Hillary ad spot on message to Dems

She is a living hell for America, but what makes Hillary truly scary is her record — and record of running from her record.

The NRSC has released this salvo on Hillary to prepare the battlefield.

In the movies this would be called a trailer. It’s just a preview of coming disasters and impending doom hanging like a cloud over America.

Yet that is only a small sample of the entire picture of Hillary’s Hell — Toxic.

Benghazi’s haunting hearing

The fundamental difference between me and Democrats is simple:

    Democrats are sick of the Benghazi hearings.
    And I’m sickened by the Benghazi hearings

It takes a village of government bureaucracy and all the Democrats to defend Hillary. But she knows nothing, and Dems don’t care, about security Chris Stevens needed.

Hillary again announces she is taking responsibility. Then she promptly denies she had any accountability for the security shortage. Blame that on Stevens.

Hillary’s talking point of the day was Stevens knew the risks involved. Okay, so that makes it all better. He knew what he was getting into, uh?

A case study in liberal denial and deflection and typical behavior.

Hillary lied, people died, Hillary lied, then Hillary ran for President.

Hillary, illegals to Trump to guns roadtour

Here’s Hillary’s comment to Trump

Hillary has just one word for Trump, “Basta…enough!” Coming from Hillary, that’s funny because that is exactly what we have been thinking about the Oval Office Heiress.

When we saw your actions on Benghazi and what you said. Enough comes immediately to mind.

When we saw you used a personal server for State Department business and email, we said enough.

When we saw your staged theatrics as Sec of State with Russia over a “reset button,” we said enough.

When we hear you talk about moving the country forward, we say “enough”

When we hear you say you followed all the rules and law at State, we say enough.

When we hear you testify to congress on Benghazi lecturing us: “what difference at this point does it make” we said that’s definitely enough.

When we look at your perpetual trickle-down scandals, we said that’s quite enough.

When most people in the country don’t trust you, we say enough. “Basta…

(another clip and @ 23 minutes)

“Failed, top-down policies that wrecked our country before,” Hillary told Arkansans.

“You know, Democrats are in the future business, but from the Republican candidates for president we see the opposite. They may have some fresh faces but they are the Party of the past”.

“We Democrats look at America and see limitless potential. We believe in a basic bargain, if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And we believe that the measure of our success should be how much incomes rise for hard working families, not just for CEO’s and money managers.”

Whoo-hoo! “Basta,” for sure. She doesn’t want to go to the past, well neither do we want to go back to the old Clinton years, especially after seeing BO revision 2.0

[At 23 minutes]”Yes, Donald Trump”… “but there is nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families, and now the insults he’s directed at a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.”

I seem to remember the queen of attacks going to Senate hearings claiming General Petraeus’s’ — whom Hill’s village comrades called “General Betrayus” — testimony “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”… “I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive …a view of a rather grim reality,” Sen Clinton told Gen. Petraeus in ’07 (5 yr before conducting her own Libyan adventure.)

She never condemned the viscous “General Betrayus” campaign or those mocking a hero. She’s shown contempt for our military, its leaders and efforts. But now she is concerned about comments toward John McCain, and criticism of his Senate record? What a condescending hypocrite. Talk about trying to “present a positive view on grim reality!”

The Basta Grandma in another speech blamed Trump’s remarks for the Charleston Shootings. Then railed about her other favorite theme, guns — or the real problem.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, “People need to stand up against it. We should not accept it. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You know you don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s about everybody. The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns.”

“You gotta build it from the bottom up and top down” she claimed. “So maybe on a local and State level we have to keep building towards a more sensible, balanced kind of policy.”

Hillary can’t even pay lip service to the policies enabling a felon deported 5 times and released to murder Kate Steinle. Policies she’d be familiar with as Secretary of State.

Isn’t it disturbing how she talks about guns as another program to hoist on us? Even with her current record of non-stop scandal, she bluntly talks about what she’ll do to the people

Que Sera Sera: 2016 and beyond

Whatever will be will be….

It’s a Spanish phrase famous in a Doris Day song. The phrase, according to Oxford, means the “fatalistic recognition that future events are out of (beyond) the speaker’s control.”

One that might fit the current political landscape. It certainly would have popularity with some laissez-faire advocates. Apply that to politics and look at the rot you can have. At some point one realizes things will be what they will, so why bother? Maybe it is not for us to decide or say anyway?

Given the passive attitude from some about our politics, the phrase can fit well — too well. Without some major change things will be as bad as they’ve ever been. Maybe worse. Just to keep further erosion at bay would require major intervention. And our passivity certainly doesn’t help.

I appreciate the word from Oxford fatalistic. The definition of fatalism, from Oxford, is “The belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”

That could describe a cynical view on politics, too. Combined, it’s kind of dual unavoidable negativism that seems to flow uncontrolled. We can simply bet on receiving more of the same in the future, to which we say “Que sera sera.” Oxford adds: “A submissive outlook, resulting from a fatalistic attitude.” That tends to describe some attitudes.

The old saw is two things you should avoid in conversation are politics and religion. Why? They are considered divisive. Many people like that advice. But it goes a little further, they don’t want to know about either of them. When it comes to elections, they can say they’re all crooks, liars and con artists, and its a sham anyway.(libs prefer that verbiage)

Ignorance may be a virtue in some quarters.

