Something going on, always

I looked back on a couple highlight posts from last year and it hit me like never before.

Look back at a couple incidents from the past year and see what I mean. That was then this is now. Those incidents were then, there are new ones now. It has just been a cycle, a continuous cycle. We literally go from one crisis to another. Sometimes a new one happens in the middle of a current one.

With our government and pols, it has been one thing after another. Boehner left, Paul Ryan in. Same thing happens. With the takeover of new Congress in 2015, it continues like no change. Terrorist acts, surges of illegals, murders by illegals. criminals caught and released. Pols lie, scandals and no government accountability. 2016 like 2015. Nothing changes.

What I am really wondering about now is what effect this pattern is having on us? Are we just caught up in the minute, are we in survival mode, are we into the fight or flight stage? I think it is serious and bound to have some effect. I mean we can say it is the new way things are but we see it every day and get tired of it. In and out a continued pattern of incidents, threaded and strung together like a chain. Well, that is how it feels when I look back. Then terrorists do what they want to do, terrorize people.

That’s all I’m going to say, people know what I’m talking about. Any ideas or suggestions anyone has, about it or anything, I’d love to hear them.

RightRing | Bullright

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 Kidnapped America

The US and American people are being held hostage to Obama’s personal political agenda. You can stop reading there because that’s the whole point in a nutshell.

As a matter of his personal political ideology we see country collapsing around it. The Left can’t compare it to Bush and say it is the same thing. The only suitable comparison is to Putin. But even that does not work because Vlad is acting in Russia’s interest, whether you agree with what he is doing or not. Putin does believe in his country at least.

With Obama the only thing that matters is Obama’s ideology, corrupt as it is. Any means to the end. So now we see Obamacare collapsing. Not a problem to Obama. 12 out of 23 states had their co-ops crash. The initial seed money is lost. Silence from Obama. The agency said enough people were not forced into the ObamaCare by loosing their employee insurance. Jonathan Gruber admitted the plot was to lie to the people just to ram it through. Obama basically said what’s it matter, so what? He sends earthquakes again into medical coverage. Did he say anything?

His comrades have declared a war on cops. Again, not a problem for Obama. Even when the FBI director tells us that police are backing off due to all the social chaos and cop-killing, so crime is up. Obama says you cannot cherry pick data or use anecdote to make public policy. But Obama is doing exactly that: cherry picking and using anecdote to make policy.The FBI is not making policy but stating the trend, facts.

Obama declares the Keystone Pipeline dead. The Climate Caliphate is gearing up for a year-end push of their agenda. All he cares about is his environmental agenda. Meanwhile, months back his own administration contaminated a pristine river and region in Colorado.(an interstate disaster)  Obama said nothing. He was not up in arms firing people. No, it was business as usual: lie and make excuses. First they denied the amount and damage.

He told the EPA to go ahead and roll out his anti-business agenda and war on coal regulations, despite whether it is Constitutional. Who cares about the effects, or their impact on people? He weaponized the IRS and used it against his political opponents. He said there is not a smidgen of corruption. then his DOJ declared there was nothing to prosecute Lerner for.

This all and government is just an extension of Obama’s personal ideology. And he’ll go to any end to force it on the people.

Invasion of illegal immigrants, Obama’s executive orders, his forced amnesty, gun control, racism, riots, and even his scandals are all a product of his personal political agenda.

Whatever you think about all that, one thing is clear: Obama is holding America hostage to his own, personal political agenda.

Scandal for hire: have experience

Here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal.

5 Hillary scandals the media is missing

by Ed Klein | NY Post | November 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton can condemn Republicans as her “enemies,” dismiss the Veterans Administration scandal as “not widespread,” and get caught lying about what she knew about Benghazi and when she knew it — but the mainstream media doesn’t seem to give a damn.

They’ve ignored those stories in favor of articles about how Hillary has come through her email scandal with flying colors. They’ve crowned her as her party’s presidential nominee three months before the first primary caucus.

More: http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/5-hillary-scandals-the-media-is-missing/

The Foundation; Uranium; Brother beneficiary; Hedge fund fever; Health: she likes to spread her scandals out.

So maybe if that is not enough for you, she is sure to have more yet to be revealed, even being created now. She’s a walking talking scandal that keeps on giving. Scandals, for Hillary, are not a problem they are a way of life. It’s a lifestyle, stupid.

