Tag Archives: current-events

Obama worse off script than on script

by Bullright

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

by Bullright

State of the Union….

SCREWED!

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

Obama’s bomber interview

by Bullright

That’s an interview when you throw bombs every 15 seconds, as he typically does.
[MSNBC]
Toward the end of his softball interview before the Super Bowl.

“What I’ve said repeatedly is Washington cannot continue to operate under a cloud of crisis. That, uh, freezes up consumers, it gets businesses worried. We can’t afford these self-inflicted wounds and there’s a way to solve these budget problems in a responsible way, through a balanced approach the vast majority of people agree with.

If we do that, there’s no reason why we can’t have really strong growth in 2013, but , you know, we can’t have Washington dysfunction getting in the way.”

Does the Liar-in-Chief ever think about what he is saying, or does he just repeat it figuring Americans cannot see through his smokescreen? Mr. Crisis himself– “we can’t wait” — lectures us about the “cloud of crisis” in DC? From Mr. never let a crisis go to waste.

Who is the chief cause of “Washington dysfunction”? And let’s say his “balanced approach” is NOT BALANCED, or UNBALANCED. (not even close) “Budget problems” and responsibility? Does he ever accept responsibility for anything? No.

“Can’t afford these self-inflicted wounds”? That’s what the American people have been saying for 4 years now, while Obama held us hostage.

As for “really strong growth”: can anyone think of one thing that he did in four years to encourage strong growth? I can’t even think of anything he did to encourage growth.

Oh, the irony that this was a pre-Super Bowl interview when not one of his plays… statements was challenged or met any resistance. In fact, this could have been written by the White House because it mentioned every favorite pandering issue and talking point on their list. Women, gays, cuts in military spending, “investments”, even Boy Scouts. And Scott Pelley conveniently worked it all into under 8 minutes. Made to order.

Plus, hypocrite-in-chief managed to get in an offsides jab at football safety. (no penalty) Obama didn’t have to worry about getting a concussion from that interview.

By any reasonable measure of common sense, this should have went down as a loss. However, his minions and cronies think it was superb. The same problem the election had. Too many people went along with his Hail Mary when they should have challenged it. Probably no one wants to sack this pretender for fear of getting a lot of that brown stuff on them.

Hillary vs. Johnson : no holds barred

by Bullright

Miss full accountability, “the buck stops with me”, Hillary Clinton testifies to say “what difference does it make?”

I know it’s still only January but that is the line of the year. And it took her four months just to say that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

Johnson: I understand.

Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. But the fact is that people were trying in real-time to get the best information….But, you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make? ”

She also misconstrued the purpose. The point is even more about the response and reaction of our government and why. This is the way they argue by moving the point. We thought it was about our governments’ response and she twisted it to just the terrorist’s motives. Both are questionable.

Then use the four dead Americans to mitigate government’s culpability. (logic took a vaction) And she tried to trump terrorists’ motives by a goal to “bring them to justice” — which they haven’t. See how this game works? Argued in true Liberal BS.

“What difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. How could you prevent this in the future if you dismiss the facts as irrelevant? Does that sound anything like, “do everything we can to prevent it happening again”?

We hold this non-truth to be self-evident, what does it matter?

PS: and the media yawns and says what difference does it make?

Obama’s Declaration of Socialism

by Bullright

Obama mentioned the Declaration of Independence, but his inaugural speech was all about collectivism. The philosophy behind the Declaration is rooted in individual freedom. Obama has it exactly backwards.

The “rights” movement of the left has been transformed into redistribution and class warfare, combined with the welfare state. The real “social justice” they talk about is economic redistribution. His campaign didn’t even address individual “freedom” as he calls it — unless that is about killing babies — it was all about the collective. Collective being the sum total of the special interests he panders to.

Obama said:

1)What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

2)My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.

Not self-executing? Remember, “you didn’t build that… somebody else made it happen.”

Individualism is out the window, long gone in his politics of division and class warfare. It is the politics of materialism. Their “social justice” is really redistributive justice. I suppose he will finally admit that is what his “fairness” doctrine is all about in his second term, unchained from the voters.