Why would people get excited when one candidate is as bad as the next and where honest, good people would not be running? How do you counter all that negativism? You can’t, since you also know it is about as bad as it gets. There is not much to base hope on.

If you examine it from the other side it’s a bit more personal. Sure, if we keep doing what we are currently doing, in our involvement, then it will probably remain the same or even get worse. Though it does not get better by leaving things to their own devices saying “see, this is what we always have.” No, it doesn’t change and we don’t change. So we have the chicken and egg, which came first question?

Plug in the same scenario to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. [1]There really is not much to look forward to and [2]we pretty much know what to expect with Hillary.(aka evasion and diversion) The chances of either one changing are almost zero. Yet in spite of that gloomy outlook, there are still people willing to support and vote for her. What is wrong with that picture? We all know what to expect with her, right? So “Ready for Hillary”?

She could hardly be more obvious. She is not willing to answer any questions and believes any real accountability is beneath her. She has a team who believes much the same as her, that all she has to do is run to get into office. Then everything according to plan, past is prologue. You think we had scandals and problems with Bubba? Well, meet the new and improved version. Then everyone can just sigh and say, “see, this is always the way it is no matter who is in office… they’re all skunks.” But those people never seem to accept their own culpability for it either.

Reference: Oxford Dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/que-sera-sera

RightRing | Bullright

The audacity of money

We could be reaching a whole new saturation level in politics today, especially concerning America’s favorite beyotch, HRC.

Well, if the speaking fees (and amenities to match) were not enough to draw even the ire of MSM, then it has gotten worse since. But it is still all about money, surprise. That’s what Clintons are about, after all, and lots of it.

Last year at this time, MSNBC even got into the outrage that HRC was getting 275,000 for an hour-long speech at SUNY Buffalo. Then MSM dared to ask the question of all questions: why did Hillary take the money? Why couldn’t she wave the fee or just do it for free? That would never cross Hillanista’s mind. And she also could not forgo the rich amenities she demands with it either. Like a crook leaving some cash behind, she could not do that. The money is the whole point. How much are her words worth?

Now we have the uncovering of the Clinton cash component entangled with her corrupt State Department term. Then we have Hillary’s pronouncement of her 2.5 billion dollar campaign plan for 2016. Maybe that kind of cash was meant to scare Republicans. Alright, can you imagine Rand Paul raising and waging 2.5 billion dollars? I don’t think that’s going to happen. What about any other contender? Not likely but a 5 billion-dollar election for president? What does that say about America? Jeb, are you up for that?The whole point is what does it say about the Clintons? By the next election, how about a quarter of a trillion? Trying to ante up in this high-stakes game makes it extremely difficult.

So are Clintons out to buy our process? We already know they are globalists with their eyes set on the world. Is this their means? They can claim, while doing it, that they are doing a lot of good. The moral to the story, from progressives’ perspective, is what does it matter how many millions they are raking in if they are doing some good? (how much does mosquito netting cost these days?) The Clinton Global Initiative is really the Clinton Initiative — by Clintons for Clintons.

Contrast that with Hillary’s campaign. It seems oddly ironic to run a campaign theme of fight for the little guy, her anti-one-percenter theme. The Clintons entire objective is to raise money — and there are no glass ceilings. But they think they can get away with it because, after all, they are the Clintons. Who can deny the Clintons what they want?

So will America empty its pockets into the coffers of Clintons to get another Clinton elected? Isn’t it time America puts the Clinton Clowns out to political pasture? If not now when? We cannot separate them from their cashola but we can say enough public offices on our dime. They prove how effective they can be without political power — shadow government and all — so why give that to them, too? (be glad to get rid of them)

Their collective political bios should already be written and finished. What more do Clintons need or want to get from our government? Because we know it is about what America will do for them, not what they would ever do for America.

Plus, we will have another guy leaving the White House to suck oxygen out of the universe. That is bad enough on the face, so why put another Occupier into the Oval Office again on top of it? Hillary shows how lucrative the speaker circuit is for her. Same for Bill. And Obama is bound to enrich his wealth on the same and he’ll have his ___ organization. This stuff just keeps going on and on and on, and it seems nothing is going to stop it.

Hillary’s shattered armor

I am kicking around the old notion that “you get the government you deserve”. And if that is true — it seems to have some merit — then suppose that a Party also gets the candidate it deserves. Obviously just a theory. But if so, my working theory is Democrats are getting the candidate they deserve with Hillary.

Everything they said about Romney in their pack of lies they have in spades now with Hillary.But for real not an illusion. They got a rich, fat-cat politico that is so out of touch with regular people that she can hardly hide it. Someone who puts political ambitions above concerns for the people. Someone who very much plays the influence, pay-to-play game. Someone obsessed with and addicted to power. Someone involved in crony capitalism who takes money from the shadiest players. Someone who operates as above the law unaccountable for her actions.

Remember the big story was how Romney’s were buying a new house with an elevator. Using it as a metaphor, all the Clintons’ elevators only go in one direction, up. Hillary really does not care about average people.(that’s how she got where she got) It’s quite the show she puts on but everyone knows her only real, first concern is Hillary. She has all she can do to defend herself from the truth — a full time job. Like Obama, truth is her enemy. Who just makes speeches for a 7 figure income?

