Hillary’s collapse or truth alert

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

Dem Panic: Hillary’s Catastrophic Collapse In One Chart

by John Nolte  | 15 Jan 2016

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

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


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

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

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

Stranger than fiction statements

A string of comments flows from demos like a sewer… and a Republican ringer.

Obama says he was not watching TV so he had no idea the people were that upset on things. then he trotted out the decade old canard that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for ISIS.

Red State

In an off-the-record meeting with journalists on Tuesday, Obama said that he did not watch enough cable news to fully recognize the extent of people’s fears, sources with knowledge of the meeting told CNN. That characterization of Obama’s remarks was included in a New York Times article, but later removed while the article was being edited for the print edition.

Then he determined — after not realizing what people were thinking — that people think guys with masks are coming to get them. Dummy people again.(our fault) He make a mockery of people’s concerns. Meanwhile, he wants to let in 200.000 refugees from the very war-torn state, after every agency plus ISIS has declared they were going to exploit the refugee plans. But we are the bad guys because we believe ISIS is out to get us.

Meanwhile he declared that almost anything (criticism or suggestions) any conservatives make are merely “recruiting tools” for ISIS or the enemy.

Interview with NPR, Obama said:

Well, I think what’s fair is that post-Paris you had a saturation of news about the horrible attack there. And ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. And as a consequence, if you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you.

He then framed American media as a complicit recruiting tool for ISIS:

INSKEEP: You referred to ISIL’s sophisticated media operation and also referred to what Americans are seeing in the American media. Are you suggesting that the media are being played in a sense here?

OBAMA: Look, the media is pursuing ratings. This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things. There is no doubt that the actions of ISIL are designed to amplify their power and the threat that they pose. That helps them recruit, that adds in the twisted thoughts of some young person that they might want to have carry out an action, that somehow they’re part of a larger movement. And so I think that the American people absorb that, understandably are of concern.

So we are being duped by the sensationalizing media, and our fear is not justified. He earns the name Baghdad Barry. We must be seeing things we’re so stupid.

Hillary says Trump is a huge recruitment tool for ISIS. She claimed Trump was ISIS’s biggest recruiter in videos. Hillary also said we (America) is right “where we need to be” strategically in our ME security policy.

“We are now, finally, where we should be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after the ISIS, which is dangerous for us, as well as the region, and we finally UN Security Council resolution, bringing the world together to go after political transition in Syria. ”

What kind of nonsense is that? She’s the liar in waiting.

Jeb’s new line is Trump cannot insult his way to the nomination or presidency. But Jeb can attack his way to the nomination — or he thinks he can. Then calls the “Chaos Candidate the king of “one-liners.”

So Right to Rise’s latest attack ad has Jeb saying Trump cannot insult his way to the presidency. Jeb is now king of hypocrisy. That’s just one of his many dumb statements lately. He thinks he can attack his way to the top — still does. But Trump is successful.

Obama and Hillary: the Disaster Duo in the cat-bird seat.

Let’s get something straight, Obama and Hillary have to be the biggest ISIS recruiting tools because they built ISIS on their watch with their failed policies and record of inaction. Hillary could not even bring herself to label Boko Harem a terrorist group. They’ve been working with the Muslim Brotherhood for years. Obama said he did not have anything to do with the Arab Spring uprising when he has his fingerprints all over it.

We didn’t trigger the Arab Spring,” the US President said, just a day after the fifth anniversary of the Arab Spring — an uprising that spread across the Middle East and toppled regimes.

NYT had even credited Obama with jump-starting the Arab Spring. They supported Morsi too. The administration actively and directly worked to overthrow leaders in Arab countries – our allies. Then he turns around to say he had no part in it. They’re like Mo-Bro social workers. Now he simply diverts blame as it all didn’t turn out so well. State Department was up to their necks supporting the Arab Spring. But of course that’s old news. Now Obama tries to tell us who he’s listening to — not the Mo-Bros.

In the same NPR piece Obama said:

And the reason they don’t have an answer is because the truth is that the approach that we are taking is one that’s based on the best counsel and best advice of our top military, top intelligence, top diplomatic teams. And we are going after ISIL effectively. We are going after them hard. And we are confident that we are going to prevail.

Another all-star lie. Look at the people who he listened to and influenced his decisions all across the ME and it was not the military or intelligence. The political hacks are making those decisions and advising him. Thus, he has to run over to the Pentagon now to try to show us he’s talking to and working with them because we know who is really advising him. Were all those ME failures by military advisers? What complete boulder dash, BS.