As Goldwater said decades ago, the left is driven by materialism. Even the morality they speak of has an element of materialism. Don’t you find it ironic that Obama only mentioned the Constitution he swore to uphold in passing.(…that thing) He seems to think backwards. But just as MLK Jr. used the Declaration, Obama wraps his speech with it. Then again, imagine a Liberal like Obama giving a speech based on the Constitution?

He adds:

“The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

But exactly what is Obama giving us? A mob and a king. A king backed by a mob, with an absent and complacent free press. It works for him… quite literally. And a king that sanctions and endorses mob rule – if it’s within the orthodoxy of central authority.

So we see, with Obama our fight is not just against his bucket list of policies, but against a philosophy, an ideology and a political movement behind it, driven from top. (campaign org turns lobby)

He frames it trying to disguise it, and then throws a straw man in to add credibility

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

“Demands of today’s world” — whatever all that is — compared with fascism or communism, good comparison. (sarcasm) Or better comparing technology, markets, goals, ideas and personal struggles compared with fascism. From the Socialist-in-chief himself. That should make anyone chuckle. (one of those struggles is against institutionalized ideology of the Left.) But it is different when its a foreign country or an outsider that is pursuing the philosophy. When its inside your own country from the top down it’s quite different. Did the Nazis extinguish Hitler or his policies? You know the answer.

In fact, it was just the opposite; they gleefully went along and approved. Sound familiar? Just because a charismatic type A person can make a good sounding case doesn’t mean it is the best idea. ObamaCare is a glaring example, and the stimulus would be another. When the smoke cleared it wasn’t as good, or popular as it sounded. We even had Pelosi telling us they had to pass it before we know what’s in it. They tried to do it on amnesty but were stopped.

Goldwater said:
“[One] cannot be economically free, or even efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

And that is precisely what Obama has in mind and endorses, political slavery — individually and collectively.

Much of the equality or fairness Obama speaks about is really egalitarianism of the economic kind, just dressed in a fancy “fairness” package. And the left suffers under its own false pretenses about  conservatism. It is not simply an economic theory. But that is basically what the lefts ideology ends up being, a doctrine of economic egalitarianism. Or collective materialism. With a few words about civil rights thrown in, which they think they can keep on creating to suit their politics.

The Left feels it is their exclusive job to equalize, or that is what their rhetoric suggests. Enforcing that fairness just happens to lead to more power and control for ruling class elites. It also tends to get expensive to purchase all the votes to keep all that “fairness” flowing.  Sounds like another one of his “investments”.

Note: please don’t give me the ‘definition of socialism’ lecture. Do the math with the modern left(post 60’s), the green movement, EPA dictates, green industry, and Kelo’s decision. Then connect all the dots. And remember even Hitler did not want to abolish “private property”, rather everyone should understand that they are an “agent of the state.” So spare the academic arguments.

Ending of an era, changing of tactics

by Bullright

A little personal venting.
 
Sometimes I just take a news story or current event and go off of that. Its not that there is a dramatic lack of supply anymore, it is just that it seems monotonous at times.

We well proved how stupid liberals are, even if they aren’t done making their case.

So that is why I’ve been easing off, certainly not for a lack of ammunition. It’s a daily thing with Liberals, where one day they will surpass the idiocy of what they did the day before. It is hard to keep up. What do you want, they are evolving?

Some take to chronicling the Liberals’ bobs and weaves very seriously. But sooner or later you look back and wonder if you are getting anywhere? What’s the point, just reminding people all the places they’ve been and the ugly path they are on? It really is simple though and they supply plenty of motivation.

And some of us may appear obsessed  with keeping track of Obama’s lies and his un-American agenda. It may seem like obsession but what should we call Obama’s agenda? Now that is a real obsession if anyone has one.

But it does tend to get boring if not predictable. Then there is exposing what the Right is doing that often falls short of responding to Liberals. There’s a task to keep up with. I saw a few interesting books out( one by Ben Shapiro) claiming the civility is totally absent with the left. I do agree. And they assert that, because of the lack of civility on the left, it is time to step up and respond to their blatant lunacy in kind. I almost agree, sort of. I’ve been doing that for years. Step it up to what? Namecalling, screaming, boycotts or protests?