In New Hampshire, Hillary was asked about the allegations coming in a new book about money and influence surrounding her tenure as Secretary of State, she said:

“Well, we’re back into the political season and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that. I know that that comes unfortunately with the territory,”

“It is, I think, worth noting, the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don’t know what they’d talk about if I wasn’t in the race. But I am in the race and hopefully we’ll get on to the issues and I look forward to that.”

Worth noting is it? “Distractions and attacks and I’m ready for that.” So if she’s ready for that then why can’t she answer the question? Doesn’t she have an answer ready, or does she think she doesn’t have to answer questions?

“Ready for Hillary,” who is not ready for questions.

Does she take everyone for dummies? It’s a central issue in her campaign, whether she likes it or not. She can go on ignoring it as if it doesn’t matter but it maters to the people. Especially since folks are jaded about political influence peddlers, and after 2012 when that is all Democrats talked about. So now tell us none of it matters. She can talk about what she wants till she’s as blue as Monica’s dress, but it won’t make information on her record go away. And what was the big topic in her first run? It was Hillary Clinton’s records. Axelrod and Obama wrote the screenplay.

All she wants to talk about is her Scooby Van and her script. She can’t talk about her record as Secretary of State because that is relegated to ancient history now, buried in the deep with her personal server she used. All they want to talk about is me, she said. What does she think we will talk about, she does not have a primary challenge. She said she is the most transparent person out there. Wherever did I hear that before?

But as busy as Hillary has been in the influence racket, she is whistling past her leftist base. For fifteen years they’ve been making the charge about big money and influence in the administration or the White House. It goes back to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Of course, you remember because we still hear about it. That is a favorite whipping post of the left. Then along came Romney who they painted into a poster boy for big money and influence. It still goes on in the left. Ironically, liberals don’t move on quickly.

Now here is Hillary Clinton, who if not for big money would have a giant identity crisis. Her and Bill in their private jet-setting lifestyle passed the tradition along to Chelsea. But of course Hilary thought she was entitled to her own personal server, why not? Raising millions from the same people she was dealing with at the State Department? Whatever could be wrong with that? In fact, isn’t that expected? The hypocritical left goes right along with it and the corruption she exudes. Yes, they got the candidate they deserve. They would be disappointed if she was not that way.

You heard of the military industrial complex but this is the political industrial complex. The thought that she stands a good chance of wining only adds to that. Consider if she even gets close, let alone wins, what it says about Democrats. It means even knowing how corrupt she is, they will elect her anyway — knowing full well the person Hillary is. It will mean not only don’t they care but expect it in their nominee.

Hillary Road Tour Roundup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

All aboard the Scooby Express

Including and especially the fawning mainstream media.

In NRO, Johnah Goldberg has captured a moment in time, the first day on the campaign trail. (well, I mean the first day on the official campaign trail)

“We’ve never seen [Hillary] get a burrito before,” remarks Mark Halprin.

Nothing surpasses the electric excitement of eating a burrito. Let’s be real, they won’t be so giddy a while after she consumed said burrito. It might bring tears to their eyes.

But this was the patented mentality of the swooning Left in covering Obama, too. Watch him eat an ice cream cone; watch as he assails the bowling alley with a gutter ball. Tune in as Obama visits a sandwich shop. Oh, the memories of which leave me nauseous.

Pay attention as the media does what they do best: weave her into an attractive, likeable, if playful, favorite candidate. Naturally, substance is not even on the menu. It can’t be. It’s all eye candy making a sow into a silk purse. A well-known sow but sow nonetheless.

To borrow the standard phrase of late night TV host Tom Snyder in his program:

“Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air.”

“I’m doing something too… I’m running for president,” says Hillary. And away we go!

See Jonah’s column here.

And the Show must go on

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

Hillary campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary, despite the truth

A Quinnipiac poll “shows that voters no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy.””

On the face that sounds horrible for the first-Heiress of the White House. However, could they somehow spin that into filet mignon? Not really, but they probably don’t have to.

On the contrary, that is exactly how Democrats like their candidates. In fact, it just qualifies her as the right nominee. That sounds like exactly the reason Democrats will vote for her. It might even guarantee she wins, in their eyes. So it’s terrific news.

Let’s recap the typical Democrat voter, on the major issues — we call them scandals — of the day. They see the news but its how they think that counts.

Benghazi — Dems said that it was a “fabricated scandal” by Republicans. They said voters would not care and, come 2016, it would not make any difference to voters.

Email servergate — they said it was certainly no scandal and that it would not make a bit of difference to Democrat voters, who already like and believe in her.

Hillary’s lack of a record (even the ones she didn’t hide) — they said that would not make any difference to voters.

Clinton Foundation and Hillary — read my lips, everybody now, Democrats will not care about that stuff. It won’t matter to voters.

See a trend yet? To punctuate it, top Clinton operative Paul Begala put it in layman’s terms for us, just in case we missed the drumbeat-message. (enjoy)

“Voters do not give a shit. They do not even give a fart… Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I’ll kiss your ass in Macy’s window and say it smells like roses.”

So go suck on an exhaust pipe, she’s a shoe-in. Run her up the flagpole. Voters don’t care.

Now, people don’t think she is trustworthy. So you can correctly assume it will not make a bit of difference to voters. Actually, with Dems a negative is more often a positive.

