the most popular president in modern history in a year. By the time those Republicans are staging their run against me and Democrats, I’ll be in Hawaii polishing my legacy. I’ve already done most of what I planned and the rest is already in motion. Even Biden can handle finishing that. If I tell him he’ll be all for it. I’ll still have that loyalty and an open door.

The only scandals the press would be able to focus on then is Hillary’s. Wow was that a mistake, that ungrateful beotch. I’ll still be the real voice for progressives and she will look like a pawn to me. Biden and Elizabeth Warren could work. It’s all upside for me and downside for Hillary. Maybe I ought to do that and not let her or her people know? That would mess her up.

Well, it is just an idea and I’m not sure Barry hasn’t considered it or given it some thought. He might see it as a way to screw the people again. Do you think he would ever attempt something like that? A bit strange, but hey, these are radicals anyway. Just theorizing.

RightRing | Bullright

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

October Surprise?

 …Obama secret Iran deal cut

Look for announcement of temporary halt to uranium enrichment

WND by Reza Kahlili

Published: 10/04/2012

 

Iran could announce a temporary halt to uranium enrichment before next month’s U.S. election in a move to save Barack Obama’s presidency, a source affiliated with high Iranian officials said today.

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons, said a three-person delegation of the Obama administration led by a woman engaged in secret negotiations with a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The delegation urged the Iranian leader to announce a halt to enrichment, even if temporary, before the Nov. 6 election, promising removal of some sanctions.
[…]
 

Read at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/october-surprise-obama-secret-iran-deal-cut/

To Russia with love

What was it Obama told Medvedev? (when he thought no one could hear him) I think it was “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Yea, that was it.

“Russia’s recent tests of ballistic missiles are clear signs Moscow is making good on announced threats to prepare preemptive strikes on U.S. missile defenses, a senior House Republican disclosed this week.
Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio) stated in a June 12 letter to senior Obama administration officials that he is also concerned Russia appears to be taking steps to abandon a 1980s treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.
Additionally, Russian missile developments “are clear evidence by Russia of plans for its withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” he said.

…Stike three!

“The May missile test was “the third new ICBM announced since the ratification of the New START treaty,” he said.
“The pattern of activities that are now being reported would completely eviscerate the INF Treaty’s impact on Russia while the U.S. continues to comply with the Treaty’s ‘zero option,’” he said.
See:  http://freebeacon.com/intermediate-threat/
————————————————

Eviscerate? Not in the wonderful world of the Obama administration.

In this game of baseball, three strikes doesn’t mean you’re out, it only means we continue reductions and “honor” the treaty, which apparently Russia is not. (and probably never intended to)  Maybe that is what Obama meant about “flexibility”,  that he agrees to accept whatever they want to do, despite the treaty. Obviously,  in their eyes this treaty was only meant to restrict us not them.

But really now, is “more flexibility” the prescription to deal with Russia? I get it, they are doing this because we need to be more flexible. (as if he hasn’t already been) And their flagrant violations of the ballyhooed treaty go on, without a word or mention from officials in Washington. Crickets.

Oh but the closer it gets to election, expect him to tout the Start Treaty as one of his signature successes…right along with his successful green energy and jobs, and right by his lack of a real energy plan, which he likes to call an “all-of-the-above approach”

But Obama appears comfortable with an anything-goes policy from Russia with disdain. You just know what is needed is “flexibility” from US.