But just to say we are now going to leave civil discussion behind because there is no civility with the left kind of gets my dander up. That is not the reason to abandon civility for scorched earth. I have nothing aginst scorched earth either. But the point was never just to be civil for civility sake. In fact, I’m not sure what the right’s entire point was till now?

Yes, Martha, there was a time when many conservatives naively thought they would convince, convert, or convict the left with the better reasoned argument. As TV’s Dr Phil says, “how’s that working out for ya?” It never did work. The dorbell rings and no one is home. The more civil the right tried to be, the more irrational and unhinged the left became. They don’t care. It was like a cat and mouse game anyway. Only those who “believed” in that illusion played the game. That got old somewhere around Clinton’s impeachment. The left fnally proved playing handball on a curb was even beyond their mentality when Bush came along. That was almost made to order for leftists’ Alinsky tactics.

So what to do? Well, I’m not recommending or changing my style based on anything the left is doing. That would sort of be pointless. They bob and weave so much its like getting hypnotized by a bobble head doll. Next you’d be buying tickets to the flea circus. The Right is right and the Left is, well, wrong. Changing the chairs on the Titanic does not change the truth.

Why bother saying it’s all out warfare now? It was always that to libs even when they are having success. That’s what Alinkyism is all about. But why the right has to make gestures about stepping up their arguments is beyond me. It suggests they weren’t doing all they could before. (and they weren’t) They merely thought the appearance of well-mannered discussion was enough to win the day. It didn’t; if the last two elections proved nothing else they proved that. It was always about survival – now more than ever.

Still it is time for some adjustments. I’m thinking of a few rules of the road. One of them would  be to take a liberal seriously for what they say most of the time, especially during their emotional fits. They have moments of revealing their agenda. They may be as wrong and dumb as you think but that doesn’t guarantee they are losing, or will. Second, don’t expect that the majority of voters see the fallacy of the left. They don’t, so don’t be deceived. Don’t believe voters are smart enough to avoid doing stupid things. They aren’t.

Don’t mistakenly think the people will see a reasoned argument and agree with you. People are disagreeable, sometimes for the sake of it. Don’t think the truth always wins the day. It doesn’t. Once people are caught in a lie it often takes them a lot of digging to see daylight again. And finally, don’t take a liberal’s word for anything, ever. They live to defy reality.

Above all, never fall for their stupid ploys about how they actually can agree with much of what you say. They don’t, they lie. Don’t fall for the “can’t we all get along” schtick. That went out the window in the 70’s. They have zero interest in getting along. They only want to control as much of you as they can, period…ain’t no “getting along” about it. Now I’m having fun. I could go on here, probably indefinitely, but I need to stop now.

Like I said, it is a task to keep up with their bobbing and weaving. The point would be not to alter your response just due to their tactics or stupidity, it doesn’t help anyone. Conservatives, stop drinking the Kool Aid and thinking that if you only appeal to liberals’ better senses you will succeed. They have no better senses; that’s a fool’s errand. I have a gut feeling I only scratched the surface. Feel free to add your own.

Spendaholics Anonymous

by Bullright

Obama Fiscal Cliff

The biggest issue of our time is the debt and our budget problems. Now imagine a president comes out and says I will not negotiate?

In the campaign, Obama gave us lectures about what he would do to work with others and compromise. It was just talk though. Now he says he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. In fact, what he wanted was unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling by himself. Screw what the people say or what congress wants. He wanted to usurp the power unto himself.

President Not is  laying out his campaign once again.

My name is Barack Obama, and I’m chief of spendaholics. There is nothing anyone can do to stop me. I will not listen; I will not negotiate; I will not stop spending as I want to.

Huff Po reports

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.

 

(Newser Jan 2, 2013 ) – It seems lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree on one thing: They don’t deserve a raise. The Senate’s fiscal cliff bill contains a single sentence provision that will stop Congress from getting a scheduled cost-of-living salary bump, Roll Call reports.

President Obama had issued an executive order raising pay for all federal employees, including a $900-a-year bump for Congress, but lawmakers in both houses had pledged to vote it down, the Hill reports, with some wanting to prevent raises for the rest of Washington as well.

