One flew over Clinton’s legacy

A day in the life of Hillary news. It lives on and on and on.
)Really? — “Former NY Times Chief: Clinton Is ‘Fundamentally Honest’”

At what point in her tenure — covering a whole multitude of scandals — can we say “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally dishonest?” I think even the people get that one. They may care or not, but they get it.

From the Free Beacon article:

“A former student of [Jill Abramson’s] who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said.

Right, so it’s sexist to question Hillary’s poor judgement, flip-flopping, scandals and finally not to trust her. Though Abramson herself charged sexism after NYT fired her.

)If the shoe fits — “Clinton Complains About Super PACs and Big Money in Politics”

“At a Monday rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton mourned the role of big money and super PACs in politics, although she has benefitted heavily from them.

Clinton decried the Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which ruled that independent political expenditures could not be regulated by the federal government due to the First Amendment.” — Wa Free Beacon

When in Rome… and Hillary is definitely in Rome. She’s in Wisconsin, home of the union lobby that used every bit of special interest leverage it could to oust Walker and lost.

Still, Clinton cannot prove her point considering the tens of millions in pac funding employed by Bush, on his behalf, or others this cycle that had little to no effect. Let’s not forget the Citizen’s United case directly related to telling the truth about her career.

Pot meets kettle:

“Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street have also been a point of contention in the campaign as much of her campaign’s financial support comes from large Wall Street firms. She has given many paid speeches to Wall Street firms.

Goldman Sachs infamously gave her $675,000 to give just three speeches.”

)Speaking distrust: “Report: FBI Moves to Interview Top Clinton Aides in Email Probe”

“FBI officials are preparing to question top Hillary Clinton aides at the State Department in the latest leg of the federal government’s probe into her unsecured email system.”…

“The interviews, along with the case’s final review, could take weeks to complete, threatening to haunt the former secretary of state for the remainder of the presidential primary elections.” — Free Beacon

And yet the saga of scandal and genesis of distrust of Hillary continues to dog her.But she lectures on the evils of money and its influence. What about the evils of those in power, and their use of its resources?

)So Clintonesque — “Loretta Lynch’s law firm tied to Hillary Clinton”
WND and Jerome Corsi report on Clintons’ ties to Loretta Lynch’s former law firm.

Maybe it is no wonder she seems confident. So conflict of interest anyone? But then both Clintons and Obama are walking talking conflicts of interest, everywhere.

I’ll take honesty for a million, Alex…. Who is Hillary Clinton?

One for the Democrat kitty

Bonus round on money and influence: “Moran Registers to Lobby for Groups That Were Among His Top Donors in Congress” — Washington Free Beacon:

Former Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.) has registered to lobby on behalf of firms who were among his top funders throughout his political career in Washington.

And no one is really surprised. All that above reported in just one day.

But Jill Abramson says there is absolutely good reason to trust Hillary — er to believe her. Couple that with her promise to continue Obama’s deceitful legacy of distrust.

You can’t ask for more hope of no change than that.

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

An ah ha moment on Obama

In a recent conversation I had with Pepp on various topics, I came to a conclusion. I won’t speak for Pepp, she is very capable. It was surrounding Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (and little Israel thrown in) and Obama’s foreign policy. All that matters is the conclusion which even stunned myself. I’m no fan of Obama or his foreign or domestic policies.

I suddenly realized that, in this volatile world with all that is going on, from Russia to the Middle East, I cannot foresee even the worst things happening in the world, where Obama could take any kind of action, that I could ever support anything big or small that he does using our military. That is a heck of a revelation.

The rule is usually in times of crisis you support the commander-in-chief. But I can’t think of a situation bad enough or simple enough that I could fully support. I am dead serious, though it was a matter of reasoning that out. Sometimes things come out in discussion with someone you wouldn’t realize outside of having that conversation.

There are a number of reasons. I’ll try to outline some of the majors:

A) He would not be trusted and would either throw our efforts or soldiers to the wolves, or under the bus in the situation.(for whatever motives)

B) He cleansed the ranks of many good career generals with experience, knowledge and backbone loyal to their oath.

C) He would not rely on best advice of the Pentagon or those in authority to know.

D) He would change the mission once engaged to some other purpose.

E) He would intentionally change the rules of engagement to suit his ideology.

F) His loyalty to the US cannot be counted on in any situation.

G) He is influenced or led by other interests outside USA’s interest.

H) He’s sided with others, opponents or enemies, while in direct military action.

I) He’s made deals with enemies to the US against our interests and security.

J) He would not be in it to win on behalf of US; other interests take priority.

K) He won’t stand up in the end for US interests or our security.

L) He would overrule or change the plans on a dime himself, for subverted reasons. Everything is fluid, he’s flexible to himself and his political interests.

M) He could and no doubt would undermine our military’s objectives for his own personal reasons, or others. (or his ideology)

O) He does not honor his oath or uphold the Constitution in the US as it is.

P) His words are meaningless anyway, and his credibility is O.

There are probably more. That’s the point. I don’t know of a situation where he or his motives could be trusted to do the right thing if required, and if people depended on it.

So, there is my basic conclusion, tough as it is to think about. Maybe others have already gone through that process. At least some in our military should have walked through the possibilities already. Thus, it is not a matter of trusting our military to do the right thing or be successful. He intervenes in that process into the mission. Intentional failure?

When a lot of people see it the same way, that’s a problem. And when our allies and enemies read it the same way, it’s definitely a real problem

Now I can’t say it would be completely intentional, who can read the diseased mind, but I can say he just cannot be trusted. This, of course, means from the simplest of presidential actions of diplomacy, to treaties, to full-blown military action — anything. That’s mine.

Mums the word…. just vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Hit and run politics

Obama is the Master of Disaster

Hillary is the Mistress of Mischief

Both peddle hit and run politics:
They’ll run you over on the way to their next crime scene.

Obama also does drive-by Executive Orders.

Obama does Ferguson

Something new to be sick of from the cesspool of the Oval Office Occupant.

