SOTUS What If

It is pretty hard to write fiction any stranger than today’s reality. But the thought crossed my mind about a what if scenario of Hillary giving the SOTUS.

Nothing would be more polar opposite than current reality. She would be hailed as the greatest president by mainstream media. The only problem she might have would be living up to their unattainable expectations. But not to worry, media would take care of that too.

It would be fabulous and every paper would have that one great memorable photo of her like she came down off the mountain as Moses. Democrats would cheer at every word making it almost twice as long as it would be.

And knowing Hillary, she would probably find some way to make money off of it. She would have to have some angle to enrich herself. Bubba could sit there with his bit lip and googly eyes applauding at how well she lied to the American people. Nancy could sit there cackling in joy to every word. Tim Kaine would have his twitching eyebrow raised.

It would be her defining swing speech as she demonstrated just how far left she could go to appease her far left base, coming off the 2018 results. The driving theme would be “My Time.” And if from around the global community you see her speech and were so inclined, you could dash online to make a donation to the Clinton Fundation.(FBI & DOJ certified)

There would be lots of lectures in there about a better tomorrow because, well, it wouldn’t be that great in the present. Isn’t that what it’s always about with Democrats, ‘a better tomorrow?’ It would be chuck full of platitudes and cliches in typical liberal speak that have you cheering before you even know what she said. She would have that monotonous habit of Obama’s down to a science of raising her voice from the middle of the sentence to have you applauding it before she finished. It always worked well for Obama.

She would be staring intermittently at her two newly installed leftists on the Supreme Court. A wink and nod occasionally to her Deep State, radical Attorney General to cover her backside in all things scandalous. And we wouldn’t have seen or heard from her two weeks before the speech or two weeks after. But who cares when it takes the media two weeks to interpret the glory of her words, packed with voluminous estrogen?

But then any target audience for Hillary’s speech would not be informed, critical thinkers. They would be followers like those serfs in foreign countries, lapping up every intentionally vague word as if it were mana from heaven. Then Planned Parenthood would have to get a shout out, or maybe two.

Lucky for us that isn’t the speech Trump will give. Lucky that election turned out the way it did. We dodged a big bullet there. Any speech Trump would give is better than that.

Right Ring | Bullright

Prof of gun rant goes to Washington, as Obama’s guest

Check out this university professor in Nebraska who apparently is in love with the “F” bomb but hates guns with a similar passion. In case you wonder English is her subject.

Amanda-Gailey-Rant-Edited

The woman, Amanda Gailey, an English professor, is also the director of a group known as Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, according to her Facebook profile.

Source: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/14/fk-police-officers-fk-laws-professor-gets-personal-invite-to-meet-obama-after-this-rant-294264?hvid=2ZZYR4

This is why we need a license and background check on the first amendment. Yet this gets a personal invitation to the WH.

Trump brought the juice

All I know is Trump connected and turned the negative of the “anger” issue, as they call it, into a positive, effective attack. In his reply, he connected the RNC, establishment, the left, Obama, and Nikki Haley, and the Left’s talking point in one swoop.

After Obama SOTUS, SC Gov. Nikki Haley said:

‘During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation,’ she warned.

When asked about that, Trump owned the anger and the issue in saying sure he is angry. Better still the supporters of Trump are fed up and deservedly angry. Are Dems the only ones who rally to anger? Who channel their anger in political campaigns? I’ve said if you are not angry now then you must be comatose. The left does what they are doing and we are supposed to be subdued? Really, what strategy is that? No need to list all the reasons.

So he proudly owned that issue and turned the whole matter on its head.

The anger juice goes on.

RightRing | Bullright

Spinning Failure as Success

The Obama administration has got one tactic down to a science. In their efforts to defend Obama or anything he does, you can count on one thing, their ability to spin their own failures into success.

The same tactics are used in their press statements or in the State of the Union Speech. It’s a flaming example to the world. Not only don’t they like the idea of peace through strength, they want to do the opposite to disprove it any time they have the chance.

