Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Back in style, fashion outliers

Call it a retro-post. It is back in style, again. Not bell-bottoms and paisley shirts, or nickers or platform shoes. No, racism. But the new wave movement says it never went away. It was just sitting in the closet waiting for a comeback.

Relax, you’ve just been exported back to the 60’s compliments of
Barry-I’m black- and I’m bitchin’.

Gateway Pundit

NYT reported:”Mr. Obama also argued that some of the scorn directed at him personally stems from the fact that he is the first African-American to hold the White House.”

Once again he throws out the old standby that his detractors and opponents are racists. Tell us something new. Straight to the race-card. He tells the reporter in an interview that its about who he is. Oh really? It’s about who you are all right, whether you are Kenyan, bi-racial, mulatto, white, black, Muslim or canned ham; it matters not. The Frank Marshall Davis apprentice is stuck on racism because it’s his best acceptable defense. Everything is as loony as his plans. So he has to rely on his old crutch, racism.

As usual, he mentions it in just the right calculated way to remind us all of racism. But it was never about Barry making the mundane case. No, it was for everyone else to jump on the bandwagon and do it for him — like most of his attacks and accusations. So the press and his Demonrat allies can run with his racism charge. Then he can stand back and play the victim. Let everyone else make that case. All he has to do is drop the hint.

So by the next day people are reading off the script saying “you cannot deny racism exists”. (which is not the issue) That’s step one. Then slither into you cannot deny some fraction of disagreement with him is based on racism. After the prove it does not exist routine, then you must prove Republicans’ disagreement and vitriol is not based on “who” he is — racism. The sixties called and they want their protests back, Bary the contrary.

“You cannot deny.” Oh, so the guy that routinely denies that ISIS is Islamic or Islamic terrorism can tell us we cannot deny the impact of racism? Tell us about denial, Obama. Is it good for you?

In James Traficant’s immortal words, “Beam me up!” Or like Texas Congressman, Ted Poe says: “and that’s just the way it is.” Funny I don’t remember any other President with a hyphenated nationality. I so look forward to a new fad stage when we can actually have a real conversation. (but then they are Democrats)

RightRing | Bullright

New American System

A troubling thought:

“Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.”

Obamism and Neo-fascist America

By Steve McCann – August 10, 2015 | American Thinker

The philosophical foundation of the American Left and the Democratic Party is a proprietary hybrid of Fascism. While in lockstep with the economic and political tenets of Fascism, the unique feature of the current American iteration is anti-nationalism as reflected in the belief that the United States is the locus of malevolence in the world as compared to militant nationalism of Italy and Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.

The concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American Left since Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR that initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the Government the final arbiter in labor issues. The National Recovery Act governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce and the Agricultural Adjustment Act which introduced central planning to agriculture. It is generally acknowledged today that this approach by Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by another five years. (Jonah Goldberg’s masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the fascist roots of today’s liberalism.)

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Left, while nominally in favor of Marxism, had as their foundational tenets narcissism and rampant anti-Americanism. However, as the societal and economic seeds of Fascism were already planted and generally accepted by a sizable segment of the populace, it was a short logical leap, therefore, to become proponents of the economic and political precepts of Marxism’s closest cousin. […/]

Continue reading>

Once again, remember the top quote, from the closing of the article:

Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.

This was published before Democrats first debate, which was more less a coming out party for the new American system. The emphasis was about socialism, but in the background is all this ideological baggage that goes with and into such a system.

As the article suggests, Obama has gone a long way in instituting — beyond setting the foundations for — this toxic system. And a key component of all his efforts was to make each element hard to rip out at its roots. We see how hard it’s been trying to weed out ObamaCare, which is only one of the things he planted. The EPA regs, the Iran deal, illegals and his executive amnesty are just a few more. Throw sanctuary cities on top.

Of course we talk about getting rid of them but have yet to do it. Plus Obama is not through yet. Even one or two are troubling, but combined together they all have an even greater effect. (one on one they make up the fabric of the greater whole) Add to it his social justice component which is just another economic tool. We were in trouble as a country before but now with what he has done, what are the odds that we can undo it all?

Boehner is actually surprised

Who’d have thunk…but he shouldn’t be shocked.

To the latest utterance from Boehner that he is surprised by “‘the boldness of the Iranians’ in exerting their influence”, Alan Keyes takes him to task on his ignorance.