Now he is going to micromange police departments because they are doing a horrible job. He cannot mange what is in his own cabinet and responsibilities, but he is going to organize and dictate to local police departments? His hypocrisy really knows no boundaries. Except that is not what people elected him for.

Obama Tries To Focus Public On Racist Cops

11:09 PM 11/30/2014 | Daily Caller

Obama outlined his new focus on racist cops Nov. 25.

“In many communities of color [people] have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly,” Obama told supporters in Chicago.

“That may not be true everywhere, and it’s certainly not true for the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that’s an impression that folks have and it’s not just made up,” said the nation’s chief law enforcement official.

“It’s rooted in realities that have existed in this country for a long time,” said Obama, who began his political career as a “community organizer” in Chicago.

In his speech, Obama said he’s asking Holder to manage the new focus.

“I’ve instructed Attorney General Eric Holder not just to investigate what happened in Ferguson, but also identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focused on building trust in our communities,” he said.

Obama also sketched out possible White House regulations, including a possible new effort to ensure that only a small proportion of white police officials are hired in African-American districts.

“We know that when we have a police force that is representative of the communities it’s serving that makes a difference,” the president stated.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/30/obama-tries-to-focus-public-on-racist-cops/

He’s already told us that he stays out of individual cases. Now he is meddling in states and local law enforcement. So the police acted stupidly in Cambridge, and I guess there is a whole lot of stupid going on across the country. Nothing that playing politics and injecting his demented ideology can’t fix.

Forget everything else he should be doing. Obama is back on the campaign trail to try to cover for his last unilateral action for Hispanics, which was a cover and diversion for their midterm defeat. I notice he didn’t start with the violence and murders in Chicago.

When is the last time anyone saw him do his job? Why don’t he and Holder sign on with MSNBC for a new show and leave the rest of us alone? They can name it “The Sideshow”.

RightRing | Bullright

Dissing Zero

While some effects are hypothetical, what isn’t are Obama’s poll numbers. So I looked at the Real Clear Politics chart and what I found was interesting. The day it shifted from black-approval, to negative-disapproval was about May29th, 2013. From then on the disapproval leads. Well, besides a giant asteroid passing by earth, there was other news.

Six months into his second term and Obama’s approval numbers inverted. His disapproval numbers have remained higher than his approvals ever since.

May 2013 was not a good month for the Obama administration, dep of Justice, or the IRS, or one Lois Lerner. The IRS scandal broke and by the 22nd, Lerner was taking the fifth amendment in her roundabout way of giving an opening statement declaring she did nothing wrong. This after she initially leaked the IRS targeted conservatives. Benghazi was still on the front burner.

Last October it was 50.9 disapproval — 43.9 approval. By December, it was 55.6 disapproval to 40% approval. All that stuff which happened in the last year and a half adds to that mix. Benghazi, to IRS, to immigration, privacy, rights, government spending and national security.

We had the trifecta, Benghazi the Dep of Justice scandal over the phone records. (without even counting fast and furious) Questions of whether Holder lied under oath about investigations. It was the week Lois Lerner was called to testify and took the fifth amendment. The Democrats finally began calling for her resignation. A Senate gang of eight was working on and moving an immigration reform bill. He’s been inverted ever since.

Then through to the recent discontent. On August 05, NBC/Wall Street Journal reported about upcoming mid-term elections:

Two words sum up the mood of the nation: Fed up.

Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the U.S. economy, more than 70 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and nearly 80 percent are down on the country’s political system, according to the latest NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll.

The frustration carries over to the nation’s political leaders, with President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating hitting a new low at 40 percent, and a mere 14 percent of the public giving Congress a thumbs up.

“We’re in the summer of our discontent,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “Americans are cranky, unhappy… It is with everything going on in the world.”

The discontent’s two main causes

The NBC/WSJ pollsters attribute the wide discontent to the lingering effects of the Great Recession, as well as a loss of faith in the country’s politicians. /…

There’s also the public’s anger at Washington. A whopping 79 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the U.S. political system, including nearly half who are very dissatisfied.

In addition, 71 percent of Americans believe the economic problems facing the country are due to the inability of elected officials in Washington to get things done to improve the economy.

By comparison, just 23 percent think the problems are due to deep and longstanding issues with the economy.

“The public seems to have moved beyond the plaintive cry of ‘Feel our pain!’ to the more angry pronouncement of ‘You are causing our pain!’” said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research.

More: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/americas-fed-obama-approval-rating-hits-all-time-low-poll-n173271

I just love the way he stated that conclusion. But there is a fly in their ointment. They claim there is not a central issue people are rallied around. That’s a problem? Well, there are many. So the larger issue is not only don’t people trust our politicians (i.e. government) but that they blame it/them for these circumstances.

One has to be blind not to see the wide circumstances for discontent. This year is even worse than last. Does not coalescing around one particular issue seem like a problem that will hurt Republicans? Choosing one particular issue would naturally give others a pass. That people blame politicians and government could be a wonderful thing.

RightRing | Bullright

Hot poker or misjudging public distrust

I will make this as short as possible.

Once again, on the heels of the VA and counltess other scandals, we’re faced with the same proverbial question.

Did he either misjudge the complete reaction to the trade of Bergdahl for the Taliban five, or is it another hot poker in the eye of America?

Now I’m leaning hard on the hot poker.


“These were not good guys. I am in no way defending these men. But being, you know, mid-to-high-level officials in a regime that’s grotesque and horrific also doesn’t mean they themselves directly pose a threat to the United States,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Thursday. She accused critics of the release of having a political motive.LA Times

Oh yea, “political motives” …….

Dep Ass Secretary for Public Affairs at HUD, Brandon Friedman tweets (6/4):
“Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the jump-to-conclusion mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” (1of5)

Van Jones(6/4): “This is an orchestrated smear campaign.”