If there is a scandal Hillary is not involved in, then she just hasn’t gotten around to it yet. Some people are embarrassed by scandal. Not Hillary, she flaunts them. Yet for some reason, the media likes to ignore them. It’s her greatest achievement.

Some people would run and hide from scandals, Hillary dives headlong into them and celebrates them as a skill. What’s not to like about that? It’s not her fault, there is such a demand for them, someone has to provide the service.

Speaking of Justice

With news of the refusal to prosecute Lois Lerner and anyone at IRS of that scandal, on the heels of Hillary sailing through another hearing with barely so much as a sigh, I think the prospect of real justice now in this country is bleak. I mean justice for politicians or those that abuse their government power, or even abuse of government and power itself.

The very next day I see Obama is seeking to end capital punishment in federal cases. And that the Department of [in]Justice is conducting a review, at his request of course. So the new Loretta Lynch seems to be getting quite a workout.

“There are certain crimes that are so beyond the pale that I understand society’s need to express its outrage,” Obama said. “So I have not traditionally been opposed to the death penalty in theory. But in practice it’s deeply troubling.”

He added, “All of this, I think, has led me to express some very significant reservations.”

Chances are DOJ already made a decision not to prosecute Hillary, or appoint a special prosecutor, regardless of investigation results of Hillary’s servergate, likely citing prosecutorial discretion.

Obama is also cranking up his pressure to move Gitmo detainees to mainland US and close the Guantanamo Bay facility. Talks are ongoing as well with Cuban dictators, who want Guantanamo Bay.

The central theme now, especially in view of all Obama’s scandals, is who DOJ will not prosecute? Those are the priority decisions. Funny though how they managed to prosecute General Petraeus. (they make exceptions)

This after already announcing the release of thousands of prisoners this month for non-violent crimes. He’s taken a hands off approach to illegal alien criminals or enforcing law. He’s already issued an executive order to rewrite immigration law.

On May 8th, “Loretta Lynch Confirmed a Dep of Justice Review of Baltimore Police. They had an investigation in Ferguson, and issued their edicts. But note how many of the looters or rioters have been prosecuted. How many rioter/looters have been prosecuted in Baltimore? On a plus, Feds did refuse a Baltimore bailout, so far. I guess reparations do not apply in some cases.

DOJ is not quick to jump into civil rights cases or terrorism when a white person is the inconvenient victim. They don’t seem fast to condemn or react to police shootings.

After the Oregon shooting, Obama has threatened to take gun control measures. We know how he loves his pen. Eric Holder was held in contempt for failure to cooperate with Congress. How far Lynch will go on that path we can only guess, so far.

Now this month DOJ released statements of turning up their efforts against what they call domestic terrorism threats.

New Obama czar will hunt ‘right-wing’ extremists

Americans seen as possibly more threatening than Islamic jihadists
Published: 10/15/2015 a

Just two weeks after it announced a plan to globalize local police departments through the “Strong Cities Network,” the Obama administration has added a new tool in its fight against “violent extremism.”

A new position within the Justice Department – yet to be filled – will focus on investigating lone-wolf domestic terrorists or “extremists.”

The person who heads this new effort will target extremists who plan mass shootings, hold racist, bigoted or anti-government views or see themselves as “sovereign citizens.”

The new position at the Justice Department, dubbed the “domestic terrorism counsel,” will serve as the main point of contact for U.S. attorney offices nationwide and will identify trends across cases, help shape strategy and “analyze legal gaps that need to be closed,” said Assistant Attorney General John Carlin.

It is not clear what Carlin meant by that statement.

Continue reading: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/new-obama-czar-will-hunt-right-wing-extremists/

But of course, who are the real terrorist threats in their view? Those who oppose them. The DoJ identified white supremacists as the most violent of  domestic terror groups. They worry that they are not putting enough resources or focus on that terrorism threat.

We had another cop murdered in NYC, which escaped mention or statement from Obama. Now a stunning apology statement from the judge who released him, with his lengthy record, months before the murder.

“I know. I am truly sorry,” Nuñez said sadly when a Post reporter reminded her about the 33-year-old cop’s devastated family.

Well, a little late but its another glaring example of the condition of justice under Obama. Lack of mention about cop shootings by Obama speaks volumes when he rushes to the microphone at any other convenient outrage. He’s still worried about the Crusades.

Or just take the first hand testimony of one who has experienced the selective prosecution persecution from the DOJ.