Willfully or not, John Boehner studiously ignored the background and implications of Obama’s coherent, consistent “foreign policy”. (I hedge that phrase to suggest its use in a different sense, one that refers to policies dictated by goals and allegiances foreign to America’s principles and hostile to our material and moral good.) Sadly, I am not surprised to find that Mr. Boehner’s belated recognition of “the boldness of the Iranians” is not accompanied by an honest acknowledgment of the boldness of Obama’s treasonous betrayals of the constitutional self-government of the American people. — Dr Alan Keyes

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/04/08/1000-boehners-surprise-is-just-incredible/

It is worth a read, though it is no surprise Keyes has been calling for an impeachment-of-last-resort for Obama. Of course the current realities and laws of probability of that happening, or Boehner bringing it up in his quest for normalcy, are at about zero. The main reason being it is not politically palatable. But I wonder how politically palatable it is to be surprised by Iran’s bold actions or statements? (see Casablanca) Is Boehner living in some alternative reality?

In the event of impeachment, all the dastardly deeds of Obama and his administration would spill out and flood the public conscience. Boehner can’t have that. In his brain, it would not be good for politics either. So basically whatever Obama cares to do, and whatever he brings upon the country, he knows he has carte blanche for whatever he wants. The wicked irony is that all options are on the table in Obama’s scheming world. But Boehner must accept some accountability for those results.

Please note: impeachment has been taken off the table due to lack of public demand.

Occupation of hating Israel

Barack Obama’s top aide says Israeli ‘occupation’ must end

Dennis McDonough says the White House isn’t impressed with Israeli prime minister’s effort to backtrack on campaign comments.

By Edward-Isaac Dovere — 3/23/15 | Politico

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made clear in a speech to a left-leaning Israel advocacy group that President Barack Obama isn’t letting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu off the hook for his dismissal of a two-state solution.

That stance, as well as Netanyahu’s suggestion also made in the closing days before last week’s Israeli elections that he’d approved settlements in contested territory in Jerusalem for the strategic purpose of changing the borders are “so very troubling,” McDonough told J Street’s annual conference in Washington. He called the pro-Israel group, which opposes some of Netanyahu’s policies, “our partner.”

“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said.

“An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end,” McDonough said, one of several times he brought the crowd to its feet.

Read more at Politico

Let’s put it this way, anyone or thing that opposes Netanyahu or Israel they’ll call “our partner”. But, as usual, it is worse than that. McDonough also referenced the BDS movement. (dominated by his Leftist base.) And as noted, he gets applause for using the tag line “occupation”. Or as Joseph Farah points out in his column:

Yes, I’ll say it: Obama is anti-Semitic

Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines president’s ‘outrageous anti-Israel policies
WND

(Editor’s note: Joseph Farah wrote this column before the Obama administration betrayed Israel in the most shocking way by revealing classified information about its nuclear program.)

What’s that old adage?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

Read more at World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/yes-ill-say-it-obama-is-anti-semitic/

Oh its a duck alright. What follows in his piece is an indictment of the Obama administration’s anti-Semitic behavior. So deeper than the dust up between Netanyahu, it is downright bigotry and hatred toward Israel. Then Obama and his cohorts have the nerve to act like they are an ally or friends with Israel?

Item #3 — How does Obama spell revenge?

US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program

Obama revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear program released in unprecedented move.
By Ari Yashar, Matt Wanderman — 3/25/2015 | Israel National News

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.[…/]

More: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.VRrcOeGYExI

It will be interesting to see how the Obamafiles explain that one away. Hardly just a tiff with Netanyahu. They aren’t even trying to hide it. Or, as Obama’s White House would point out: if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a microwave oven.

The right comparison

Obama is such a big basketball fan and “player”. And he always talks up his game.

So when would he ever suggest taking his options off the table or court? When would he say: “I’ll take the fake off the table, only my fouls will count”? That ain’t going to happen.

Yet he consistently wants to do that on war with our enemies. He wants to broadcast every move. Doesn’t that question whether his head ever was in the game?

He asks Congress for an authorization to use force against ISIS, but acts more like he really wants authorization for what we won’t do.

Then Obama puts up these straw men that his opponents want hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground — as opposed to none. He can’t even call it Islamic terrorism. Is he only willing to deal with reality on the basketball court?