Jones concocts a conspiracy theory the night before:
“And then [Republicans will] say that the president of the United States is a traitor who turned in a traitor to let out our enemies. Is that the kind of Benghazi-zation of this that you think is appropriate for Republicans?”

Obama: “I’m never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, alright? That’s par for the course.” [we shouldn’t be either]

Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell agreed that the White House had likely thought there would be “some euphoria around this, the only POW that was remaining in Afghanistan, that there would be a rally around the flag. That didn’t happen.”

“They were expecting criticisms of Gitmo, criticisms of the detainees that were chosen,” Todd said. “They did not expect this criticism of the attempt to go get Bergdahl in the way that it was done.”

Misjudged reaction or make that 2 pokers — Rose-Gardening Bergdahl and Taliban detainees — in America’s eyes? And, since the left brought it up, who’s operating on “political motives?”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Biggest Lie

You might wonder, “which one?”. Well, there are many to choose from like ObamaCare, “if you like your plan you can keep it”. Notice Harry Reid can call all the victims liars, but yet can’t defend the central lie to Obama’s signature issue of his residency.

Or maybe the one about “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.

Or maybe it is one of the related lies that ObamaCare is going to reduce the debt. Or maybe it is where he said we will save 2500 a year per family on healthcare.

Or maybe it was that string of yarns about Benghazi, claiming he called it terrorism before blaming an obscure video.

Or the recent declaration of not a smidgeon of corruption in IRS.

No, even those whoppers and others still do not rise the level of the biggest lie. But it is not even well hidden. It’s blatantly obvious in front of the public every day.

His oath is the big lie. To “faithfully execute the office“… and “to the best of my ability“. He he has broken both parts, which is the central premise of it. It makes the oath his biggest lie yet. Oh, maybe we will find something to rival it, but it will be tough to find something that central and important.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

To the best of his ability, he defies the Constitution. The only thing he is willing to defend is himself and his political interests. He stood in front of a joint Congress in the SOTU and boldly declared he would circumvent Congress to a standing ovation. How much more defiant can one be? Since he had done exactly that countless times already, there was all the more reason to take him seriously.

Even Georgetown’s Jonathon Turley took issue with his conduct, in a hearing(3hr) in December.

“In fairness of Milbank, I was indeed arguing that President Obama had violated the Take Care Clause and was placing himself above the law in these instances.” – Turley said of his Decemnber testimony.

Five years into his residency, he announces to the nation that Congress is irrelevant. They applaud him. Turley later also expressed his reaction to that.

I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country. “

O-jump suit
So you would think this biggest lie would be taken pretty seriously, getting quite a reaction. But it seems to be ignored. The one lie that needs addressed and ties to the other things he’s done, all the scandals, to the office and public, to the job itself. But the one everyone in Washington seems to willfully ignore.

To believe Obama now “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.
“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Rogue tyrants and dictators get resolutions and sanctions for their behavior. What response has Obama’s central lie gotten? If they are just waiting for the next one, we’ve already seen the biggest lie, upon which others are built.

If this isn’t the biggest one yet, then what is?

JAMES MONROE, MARCH 4, 1817, INAUGURAL ADDRESS:
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.
Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found.
The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.”
[- Bill Federer — www.americanminute.com ]

RightRing | Bullright

A lie is a lie is a ______

What do the statements have in common?

“Read my lips, no new taxes” — George H Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” — BJ Clinton

“”I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.” Richard Nixon on the Watergate burglary

“Not even a smidgen of corruption” – Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama

“If you like your plan, you can keep it” – Barack Hussein Obama

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” – BHO

“No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”

“If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2010

Fuhgedaboudit! Of course, they would like us to forget these statements… lies. But people don’t tend to forget them, especially when constantly repeated, even by allies.

With respect to the first three, there was at least some accountability for them. Bush lost, the blue dress came out, Cinton was impeached in the House, and Nixon resigned.

Now a few words from Nixon:

“I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue.” — President Richard Nixon, reflecting on the Watergate scandal in 1978

What really hurts is if you try to cover it up.” –President Richard Nixon at the beginning of Watergate.

“People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.”

“I don’t give a s**t what happens. I want you all to stonewall–plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up, or anything else. If that will save it, save the plan.” – Nixon to his subordinates during Watergate

Obama has his own theory: If you like your lie, you can keep your lie, period!

RightRing | Bullright

Obama meets failed SOTU ratings

State of the Union draws smallest audience in 14 years

By James Hibberd on Jan 29, 2014 | Inside TV

President Obama’s State of the Union Address drew the fewest viewers of his presidency Tuesday night. In fact, the annual live prime-time speech was the least-watched SOTU by any president since Bill Clinton’s final address in 2000.

Obama’s speech to the nation was seen by 33.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen. Networks that carried the address included CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, Azteca, Fox Business, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Al Jazeera America, Galavision and Mun2.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/01/29/state-of-the-union-ratings/
 
Contrast with Bush at 62.1 million in 2003

So much for a post-presidency tv career. Maybe they’ll do a live text vote next year? They should have had a “vote him off the island already” poll. Must be racism. No word yet on violence statistics during SOTU.

RightRing | Bullright

America gets The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award

Congratulations America, after Nancy Pelosi told you we have to pass the law before we know what’s in it, now you know. Or do you?

Since the passage we have seen Obama amend it himself and HHS work its magic on regulations, however they choose. In the past month, Obama made how many changes in it? I am having a hard time counting.

He said insurers could ignore the law and then continue to write those so-called crappy policies. That they could extend them another year. That people do not have to be terminated, after the law abolished their policies. Then he moved the sign-up deadline, then he altered the payment deadline. And he moved it again. Now “bare bones” plans.

All this despite the complaints of insurers. There is a lesson for the insurers on how the game works, uh? It’s practically a daily task knowing what the law is or isn’t.