Bernard Kerik writes in a August op-ed:

“I provide this context for one very important reason: The investigation against me didn’t have anything to do with a U.S. Ambassador and three of his staff members being murdered in Libya. It had nothing to do with leaking classified material to unauthorized recipients; it didn’t involve destruction of evidence or the obstruction of transparency in government by maintaining a secret server on which classified correspondence was communicated. It was about false statements or errors and tax charges, which for anyone else would have been handled civilly.”

But if the DOJ has its sights on doing something, or not doing something, it will not be deterred. Special prosecutor statute:

“Stage Two: The “Independent Counsel” Statute (1977-19991)
As a result of Watergate, in 1977 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act (EGA) which for the first time defined procedures for the appointment of a special prosecutors. Specifically, the Act provided that upon receiving allegations relating to certain “covered persons”, the Attorney General was required to conduct a preliminary investigation. If the preliminary investigation suggested that further investigation was warranted, the AG was required to petition three judge panel established by the statute and known as the “Special Division,” to appoint an “independent counsel.” Several aspects of the Act require further explanation.”

He does have this DOJ theme going. But Obama is more concerned with lighting the White House in rainbows than with real justice. State of justice in America is contemptible.

Lois Lerner legacy lives on

Lois Lerner escapes prosecution, and the arm of justice.

“In a letter notifying members of Congress of its decision, the Justice Department said that while investigators had found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” there was no evidence that any IRS employee had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice.”

See article

Please, no news here. Move on everyone. What a disgrace.

The Hillary Email Hustle

Just some random statements and comments on Hillary and servergate.

Now she gives an interview to Andrea Mitchel. In it she made a few whoppers. I’m not putting a link up, you can look it up.

She trotted out her old excuse that she didn’t want two different devices. You know, that was never the reason. No one can be stupid enopugh to believe this. Hasn’t this already been knocked down everywhere? Yet she brings it again.

Hillary said it wasn’t the best choice. Ya think? No, it was her deliberate choice. It was a schemed, premeditated choice. Did she admit as a woman making a wrong choice?

She said the server was approved by the State Dep. Really? Then again, she was the Secretary of State. Therefore is she basically saying she approved of it? If it was approved, and under the authority of the State Dep., then what was the purpose for setting it up in the first place? It was to circumvent. Did they approve of her circumventing or annexing their State system? When did State authorize that? Did State approve her lawyer’s copy?

Bryan Pagliano (former State employee) is the IT guy who maintained it and now is pleading the fifth. Cut the chase, he is likely the guy who did the deleting and scrubbed the server, per her orders. One can see a big reason he would not testify. Short of the server testifying, he is the next best thing. Did he make the thumb-drive copy for her attorney?

She uses the excuse that she was trying to simplify things when in reality she complicates everything. If it was part of and extension of the State, then why would she put her personal emails and information on it? Why would she want to include all her personal email and information as well on a government tied, State authorized system?

She explained that Bryan was tasked to keep their server and their personal information maintained, and personally employed by her and Bill. Was he also authorized and approved by State? Why would she want to entangle her personal information with the State? Does that make any sense? No one made her give up a personal email account or her own server system to use the State system. She could have had her own or multiple personal accounts outside the State. Read not tied to the State Department. Why tie her personal to State?

Records always were a problem with Hillary. Or Hillary’s records always were a problem. Obama and Axelrod went after her records. She was always hiding and obscuring her records. Obama and Democrat candidates in 2008 asked “what is she hiding?”

She is sorry that all this has been confusing to people. Really? By design; it was obviously not confusing enough, as she hoped, to have it lost in the smoke and mirrors. She is sorry people are confused! Ha ha.

The important point is no one forced her to give up a personal email account.

About Benghazi, she said she has been asking and hounding the investigations to testify to them. She was just looking for every opportunity to volunteer herself to help in the Benghazi case. They declined her offers all the time. Is that somewhere in writing? (probably one of the deleted emails)

The answers are obvious to anyone not smoking the ganja or guzzling the Kool Aid.

Weeks ago Mitchel started the pondering by asking the central question:

Andea Mitchel: no one can explain why she had a private server.
Not even Hillary, apparently. And the guy who maintained it isn’t talking.

Hard Choices

A home-brew system with Hillary Clinton is toxic.

Update Also see Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

Asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday whether anyone in her inner circle ever expressed concern about the setup, Clinton responded, “I was not thinking a lot when I got in.”