“At a time when our country is facing record debt and trillion dollar deficits, the last thing Washington should do is reward itself with a pay increase,” Rob Portman said in a New Year’s Eve statement. Michele Bachmann took it a step further and drafted a bill preventing congressional raises in 2014.

 

As Krauthammer said Jan 4:

Sure, he’ll pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for re-election. But now that he’s past the post, he’s free to be himself – a committed big-government social Democrat.

As he showed in his two speeches this week. After perfunctory nods to debt and spending reduction, he waxed enthusiastic about continued “investments” – i.e. spending – on education, research, roads and bridges, green energy, etc.

Big spending is back in vogue — with no apologies He’s probably busy making out his Christmas wish-list for next year.

Newtown horror, town loses its innocence

by Bullright

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.

Dichotomy of a White House gnat

by Bullright

My title maker is on the fritz so I’m winging it.

Obama makes me think of a gnat. You swat at it and it just keeps bothering you. The more disturbed you are, the more intense it seems to get. You just want it to go away and stop bothering you but it won’t, almost for spite. It forces you to try shooing it away.

There are two primary functions to what it does: first it bothers you and then distracts and diverts you. You might think of it all as one but it is really two. It makes itself impossible to ignore.

In Obama’s case he keeps getting in your face tryng to be relevant, which is enough of a nusance. Then he does what he does; I hear him speak and realize how bad he really is. He sucks any peace right out of the atmoshere while he gnaws at you. It reminds you of all the consequences. He just won’t go away. You keep swatting but it doesn’t phase him. That fuels your disdain for him and his whole agenda. He seems to exist just to make your life miserable. That is his purpose.

Every issue he comes out just to antagonize. Even on side issues or state matters, it makes no difference, he makes some pronouncement to inject himself as the perpetual nagging pest.

Zombies are coming….planet collision prophecies are nonsense.

by Bullright

 

Government tells us to stop scaring children, saying all this nonsense about doomsdays, planet collisions, and Mayan calendar stuff is just that – nonsense.

But we must prepare and train for a zombie invasion.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Move over vampires, goblins and haunted houses, this kind of Halloween terror aims to shake up even the toughest warriors: An untold number of so-called zombies are coming to a counterterrorism summit attended by hundreds of Marines, Navy special ops, soldiers, police, firefighters and others to prepare them for their worst nightmares.

“This is a very real exercise, this is not some type of big costume party,” said Brad Barker, president of Halo Corp, a security firm hosting the Oct. 31 training demonstration during the summit at a 44-acre Paradise Point Resort island on a San Diego bay. “Everything that will be simulated at this event has already happened, it just hasn’t happened all at once on the same night. But the training is very real, it just happens to be the bad guys we’re having a little fun with.”
/…
“No doubt when a zombie apocalypse occurs, it’s going to be a federal incident, so we’re making it happen,” Barker said. Since word got out about the exercise, they’ve had calls from “every whack job in the world” about whether the U.S. government is really preparing for a zombie event.

Called “Zombie Apocalypse,” the exercise follows the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s campaign launched last year that urged Americans to get ready for a zombie apocalypse, as part of a catchy, public health message about the importance of emergency preparedness.

Continue http://news.yahoo.com/marines-police-prep-mock-zombie-invasion-180541102.html

The government is training for a zombie invasion. Are they just too much? But quit scaring the children about conspiracy prophecies. Lets not suggest zombies might be running the Government.

Obama, Assad and ugly realities of evil

by Bullright

 

America, you elected Obama and now we’re getting class warfare on steroids; and dividing America from sea to shining sea. Ignorance is no excuse. When the administrations’ secret bureaucrat-written laws of ObamaCare kick in, America you asked for it. You wrote him a blank check to use however it wants. Thanks.

You said Americans didn’t have enough government in our lives, you wanted it to control your healthcare and everyone else’s. You wanted it America. You wanted a guy who will interpret the election however he wants to his benefit, at his whim; that’s okay with all the stooges that voted for him.