How many ways can they say “we don’t care,” even if she’s not “honest or trustworthy”?

“Hard Choices”…. I think not.

Left evolution is not complete

There may be another rare mutation taking place on the Left. Wow, someone dares to call out the dogmatic Left for its behavior. And it is coming from within the Left.

The Campus Left Begins to Implode

Mar 26, 2015 • By JONATHAN V. LAST | Weekly Standard

Teaser alert:

“High on their own supply, activists in these organizing circles end up developing a crusader mentality: an extreme self-righteousness based on the conviction that they are doing the secular equivalent of God’s work.”

Then, one of the Leftish academia faculty issued a similar decree, chastizing the radical Left as if it were intolerant and out of control. (well, because it is after all)

“The same cannot be said of liberal students. All it takes is one slip-not even an outright challenging of their beliefs, but even momentarily exposing them to any uncomfortable thought or imagery-and that’s it, your classroom is triggering, you are insensitive, kids are bringing mattresses to your office hours and there’s a twitter petition out demanding you chop off your hand in repentance. . . .”

Read at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/campus-left-begins-implode_899318.html

Whoa someone is spouting the truth about the Ivy Liberal Tower. I suppose the Left will be outraged by these revelations. There are lots more examples in this critique. It may lose a little in the translation, from Liberals on liberals, but nevertheless is criticism.

It appears it is not enough to be a card-carrying Leftisit, but one has to be a radioactive Leftisit radical or be treated like an otherkin. So someone has just kicked the snake nest. Oh, this could ignite. One shall not challenge the sacred tenants of the Left. It is heresy, find those heretics!

But hey, you knew it was only a matter of time until the left evolved to this point of ultimate bigotry in Leftdom that some would inevitably find intolerable. (it just isn’t something any Leftist should discuss, publicly anyway) So if you don’t stand, I mean march, with us you might as well be against us. The defrocking will begin.

Allow me to fan those flames a little, especially because it is happening on campuses — those incubators for liberaldom. First, are these merely disagreements on tactics or strategies? No, they are more foundational criticisms going to the ideology.

Second, say what you will about the Right, we frequently have disagreements and air them publicly. On the Left, that is forbidden fruit. The first rule of the Left is you don’t criticize other Leftists or the sacred ideas of the Left. And every rule thereafter would refer back to that one. So this is a unique situation here.

Hillary, we have a problem: multiple problems

So Hillary says she “opted” to use just one device. Well, that sounds simple enough. Too simple. The problem is this is not about her choice of device, or number of them, she used but about the one private server she used exclusively. It’s about the choice of using one private account, for business and personal. She could have opted for any number of devices which still would all have been connected to the one private server. The multiple device excuse disintegrates under any logic.Could she make that case in court?

As many others said, she could have had more than one email account on one device. No, again, she wanted only one private server. That is the issue not the number of phones.

Now she complains but much of the info on there was private, and that is a problem. (but only for us) She is the one who gave it thought and then tossed all rational reason in the wind to combine her private emails with her public duties/responsibilities. (something she might have considered were she elected president) It was her decision, no one forced her. One can only imagine the size and scope of the server should she ever become president. But now she wants to make an issue about the amount of private stuff on there? Can anyone say smokescreen? A problem she willfully created.

Newest reports say her two top aides also used the server. Well, now we are getting closer. When Hillary talks about personal emails, or private information, it depends on the meaning of “private,” doesn’t it? If top aides were in her server loop then that info was not recorded at the State Department, obviously. Gives new meaning to private doesn’t it? Can the bsusiness or information related to the State Department be considered “private”? And she wonders why anyone would care about this.

But the whole point that this is a choice over having two or multiple devices is ludicrous. It’s like a blue dress someone airbrushed red. The more adamant she appeared in making that case at her presser, the more it destroys her credibility — which she had none of before.

Dems do even worse in defending her — note they defend Hillary not what she did. They say it will not make a difference to people on voting for her. Again, that is not the issue. Sure it should matter, but what she did and why are still the central issue. So politics, electability are the only things that matter. Following rules in office are irrelevant.

Her number-of-devices argument is as weak as the number of straw men she used.
But unfortunately for us, we don’t have an app for that.

Hillary’s mountain of problems

The White House declares Obama did not know and only found out through the press. Play it again, Sam. Doesn’t say much for his administration, does it?

That’s only half of the problem, if we take Obama at his word. That Hillary did not disclose or notify them is a sub-problem. Why not? And he did not find out. Why not?

So Hillary supposedly did not inform the Obama administration that she was exclusively using private email and routed it to her home.(wherever) Wouldn’t security and national security demand that she tell them, or Obama?

I actually speculate that there was some sort of conversation. This is only speculation, and only one possibility. It could have went something like Hillary letting him know basically what she was doing, ‘but just for security reasons'(wink). He might have said if there are ever questions or problems, I have deniability. Even if there was no conversation it amounts to the same thing, “I didn’t know”.

What if every cabinet Secretary did that? This was not the occasional overlapping of private email accounts. When they point to Jeb or Christie, those are states and not the federal government or a department.

The other problem is that State Department certainly knew it. But no one informed the administration of the situation?

As with most Clinton problems, people want to close the barn door after Clintons bolted through it. She has her way and benefits, then takes a stand in favor of closing the door.

