Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

Pelosi and the war on planned parenthood

Here is a nice crap sandwich from Pelosi about her BFF, Planned Parenthood.

Oh, for the days when she was speaker of the House.
See video

She plays the woman card, plays the mother card, plays the Catholic card, plays the arrogance card all at once.

Take your ideological view and shove it? Well, considering this is their ideological baby.

Isn’t she looking really old, too? Testy…

Related: http://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosi-snaps-at-reporter-to-avoid-answering-question-about-late-term-abortion/

Obama to ISIS, the perfect comparison

There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.

It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.

But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.

With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)

This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.

In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)

With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.

Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)

With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.

All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.

Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.

RightRing | Bullright

Then and now — 2008 vs. 2014

2008 HoR map

2008 HoR map

2014 HoR map

114th Congress

Also see National Journal

On Friday, Pelosi said,
Pelosi

“I don’t consider it a wave. I think it’s an ebb — an ebbing of Democratic voters rather than a wave of Republican voters, because I don’t think the American people gave anybody a great big seal of approval.”

waving photo: Waving handwave.gif

waving photo: waving smiley smileywave.gif

 

 
Then how about a great big seal of disapproval?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama: I don’t need no stinkin’ Congress

Obama to Congress: I don’t need new permission on Iraq

By Barbara Starr, Deirdre Walsh and Tom Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN) — I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.

The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering.
Dick Cheney slams Obama on Iraq

According to a White House statement, Obama went over U.S. efforts to “strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s security forces to confront the threat” from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, “including options for increased security assistance.”

Earlier, spokesman Jay Carney spelled out one limit to any U.S. help, saying: “The President hasn’t ruled out anything except sending U.S. combat troops into Iraq.”

While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President “basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell’s assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.

More  http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iraq/index.html

Go it alone … “And why not, I can do everything by myself, unilaterally?  I got my pen and my phone… and a tee-time.

“I’ll let you know.” Really, why should that have any credibility either, with everything he’s already done? He’s got a border crisis here and he isn’t saying squat about that.

Though they are doing logistical summersaults to disperse them throughout the country. Heck, no one even knows if the Governor of Massachusetts was told what’s going on.

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 Support Group Travels to Bush Library

I was searching for a little political humor, you know, to just take the edge off a little.
And I think I found it. I’ll put a [J] for laugh to make it easier.

Today, Obama went to the Bush library for the dedication. [J] Hard as that was for him. By the way, Bush did not invite Pelosi, Hoyer, or Reid. But apparently Hoyer was miffed.[J]

However, just look at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. All that rush to protest that occurred, even Bill and Hillary declined to go. When they saw the protests, they snubbed her. And Democrats initially blocked the resolution to honor Margaret Thatcher.

Now comes Bush library and they are surprised at not being invited, probably so they could decline anyway? Nevertheless, Obama goes

Hoyer, the Democratic House whip who represents southern Maryland, complained privately to colleagues about the slight earlier Thursday, HuffPost was told. A second House source confirmed the lack of an invitation to Pelosi and Hoyer, and a Reid aide said that the Senate majority leader was not invited. [J]

Rather than all the presidents being an “exclusive club”, Obama said it was more of a “support group”. [J] So now he declares himself a member of a support group. Yea, what nonsense. The guy has not missed one opportunity to blame Bush even for his own failures, and then calls it a “support group”? [J]

Obama said: “When all the living former presidents are together, it is also a special day for our democracy. We’ve been called “world’s most exclusive club and we do have a pretty nice clubhouse, but the truth is our “club” is more like a support group.” The last time we all got together was just before I took office, and I needed that. …because, as each of these leaders will tell you, no matter how much you may think you are ready to assume the office of the presidency, its impossible to truly understand the nature …/.” [J, J, J, J]

Who in the world… or “world’s most exclusive club”… does he think he’s kidding?