Some may think this analogy is over the top hyperbole, but I disagree. Syria mixed, loaded and is ready to gas people. It’s the same thing Obama is preparing to do.(metaphorically) Assad wants to target dissenters, his resistance, and let it be an example to any others who dare oppose him. It is the same tactics Obama applies.

This is politics, sorry if you don’t like the comparative analogy. What’s the difference between Assad and how Obama operates? The same mentality and power drive both. Assad is willing to go to any limit – or line — to make his point. Do you think Obama cares about a fiscal cliff or spending? The will of the people does not matter to either one, all that matters is his will.

Part of his agenda uses social justice as the motive. And the base thinks this is the cause. He calls in his media minions on MSNBC for a secret meeting. (they are just some of the operatives) These are the like-minded hacks and operatives, his soldiers. Obama and the left want us to think think his soldiers are average working class people you see at his rallies. All Marxists need lots of useful idiots. And the ignorant, misinformed, and brainwashed are to be used and manipulated however they choose. These media are just another layer in the hierarchy.

Hacks like Schultz made the case that Democrats should not engage in good faith, that they should play this class warfare for all they can, right through next election. Blaming and using Republicans all the way. They don’t care about consequences. They don’t care about the real damage. All they care about is power and control.

UNdue Recognition

by Bullright

U.N. poised to recognize Palestinian ‘state’

 
BY: Adam Kredo – Freebeacon.com
November 29, 2012 5:00 am
 

The United Nations is poised to officially recognize the state of Palestine, an unprecedented international endorsement that would enable the Palestinians to prosecute Israeli officials for what the Palestinians claim are war crimes.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is set today to present the U.N.’s General Assembly (G.A.) with a resolution that would enhance the Palestinians’ official status from “observers” to “non-member observer status,” a designation that would allow the so-called state of Palestine to launch formal complaints against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other U.N legal bodies. […]

Read more http://freebeacon.com/undue-recognition/

Right on cue. Pallywood does UN

Climate Climax

by Bullright

I think the word CimateGate fits their drumbeat agenda, and it continues.

Buzz words they use are almost comical. Sometimes one has to remember that they are the left’s words and not ones the right has strapped around their alarmist necks.

Climate financing

Climate Change

Climate aid (love that one)

Shifting climate

Climate aid activists

Green Cimate Fund

“fast start” climate financing

And now, drumroll, for their latest creation:
Climate “fiscal cliff” — We are are heading for a Climate fiscal cliff — look out eagles and cliff dwellers! Now they are adapting the language from the debt crisis to globul warming, and hijacking them to point toward their undebatable issue. More to follow. So they’ll say that you cannot address the fiscal problems without addressing Climate Change.

One quote here is not too much:

“A recent projection by the World Bank showed temperatures are on track to increase by up to 4 degrees C (7.2 F) this century, compared with pre-industrial times, overshooting the 2-degree target on which the U.N. talks are based.”

Its bad enough with education the way it is with its problems, but I’m convinced now more than ever that we have to start teaching kids how to read “green”. I mean how to read through the language the left uses by applying critical thinking skills and logic. In the future they will have to know the techniques of propaganda and spot the fallacies in the language of ‘big-gov green’ (a dialect all its own) or enviro-mentalists, just to protect themselves from it.

The Bible warned of worshipping creation over the Creator. They turned the words nature’s God into Nature is god.

Romans 1:25

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

If the rhetoric is not enough, Obama has EPA’s gun loaded and aimed at us with a regulation apocolypse. The Examiner reported before the election Obama had EPA hastily prepariing to roll out the regs at the end of November, and if he won they would continue their agenda. That’s now a given. And this is only the tip of the iceberg:

“More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700

What does it say when the administration put so much effort and resources into it? All that new regulation on business and of course GE will be exempt. (surprise!)

Obama has made sure that the EPA will institute mandates even if he has to overreach the executive branch’s power, since, after all, “we can’t wait” for the dictator to do things legally.

2012 UN Climate Talks In Doha, Qatar Face Multiple Challenges

EPA planning new anti-coal regulations for after election

If the rhetoric doesn’t get you, the regulations will.

Mr. Transparency stonewalls over WH photos and info on Benghazi attack

by Bullright

Once again Obama walls in Benghazi details with his patented tactics..