“There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?”

RightRing | Bullright

The arrogant ‘Heartbroken’ bastid-in-chief is back in the Spite House

Oh, right, he never left…

Daily Mail reports:

‘It breaks my heart every time’: Obama reacts to shooting of Virginia TV reporter and cameraman as he says gun-related deaths ‘dwarf those that happen through terrorism’

President Obama has revealed he was heartbroken when he learned a TV news reporter and a cameraman were shot dead during a live broadcast in Virginia.

He also slammed the number of gun-related homicides in the United States, adding that it ‘dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism’.

Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were gunned down by former employee of the CBS affiliate Vester Flanagan while filming an on-air, early morning segment.

The 41-year-old shot and wounded himself several hours later as police pursued him on a Virginia highway. He died later at the hospital, police said.

Speaking to ABC, Obama said: ‘It breaks my heart every time you read or hear about these kinds of incidents.’

Still waiting for word from Obama about the shooting death of a girl in Ferguson  doing her homework on her mothers bed. Not like they haven’t had days now to respond. But he took this one off the teletype to harp on gun control. Shameless.  There have been more car accidents than deaths of terrorism, too. So what is the point of that? There isn’t one.

The gun-runner in chief has problems with gun laws — or lack thereof?

Heartbroken in Waiting

Hillary also chimed in interrupting her server defense road tour.

‘So, yes, I feel just great heartache at what happened and I want to reiterate how important it is we not let yet another terrible instance go by without trying to do something more to prevent this incredible killing that is stalking our country.’

Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton also weighed in on the shooting, tweeting to her followers that she was ‘heartbroken and angry.’

‘We must act to stop gun violence, and we cannot wait any longer. Praying for the victims’ families in Virginia,’ the former secretary of state wrote.

More Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3211578/Two-Virginia-television-journalists-fatally-shot-air-attack.html

How long have we been waiting for the Truth about Benghazi to come out? Now she’s the impatient one, having got an ambassador and 3 American patriots killed in Libya, who operated a renegade server as Secretary of State. So she throws out the “war on women” nonsense and she can’t wait any longer. She should be indicted and banned from holding any public office. She won’t even say if she would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. But she has a “war on the Second Amendment”.

Fox kicks the Golden Calf, then tries to melt it down

Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.

Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.

This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?

Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.

But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.

It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?

What’s in a pledge?

I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?

Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?

In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.

So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.

It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.

Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.

RightRing | Bullright

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.

The Left having their way

I didn’t want to start a long rant over the sentiments in that last article about Israel. I almost did but then what’s the use? It is nothing new under the sun.

But if I would have, I almost said something like I hope by next year you find something positive to be cheerful about to appreciate Israel’s Independence Day. Almost. But if you consider what would make some on the Left happy and encouraged by Israel, that was probably not a good idea.

In other words, had Netanyahu lost then probably a lot of that negativity would have been washed away. If his opponents and Obama-bots had their way, it would be another story. They would be dancing in the streets Sort of like here when Obama won. They would be shouting victory, maybe naively. Anyway it provided a good comparison and reminder to the state of America as well as the state of Israel — and current world conditions.

I find it amusing sometimes how the leftist mind works or doesn’t. The old saying about be careful what you wish for rings true. The same applies to the progressive Left here. They don’t read the word caution on a sign, they react by going full speed ahead.

Anyway, not to rant here, but when I consider what the Leftists want it makes me realize why we cannot appease them. It is not a pretty world when the progressives get exactly what they want. That does not stop their overreaching either. It could be a horrible thing to think about the Left getting its way entirely. You can say “but they are,” though they haven’t got to their utopia yet. That’s the difference. There is a whole lot they still want. And besides, I don’t think there is a finality to their utopian model, it keeps on going. So if they were all happy campers, then I think we’d be in even worse shape – imagine.

I heard someone ask a minister about all the places he had spoke asking, ‘if you were invited to speak at a Hillary Clinton rally, would you?’ But I think I know that answer, the person said. The minister explained, I can speak most anywhere except where I have to water down or change my message. So the point was if they gave him unconstrained ability to say what he would, then he could do it. But that is not the Left of today.That is not going to happen because it would not be in the Left’s interests. Hillary or the Left will have certified fellow-travelers speak because they can control the message. And truth is really not on topic. There are a few parallels to both of these.