I can interpret that support. Obama: “you are all here for me and should support me. I, however, can stab each of you in the back whenever I want. That includes you too, Mr. Jimmy. Now any questions? I didn’t think so…Support on!”

But of course, we know the way it works for the Bastid-in-Chief, everybody needs to support him. How long, he hasn’t decided yet but he’ll let us know. Where is Obama’s contribution of support?

“Support group” [J]– isn’t that the funniest thing you ever heard?

True story though…

Pelosi takes a stab at “problems”

Pelosi lied and Democrats cried

Obama meetings couldn’t have prevented gridlock, Pelosi says

Posted by
CNN’s Gregory Wallace

(CNN) – The stalemate in Washington is not because President Barack Obama has held himself above meeting with Republicans, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday.

In an exclusive interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the chamber’s top Democrat said Obama respects congressional Republicans and called “just really not reality” the idea that Obama could have prevented gridlock by meeting with the GOP sooner.

“It is not why we haven’t had progress before. We haven’t had progress before because the Republicans were committed to blocking the initiatives of President Barack Obama,” she said.

Pelosi spoke shortly after Obama took a dozen Senate Republicans out for dinner, sat down with the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate and has plans to meet with senators and representatives from both parties on Capitol Hill next week. Washington has just over two weeks to pass a measure averting a government shutdown, which neither party wants.

Continue: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/10/obama-meetings-couldnt-have-prevented-gridlock-pelosi-says/

Here are Pelosi’s words:

“CROWLEY: A lot of talk about the president reaching out to Republicans. Do you think that this in, any way, undercuts leadership?

PELOSI: No. No. Absolutely not. The president has always been very respectful of the views of the Republicans and the Congress, their leadership and their membership. He has always tried to accommodate them. This idea that, but for that we would have gotten all these other things done is just really not reality.
/…
PELOSI: … He’s been very bipartisan in his approach.

I think it is, let’s get some things done together to make elections less important. … That’s far more important than what happens in an election.

Getting lectured about election politics from Pelosi… now that’s rich!

Here’s Exhibit A in Democrats’ negotiatiing, working with Republicans:(Free Beacon)

  •  DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) calls the Ryan Medicare plan ‘literally a death trap’ in April 2011
  •  Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) on “Hurricane Ryan” in April 2011
  •  Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius offers ‘die sooner’ as an option under Ryan’s Medicare plan in May 2011
  •  Wasserman Schultz compares Ryan plan to a tornado in March 2012
  •  Democratic strategist and fundraiser Karen Finney says Obama campaign’s “Julia” would be dead by 30 under Ryan’s plan in May 2012

    And Alan Grayson saying Republicans want the sick to “die quickly”.

    And lets see, their own fuhrer-in-chief attacked Ryan’s plan as un-American, labeling it a Trojan Horse calling it a “radical vision” of ” social Darwinism”. That’s rich considering OBamaCare.  

    He’s really working on that respect, isn’t he? Note his words to the News Editors:

    It’s a Trojan horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism,” Obama said at a luncheon during the annual meeting of the American Society of News Editors.

    How’s that for showing great “respect” in listening to their ideas? You really got us there, Nan.

    And when he criticized Ryan and the Supreme Court while seated in front of him from the national podium. Respect? Then there was candidate Obama calling Bush unpatriotic for spending.

    You think Obama heard echoes of Pelosi’s previous warning about inflammatory language? Of course that was the reason he said it, to be inflammatory, just like the SOTUS. It is the very reason he does it. “Respect”, Nancy tells us.

    Here was Pelosi trembling in fear over Tea Parties:

    “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.

    Hypocrisy is her middle name

    Now here is her concerns about drone targeting on American soil:

    “But this is where the great coming together that our country and our Founders experienced in their own time because they were always under threat, witness the War of 1812, and the challenge to balance freedom and security. I don’t think that the administration has any intention of using drones in the United States against American citizens or otherwise. So I don’t have that fear.”