All that is just icing on the two biggest lies they’ve been repeating for the last couple years. Then insurers were told they will be compensated for any losses they claim. (whoopee)

Get the idea? The law means what they say it means, as long as they mean it, or until they mean something else, or until they change it by fiat again. Now you know what this bodes for healthcare, besides mass chaos. So how do you like your new healthcare.gov, people? You have what even Nancy hadn’t dreamed of when they passed it. They’re still making it up. Can anyone know, based on all this, what ObamaCare will be next year? We don’t even know what the regs will be 3 months from now.

Still the all time quote of the year from libs was “it’s the law of the land”. The law until they change it, that is. So now that you know what is in it – or not – whatever they say. It might as well have been a blank law and said “to be filled in later: whatever, whenever you want it, as long as you want it – or not”.

 

The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award, saluting actual dubious achievements by the government or famous people, such as the announcement of a new Veterans Administration hospital to be erected in Southern California shortly after another such facility was destroyed in the Sylmar earthquake of 1971. The trophy was a gilt, outstretched finger atop a square base. “The flying, fickle finger of fate” was already a familiar catchphrase on the show.

RightRing | Bullright

2014: let the show begin

I was trying to think of  some strategy for progressive demonic Dems to run on in 2014, to stop the hemorrhaging from the ObamaCare debacle. I think I have found it.

Next is to boil it down to a nice sound bite for the masses to understand. Again, I have a solution for them. They can’t run on ObamaCare, so why not go for all the marbles? Yes, there is too much going on from the progressives to appeal to a wide swath of their base.

So just run as… “the Party of Scandals“. That’s no joke. Here’s a glimpse of the introductory promotional campaign.

[Photo]

If you like all you’ve seen so far, you’ll really be impressed with what we can do with a majority in both houses AND the White House. If you mistakenly thought we were shamed and disappointed — and you were wrong — then eat your heart out because we are just getting started. There is so much more we have in store for you. We’ve been working hard on the plans.

If you thought politics was just a spectator sport, we have a surprise for every one of you in ways you never before envisioned being personally touched. The Repubs had to manufacture all these scandals to try to bring us down. Guess what, we’re back! Those phony scandals were nothing… a mere pittance compared to what we can really do.

Remember we have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it? Well, we’ve been scheming up some legislative add-ons to all those previous laws that will knock your socks off. Plus we’ll put new meaning to “fiat law”.  Then there’s  Executive Orders. We own the White House at least for a couple  more years. All that will only be the opening salvo on the Republic for 2016 — which is phase 2.

So if you were tongue-tied by our delivery so far, you are going to be in shock and awe. Sure, we are going to run on ObamaCare as well as every other problem. We are equal opportunity offenders and we can shove  much more than ObamaCare down your throats. Think about all that when you go to the voting booth next year. We are putting our foot to the floor on a whole bunch of new scandals for you. We will have you in suspense. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and IRS were just the appetizers. We  know this is what most Americans really want and we are the Party that can deliver.

Even as we speak we have new IRS rules planned. We have new EPA regs rolling out. In education and every other bureaucracy and agency, we have some real surprises in the works. Much of it is just too good to detail now. That is without even mentioning our spending plans.  Send us your money and get on board with your support. You will want to be a part of this assault historical election process. It will  take some of the attention off ObamaCare and unaffordable, non-healthcare – big time.

I think that provides plenty of ideas. But, now that I think of it, this would probably guarantee their success.

Obama Lied and People Cried

It is now clear as daylight that Obama lied — if there ever was any doubt. It was the fundamental crux of his plan. Even more important, it was the important key selling point to ObamaCare, the holy grail. So he sold it on a big fat lie, not just on a false premise.

 He said if you like it “you can keep it, no matter what.” This is a guy who not only has a penchant for lying, he gleefully does it. They knew it was not true but the political aides  won out. Obama used it a couple dozen times as the central selling point of his plan.

ObamaCare

ObamaCare

 Now comes the cries from all the people who lost. It hardly matters whether they bought into ObamaCare or didn’t, they lost. Of course, they try to revise his remarks but he said it over and over, succinctly and deliberately, so everyone would hear and understand it.

 “Period”  He even punctuated his remarks. It was Bill Clinton pointing the finger a thousand times over. But the blue dress is in broad daylight.

 The anti-choice president now says he meant something else. They blame insurance companies. They set out to make other plans illegal using the mandate. So not only do you not have choice, but you are taxed for it, since that is what Obamacare actually is.

Now he even has the gall to lie while trying to explain and excuse his first lie. He claims if it wasn’t changed after the ObamaCare passed, you could keep it. Lie.

 But wait, it always gets worse with Obama. In the last speech he delivered to try to hedge his declining approval, he transformed the word mandate into the word rights. Then he said they can’t ever take your rights away. Another specious sales tactic. This is akin to declaring anything people don’t want “a right” that cannot be taken away from you.

Over the big lie, we were sold a plan and they even lied about that. They called the tax a penalty. Then they called the mandate a patient’s right. It’s all based on lies. So they believe they are justified to tell unlimited numbers of lies to explain it. These justified lies are probably the worst. Remember Nixon, Watergate, and the cover up? Hard to say which is worse, though you can trace which came first. (read  my above description again, this is his latest pitch…trying to gloss over his lies and the truth in one swoop)

A woman described her typical situation in WSJ. She is a cancer patient.

“What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

“For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.”

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

Obama lies busted: no, you can’t keep your plan or doctor.

Then there are the effects of ObamaCare. Remember up till lately, deny, distort and defer any suggestions of economic effects. A simple search reveals the top 5 or 6 claiming it is bogus to suggest ObamaCare had no effect. Remember, it reduced the level of part time to 30 hours.

They claimed there is no evidence of ObamaCare affecting jobs and business. Even during the shutdown they were quick to condemn any economic effects while denying ObamaCare effects. I postulated that they intended to blame the shutdown for X-care’s effects.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

ObamaCare’s impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its employer mandate to provide health insurance, gives businesses an incentive to cut workers’ hours. This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to fewer than 30 per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. Data also point to a record low workweek in low-wage industries.