Obama and Hillary were likely huge recruiting tools(fools) in denying ISIS was Islamic or that the Caliphate was Islamic. I bet that rattled their cages real good. Just the kind of material for propaganda they need to recruit new jihadis. So they can show the world how Islamic they are.

RightRing | Bullright

Trump calls Dem agenda on debate

For months now we’ve been asking Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist? She danced around to avoid answering the question. Now we know why, or let’s say the first debate proved what we already knew. There is none. Socialism is the central component in the left.

But they made sure to demonstrate it loud and clear for any in doubt. The question was never what is socialism but what are Democrats? Socialism for a thousand, Alex.

Dems handled the first Marxist debate how you’d expect. The only thing not open to debate was the state of the Socialists Party. Bernie would not attack Hillary’s email discretions or sever scandal, and Hillary would not condemn Sanders’ socialism.(was there a debate prenuptial?) Thou shalt not attack socialism, and historically an indictable felony is no problem to Democrats. Seeing is believing.

Trump calls Bernie Sanders the ‘C-word’

October 15, 2015 | Michael Dorstewitz | BizPac Review

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used the “C-word “ to describe Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, at a rally Wednesday. That’s right, he called him a Communist.

“I watched Hillary last night with, ‘We’re gonna give this, we’re gonna give that, we’re gonna give that’ “ he said, describing the Democratic presidential debate, at a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia.

“The poor woman, she’s got to give everything away because this maniac that was standing on her right is giving everything away so she’s following. That’s what’s happening. This socialist slash Communist. OK. Nobody wants to say it.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/15/trump-calls-bernie-sanders-the-c-word-264121/

Oh, why don’t they just rename it the Progressive Party at least? That’s what they call themselves. PP is same initials as Planned Parenthood. It’s still too early to call it the Marxist or Communist Party that it is, so Progressive Party sounds better.

Made for production Dem Debate

Not that hypocrisy ever matters to Democrats or the media liberals.

The story going into the 1st Democrat debate was how Democrats should not attack each other. The whole objective of the two Republican debates was to have them attacking each other.(cannibalizing is a better word) They suggested because Sanders is so low compared to Hillary, that she should let it go even if Bernie attacks her. They asked why elevate him by dignifying it with a response?

On Republicans, they insisted that all the attacks should be responded to, or wave the white flag and forfeit. Now it’s why show any disharmony or disunity in the Democrat Party ranks? Don’t need to do that, even if they are running against each other for control of the Marxist Party.

On the other hand, if they want to talk about rough and tumble Party infighting, point to Republicans. That was surely the script going in.

The debate went according to plan, featuring Hillary in the lead role that will win her an academy award. She’s as gifted at denial as the present Oval Office Occupant. Everyone else was a supporting role. Who cares who they were? Jim Webb didn’t stand a chance with a socialist audience. They made sure not to applaud any of his answers except for a handful that appreciated his pro-gun message. Note, there are a few stragglers left. In their after coverage, they talked about odd moments and pointed to Jim Webb’s answer to who was his biggest enemy? Webb said it would be the enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded him. But CNN and their pundits thought that a strangely odd answer.

Debate is over, gun control is the answer. Hillary chimed in she’d make the rich people pay. What emails, or server? Bernie came to Hill’s rescue saying “enough with the emails”. Case closed. Gateway Pundit reported the press room cheered at that line. He is “sick and tired” of hearing about her “emails”.

Later, everyone fawned all over Hillary for how well she had done. Someone who failed at every job she had in the last decade and a half, always claiming to take full responsibility, wink wink.

For people that are forward looking they spent most of the time in the rear view mirror, the last 20 years worth. Hillary said her chief enemies are the NRA and Republicans. Yea so much gainful news there, over the back-biting long nails of Republican infighting. (so the narrative goes) Only Black Lives Matter was declared honorary winner by Van Jones after the debate, for keeping them all on message. Hillary never answered the question.

At one point, I didn’t think it was a debate, I thought Hillary was giving a press conference. Post debate focus group focused on Hillary, surprise surprise. Hillary “absorbs new information”… good cover for lying and flip flopping like a pancake.

And Las Vegas the gambling capitol was the perfect backdrop for a Dem debate. It’s no longer an election, Dems are betting voters really are that stupid.

United Socialists of America have spoken. The debate is over, just as it is on Climate Change, global warming and gun control. (science and facts be damned) The two most hated things in America, according to that crowd, are flat earth deniers and the NRA. Rich people are a close second — unless you happen to be a socialist Democrat. Gun control, socialism, global warming… what’s not to like?