    Maybe she should have checked with AG Holder before she said that. Oops, his comments and intentions were the very reason for the outrage, I forgot. Pelosi shoots off her mouth and people think its cute. Biden shoots off his mouth — or shotgun off his balcony – and they say: “that’s just Joe. Isn’t he a hoot?” The right says anything and its immediately twisted into a pretzel that supposedly offends most of the country.

    Pelosi got fear fever over Tea Party people but no concerns about government overstepping its authority on we the people.

    Meanwhile, Obama can accuse Republicans of being un-American, practicing social Darwinism, and call their plans a “Trojan Horse”. That’s called “respect”. Democrats rally and cheer him on crying “NO harm, no foul!”- to verbalize their approval. Then Pelosi can come out and lie about it, as if they are victims and taken out of context.

    Early on Obama labeled voters as gun toting, Bible thumping bigots.

    This passes for respectful politics and bipartisanship, and listening or working with the other side? Sure it does, if you are Pelosi.

    Nancy defending earlier claims she had no knowledge about enhanced interrogation:

    Poor Nancy Pelosi, she can never manage to get her talking points quite right without contradicting herself. Here she is fumbling up her words about her knowledge of investigation tactics used. She is in an all out race with Holder on who can muddy up their words more.

Now we know Democrats’ definition redefinition of respect.
R E S P E C T… “find out what it means” – San Fran Nan style

Give me a break!

Newtown horror, town loses its innocence

I’ve been searching for ways to talk about the unspeakable horror in Newtown, Ct. It’s tough to come to this point. Churchill said “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

In this case, the point may not be exhausting all other avenues but finding the words to express it. We’re told that it is important to talk about feelings. Liberals banter that philosophy around a lot. However, I don’t think it is important to talk about every little or large feeling one may have. Some of them may be better kept private between him/her and God.

But I’ll  say that, on something like this matter, thoughts should not be kept personal. On that I’d agree with liberals, though it doesn’t mean I agree with their methodology or conclusions. It was a horrible event causing personal and mass sadness. I’m offended by evil. I grieve for the victims, families and children. “Tragedy” does not do it justice.

Somewhere on the web I saw this thought:

The time when all the politicians tell you “Today is not the day” is EXACTLY the day to start talking. You talk when the armies of lobbyists haven’t got their ground game down, you talk before the talking points are distributed, you talk when the public eye is focused like a laser onto those in power whose only goal should be making our lives better and our children safer but do neither in a quest for more personal gain. To not hold them accountable and do anything less is dereliction of duty. — unknown

Mourners gather for a vigil service for victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, at the St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church in Newtown, Conn. Friday, Dec. 14, 2012.

Are we all talking about the same world? One where a video critical of Islam results in burning embassies; and a world where Liberals advocate sharing every feeling one has? Yet they slam you if you dare offend persons of a certain persuasion, while advocating attacks on their own political enemies. That world, in which liberals are judge and jury on free speech.

I found my voice and apparently so has the NRA in issuing a press statement that its several days of silence was “out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency.” Don’t count on mutual “respect” from media or the left. MSNBC went into political-mode almost immediately. Then Ibama, hijacking the memorial service to further politicize it, stepped it up.

Sorry about the rambling but there is a central theme to it all. It’s the same world where progressives want to make all the rules, “rules of the road”. Now they claim that everyone should be so offended by this event in Newtown that it should bring about “meaningful action and change”– defined by the left, of course. Obama says it calls for action. But their idea of action is one thing, what is truly called for is another.

Conservatives have long railed about the coarsening of culture, or the sickness of it. That criticism gets dismissed whenever they bring it up. Oh, the glories of enlightenment. But we have something like this happen and they clamour for action and legislation.    Would they want to crack down on violent video games and movies? No, they just want to blame guns for causing this horror. The gun didn’t pull the trigger, a madman did. Yet when we blame the culture and misplaced values it gets dismissed. “Sit down and shut up.”