Relativism’s poisonous arrows

Relativism is the poisonous mix, especially when you compound it with narcissism, ideology, politics. So Obama goes on his anti-Crusade tirade. Christians take note.

Every crisis, relativists rear their rose-colored faces to tell us not to worry about it.(insert Titanic analogy) It’s only media driving this fear mongering. Your chances of getting attacked by ISIS is nothing compared to traffic accidents, or medical error, etc. Yep, Islamic State terrorism is the non-existent threat. Ignore history.

Yes to worrying about Global Warming, Climate Change, or pipelines and lizards, and evil businesses making money. Even worse, evil Republicans winning elections. Do worry!

Obama takes to the airwaves with a friendly interview from an Internet media site. He wastes no time in aiming at the media for reporting the bad news, for ratings sake. Almost makes me want to put on the “Dirty Laundry” record. Excuse me, but the guy who plays the media frenzy to the max, for his own sake, is Obama himself. Though the Gothic columns have faded and the seas have not stopped rising. But with his “dirty little fingers in everybody’s pie” it’s hard to discourage Obama’s tour de force, let alone ignore him.

Meanwhile, just note the consistent smirk on the face of Josh Earnest as he is forced to answer the urgent questions of the day. “What, me worry?”

Obama the page turner

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

Daily Caller

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

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

The Gettysburg Address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of the Union is Under Siege.

RightRing | Bullright

The price is wrong

I think Obama invented a new game show formula. I’ll call it “the price is wrong”.

Even if Obama got some kind of arrangement with Cuba, at what real cost would it be? We already gave up the store without any significant gain.

His belated action against ISIS, but he can’t even call it Islamic terrorism. The Iran nuke deal. Their climate change deal with China. A Mid East peace deal with Israel. And that is if he actually gets those so-called deals. Iran is getting how much taxpayer money for what? We already made concessions, and enshrined enrichment. So even if he ends up with something he claims is a “deal”, at what enormous price and concessions did it all come? Plus they are generally lousy deals at that.

That leads me to the name of Obama’s new game. Contestants name a price the other guy must pay. There is no loser, except if you consider the price (consequences) of it all.

Obama calls this diplomacy but it’s the same way he does politics by buying votes. He’s trying to do the same with foreign policy, everything is about what he can (we) do for them… “Name your price”. One where they can’t lose, but at what cost? The only reason is to claim success no matter what. Well, he is the President of smoke and mirrors anyway.

But the price was always wrong.

A few words about the SOTU

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

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

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

Same old it’s the millenials, stupid

In search of a defense, the case for millenials. Generational gaps and stereotypes.

Just when you think you’ve seen just about everything, well, I read an apologetic on millenials. Okay, someone took the initiative being a millenial herself. Her column can be found here at Slate — like where else?

At least she tried to bury some of the stereotypes about them. But the crux of the piece is that we shouldn’t hate millenials (read make fun of and pick on them) because in reality we hate technology. So we are actually technology-haters that take out our frustrations on/at millenials. Sound logical? Yea sort of, for millenials that is.

Maybe there is a tad of rationality to the grievance with technology charge. But if anything, many of us might be jealous of millenials for catching on to it all so quickly. Possibly, just saying…like whatever!

She marginalizes the complaint that millenials are not so politically savvy or knowledgeable. (read slackers in various areas) That is one stereotype I’ve yet to see a good rebuttal to. Their networking capabilities take precedent over the bore of politics, though their skills can be cross-applied to politics.

Yet there were some good insights in the piece, if there is hope, that they are extremely individualistic. So take that John Birchers and Tea Partiers. But at what cost or price, isn’t that always the question?

We’ve all been there, seeing politics as the ugly sausage making process it is — at least periodically. Come on, most of us have idealized about what would make the system better? We usually come to our senses figuring the process is resigned to the nature it ‘is’. (to use a 90’s term) If anyone proved it, or should have even to milllenials, it was Obama.

The realists knew there was not a chance in Hell he was going to change the ambiance of the DC cesspool, though he set out to change…whatever else he wanted, subject to his definition. In reality, he ushered in loud voices to compensate for others’ lack of participation. It worked, sort of, to give him much of what he wanted to change. Sure it turned some people off. In the end, it was the chief dupes, those millenials that really personified the hope and change abstract that could be redesigned on the fly, who fell for his dribbling tripe. Not just fell for it, they gushed and continually fall for it.