She walks, she talks, she fundraises

Hillary now looks to shore up support(pardon the pun) in the wake of the server seizure. So she is going on a fundraiser vacation, renting a 12 million dollar mansion in “the Hamptons” where they plan to raise lots of cash. The high style of the 1%-ers.

The cost is 100,000 for two weeks…or is that called an investment? Funny how they go on vacation and the money rolls in. That’s not how it works with most people, unfortunately. But nothing Clintons do is like normal people. Going on a fundraiser vacation just makes lots of sense(cents). Even impressive by the “lifestyles of rich and famous” standards.

But nothing with them is normal. They prefer the absurd, extreme, eccentric and extravagant even in politics. They should look around and ask themselves, “how did we become 1%-ers? The prior video was a perfect example. There are times when we occasionally get to see exactly how liberals think — flawed as it is.

There you see media liberals grieving and prognosticating on the political fallout over Hillary’s self-created servergate. Not unexpected but then listen to co-host Mika Brzezinski and let it sink in. There is a transparency and brutal honesty to it.

Mika sounds disgusted sighing in the background. She wonders to the others about how candidates can pretend things(scandals) don’t exist? That might be a good question for Hillary. So after Hillary candidates tell you those things don’t exist, you are supposed to believe them. Then she asks “do they really think the American public is that stupid?” She says “that is very insulting.”

Well, Mika does have some real points. People must accept their denials or excuses. They really do think the public is that stupid. Mika explains the way it works for Dems and leftists. With a sigh she admits that in spite of these problems if Hillary can get the nomination, “I will [still] vote for her.” See, that’s how it is supposed to work for Hillary and Obama. So the only question then is how does she get there?

Hillary Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri wrote that it’s all nonsense.

“The bottom line: This kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”

And according to NY Post, 52% of people polled say Hillary’s email ordeal “should be subject to a criminal investigation.”

So the only objective is for Hillary to get the nomination, however she can. Then, Democrats will still vote for her. That makes the nomination, by any means, the only objective. That’s how it worked so far. She asserted herself as the anointed one, early and often, as the heir apparent. For so long that they all believed her and no formidable challenger came. She locked up support.

But it was also based on stalling along the way. Stall investigations, stall opposition to the point where they finally have no other choice but her. Even if these problems surface, by then she’ll be their only choice. That’s what she wants and got. Obama built his election on the same inevitability premise.(belief) Make the thing, or person, so inevitable there’s no choice. Basically, the theory goes, people do not want to not believe.

The strategy is stall to prevail. After that it becomes only a series of events granting her the prize. Then, nothing that led up to it matters at all. In the end, people will have no choice. The beauty is Democrats fully admit they will still vote for her, no matter what truth outs. It is only a matter of means, just as Hillary believes it is only a matter of getting to the White House. Once there, the means shall matter not one bit. If it takes coming down with a nasty case of lies.(as Islamists justify jihad) After all, she expects Democrats to lie to themselves in order to support her.

Meanwhile, Hillary does the Hamptons. And any means necessary to nimination. Once achieved all the means suddenly become irrelevant. Just like the va-k in the Hamptons.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary shows her colors

Hillary finds her inner rainbow. Twitter feed. “Loud and Proud”

Hill Twit

A “History” theme, by a candidate who is running on her record while running from her records. History? Like using a private server or emails for gov business.

Hillary before (circa 2004):

“I believe marriage is…a sacred bond between a man and a woman….a fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and woman, going back into the midst of history, as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization. And that it’s primary principle role during those milennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”

Say anything, do anything, be anything……. and forget everything.

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 writing on the wall for Hillary

The writing is all over the wall for Hillary running then being the next presumptive president, and has been for a long time.

But the fact that some people don’t like or want to read that writing is a problem that needs to be nipped in the buttocks.

Hillary surrogate Granholm on potential challenger O’Malley: ‘He better watch out’

By Dan Calabrese March 30, 2015 | Canada Free Press

I sort of hate to horn in and do this on a day when Rob and his lovely wife are galavanting around on Rahm’s mean streets. Ripping on Jennifer Granholm is sort of his territory, and no one does it better. But I did say I’d cover for him, and one never knows what duty will require of us.

So when the most inept governor in Michigan’s long and not-so-storied political history pokes her head out of the ground and speaks on behalf of Hillary Clinton, there are several reasons you need to know about it. One is simply so you understand the judgment Hillary shows in empowering certain people to speak for her. Hey. I had to live through the infamous “lost decade” Granholm gave us too. The highest unemployment in the nation. Our biggest industry begging Congress for a bailout. Perennial budget crises. People fleeing the state in droves (a trend that has now reversed under Republican Rick Snyder).