Hilary, you’ve got problems!

WH connections to Israeli election

When John Boehner invited Netanhahu to speak to Congress it stirred a flurry of criticism from the Left and the White House. How dare he, and without asking the Prez’s permission even?! It’s against protocol.

The excuse and reasons from the White House are usually as bad as their actions. So too with this. Obama does not want to meet with Bibi while here. They claim it is because it is an election season in Israel and they make a habit not to give even an appearance of interfering with elections.

This too gets very hairy when the truth comes out. I knew they had no love for Netanyahu, and they would not want to lend more credence to him or his electability. Assuming, as I will, that is a major reason they will not not deal with him when he comes.

Even that is worse and more erroneous. The hypocrisy just never ends with this crew of ideologues and miscreants. It turns out that Obama’s campaign gurus are actually working hard to oust Netanyahu. Oh, that’s rich at the same time they are claiming they don’t even want to give the appearance of meddling in Israeli politics. See

I knew they did not want to lend any legitimacy to Netanyahu’s leadership. But this is even more chutzpah than most people imagined. Though I can’t be surprised by anything they do. When Obama says things like all options are on the table, it is important to understand what that means, namely to him and his cohorts.

But then anyone should realize whenever Obama says something is a matter of “principle” — or law or Constitution — it is a complete ruse. (EO on Immigration)

Couple that with the intermingling of Obama operatives in Canada’s electoral process. That was highlighted in an excellent post by Blessed B at Nox and Friends.(article) Sure they are out to support opposition to leaders they don’t like. It’s clear.

Now what is also clear is that not only is their excuse about meeting with Bibi a ruse, but meddling in other countries’ politics is their forte. It’s a righteous liberal crusade to them. They pride themselves on politics. It’s like the Mafia, it is their thing. Remember the Arab Spring and Egypt, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. There was the then Senator Obama campaigning in Africa for Raila Odinga.(which he denied)

So when they trot out that excuse of not giving the appearance of meddling in elections, know what that really means. I.e. Obama standing on a principle that doesn’t exist.

Dang that appearance

Ynet news: “As a matter of longstanding practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said.

Yet having other leaders come to the White House and go to lobby Congress, even on national security matters, is perfectly acceptable to them. “Get over it!”

Can Obama restrain himself from casting a vote of influence? The question going forward: is his legacy and future applying his influence on elections?

During the midterms he tried to avoid having a negative impact on Democrats. And they didn’t want him around. Bad enough the ghost of Obama was everywhere. But then he made a pronouncement that all his policies or issues were very much on the ballot — right there between the lines — despite his ballot absence. He just couldn’t resist.

We saw how hard it was for him to stay out of the election process. He can’t. Is it just a sign of what’s to come: The Obama-Jarrett Roadshow? He just has special animosity for Netanyahu, Israel. Principle and Obama are not compatible.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama the page turner

Obama said in his 2015 SOTU that we turned the page. Yea, we turned the page and found about the same thing on that one.

Daily Caller

“Fifteen years that dawned with terror touching our shores; that unfolded with a new generation fighting two long and costly wars; that saw a vicious recession spread across our nation and the world. … Tonight, we turn the page,” Obama declared.

Turn to what? Making a deadly deal in negotiation with Iran, believing in rose-colored democracy in Cuba, labeling climate change the biggest threat in the world? The Obama page is riddled with defects but that never stopped him. The new page of dissing Israel’s security concerns. Create an illegal immigration crisis. Dictator du jour. Oh right, that new foundation he said they laid. What was wrong with the old foundation?

The Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We will always be conceived in liberty but one must seriously question what proposition we are dedicated to now, in 2015? Obama’s proposition, whatever he decides that is. May the world not long remember what Obama says, but it can never ignore what he did here. If this was the legacy he was after then he certainly got one.

Know this: the shadow of crisis has passed.” No, he’s still president.

Then in closing Obama said he has only one agenda — the same one he had since elected, “to do what I think is best for America“. That depends on his meaning of “best” for the country, doesn’t it? If he thinks changing and rewriting our immigration law is best for the country. If lying to us about Benghazi was best for the country. If bypassing Congress is best for our country. If calling ISIS the JV team was best for the country. If immi-gate was best for the country. If green-funding-gate was best for the country. If denying even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS is best. Best for who, really?

Even more telling than his list of guests of special mention at the SOTU was who he did not choose to spotlight. Like the husband of the woman beheaded in Oklahoma, or the parents of the student slain in New Jersey as fair game, or James Foley’s family, or the parents of the kidnapped and beheaded journalist, or family members of countless other victims of non-Islamic terrorists. Or any victims of his IRS non-scandal.

It shows you where he is focused. He’d rather use a Democrat campaign operative as a human interest story. Who wants to talk about another victim of Islamic terrorism?

But may we not soon forget what he did. The shadow endures.

State of the Union is Under Siege.

RightRing | Bullright

Whatever floats the boat

Or sinks it… whichever the case may be. I don’t know.

I’m going to take a blank sheet of (internet) paper and make a big mess. I don’t know where all this is going to go, or where it will end. It will evolve.

I could make a list of things and characters, then draw lines and arrows connecting them. That would be even a bigger mess. So I’ll try it in writing. It could cover a lot of ground.