So it was interesting in the last election when there were indicators he was losing ground with this generation. Say it isn’t so. It began to separate perpetual believers from the more rational realists who tired of seeing the same plays and tactics over and over… along with change for the worse. It must have started looking like a professional con job. Well, even the baby boomer generation figures out the Nigerian email scam, at some point.


USA Today

WASHINGTON — Millennials have provided invaluable political support to President Obama over the course of his presidency, voting for him by a roughly 2-to-1 margin in his two successful campaigns against Mitt Romney and John McCain.

But as Obama tries to climb out of a 2-month-long malaise that saw his popularity sink with the fumbled rollout of the federal health care exchange, the president appears to have nearly as much work to do with young people as he does with older Americans.

Experience though is still a great teacher; there seems to be no technology equivalent for it. Experience causes the dynamic where non-millenials get suspicious of new fads and “if it feels good” approaches. We have been around the block a few times and most of us are wise to knowing all that is promised on a campaign trail is not written in stone once in office. But we are accused of being too judgmental about millenials. Yet those same millenials seem to have their prejudices about baby boomers and others. Fair is fair, maybe we all have our biases.

Now, even on Obama’s signature policy, millenials can only muster 41% approval. A majority were Grubered. That’s bad for the supposed chief beneficiaries of AFA.

It is astounding to hear from one millenial what captures the mindset of most others. I guess, as “individual” extremists often do, she takes the liberty to speak for the masses. Get the irony of that. But then much of what is wrong with politics today is the identity politics. Being fierce advocates of individualism, it seems, should help not hurt that. That is if it is true individualism, not just selfish ambition. (some have reservations)

As for me, I won’t blame everything on the millenials as she posits. I admit they can make a good whipping post at times. What with all their technological plugins that they haven’t yet been able to achieve world peace. Sorry. Though they were central advocates for the whiner-in-chief. I guess the sausage didn’t taste any better after it was made — and won’t.

Rather than individualism, aren’t they more about self-gratification? We often wonder, and seeing the narcissistic tenancies in some seems to confirm suspicions. How childish it must seem now to have run around repeating Obama’s ‘hope and change’ chants, only to find that no you can’t, and “oh no he didn’t?” They’re due for a dose of “I told you so.”

She reminded me they’re called millenials, I was calling them “Yes we can”-O-bots.
But now if only I could do something about my “technology hating”.

RightRing | Bullright

Putin and Obama

I thought a weird comparison might be Obama and Putin. There were several articles about Putin last year. The interest only grows with all that has happened in the last 6 months. The curiosity cannot be contained. (sound vaguely familiar)

One was a write up of his family life, and another linking to an illustrated mini-bio.

Even his daughters assumed different names in school. Secretive as Putin can be.

The veil of secrecy that surrounds the Putins is rigorously enforced by the Kremlin. Journalists who violate the taboo of reporting on the private life of Russia’s first family are dealt with swiftly and summarily. In 2008, when the liberal newspaper Moskovsky Korrespondent reported that Putin was planning to marry a rhythmic gymnast named Alina Kabayeva, the editor was forced to resign within hours.

He has little edge over Obama’s secrecy of records and ties. Media seems to cut both of them wide berth in that area.

Yeltsin at resignation, with Putin and Alexander Voloshin Wikimedia – creative commons via [www.kremlin.ru.]

After reading the mini-bio, it reminded me of the similarities. For background, see Business Insider Putin story link here.

Both seemed to come out of relative obscurity to seize the political scene. Both seemed to have popularity. But wait, Putin was not always so popular, though he found his ways.

Obama rode the celebrity spotlight from the beginning. He made a convention keynote speech in 2004 that was the opening salvo for his national run.Then it was a matter of not being able to deny him election, rather than winning on his personal record.

Putin did much the same once Yeltsin was retiring. Both have become controversial figures since landing in office. Obama was always shrouded in controversy. Both demonstrate how someone can come from an obscure background and gain popular national attention. That’s an example how it could work with the anti-Christ. Obama shows the possibilities — that popularity opens many doors. Maybe he will take a lesson from these two.

2004 convention speech. Wikimedia.

Then once in office, they stretch the executive powers to the hilt. Neither wants to let go of it.

Not far into his first term people were talking about repealing term limits. We saw what Putin did. Media is to Obama what the Russian state media is to Putin, putty in his hands.