In the interest of an informed debate, we’ve compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Oct. 17, our ObamaCare scorecard included 351 employers. Here’s our latest analysis, highlighting the consequences of cuts to work hours at more than 100 school districts due to ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Recently, we examined Indiana’s 10th Amendment challenge to the employer mandate. IBD also explained why the employer mandate will undercut the goals of ObamaCare — affordable, reliable coverage — even in cases when employers don’t cut work hours. The ObamaCare list methodology is explained further in our initial coverage; click on the employer names in the list below for links to supporting records, mostly news accounts or official documents.

We’ll continue to update the list, which we encourage you to share and download into a spreadsheet to sort and analyze. If you know of an employer that should be on the list and can provide supporting evidence, please contact IBD at jed.graham@investors.com or @IBD_JGraham.

More on the list

Here are a few examples of the lengthy list.

Indiana

Indiana state gov’t

Public

Cut hours for part-time and temp employees from a maximum of 37.5 hours per week to fewer than 30

Oct-13


Florida

SeaWorld Entertainment

Private

Cut hours for part-time workers from a maximum of 32 to 28 per week

Sep-13

Utah Alpine School District Public Cut part-time hours to a maximum of 27.5 per week, avoiding $4.2 million cost. Jobs effected 800 May-13

California

Mexican American Opportunity Foundation

Private

Cut hours of employees working up to 39 hours a week to less than 30

Aug-13

New Jersey

NEMF trucking company

Private

Cut hours for dock workers and customer service reps from 33 per week to a maximum of 29.

Number of jobs 400

Jul-13

This  has been done over time. Look at the exhaustive list. Many of them public schools and universities, and local governments. Commonly reducing hours to fewer than 30 and limiting new hires to part time. As they say, “it’s all the rage”

Anyone who said there was little evidence of effects either isn’t looking or doesn’t want to find it. Fear not, more incontrovertible proof.

The Foundry reported:

Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy

James Sherk | October 22, 2013

Today’s jobs report shows the labor market recovery remains weak—and businesses are telling the Federal Reserve one of the main reasons is Obamacare.

Last week’s Federal Reserve Beige Book includes direct references to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) causing employers not to hire workers. The Beige Book “summarizes comments [the Fed] received from business and other contacts” in each of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts. The October 16 Beige Book mentions the Affordable Care Act and its regulations 10 times—and each time, the districts report it has hurt employers, increased costs, and/or depressed hiring. Look at what businesses are reporting about the Affordable Care Act:

Summary. “Several Districts reported that contacts were cautious to expand payrolls, citing uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and fiscal policy more generally.”

Atlanta Fed. “Employers continued to report hiring hesitancy related to changes in healthcare regulation and fiscal policy uncertainty.”

Philadelphia Fed. “In regard to hiring and capital expenditure plans, firms continued to expand cautiously, as they face ongoing uncertainty from the federal government shutdown and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”

Richmond Fed. “Many contacts also commented on reluctance to expand due to uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act; some employers cut hours or employees.”

Philadelphia Fed. “Overall, most bankers remained optimistic, although they expressed uncertainty on behalf of their business customers and for themselves over the implications of both the Affordable Care Act and a prolonged government shutdown.”

Cleveland Fed. “Most of our contacts are cautiously optimistic and expect little change in demand, although many were uneasy about fiscal issues and implications of the Affordable Care Act on their businesses.”

Cleveland Fed. “There is anxiety about rising health insurance premiums [among manufacturers], which was attributed to the Affordable Care Act.”

Cleveland Fed. “Many of our contacts are concerned about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the effect it will have on their total labor cost.”

Chicago Fed. “Wage pressures remained mild, while non-wage labor costs increased. A number of contacts voiced concern about the uncertainty surrounding future employer and employee healthcare costs. In addition, several reported changing their health insurance enrollment periods this year in order to match the deadlines of the Affordable Care Act.”

Dallas Fed. “One contact saw a few signed contracts designed to circumvent the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by utilizing a temporary employee full time, then hiring that person on a permanent but part-time basis when the ACA goes into effect.”

Many analysts have speculated about how Obamacare will affect the economy. The answer is very specific and real: It is costing people jobs.

One couple stated changes in their medical benefits for employees of their small business from ACA. Their premiums for covering their employees went from 355 per month to 733 per month, per employee. That’s more than double. That is not an effect? Are these deniers for real?

H/T to Dave for ideas

Obama adopted, then became Trayvon

‘Travon Obama’ gives race lecture from White House

Black and white ain’t so Black and White

And the race-baiting continues.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe anything said here is being politically correct. So if you cannot stomach that, you may not want to read this, it may offend your sensitivities.

My Bullshit Meter has exploded. I knew it would at some point about this Zimmerman verdict — since the verdict is the real source of the problem now. Everyone has followed it or at least heard the story of the “child” who goes to the store to buy some candy and a drink and is shot in cold blood on the way home, just for his innocent efforts.

I wonder how many parents and friends can truly say that about someone they knew in Chicago? Just walking along and gunned down, and they don’t even know by who. There have to be hundreds if not thousands of those — through no fault of their own — murders. This one case, in Florida, does not happen to be one of those. Maybe it is fortunate for Trayvon’s parents that they have someone to blame and had their day in court. How many kids or surviving families in Chicago never had either of those?

Now, flash forward nearly a week after the “verdict”. We all heard clips and coverage, even since, about the case and the outcome. One important thing they want to ignore is where Trayvon attacked and was beating Zimmerman. (for whatever reason they do) They made it a national case way before trial, and had their storyline framed in the media.

The President even gave a remark at the onset that if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. Now, I don’t claim to know exactly what he intended saying that, but I do know he personalized it. He also intervened in an arrest of a black Harvard professor. That was biased too – before knowing the details, he said police acted stupidly. Beer summit?

The family did post-verdict interviews and pleaded with the President to step in or intervene in some way, as well as countless others. They demanded Eric Holder and the DOJ to investigate, again, and press a civil rights case. We all know.