CBS reports:

White House declines to release images from night of Benghazi attacks

Sharyl Attkisson / CBS News/ November 21, 2012, 11:49 AM

The White House Photo Office has declined CBS News requests to release images taken of US officials during the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.

CBS News first requested the images on Oct. 31. In the past, the White House has released photos showing US officials during national security incidents. A half dozen images related to the mission that captured and killed Osama bin Laden were given to the public last year. One depicts President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team gathered in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011.

A White House official referred our request regarding the Benghazi attacks to the White House Photo Office. On Nov. 1, an official there indicated she would process our request quickly, but then did not respond further. Finally, this week, the White House Photo Office told CBS News it would not release any images without approval of Josh Earnest in the White House Press Office. Earnest did not respond to our telephone calls and emails.
(… continue reading)

Another dead end for the transparent ‘tell all’ administration.

Meanwhile, in less than 24 hours, photos are shoved out surrounding the Israeli Palestinian cease-fire to show an “engaged” prez.

But four dead Americans in a place Obama claimed to liberate, and we don’t have a single photo of an “engaged” president on a terrorist attack, September 11, 2012. Two and a half months and no situation room photo, information, nothing.

But it is photo-mania over the “cease-fire”.

Link to WH flickr photo account with lots of cease-fire call photos.

4 photos listed under “cease fire”

“President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in the Oval Office”
“President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a phone call from…”
“President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, aboard Air Force One…”

Along with photos of Obama meeting “privately” with disaster victims at FEMA center.

And certainly the turkey pardoning photo would also be available.
(or is that turkey pardoning turkey?)

Liberal therapy

by Bullright

Do you want a drive a liberal crazy the next time one disagrees with you about the condition of the country and the urgency?

When all else fails, as it usually does, just tell him/her to close their eyes and think of all the things Obama would be railing about, criticizing and protesting right now…if he was not the president.

Commander in Talk does a presser, finally

by Bullright

Obama Press Conference: Stonewalls on Benghazi, Petraeus, Pushes Tax Hikes

by Ben Shapiro 14 Nov 2012

Today, President Obama held his first press conference in five months. It was a bizarre mix of softball questions from his press sycophants, false righteous indignation from the president over his administration’s Benghazi failures and lies, and an oddly blustery position shift on tax hikes as opposed to tax loopholes.

Obama opened his press conference with his usual patter about class warfare and the fiscal cliff, insisting on raising taxes first and foremost. Then a reporter asked him about whether he knew about the Petraeus investigation – or whether he should have known. “I have no evidence at this point that classified information was disclosed … there’s an ongoing investigation, and I don’t want to comment on the specifics of that investigation.” …/

“We’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice,” said Obama, ignoring his long history of meddling in criminal investigations including Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Trayvon Martin.
/….
Then Obama said that it was time to investigate Benghazi, since the election is over. “We’re after an election now. I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways Congress wants.”

Read more http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/14/Obama-stonewalls-Benghazi

So now that the election is over… and they can get to it, and in spirit of the season…

Welcome to Oz.

Hannity bites the bullet

by Bullright

Sean Hannity took on the frustration with the loss, sort of.
 

Watch the video at foxnews.com

The second option, anger: “we can yell at the American people for not being as conservative as we wish, and that we were right, and that they ought to be more conservative. Now that might be emotionally cathartic, it might make you feel good. You may feel morally superior to the masses…and it’ll make conservatism a minority movement for a long, long time. I think we as conservatives, we should reject that option as well.”

First of all, who voted for this guy? Who put him in office, and who reelected him? We should not blame them for voting this guy a second term? No, according to Hannity, don’t hold it against them because “that will make conservatism a minority movement for a long, long time”.

Lets have a reality check. If this inexperienced failure could not be defeated by any movement, then something is wrong. If his record was not grounds to throw him out in utter defeat by any challenger with a resume, something is rotten to the core. Don’t point fingers at voters who did it?

And since he could not be beaten, just based on his own record – or lack of one – then what good was the Republican Party or conservatism? Don’t blame people for what they did by voting for this thug. If I’m not mistaken, and the Party and conservatives could not beat a failure like Obama, then how useful will they be? They certainly didn’t accomplish the deed here.