Ferguson revealed a political tactic, or was it more of a law enforcement strategy to deal with protestors? It started with the governor. If you read the tea leaves, Gov. Nixon thought the answer to the protestor problem would be to let them riot and cede businesses and property to them, to do as they wish. That might appease protestors immediate needs. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and civility, just react to the results. Cops stand down and businesses and property owners are sacrificed, not to mention entire communities.

But then even that was not enough to satisfy the perpetual protestors. Wouldn’t they only want and demand more? Rational persons would think so. When they can let the public be overwhelmed by hordes of others, then protestors aren’t taking on police or governmental authorities directly. It’s a tradeoff to protect the powers that be from taking the brunt of it. Confrontation could be more controversial and costly, they reason.

And that fits right in line with the protestors’ goals who are all about some forced sense of equality between haves and have nots. Material property is a natural outcropping of their philosophy. So Nixon decides to give them what they want, let them run roughshod over other innocent bystanders. That would seem to divert the clash from being aimed at him and his fellow political class.

Is this becoming the default strategy for dealing with out of control protestors? In other words, to legitimize protestors’ concerns in word and, in deed, to let them have their way. Let them shut down communities and resources.There were early warnings of this with OWS. But can they let this go on and on? Though the public at large eventually gets tired of being sucker punched.

There’s that old saying that “you can’t make all the people happy all the time.” So why even try? But at what cost will they try to make some of the people happy, that’s the question?

Protestors got the message and responded in kind. They unleashed their wrath — over exactly what is debatable — on their fellow citizens and businesses alike. Make it as hard for people to carry out their daily activities as possible. Make their fellow citizens pay. Set up demonstrations in malls and storefront entrances; shut down bridges and travel; take over the streets of entire neighborhoods interrupting services and transportation. Make life a hell for their so-called neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with their grievances. That will get their message across, while chanting hate toward cops.

For law enforcement’s part, just let protestors continue in an attempt to avoid a clash between authorities and defiant thugs. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it? That’s what people like De Blasio are doing under the guise of ‘feeling the pains’ of this movement and appealing to its violent undercurrent.

Try writing a letter to your elected representatives sometime expressing your grievances about something and see what result you get. It sort of feels like you are talking into a tin can and string. Even after a landslide election against political elites, they defiantly interpret the results however they choose. It’s as if they were elected to invent reality.

The left’s method has long been to get pols attention with chaos and temper tantrums, and they have. Their defiance cannot be ignored. So much so that some politicians made the decision that a sacrifice must be made on the part of some people, to try to satisfy others. But in extension, it’s the same thing they’ve always done by playing their class warfare. Have one group opposed to others, long as the infighting suits the objectives of the power-hungry ruling class.

Then look at libs reaction from major media to elected officials, to the Stalingrad leftist minions. Days ago they were talking about the situation on Fox. Juan Willams was schooling his colleagues on how “we love protests”… that we may not agree but “we’ll defend to death your right to protest”. But those are hollow words we’ve come to expect from the Left. Look at Tea Party protests and rallies. Defense was not their response.

After seeing emails about what was going on in the IRS, targeting conservatives and Tea Parties, and down through the ranks of liberal media, they were not at all sympathizing with “protests” — let alone defending them. They were all about shutting them down by any means, and using government to do it. Liberals objected and rejected permitting for them, saying they would be disruptive. Remember all that? Now Juan trots out his boilerplate talking point about the freedom of protests. Liberals’ allies in the media railed against the movement, painting them as bigots and racists. Let’s forget that.

Al Jazeera has an editorial that made a similar conclusion to mine but by comparing these protestors to the original Boston Tea Party. (more of a disservice to them and history but that is another matter) After making that analogy, it said we are a nation that has not experienced revolt and revolution — at least in modern times — that we tend to put faith in our constitutional system to avert such. So far it has worked, it continued, and we have solved problems through the rule of law. It characterized the current situation as so out of control, by people so distrusting of the very system, that it begs the question: what it will take to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? It theorizes this might be the storm that does us in, after pointing out popular revolutions frequently happened elsewhere. It was not hard to see where they were going, or how their readers might interpret their hypothesis. So the implication is this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

What to say about such an extravagant theory… only it’s not so extravagant in the scheme of things. We have people dead set on getting their way, despite cost or means, who will call it justice if successful. I resent the comparison to the Tea Party though, but it was throughout the piece. Many of these Leftists have been hankering for a righteous revolution for decades. There are rent-a-protestors and communist sympathizers, who latch on to any popular protest movement. (not so much to Tea Parties…)

It even acknowledges the shortfall of Wall Street Occupiers to capture this much fervor. I had to think a little about that one. But it’s amazing what some good old racism can do for you. Two questions spring to mind: 1) was the tradeoff worth it; 2) do the protestors win and replicate this formula on all grievances? Precedent anyone? Are we in uncharted waters? Can their discontent do irreparable harm?

I tend to agree with some of Al Jezeera’s piece. For the most part, because of the mixed reactions and messages protestors have been getting. It’s something academia has aligned itself with. Race-baiters and racists have found a niche. Marxists found another vehicle. Why would any of its factions want to let go when it seems they are getting something in return? Do cops being executed bother them? Not in the least.