We’ve always known the progressives, Democrats, Liberal Left whatever are good at spinning things. They’ve had lots of practice. But now, in power, they can even spin their failures as success. We saw it the Clinton administration. One of the last statements of Bill Clinton leaving the White House was, we done a lot of good. And we’ve seen it ever since Obaama took office. Every time there is bad news they spin like tops.

It’s been a talking point for Clinton even to the present with his foundation that they do a lot of good with the money. I suppose that somehow makes up for the misuse. In their crazy world it does. Like in an interview with Bloomberg News last year:

“Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable? No. Have we done a lot of good things with this money? Yes.” — Bill Clinton said.

Obamites have to go to the ultimate. They will spin an intentionally provocative act of our enemy into a success, when it suits them. Of course it is treasonous by any measure. They would spin that too. It’s what they do. So a provocative act of war by North Korea, Iran, Cuba or any dictatorship can simply be spun into a success somehow, to disguise the administration’s failures.

Iran seizes our boat and sailors in a highly provocative act, so we spin it into a success of diplomacy. It shows what they are doing is working. Actually it validates their failure — making excuses for the enemy. But spin it they will. They twist it into a validation that the failed Iran deal is really a success. And on and on it goes playing into the hands of our enemy. Is it any wonder they act the way they do? Then Obama accuses his opponents and critics of aiding the enemy, or being a recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists.(the enemy he cannot name) It’s a pattern.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems have no shame

Controversy is us, Democrat Cory Booker wants to make sure he gets in on the action.

Cory Booker Brings Israel Critic, Muslim Brotherhood Defender to SOTU

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
January 12, 2016 | Free Beacon

Sen. Cory Booker’s (D., N.J.) guest of honor at tonight’s State of the Union address is an Islamic-American community leader who has publicly lashed out at Israel and once defended the Muslim Brotherhood organization as “misunderstood,” according to various reports.

Booker has invited as his guest to the annual speech Ahmed Shedeed, president of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, a community center tied to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/cory-booker-brings-israel-critic-muslim-brotherhood-defender-to-sotu/

Divide and conquer in SOTUS

Bold is out, achievable is in, and division is always on the menu.

Reports say Obama will not make any “bold claims” in his 5th SOTU. When has he not made bold, in your face announcements? But that is his forte.

I know this because AOL news says so. As adept as this pretender is at lying, you can probably take that with a half-grain of salt. Whatever he says, always expect the opposite.

BTW, it might surprise a few but I give him credit. Congratulations, Obama, for forcing people to talk about a serious issue. No, I don’t mean healthcare, or illegal aliens, or any of Leftists’ pet issues. He has done more to get people talking about the “s” word than anyone I know of. No, not sex but secession. I don’t remember the subject being so prominently mentioned before, having petitions in many states.

Well, I knew this guy could make history, just not the way he wanted. Mr. Popularity has made Big-Goverment pretty unpopular.

On a side note, what we can be sure will not be in the speech are explanations about his many scandals, we are told don’t exist. So anyone tuning in to see his latest denial on Benghazigate, greengate, IRS, or phonegate will be disappointed. Rather than “bold claims”, they say he’ll accentuate “the achievable”. There’s a pretty bold claim.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama worse off script than on script

Repetition of ‘They Deserve A Vote’ Wasn’t in Obama’s Prepared Remarks

      By     Elizabeth Flock —  US News

February 13, 2013

President Barack Obama went off-the-cuff in more  than 20 places throughout his approximately 7,000 word State of the  Union speech Tuesday night. And each time, it seemed the president was  motivated to do so by a certain point he wanted to hammer home.