So the President does come out and give a 20 minute speech about it. (no questions — something Carney claimed Obama waited for all week and expected, but hadn’t received) Now he talks about it, and said his earlier remarks should also mean that could have been him 30 years ago. He upped the personalization to himself. Well, at the risk of Obama making this about himself, it is in effect what he did. Putting his DNA on it. I knew that was the intent of his first remark but he wanted to clarify it unless people didn’t get it.

In his latest rambling lecture on race in America, he rattles off a list of grievances of African-Americans regarding race. Feelings were a big part of his message. He spoke of being profiled in a store, crossing the street with locks clicking on cars, or standing next to a white woman clutching her purse. It was not lacking in typical examples.

And while rattling all these grievances off is where my bullshit meter exploded, (not fizzled… it exploded) because, as he said, we needed to add context to the issue. I can appreciate that. So I’d like to add a little bit of context — not an exhaustive one — of an average white guy. And yes, there is a context for that, too.

First though, by “context being denied “, as Obama puts it, I presume he meant denying the justifiable excuses for behavior, or denying that “experience” is causal.
Here is what Obama said in part:

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.

So Trayvon is a product of a violent history and poverty? There’s the unacknowledged context for it. So racism and others are to blame?

So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.

But to start with, he repeats claims, like the commentators did, about conversations they must have with their children and those societal lessons they must learn. Educationally of course. Yes, white people have had to have and deal with some difficult conversations too. And knowing that these situations do not go away, they remain there like a scab that just won’t heal. We don’t appreciate having to talk about such issues but they are there.

So let’s put a geographic picture on it for openers. The small city or town, in rural America, where one cannot travel in a section after dark. You may walk though in the daytime, but even then it is risky. A likely scenario is someone says, “boy you in the wrong hood, what’cha doing here? Are you lost?” The message is clear this is their turf. It may not be the bloods and crypts but their turf, no doubt about it. God help you if you did break down in that section at night, you are at their mercy. (“they” meaning any opportunist)

Just crossing a main street in one section puts you on the black side. Blacks freely walk in other sections but everyone knows everything across that street is basically off limits. You have to let your kids know that. You wouldn’t send them over there unaware of the circumstances. While at the same time, avoiding that section does not make you immune to a bad encounter in the other parts of the city. (but your chances are better.)

I am not just referring to gang related problems. At night, ambulances run back and forth across that section. It’s a part of life, something you must live with. It doesn’t change. How does that make people feel? Those neighborhoods are off bounds to whites and might as well have signs on them. Anyone venturing in them would be at their mercy. Frequent shootings. I lived in a sprawling town like that at school. A block from the action as we called it. What happened there would not surprise you. Someone was stabbed while standing in front of a bar on the demarcation street. Fortunately he had a legal handgun. (he did not kill him) It was a message of the unfortunate truth.

But you never hear their concerns about that, those problems, tensions and feelings, or that history. They never mention the social problems whites deal with. You can be considered prey in the wrong part of town. How would any woman feel? The hospital borders that section and nurses had to travel back and forth at all hours. No, we did not have cell phones or GPS then. I’m thinking e GPS will catch up to say “Safety alert: you should know what part of town you are in, lock your doors, roll up your windows….and do not get out of the vehicle.”

So, let me tell you about some typical scenarios for white people. How about the life of white people and how they are forced to “feel”? How about when going into a gas station and there is a crowd of young black guys in front of the door with 40’s? Or maybe you have the pleasure of being offended hearing all the expletives they yell. And you have to explain to your children waiting in the car what is going on or why they were saying that? Or the playground being off-limits due to crack dealers. Or the unavoidable sight of men with their pants around their thighs with the entire underwear showing, groping their crotches every few minutes. Or the rap blaring expletives at deafening levels. Conversation starters for kids, or a conversation waiting to happen? Yep. I can hear the kids now, why is that?

Now maybe that doesn’t equate to walking across the street and hearing the locks click on all the cars. But I think I could handle that precaution pretty well, in context. Anyway, we are lectured by Obama to do some soul-searching. What about where whites are not dealt justice, and receive biases in courts and family courts? (Nichol and Ron Goldman) Yes it is there too. Where is that context?

Oddly enough — OR NOT — not a word from Obama about the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson. Not that we’d expect it. Or little about race riots spawned in California. And nothing about Black Panthers issuing a 10 thousand dollar reward for Zimmerman. Nor anything of substance about his own hometown, Chicago, where murders are practically hourly. Only a vague reference to violence over the verdict and protests.

Obama sounded like he was warning school children about violence. This isn’t a schoolyard and he is not a referee. It’s dangerous to make such casual remarks about it.

I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

Wow, tough ultimatum. “I will remind them.” (I may have to lecture…)
Their rhetoric is: “What are we going to do about it?”, and “No justice no peace!”

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.

How about store owners with thousands of dollars to replace signs and windows, only to wonder if it will happen again? Soul searching?

Then Obama says we ought to ask if we are “wringing as much bias out of” ourselves as we can? Give me a break. Is he? He believes that dividing us somehow unites us. Or maybe he really doesn’t believe it but that’s his formula.

If he sees any violence he will remind them? We’ve already seen acts. “Remind” who?

Speaking of “wringing out biases,” from the same guy who blamed an internet video for a terrorist attack in Benghazi, and months later says it was a long time ago. He won’t confront the unfortunate context of why those heroes died, but he’ll jump because a teenager was shot in self-defense to say, “that could have been me.”

He had no soul-searching, identity bonding to Benghazi or Fort Hood victims. No problem labeling an act of jihad work place violence. Benghazi was a long time ago.

Here’s an inconvenient racist reality for you. The Congress can’t even get basic accountability from the Attorney General on Fast and Furious without the Black Caucus crying racism and staging a walkout. Where’s the context and history for that? Better to worry about car locks clicking.

Soul searching anyone?

Wake up call for __________ (Rep, Senator, President….)

This is a “wake up call” for Congressman, Senator, President, assemblyman, et al.