But many of these organizers always accused the Right or Tea Partiers of stirring up contempt and anti-government sentiments, holding them responsible for things like Gabby Gifford’s shooting. How quickly the Left and racists have come full circle to endorsing an anything goes, by any means strategy. I do mean anything goes.

The race and all the other interests are becoming mere factors of the whole, or turning into a means within a means. Is it life boat time?

Ref: The spirit of the Boston Tea Party returns – Al Jazeera America

RightRing | Bullright

Immigration canard

Obama quoted from Exodus in his illegal “immigrations” speech. Who knows why he did. Maybe he thought it would convince some people that he was doing the right thing.

What he quoted was Ex 22:21

21 “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
NKJV

But he should have went on to quote: Ex 23:1-3

“You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2 You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.”
NKJV

Is there any part of the 2nd quote that he did NOT do?

What gets me is he operated outside the law in two ways, at least. (maybe more) He actually wrote law as he is not allowed to do. And he overstepped his authority into an area, immigration, he is not supposed to go. So there are two offenses.

As reported prior to his speech in WH leaked reports:

It expands the deportation reprieve given to some illegal aliens in 2012 to include millions more.

The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates.

Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-“amnesty” lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.

Let me remind him of a couple things. First was the unpopularity of what he did. Had he read the tea leaves, last year, he would have known it when they were slamming a so-called bipartisan “immigration” bill through the Senate. They did it and people were not happy about it, which is also why it went nowhere in the House. But determined they were and flaunted it as an achievement. At what expense?

Months went by with the same negativity growing toward the Senate, Obama and Democrats. Then, as soon as they got past the 2014 elections, here they are and Obama just has to take unconstitutional, unilateral action on illegal immigration. Working papers, SS numbers, amnesty etc. If it was as popular as they claim, why did he not do it months ago when they schemed it? Dems could have ran their campaigns on it and ran it by the people at the ballot box. No.

Heritage had a paper on so-called immigration reform. They list 10 things any proposal should deal with.

 

“Therefore, any President who truly wants to fix the U.S. immigration and border security problems must first fulfill his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”[1] Fulfilling this responsibility requires 10 areas of action, and without a commitment to every area, U.S. immigration law is not being faithfully executed. These 10 policies are:

  1. Overriding and removing existing executive orders, agency memorandums, or other executive policy directives that ignore or contradict existing law;
  2. Allowing immigration agencies to enforce and apply the law without workplace interference, political pressure, or procedural obstacles;
  3. Providing the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency with a fully operational system of sensor and camera technologies and infrastructure on the southwest border to multiply the efficacy of their efforts;
  4. Using the appropriate judicial and administrative tools efficiently to remove and return unlawful immigrants to their home countries;
  5. Increasing enforcement against businesses that knowingly employ unlawful labor;
  6. Engaging with international partners and remaining committed to citizen security and democratic governance in the Western Hemisphere;
  7. Making U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), more efficient and effective;
  8. Reporting accurate immigration data to Congress and the American people in a truthful, consistent, and complete manner;
  9. Soliciting the assistance and support of the states in enforcing immigration laws and limiting the effectiveness of those governments that attempt to frustrate enforcement with sanctuary policies; and
  10. Verifying the success of these actions through honest and accurate Census survey data of the unlawful immigrant population.
See paper at: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/11/ten-step-checklist-for-revitalizing-americas-immigration-system-how-the-administration-can-fulfill-its-responsibilities

It is doubtful that a president choosing to act in an unconstitutional manner would care much about the ethics or appearance of what he is doing. So he made no attempt to create even an illusion of legitimacy. He just wrote law and overstepped his authority boundaries. He has no respect for the law he is attempting to rewrite.

RightRing | Bullright

Forewarnings of midterms

Shall we look back to see if there may have been indications of 2014 midterms landslide?

Even as far back as 2012 primaries there were stunning warnings — which might have shaken libs’ status quo even then. No, they were busy whistling past the graveyard. Townhall had a piece in May, 2012 that Pepperhawk forwarded me then. “(H/T)

Remember this is early 2012:

Little attention is being paid by the national news media to the Democrats’ presidential primaries because Obama is assured of his nomination. But the large size of the anti-Obama vote — exposing deep unrest in his party’s political base — has shaken his campaign’s high command.

The latest explosions came in Tuesday’s Kentucky and Arkansas primaries which of course he won easily. But a stunning 42 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted” on their ballot.

In yellow-dog Democrat Arkansas, 42 percent voted for a little- known Tennessee lawyer, John Wolfe, over the president of the United States.

And two weeks ago in the West Virginia primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon and now Texas prison inmate got 41 percent of the vote.

Some smarty-pants political pundits who think they know everything say some of this is about race and that these states are firmly in the GOP column anyway.

It went on to say, and quote, what the Washington Post had said:

Such strong antipathy toward Obama at this end point in his trouble-plagued presidency is “an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party,” writes The Washington Post’s campaign trackers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake.

Racial factors “may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.” And they quote Democrats who point to growing grievances that many in their party have over the political direction Obama is taking the country.