Neither is very astute in economics. (though Putin probably has more basic sense)

Some might say Obama has never plumbed the depths of secrecy that Putin has. But Obama has developed a good front, creating an illusion of transparency. It’s more like a mockery of the concept. Media still plays gleefully along.

When do you ever hear media mention the secrecy of his records? Media’s narrative suggests everything is out and known about Obama, and attacks those who asks questions. Clever. Yet when he mentions starting out with the benefits of scholarships, those very scholarships he boasts of are mired in secrecy.

Many times he’s said to leave his family out of politics, even though he flaunts them about in photo-ops. Obama is ticked at any criticism, by media or otherwise. Putin may handle it more directly, but how poignant is it to shut out aggressive reporters or critics who inquire? They may use slightly different methods.

How many times has the White House leaned on media for criticism? We don’t even know the full extent. But we hear. Then media’s narrative so often follows the White House narrative, whether it was on the campaign trail or on policy and actions. Critics within the administration suffer a backlash.

He has the Pentagon locked down and micromanaged out of the White House. Hagel proved that. Benghazi showed the extent they will go to to push a narrative. IRS shows the limits they’ll go politically and in denial. Executive orders show his arrogance and contempt for the Constitutional process. Obamacare showed his ability to lie to achieve his political objectives. Their success is largely owed to a complacent media eager to do their bidding. A debate moderator can turn into an advocate in the blink of an eye.

So then it is interesting to see media report on and criticize the secrecy of Putin. It only reveals their willing blindness toward Obama. We shouldn’t notice the inconsistencies.

Both are narcissistic. Protecting themselves is a priority for both. At this point, some people might say but there are differences too. There are. And the differences tell us something about character too.

Putin believes in Russia whatever else he believes in. Obama believes in himself first but puts ideology ahead of everything. Both believe in preconceived outcomes. Though Putin puts his country high on the list, to preserve it. Obama is about changing his and unchaining it from its history. Putin would like to rebuild their history, Obama wants to rewrite ours. Obama wants history to preserve his legacy, not the other way around. He wants history to be kind to him while torturing us with history.

Obama wants to fundamentally transform our country, and Putin wants to rebuild his. Putin wants to use resources and assets, where Obama prefers to play politics, holding ours hostage to his ideology.Putin will use the military to serve the state, where Obama will use it to serve his own ideology. Putin believes in the power of Russsia, Obama believes in making us less powerful. Obama believes in diplomacy, and Putin believes in demonstrating his position. Obama believes in appeasement and Putin believes in winning.

So now there is an outreach toward Russia, on the heels of economic problems they are having.

Putin is known as a nationalist, Obama is an ideologue. Even worse, Obama is a radical. Which means part of his nature is predictable, as long as you understand him as a radical. Putin’s prowess can be predictable if you understand him as the nationalist.

Their similarities are awkward, and their differences are troubling. The west projects that Putin has painted himself in a corner, but there are no corners in Putin’s world.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s year-end presser

There is much more to the nuance of Obama’s speech but it basically was book-ended by two paragraphs, at the beginning and at the end.

“Meanwhile, around the world, America is leading. We’re leading the coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL — a coalition that includes Arab partners. We’re leading the international community to check Russian aggression in Ukraine. We are leading the global fight to combat Ebola in West Africa, and we are preventing an outbreak from taking place here at home. We’re leading efforts to address climate change, including last month’s joint announcement with China that’s already jumpstarting new progress in other countries. We’re writing a new chapter in our leadership here in the Americas by turning a new page on our relationship with the Cuban people.“

America is leading? It would have to be in spite of Obama not because of him.

Remember that saying I used: “if it happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way.” Notice a hint of this philosophy in Obama’s remarks:

“In terms of my own job, I’m energized, I’m excited about the prospects for the next couple of years, and I’m certainly not going to be stopping for a minute in the effort to make life better for ordinary Americans. Because, thanks to their efforts, we really do have a new foundation that’s been laid. We are better positioned than we have been in a very long time. A new future is ready to be written. We’ve set the stage for this American moment. And I’m going to spend every minute of my last two years making sure that we seize it.”

That saying is believed to be a maligned loose paraphrase of FDR. (Liberal academics say FDR never said those words.) I don’t really care, but here are some words from FDR’s speech in October 1935 (6 years after ’29):

“I am glad, in coming back here … to find a very definite evidence of what I found in my trip across the continent… there was general admission that this country was coming back. You could see it with your own eyes.