Dear _________________________, [aka, blabbermouth extraordinaire]

I am contacting you because of the importance, between taking my kid to the doctor and trying to keep a roof over my head. What with working overtime to pay for the taxes that government at all levels is levying on us. And before searching for a new job because my present one is ending, I took the time to write your office because that is just how important it is. I do hope you appreciate it.

Please be advised, whatever you and your colleagues are doing is NOT working. I would have said “is wrong” but that implies a judgment and I know how you frown on that. And private citizens are not supposed to make those, especially about government and elected officials, or their duties.

But it is not working nor has it been for some time. It is just an illusion you and your cohorts labor under: that government is operating under rules and ethical conduct, according to some invisible principles – which no one can see a trace of – and that it delivers in kind.

However, wake up, it is not working! And it will not as long as you apply the same logic and misguided effort that you all have thus far.

Government is not to serve you, your friends, supporters and distinguished cronies. It is not a personal tool, so stop treating it like your sandbox.

Government of, by, and for the people has been replaced by “Government”– of government, for government, by government And the two concepts have nothing in common. That in mind, it is time to restore the foundation on which this leviathan now rests

It is possible that this will be the last time you hear from an American concerned for the future of this country. There seem to be fewer and fewer of them every year, judging by the number of voters who participate in our “process” and their results.

So be advised, you have been warned. You may ignore the will of the people now, but you will not even hear an echo of those concerned voices in the future. You and your comrades are killing off that voice. Many of them still shell-shocked about our current condition. Instead, all you will likely receive are thousands of “Dear Santa” letters whenever people want something, and you will have to comply with them. So now it is time for you to decide. While I go back to my immediate responsibilities, it would be nice if you took your oath and responsibilities seriously enough to act on them as well.

Sincerely,
Your stubborn constituent

Government of the absurd

In his last inaugural speech, Obama lectured:

“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

Let’s hear it for politics of destruction and fear.

Now he comes out on global warming to claim we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. I have never seen a bigger hypocrite than Obama.

Months after delivering his inaugural address lecturing others about name calling and partisanship, Hypocrite-in-Chief says he doesn’t have any “patience” and “we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society”

It is amazing what he does have patience for. Eight months after Benghazi he has no lack of “patience” to get to the bottom of that scandal. The White House said that was old, it happened a long time ago. He had no shortage of patience on “fast and furious” – that must be ancient history.Heck he has no impatience to get to the bottom of any of his scandals, including solyndragate or greengate.

Obama gets the award for substituting spectacle for politics. He creates a spectacle out of everything under the guise of politics. And when he is not getting his way, he lashes out lecturing everyone else, including those who are not in politics. Then it must be our fault for not understanding. He went on a gun-control binge and when it was not going his way, he lashed out in a tirade and used children as a backdrop to create a spectacle to attack his opponents. We got a lecture again. He tells the people they are wrong. We are wrong about Obamacare, because we don’t like it and don’t want it. We are wrong about NSA collecting and spying on all Americans. We are wrong about everything we oppose him on.

 

Reasoned debate?
Then he calls us “flat earthers”. He substitutes personal attack and ad hominem for dialogue. How’s that for “reasoned debate”? Mr reasonable  even seems to argue with an agency in his administration:  when the IRS came out and admitted that it targeted conservatives, Obama said it would be “outrageous, if true”. And he seems to think the presidency gives him license to lie.

Obama on IRS scandal

This is pretty straightforward,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it.”

“The IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they’re… applying the laws in a non-partisan way,” he said. “If you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way then that is outrageous … People have to be held accountable and it’s got to be fixed.”

Pretty straight forward? If? You are kidding, right? We have finally reached the pinnacle of a government of the absurd.

When they do something wrong there is a dumbed-down report to say it was an innocuous act and that the administration, powers that be, had no culpability in it even when the facts clearly indicate the opposite. Obama’s standard reply to the scandals is: we will investigate that and “get to the bottom of it”. Then they never do get to the bottom of it.

Just like EPA dictates are pretty straight forward, or his war on energy, ObamaCare or gun control were straight forward? (straight off the cliff)

David Axelrod Defends WH On IRS Scandal
When Axelrod was asked about IRS, he said we know it is not political because it would be a politically stupid thing to do. However, lying about Benghazi on the eve of an election is not a stupid thing to do? There were clearly politics involved in that. That lying was straight from the WH and surrogates.

We are to believe IRS actions were not politically motivated. So if the targeting was political — which it couldn’t be anything but — then it was “stupid”, in Axelrod’s judgment.

First, they denied the validity of it, even after the IRS admitted it did it and after an Inspector’s report determined they did it. “If true”, Obama said? That is denial.

“If anybody political was involved this wouldn’t have happened, because anybody with a modicum of political sense would have said, ‘This is ludicrous. What are you guys doing?’” – MSNBC.

Take one more look at just Axelrod’s statement: it wouldn’t Have Happened ‘If Anybody political Was Involved’ The assertion: if someone political was involved, it couldn’t have happened because they would know how wrong that is. So political operatives are smarter than that.(smell that elitism) Political operatives are smarter than bureaucrats and gubmint employees.

Remember Axelrod’s other excuse for Obama is that government is so vast he could not know what is going on in it. But at least political operatives are a lot smarter than those government employees! I believe they’re both pretty dumb but since he did pose the question — Anthony Wiener flashes through my mind. So, those political operatives have more morals than agency employees, even the IRS. See what I mean, it is government of the absurd – or government of the stupid, whichever you want to use.

And I’m sure government is so vast he could not know about Solyndra and all the other failures, or EPA’s plotted reign of terror, or spygate, or anything. Nope. Just be on the lookout for that absolutism and its sister, spectacle disguised as politics. They’re trouble.

Government of the absurd by the absurd.

related: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod-defends-wh-on-irs-scandal-wouldnt-have-happened-if-anybody-political-was-involved/

What’s holding Obama approvals up? — hot air, that’s what.

What’s holding Obama up?