The  most interesting ad-lib happened when Obama spoke about gun control,  delivering an impassioned repetition of the phrase “They deserve a  vote,” in reference to victims of gun violence, including of the  December shooting in Newtown. In his prepared remarks, Obama said the  phrase “they deserve a vote” just once, then named the victims, then  reiterated that “they deserve a simple vote.” When he got to the podium,  the president added in the phrase four more times.

George  Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of  California-Berkeley and a Democratic political strategist, says the  repetition of “they deserve a vote” was a reflection of a speech he says  was all about empathy.

“He’s saying… ‘Do you have empathy  for the victims? Are you afraid to even say that you don’t?’ It’s an  emotional moment. He’s saying ‘Look, who are you?'” The moment was made  stronger, according to Lakoff, because “the other guys [in Congress]  were just just sitting there not clapping, saying nothing.”

See more: US News and World Report

Maybe someone should tell Obama that America beat him to it. They already ratified the second amendment a couple hundred years ago. But not even a month into office, he reveals he isn’t going to keep his oath or any law he so chooses. Ignore the Constitution.

If he wanted a memorable tag line, he could call to “repeal the second amendment” and say “these people deserve it”. So the radicals who go into psychotic fits when they hear “repeal ObamaCare” — a law that isn’t even in full force yet, with no Constitutional authority, and which isn’t finished– want to repeal a Constitutional Amendment but they aren’t even honest enough to say it.

Now the Constitution “needs a vote”, even if they are ignoring it. So repeating that line over and over gives it some legitimacy? ‘Vote on emotion, ignore the Constitution.’ People thought four dead Americans in Benghazi deserved a response. He doesn’t care about that. Demand a vote on a budget? Secure and protect the Constitution? Nah. Too busy with gun banning gun control…too busy organizing brownshirts or blackshirts.

Too bad he didn’t run on gun banning in the campaign. How would that sound? “I, Barack Obama, want to repeal and abolish the second amendment…vote for me… And I’m not too thrilled with the first one either.”

“Click your heels three times and repeat….” — and hope no one catches on. His rhetoric has all the legitimacy of a stink bomb even if he has people cheering him.

SOTUS

State of the Union….

SCREWED!

(Sorry, but there area few pictures that convey the extent)
Cow dung

President Not

“I am President Not… from the enchanted land of Nope.”

One thing all the issues have in common is the way Obama argues, or demonizes, them. He is not content with telling us what he is going to do, he always has to frame it by saying what he “will not do”. I’ve been sick of this as long as he’s been in office. Every issue that comes up, he rolls out the “not” machine.

While Obama insisted he was “very open to compromise” in future talks, he emphasized he would not negotiate with Congress over the debt limit.

“I will not have another debate with this Congress over the debt ceiling,” Obama said. [Huff Po]

In November he said, “But what I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we’re going to sort of, kind of, raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified.”

Obama’s acceptance speech in 08:

“But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism. “

In April, 2008: “… but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook.” And keep the straw men firmly on the hook.

You can count on him trotting out the same twisted rhetoric every time he speaks. Why doesn’t he come out and just tell us his concrete plans or what he will do, instead of continually telling us what he won’t do?

So I was thinking about trying this out, and because it happens to be New Years, so I am going to make an exhaustive list of things “I will not do” in the next year. Let’s see how far that gets me.I can just sit here thinking up endless things that “I will not do”. It should b a fun exercise because I can stick anything in the list I want, and be as creative about it as possible. It is just a rhetorical tool.

Aren’t the people sick of hearing what Obama “will not do”? His inauguration is coming up and the State of the Union. How many times can he tell us what he won’t do? How come he never says he will not spend more money or all the other things people want to hear. How come he does not say “I will not demagogue the issues”? Or say “I will not mock my opponents”?

But the reality is if someone took that device away he’d have nothing left. He spends way more time saying what he will not do than what he is going to do.

The 2012 State of the Union:’
“And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules.”
“And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”

He uses this almost as much as his other favorite phrase: “Let me be clear.”

Sort of reminds me of Abbott and Costello, “who’s on first?”