Actually if it was up to the Left, they would run Elizabeth Warren if she could win hands down. But even Warren is not left enough for them. (I’m not sure socialist Bernie Sanders is either) You can probably find the same thing in Israel’s Left.

It is sort of like wondering what it would have taken to make Ted Kennedy happy? We saw how far he was willing to go to get what he wanted, volunteering our media to Soviets. Kennedy would supply them press access to speak directly to the  American people, with the objective of defeating Reagan — but he offered access. So you see there are no lines or limits with the Left. Just like with Clintons, whatever their objectives are; or like Obama’s “ends justifies the means” philosophy. It’s something akin to wishing the Islamic State happiness, while knowing what makes them happy.

PS: I forgot the obvious, who puts political agenda above their national holiday?

The audacity of money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All aboard the Scooby Express

Including and especially the fawning mainstream media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Jonah’s column here.

And the Show must go on

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

Hillary campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary, despite the truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hard Choices”…. I think not.

Wacky world of Obama: emphasis is ‘the bomb’

Thomas Sowell has once again boiled the Iran problem down to logical terms. But logic is not on the list of ingredients in Obama’s left. Politics is the dominant one.

The most catastrophic decision in human history?

Thomas Sowell sees Obama-Iran agreement ‘betting the lives of millions of Americans’
WND

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing – indeed, staggering – that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East. […/]

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-most-catastrophic-decision-in-human-history/

My working theory seems to coincide with Sowell’s. It is fairly simple, since with Obama he always wants plausible deniability on any of his failures. It is simply that, while called an agreement or “deal,” it is something else to Obama. It is foremost an illusion. Even he knows it — not that he believes it is any great achievement. (if he does, then flag him at the WH bar.) No, its an illusion or replacement for a real agreement. Something that is practically worthless yet he can hail as an agreement.

In the reality of it, he has created future deniability for the inevitable problem of a nuclear Iran. Just as Clinton says we really tried to get bin Laden. The failure doesn’t matter if spun as a great attempt. Obama is using a similar strategy. All that matters is what he says about it later. So the here-and-now present doesn’t matter, it will be how he frames it after that counts. That is his philosophy. Of course, the world and reality does not function on great attempts or excuses. Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time.’ What counts are results.

Not in Obama’s world. All the emphasis is placed on the attempt. Emphasis is the key or the bomb. More and more, perception seems to be all that matters to the left. And when the people disapprove of the product, then our perception is faulty. (the border, illegal immigration, scandals, IRS, Benghazi, spending, Obamacare, Islamic terrorism, ISIS, Israel, Mid East policy)

They say we must wait for a deal before criticizing the parts. When Pelosi said we have to pass it before we know what is in it, she wasn’t whistling Dixie. They have to know how it ends, too, so they can spin it into a masterpiece. By the time you know exactly what is in the bad deal — and possibly will not know everything — they’ll have refashioned it into a diplomatic achievement, even if the result is wrong. It will be historic even if its a failure. Nuclear physics, meet Obama philosophy.

Clinton’s bag man

To use an analogy, how is it that we only find out about the fire after all the smoke is gone? It’s like insult to injury to later on say, ‘oh by the way, we had a bad fire.’ But that is the way I view all this disturbing information coming out almost weekly.

Salon: ‘Massive Clinton Fundraising Operation’ Inside State Dept. Raked in Cash for Hillary

by Breitbart News — 21 Mar 2015

Editor’s Note: This excerpt, from a book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, first appeared on the left-wing site Salon. We reprint in part here. 