They don’t want to deal with that aspect. Just do a few photo ops with clergy and family, then run to Washington asap to pass new laws and regulations. It doesn’t matter if they are right or not, just hurry up and do something to satisfy their feelings – the quicker the better. Strike while the iron is hot is their motto. Emotions rule.

In fact, they really don’t want to discuss” the issue, they want immediate action. Remember Pelosi saying “we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it”. That pretty much sums up their rush to legislate philosophy. Then we get a Casablanca moment, “shocked”. Don’t listen to their disingenuous, dishonest talk and calls for dialogue, look at what they do. Now, despite the tough reelection, Obama now claims another mandate for his arsenal — to legislate guns.

But cry out about government inaction over fast and furious or Libya? Not so much. They’ll drag their feet till the cows come home on those issues. And Obama will use executive power to halt the inquiry into F&F. Congress will stage a walkout. Mr. Zero-accountability will hide his failures behind executive privilege. But he’s right on point when it comes to attacking the 2nd amendment, and Congress can’t move fast enough for him to legislate. “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

They don’t want to merely act, they want to legislate by emotion. That’s nothing new for liberals, it’s what they do, even if bureaucrats are still writing it. Emotions rule, from Roe to the bench to the purse. When anyone mentions the coarsening culture of death, they don’t want to hear it. They staged a phony “war on women” and started a “war on religion” to create their self-fulfilling prophecy. They mocked any talk of “death panels” in ObamaCare, they ridicule pro-lifers, and defend murdering babies as a right. But the biggest problem is guns.(culture is giving that a run for their money) They don’t even want to recognize evil for what it is when staring it right in the face, or in the mirror.

There is as much potential harm in the legislative pen or executive order, as there is any gun. Both must be used responsibly.

There are two bodies in Congress, the Senate is known as the cooling saucer. But in this case — and never mind that the leader of the Senate is waging nuclear war on the filibuster — the Senate is moving at breakneck speed to get out a bill on gun control. The man who couldn’t get a budget through will suddenly find all kinds of ways to move this. Plus Obama has the executive pen which he promised to use in other circumstances. A scary thought when you think the second amendment is on the chopping block.

Especially considering if they sense support for more legislative controls, they will go as far as they can like they always do. If they have one chance, then grab as much as they possibly can while they can — just like with ObamaCare, the stimulus and the rest. “Take it to the limit”. Feinstein wants incremental controls, and then make it illegal to possess certain guns to top it off. And they will smile all the way to the scrap yards. That’s their plan and they’re sticking to it. They have useful MSM idiots who will push the issue.

So Manchin and Warner go wobbley on guns. Really, who would have predicted that? A Democrat turn coat. Remember Bart Stupak, Democrats for life and ObamaCare? That was the illusion of dissent. Then we saw DNC’s convention against God and Israel? — there was the real dissent.

Newtown lost its innocence and was violated. And innocence was lost in the public square… quite some time ago.

Lesson in responsibility – Clinton style

October 16th Clinton explained in an interview “I take responsibility” for Benghazi.

Lima, Peru (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she’s responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility,” Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”

But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

“I take this very personally,” Clinton said. “So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.”

As luck would have it, she is now indisposed to testify about Benghazi, unfortunately. It seems responsibility has a front door and a back door. And this is the time for the back door.

But it does not come as a big surprise.

On a related note:

MSNBC

Hillary Clinton’s possible 2016 bid for the presidency won one high-profile supporter Tuesday in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Pelosi said during an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she hoped Clinton – who will retire soon from her job as secretary of state – would make another bid for the presidency in four years.

“Wouldn’t that be exiting?” Pelosi said. “I hope she goes – why wouldn’t she?

“She could be president of the United States, and she would be great,” added Pelosi, who was speaker of the House and stayed neutral during the 2008 primary between Clinton and Barack Obama. “And if she decided to run, I think she would win. She would go into the White House as well prepared, or better prepared, than almost anybody who has served in that office in a very long time.”.