By Dick Morris – The Hill 06/05/13

Why does Obama boast an average approval rating of 48 percent when he scores terribly on each issue he is now handling? Here’s the rundown in the latest Bloomberg News poll:

Do you approve or disapprove of Obama’s handling of ______?

Economy
Approve: 42% Disapprove: 53%
Healthcare
Approve: 40% Disapprove: 56%
Budget Deficit
Approve: 32% Disapprove: 59%
Terrorism
Approve: 51% Disapprove: 40%
Economic Security
Approve: 42% Disapprove: 51%
Immigration
Approve:40% Disapprove: 49%
Benghazi
Approve: 31% Disapprove: 51%

And the focus on Obama’s scandals is cutting deep with the American people.By 48 percent to 31 percent, Bloomberg found that Americans believe that the “extra scrutiny” the IRS gave to conservative groups was “politically motivated” and not “a product of bureaucratic shortcuts.”

Forty-seven percent of Americans said Obama “is not being truthful when he says he didn’t have prior knowledge of the extra scrutiny the IRS gave to conservative groups and that he learned about it through the news media.” Only 40 percent said he was “being truthful.”(also Bloomberg)

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that the majority of voters felt that “the Administration’s handling” of each of its three major scandals “raises doubts” about “the overall honesty and integrity of the Obama Administration.”

A. On Benghazi 58 percent said it raised doubts and 27 percent said it did not.

B. On the subpoena of journalists’ phone records, it was 58 percent versus 23 percent.

C. And on the IRS targeting of conservative groups, 55 reported doubts and 26 percent did not.

So it’s logical to ask what is holding Obama’s approval ratings up at 48 percent when his approval on key issues is down in the 40 percent to 42 percent range and his handling of scandals is so universally derided?

The answer is, of course, demographics. African-Americans, Latinos, gays, students, and single white women are so frightened of a world without Obama and so alienated from Republicans that they dare not give the president overall negative ratings.

Will they ever? Yes. When the scandals reach the point where they cannot avoid it and when the Republicans stop alienating these groups.

Immigration reform will [be] the first break in the ice because it will remove the single issue that most holds Latinos captive to the Democratic Party. On abortion, the administration’s ability to wave Roe v. Wade as its banner guarantees the 2-to-1 support of single white women, about 20 percent of the electorate.

But ObamaCare offers the best option for bringing down Obama’s popularity. This signature program, so closely identified with his presidency, is becoming more and more unpopular as it nears implementation. Obama’s efforts to shore up its approval ratings are only likely to identify him more with its failings. The premium increases, the taxes and fines on young people, and the rationing of care to the elderly will become ever more apparent. And who can believe now that it ought to be administered by this Internal Revenue Service?

Bringing down Obama will take time, but the polling shows progress. Keep at it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/303621-whats-holding-obama-up

Finding that point where his approvals reflect reality would be to find America’s ‘sweet spot’. Now that would be utopia.  That’s where reality and perception finally converge, where people admit his failures, where he is not shrouded in phony belief and perceptions, when honesty prevails. That’s when America awakes up from its slumber.

It would be a Eureka moment when America finally “gets it”, most of it at least.  Sure, there are  perpetual deniers but for the most part people would come clean about Obama. I won’t hold my breath.

That is a lot to ask of America currently, considering the hold Obama has had on it until now. We may need some anti-anxiety meds when that happens — when people realize he is not who he said he was.

All that unfounded belief of people is what made Michelle Obama “really proud of my country, for the first time in my adult life.”

Seems like the percentage who think Obama is full of BS, hypocrisy, deception, and corruption is growing daily.  But so far, the percentage that don’t care what the liar says or does seems locked… somewhere in La-La land.

It’s raining scandals

Even with the compounding scandals surrounding the White House, reports are that his approvals hover around 51%. Immediately some are asking why when they see all these problems is Obama enjoying any approval? Of course, his apologists run out to say that he has a personal likeability, blah blah blah. So they like the guy who is embroiled in scandals up to his cauliflower ears.

This is similar to other cultural phenomena. There is a weird attraction to the remaining Boston bomber. Many of his peers are fascinated by him and like him, and even defend him. Maybe we should start polling his popularity? Yet he still did what he did. How do people deal with that inner conflict. They must be better at compartmentalizing than Bill Clinton.

Even with all that is going on around him, he still enjoys his golf, impromptu vacations, and all the perks. And every time he is asked, he did not know anything about it. But he “will get to the bottom of it.” He wants an investigation by the same administration embroiled in scandal after scandal. He enjoys his likeability.

Hearing his defenders rush out to say “…but they like him” is beyond disturbing. It must flatter his ego. I am so sick of this guy and his creepy likeability. I’m sure OJ still has some fans that believe he is innocent, no matter what he’s done.

But it all translates to disaster for America. If it is true that a person can have his/her 15 minutes of fame, what does it say about us? I have a theory that their 15 minutes comes with a cost to the rest of us, to the public. No one ever mentions that. How much has Obama’s fame and likeability really cost us? Can you even tally it up? At what sacrifice to America has Obama’s personal likeability come?

In fact, there could be another phenomena: the more scandalous he gets the more they like him? Just saying. This is a president in search of Camelot. Maybe his Camelot is actually our destruction? At least that appears to be the result of his tenure.

So a few disgruntled Libs dare to criticize him only to demonstrate some token Democrat criticism.(commie turncoats– that’s an oxymoron) However, the damage is already done!

He got his ObamaCare through and it is set to blast off. He set government standards at historic lows. How’s that transparency working out for you? He had is spendathon. He’s trying to bury Benghazi. How many people have had their records searched? Fast and Furious anyone? Who could really trust his administration? Pay to play anyone? How about a little cronyism just tide you over to the next scandal? If you loved that Arab Spring thing, just wait. So it seems fashionable for some Libs to publicly criticize him? I think I get the twisted reasoning. He already got much of what he wanted.

Besides, they still like him personally. Such a likeable tyrant he is, who could dislike that?