Yes, we are on our way back— not just by pure chance, my friends, not just by a turn of the wheel, of the cycle. We are coming back more soundly than ever before because we are planning it that way. Don’t let anybody tell you differently.”

I almost laugh at reading FDR’s words then Obama’s speech. So we see Obama trying to lay the foundation, not for America’s interests but for his own legacy.

There was another vain reference to his self-relevance in his prepared closing remarks.

“My presidency is entering the fourth quarter; interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter. And I’m looking forward to it. But going into the fourth quarter, you usually get a timeout. I’m now looking forward to a quiet timeout — Christmas with my family. “

Depends what you mean by interesting. If you mean a flurry of executive orders because you cannot dictate to Congress, then “interesting” probably is not quite the word I was thinking of. “Interesting stuff”…or more planned catastrophe to come.

Had Bush said that, those words “interesting stuff” would be in headlines of every paper. America (and history) should be so lucky to get a time-out from Obama.

Reference popular saying:
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

RightRing | Bullright

Unibama strikes again

To rewrite his legacy and the election results. The year-end finale.

There’s a saying: “If it happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way.”*

That’s the scenario in Obama’s end of year presser before dashing off on his coveted vacation in Havana er Hawaii.

People can say it was for various reasons: his disintegrating popularity and credibility, his divisive policies, or his explanations for his Havana policy. No, he has political reasons. He stirred the pot by normalizing Cuba relations to inflame. Now he does a presser to take questions, as if those influence any dictator, and supplies contentious answers.

He intentionally stirred up a hornets nest with yet another Executive – whatever he is calling them these days – action. Then he goes off on vacation while everyone discusses his latest unilateral controversy. Since people are outraged by his arrogance abuses of power, it ensures they’ll be talking about him and what he did. So they’ll be talking about his agenda and he then controls the agenda.

So even after finishing the year with Democrats’ landslide loss, everyone has been talking about is his agenda, backed by his pen. Why only baffles some people — more outrage. But our outrage is only a reaction not a defense against it. (Much like the election)

Even in taking questions, he selected certain press to control some of the questions. Thus, even the appearance of having an open presser was a fraud. It is about control, controlling national dialogue into the new year. His way of saying bah-humbug to Republicans.

It’s a clever way of denying that voters declared him all but irrelevant weeks before. Yet he manages to be as relevant as ever by controlling the discussion, despite losses. Republicans go into a new year with more power than they have had in years, thanks largely to Obama’s unpopularity. He couldn’t even campaign for the Dems that lost, who disassociated with him. But can he continue to do it into the new year?

Now he is standing there saying you cannot ignore me. Not only can’t we, but everyone is left talking about his disgusting Executive abuses. He seems to argue “at least they’re talking about me”. Even that is deceiving, narcissist that he is. What he really cares about is forcing his crappy agenda — stinking up the room — back to the center of the table.

He completely dismisses and ignores Congress, yet no one can ignore him and his plans. He demands a response to his failed policies and agenda even after the people rejected them. Dems could not run on anything Obama was doing. In fact, in many places, like Louisiana, they spoke out against him to win votes.
.
That is just the backdrop and purpose to his presser. Mission: deny and defy reality.

[*sometimes attributed as a quote, I use it as a popular saying that it is]

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s ‘playing my way’ address

King Barry had a press conference today explaining some his positions.
I plan on doing an analysis just as soon as my decoder is back in service.

It got overloaded about midway through his presentation…
somewhere between Havana, Ferguson and the black community.

But I can report he did not make a New Years’ resolution.

PS: It will not be before AF-1 wheels touchdown in Hawaii.

RightRing | Bullright

In the meantime: Five Questions for President Obama / Townhall

The steady drip, drip, drip

It’s Ferguson, it’s NYC, no it’s everywhere. In fact, it isn’t black, native American, or other, it’s everyone. And it’s law enforcement across the board.

So that is Obama’s latest on the police acting stupidly, in Obama’s narrative. Only there is no summit in sight on the problem.

Remember last year under the sequester when Obama wanted America to feel the pain of budget restrictions? He threatened us with cuts to fire and police departments. He used those threats as fodder against any opposition to his unilateral agenda.

Now he critiques the cops for their treatment of people. And he broadens it to their treatment of, well, everyone.