Those of us who hung in there are glad we did, because Michigan is our home. But dang, when Jennifer Granholm was governor, this place was an abject disaster. In fact, it was so bad that once she was no longer governor, even she left.

So when you see this clip, keep in mind the type of person Hillary Clinton is comfortable having serve as her surrogate on national television – a complete, blithering, incompetent fool. But even more so, pay attention to what she says in this ignominious 16 seconds of foolishness:

Read more http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70822

I know he really hates to but one does what one can.

Let me guess that the Clinton machine will also show that their opposition research team can work just as good on any fellow Democrat as it does on Republicans. Martin O’Malley better find and get in his spot on the Hillary plantation, and do so quickly.

When he recieves that email from Hillary’s private server, then he’ll know for sure he better not be stepping up or out of line. It’s lonely out there, why a person might even get hurt out there. After the first one or two renegades get knocked back in line, there won’t be any other person stupid enough to jump off the Hillary bandwagon.

She doesn’t care if you call the presidency a family heirloom or a dynasty — it makes no difference to her — as long as you call it Hillary’s.

Doesn’t O’Malley get it? There will only be a primary if Hillary says there will be one. What part of that does he not understand? Is it the accent that he’s having trouble with? Hillary wrote the book “Hard Choices” specifically so there would be none. He’d better get with the program.

So if Hillary decides they’ll be no primary, there will be no primary. That’s what Hard Choices is all about. Some people are just thick.

Past is prologue with Hillary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary is History

The bad news is what Hillary said. The good news is it should finish her presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton: ‘Smart power’ includes ‘showing respect, even for one’s enemies’

Washington Post

“This is what we call smart power — using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions,” she continued. “That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.”

Toward the broader theme of women in leadership roles:

“We should do what we can to support those women who truly are on the front lines in protecting their communities against this extremist threat from ISIS and others,” she said.

In a rational world, the headline on every paper would be “Hillary ends her White House bid.” That won’t be.

Wearing a blue outfit doing her best Elizabeth Warren impression. This, instead, is one more step in her run: to cut Elizabeth Warren off from stealing the uber-left limelight. Does it work? Well, rationality was never their hallmark as is the case with national press.

I’m still waiting for her to show a little empathy to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” but won’t hold my breath. Where’s the love?

Which is worse, the comment itself or labeling it “smart power” policy? It has echoes of Obama’s Strasbourg speech that America has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward its allies. Attacking our allies is probably next after empathizing with our enemies.

Here’s hoping there is not much empathy for Hillary.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s choices, what difference does it make

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright

The King has spoken

GOP Reinvigorated After Obama Admin Delays Key Healthcare Provision

July 3, 2013

The Obama administration’s decision to delay implementation of a key part of the Affordable Care Act has the law’s Republican opponents positively giddy.
“GOP ad makers are busy at work cutting new Obamacare ads,” noted Rick Wiley, former political director at the Republican National Committee.
The Obama administration announced yesterday that it would delay for one year the part of the health care law that requires employers with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance or pay a penalty.
The administration cited a desire to respond to the concerns of small business and give them more time to comply. But the provision has been the subject of complaints by business owners and threats that employers would either cut their full-time workforce to avoid the mandate or increase the number of part-time employees who won’t be guaranteed insurance under the new law.
On the one hand, the administration avoids a series of politically painful stories about negative, unintended consequences of the provision, which they admit is not quite ready for primetime.
Republicans believe, however, that even by pushing the issue into 2015, the Obama administration makes implementation of this part of the law a problem for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.
“All the president has done here is, he’s now guaranteed that it’s going to be a huge issue in the 2016 race,” said Matt Mackiowiak, a Republican strategist with Potomac Strategy Group. “I’m not sure it’ll be a gift to Hillary or Biden or whoever the nominee is.”
“There’s going to be a huge amount of turbulence as that provision kicks in and it’s going to create a lot of problems for Dems,” he added.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-healthcare-ads-obamacare-delay/story?id=19569465#.UdTB7qwfJ8c

Evidently, the king has spoken. So it will be done. It seems everything is much easier when done by the emperor’s order.(note sarcasm) It makes it much simpler.

Up to this point, all we heard was “its the law” — the law of the land. Now it sounds more like the king’s edict. It can exempt those it wants, it can issue a decree to delay it.

We still don’t know what all is in it. At the same time Dems keep telling us “we are a nation of laws”, even as they scheme to create amnesty.

And is he throwing it back into Hillary’s lap to defend it? (must have more time to get our story straight)