“The most significant factor is the perception/reality the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left,” says former Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/05/25/are_democrats_deserting_obama/page/full

With all they have done since, this should have told them not to take support for granted. But the institutionalized Left ignored all that and doubled down on race-baiting, claiming opposition to Obama’s agenda was due to racism. Well, they wore out that excuse. But it didn’t reflect the rising narrative or reality.  And it didn’t fit the reality in 2014. The meme was racism, women, Hispanics, oh my. (Dems refer to as their ‘core’ constituents)

Sure they can always make that claim, as overused as it is, but sooner or later it loses its sting. Just as the ‘war on women’ narrative lost its sting in the 2014 elections. And the ideal of hope and change was lost as well — proving you can overuse a term even if it is vague. Hope and change was redefined as failure. War on women drew yawns and boos at debates. Racism is still a euphemism for disagreement with Obama, but believable? Hardly. Racism is used for an excuse for losing, as an excuse for violent protests, and as an  excuse to oppose election integrity.

So “these are states with large populations of low income, blue collar, “working class” Americans who have been hit hardest by Obama’s economic policies” were instrumental in 2014, too. It seems working class Americans overall are disenchanted with Democrats as revealed in 2014 results. But want more proof? Dems rushed to have a pow wow over the midterm results. They emerged with the message they have to do a better job relating to “middle-class” working people. Well, duh. Their policies have been a thumb in the eye to the so-called middle class.

They don’t want to do anything to actually help the middle class, they just want to talk about it, while trudging on with their elitist policies. But talk about it they will, which rings as hollow as all their other talking point messages of late. We can count on that because it was the consensus of their 2014 autopsy.

When you can’t blame yourselves, then blame the middle class for not quite understanding your message. In effect, they blamed all their special interests. But they dare not blame the teachers’ unions, who dumped record amounts of cash into their coffers.

More insight, another article from Forbes, they analyzed 2014 results:

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ class warfare message has been further undermined by the nature of the recovery; while failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds.

What’s it mean? “Middle class” will be the most used words in Dem’s vocabulary.

RightRing | Bullright

Curse of an ineffective prez

Mind you this comes from Washington Post but it is an opinion piece from Larry Summers. So excuse me while I question the premise of the article.

Ending presidents’ second-term curse

By Lawrence Summers August 10, 2014 | Washington Post

Disillusionment with Washington has rarely run higher. Congress is unable to act even in areas where there is widespread agreement that measures are necessary, such as immigration, infrastructure spending and business tax reform. The Obama administration, rightly or wrongly, is increasingly condemned as ineffectual. What was once a flood of extraordinarily talented people eager to go into government has shrunk to a trickle, and many crucial positions remain unfilled for months or even years. Bipartisan compromise seems inconceivable on profoundly important long-term challenges such as climate change, national security strategy and the need to strengthen entitlement programs in a fiscally responsible way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-ending-presidents-second-term-curse/2014/08/10/84dee500-1f34-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

Let’s say that calling Obama ineffectual is like calling Jack the Ripper ineffectual. The problem of course is the effect he has had, not his inability to have an effect. And with Summers’ great insight, aren’t you glad he is not in the Fed? There is only one way I know to guarantee the end of this curse, but he will not do that either.

I will cede a point about those semi-talented young people being wasted under his leadership. But the talent he refers to differs from what I see more as thuggery.

Sometimes it is important to follow the Left’s (progressives’) narrative because it tells you where they are at (in ideology) which is usually a different place than we live. Then, after examining that you can better respond to their faulty reasoning.

Then comes reality, Obama is stomped for the very policies he said were on the table. Or his majority in the Senate, which ran interference, reduced to minority status. So whatever Summers was idealizing about a few months before election looks more challenged now.

However, that doesn’t mean Obama’s ideology or agenda is gone. Just that now tactics will change. If one wants to then judge the effectiveness of his radical methods, then you might have the same scenario as I already explained: it is not that he is ineffective, just that America is liking his ‘effectivity’ much less.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama is the caricature he attacks

Obama is the caricature he always ran against.

Obama has created a fictitious caricature of his opposition since the beginning. And loaded it with plenty of straw man arguments, too. Most as specious as the design.

We all know what Ohama has railed against but in actuality he is everything he criticizes.Think of the big spending elite ruling class.

  • Rails against racism whether overt or couched and seems to see it everywhere, except in himself.
  • against big business’s influence in politics
  • out of control spending
  • the elite ruling class making decisions above the purview of the people
  • Foreign policy run amok.
  • a corrupt administration abusing its power
  • constipated government, incapable of making good decisions
  • fat cat politicians disconnected from the people.

In reality, he is all that he attacks and more. He is the poster child for abusive government. He is the classic example of nontransparent government. He runs against government failure while being a product of failure. He claims to be the best ally Israel ever had.

If there was an award for lies, he would be king of the competition.

He nick-named himself as “no drama Obama” and is now anything but. Obama is synonymous with failure. He supposedly stands for healthcare for everyone that will save lives, while he is the biggest proponent for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

When Obama ran against Bobby Rush and lost, he was crushed. He was jilted and rejected. He wondered about running again. Now the inner conflict returns. I wish he were just another Congressman or Senator. Hope and change means: hope nothing changes.

In 2000, then Bobby Rush quipped about Obama:

Rush slammed Obama in an interview with The Chicago Reader published on March 17, 2000, saying, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”

So then, why on earth would the black community be so impressed with him now, using civil rights as nothing more than a whipping post?

RightRing | Bullright