Hillary tapped Kris Balderston, the hit list author, to keep the Clinton political network humming at State. A longtime lieutenant to both Clintons, Balderston, who called everyone “buddy,” liked to talk in salesman’s terms about Hillary’s “power to convene” and her commitment to making sure her partners could “do well by doing good.” What he meant was that Hillary could use the Clinton Rolodex to focus private-sector money, government power, and the expertise at colleges and nonprofits to solve global problems. At best, they would do a public service and make a buck. At worst, they would make a powerful friend. Balderston became, for lack of a better term, Hillary’s special ops guy at State.
 He wrote Hillary the first memo on his concept for an office that would mirror Bill’s Clinton Global Initiative on December 8, 2008, less than a week after she was named to her job and more than six weeks before she took office. Though she had to wait for some of her lieutenants to clear the Obama vetting process and a Senate confirmation vote, she had made it a priority to empower Balderston, the political fixer who could help her build unique networks connecting her State Department to other government agencies, the nonprofit sector, and the corporate world. While many Democrats believe that government is the answer to the world’s problems, and many Republicans believe the same of the private sector, Balderston’s office was the embodiment of Hillary’s core Clintonian belief that government, business, and charitable organizations are all vital components of a thriving society.
“It’s more than raising money,” said one source familiar with the concept. “It’s networking other people’s intellectual property, networks, lists, that sort of thing. You need somebody who does more than just raise money.” Just like the Clinton Global Initiative.
But intellectual property and network expansion would have to wait—Hillary needed cash. Balderston was still setting up the office when Hillary approached him at the end of February 2009. “I have the first project for you,” she said. The job: raise more than $60 million from the private sector in nine months. In an era of billion-dollar presidential campaigns, that might not sound like much jack. But the government generally doesn’t raise money from the private sector, in large part because of the potential for corporate donors to give with the expectation that they will get specific government actions in return. Moreover, Congress and the Bush administration had shunned the very initiative Hillary wanted Balderston to execute.

Read the complete excerpt.

H/T to Pepp for the article

Behind every good politician is a fixer, as I like to say. Hillary knew exactly what she was doing when she brought him on board the Good Ship Clinton. Imagine the table talk at the Clinton house. Here was the premier Clinton Global Initiative on Bill’s plate, and on Hillary’s the keys to the often-overlooked kingdom at State Department. Whatever could be the problem with that? Conversation must have been enchanting. Of course you’d need someone like Balderston to occasionally make sure the dots get connected properly and that the trains run on time, or the wheels get oiled properly.

With the Clintons, it seems you never have to look far for a fixer or bag-man to do the necessary dirty work.You know, like Sandy Berger types. Considering Clintons’ upper status, after years in the making, one expects the landscape must be littered with them from Hope to Chappaqua. It would seem natural, for the Clintons that is. Then her top aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin, would probably be intimately involved with the network.

So what better thing to have than your own communication network and server? Who else but Clintons could get away with that setup, for as long with no one raising their eyebrows at it? I factor that into Hillary’s demand to stand up the outpost at Benghazi by the end of the fiscal year, which is what Stevens was doing. So Hillary leaves a trail, but we don’t seem to hear about it till long after the fact.

Let the show…go on

Attention, now for our next performance under the Big Top:

Drum roll, please.

Hillary Clinton will now attempt to run on her record by running from her records!

Please remain quiet as she performs this career-defying feat.

Folks,  whatever happens may require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Enjoy the show!

Note: Kids, DO NOT try this at home! Hillary is a skilled professional.

Do the Dowd shuffle, it’s all the rage

About once a year the vitriolic Maureen Dowd does a particularly poignant, hilarious piece. In this case she rose to the challenge by roasting Hillary and then serving her just dessert for that arrogant press conference display.

Read the column and I promise you won’t be disappointed with the irony of the high-brow wit of Dowd taking Hillary down to size. If Hill thought the spandex was uncomfortable for yoga, she’s about to be super spandex-ed. I couldn’t resist an appropriate introduction.

It’s eye candy. So, this time it’s even richer than that pot candy bar hiatus in Colorado. And she doesn’t have to suffer any withdrawals…. well, not yet anyway.

An Open Letter to hdr22@clintonemail.com

WASHINGTON — SINCE open letters to secretive and duplicitous regimes are in fashion, we would like to post an Open Letter to the Leaders of the Clinton Republic of Chappaqua:

It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola.

You should seriously consider these characteristics of our nation as the Campaign-That-Must-Not-Be-Named progresses.

If you, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are willing to cite your mother’s funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails, it just makes us want to sigh: O.K., just take it. If you want it that bad, go ahead and be president and leave us in peace.

See More »

 

I challenge any one of the other liberal nom de plumes out there to skewer Hillary in similar fashion. (don’t hold your breath) They won’t be lining up at the dunk tank to take a shot at Hillary. It just ain’t going to happen, which in itself should tell us a whole lot.

In other words, Maureen is correct that Dems will swallow just about anything under the guise of a woman candidate for president. And Hillary’s assumption is right that liberal women will “compartmentalize” the abuse and hypocrisy just to put her name up in golden lights as Hillary’s time — #ReadyForHillary .

It only reveals the insane hypocrisy of the Left. Hillary actually comes with the baggage of scandals, already broken in, some already under investigation. Hillary, this is your life.