His latest statements come on the heels of the NYC grand jury decision not to prosecute police for “murder” or death of Garner, in their arrest of him for selling cigarettes. A case where, once again, Al Sharpton is front and center in the case and reaction to the decision. It’s amazing he can still have time to have a show on MSNBC. But this is probably considered being “on assignment.”

Obama on NY grand jury decision: ‘This is an American problem’

December 03, 2014 | The Hill

President Obama vowed Wednesday that he would not “let up” in his push to address law enforcement issues after a grand jury in New York opted not to bring criminal charges in the case of Eric Garner, a black man killed when a white police officer placed him in a chokehold.

“It is incumbent upon all of us as Americans, regardless of race, region, faith, that we recognize this is an American problem and not just a black problem or a brown problem or a Native American problem; this is an American problem.

“When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that’s a problem. And it’s my job as president to help solve it,” he said.

Obama said the Garner case speaks “to the larger issues we’ve been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year and sadly for decades.”

“Unfortunately, we are seeing too many incidences where people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly,” Obama said.

The president said he had spoken to Attorney General Eric Holder on the phone, and that the Justice Department would have additional information about the federal response to the grand jury finding.

Okay, people are not being treated fairly, and people across the country do not have confidence in the system. That might have some merit in the broader context.

Either people are not being treated fairly, or there is some wide perception in the public that they are not. But when we the people took issue with the border, we were told everything was fine and that we just had a perception problem.

Now based on a few individual instances, he tells us people are not being treated fairly. And that he supposedly stands on the side of the mistreated people. In other words, like an Al Sharpton in the Oval Office. He rolls all this out as if it were just a matter of fact that everyone knows. (contrary to his reaction to what most people think of the border)

Furthermore, if he wants to talk fairness, how about the way he treated this last flood of illegals over the border? Now he wants to lecture us about fairness? Or how about the way the IRS treated conservatives for years? Remember his get to the bottom of this…before his “not a smidgen of corruption” line. But he is a one-man crusader for fairness.

The real dirty truth about Obama is it very much matters who you are, what color you are, what demographic you are, what political party you belong to, or how much money you have, or what job you have, or who your employer is in the way you are treated. This is just how he and his Democrat colleagues see things. Now he once again comes out pushing his old canard about equality, fairness, and victimhood. And if you trust either he or Holder as the guardians for fairness, then you really need your head examined.

Just what we need, Obama vowing a campaign for fairness. He didn’t even demonstrate fairness in his presidential campaigns. And he didn’t push his Obamacare fairly.

Now, he is Obama, Captain fairness. Captain Hypocrite is more accurate. Any time Obama lectures about fairness, look out. These days lies travel faster than the speed of airwaves, especially from the bully pulpit.

RightRing | Bullright

Troops not an option says Obama

Defense Secretary Could Consider Recommendation For More Ground Troops In Iraq

[…But Obama could not]
Hunter Walker | Business Insider

In his interview with CNN, Hagel said he did not “foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent.”

“If we get to any other variation of recommendations from General Dempsey, we will deal with it, but we are not there yet,” said Hagel.

At the G20 Summit, Obama would not completely rule out the possibility of using combat troops to fight ISIS. However, he suggested it would require a rather extreme turn of events.

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-may-consider-recommendation-for-iraq-ground-troops-2014-11#ixzz3JLnrfV00

 
Only if ISIS were to get hold of a nuclear weapon, would Obama send ground [combat] troops into Iraq. This is a war of ideology —  ISIS’ verses Obama’s. He not only took troops off the table but he took the ‘threat of troops’ off the table.

He can use executive power to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, and stop deportations but he cannot use it to deploy troops in Iraq. He also has no problem threatening unilateral action here for any reason, but cannot threaten a cult of evil ravaging across the Middle East.

On the other hand, he will not take action to prevent Iraq from building a nuclear weapon. Why would IS need a nuclear weapon with Obama in the White House? He’s following the same formula on Iran: not only taking action off the table but taking the ‘threat of action’ off the table.

RightRing | Bullright

Curse of an ineffective prez

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

Ending presidents’ second-term curse

By Lawrence Summers August 10, 2014 | Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Obama is the caricature he attacks

Obama is the caricature he always ran against.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2000, then Bobby Rush quipped about Obama:

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

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

RightRing | Bullright