And we should worry about offending Obama supporters and marginalizing conservatism? If the movement was any good, then come hell or high water it could not be marginalized no matter what. What is this, walk softly and carry a big carnation?

Con-flicted? (…on steroids)

by Bullright

 


On the previous post, Dave posted a comment that Gen. Dempsey and Panetta were “conflicted” on what to do about the attack in Benghazi. That’s what we hear. Well, could that conflicted mode apply to Obama too? [H/T to Dave for the inspiration]

So I followed that description and the latest reports confirm and echo it. (an article below)

Allow me the liberty to take a stab at defining “conflicted” to Obama.

Let me see: It was September, 11th, during the anniversary Obama was paying his respects to 9/11 attacks and taking another victory lap in his marathon to take credit for killing bin Laden. While on the same day he would hang an ambassador and 3 Americans out to dry in Benghazi, Libya – a country he takes credit for liberating on the campaign trail. Abandoning the same type people who actually got bin Laden.

Now someone may want to disagree with my conclusion, but that takes “conflicted” to a whole new level. If that isn’t an absurd amount of conflicted… I don’t know what is.

*A psychic struggle between opposing or incompatible impulses, desires, or tendencies

 
Pentagon October 25

Glenn Fawcett/Department of Defense

Panetta: Benghazi intelligence too sketchy to send troops

Details released after pressure from Boehner

By Stephen Dinan and Shaun Waterman

The Washington Times

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. didn’t send troops to defend the consulate in Benghazi from a terrorist assault last month because the intelligence was too sketchy.

The details emerged as House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, demanded that President Obama explain why his administration failed to heed security warnings ahead of the Sept. 11 attack in, and why it has struggled to explain the matter in the weeks since.

In a letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner told the president that he must answer questions including why it took the administration two weeks to acknowledge that the assault was a terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic video.

/…

At the Pentagon, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pleaded Thursday for time for reviewers at the Defense and State departments to finish their work. [delay, delay]

“It’s not helpful, in my view, to provide partial answers,” he said.

Mr. Panetta decried “a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking” in the questions his department has faced about why it didn’t send help in the middle of an hours-long assault on the U.S. Consulate.

Mr. Panetta said the military had forces positioned to respond, but the situation was too uncertain to send them in.

“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” he said. “It was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening.”

Read more: Panetta: Benghazi intelligence too sketchy to send troops – Washington Times

 

And so it was over before they had an opportunity to know what was going on?

Benghazi Blunder: the story won’t go away

by Bullright

 


New reports uncover the emails with initial information sent to Washington and the White House just after the start of the attack. Within 2 hours, the “2nd update” transmitted that the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility and threatened to also attack the embassy in Tripoli.

We were told by Jay Carney on September 13th: “…the protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.” So it as not “directed at the US, or its citizens”. Why did they make such a point to tell us that?

After all it took place on 911, a time when terrorists attacked America killing innocent American citizens in their jihad against the US. Remember the fatwa in ’96, before 911. So a reaction and disclaimer that this was not directed at US policy or American citizens was totally without merit. Normally when events like this happen, especially to an embassy, they warn Americans of the circumstances. (who might choose to change travel plans etc) So why would they wish to make such an unfounded statement in this case?

Further, the twist of irony here is to have an attack on 911 on a mission with all the confusion and investigation 911 caused, dealing with initial responses to a terrorist attack. A result of which was to establish ways of handling information. But in this case it is as if 911 did not happen, at least no lessons learned. They just acted however and said whatever they liked. And we ended up being told stories to the point of not trusting anything they tell us – or questioning it at the least.

Then the icing on the cake is to have Obama’s campaign tell us the reason it is a political topic at all is because of Romney and Republicans. Then they skewer reporters for even thinking politics is influencing their actions. And then David Axelrod comes out to tell us Obama told us everything they knew and he is totally transparent. I’m sure no one can doubt that.

Still we hear no real explanations for any of it. If there’s any politics being played — and who can doubt that — then it is taking place in the White House, not on the campaign trail.