2016 (209)

New York Times Continues Its Hillary 2016 Pitch

The New York Times published an article penned by David D Kirkpatrick about the circumstances surrounding the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. And, of course, they put Hilary Clinton in the best possible light, even going so far as to bring up the old "it was because of a video" claim which has long since been retired as nonsense and a lie. The New York Times, defending charges that they were clearing the way for a Hillary Clinton presidential run for 2016, denied it had anything to do with that.

Don't believe the denial for a minute. The main stream press, along with the New York Times, has already elected Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton as the Democratic nominee and are already preparing her inaugural. Also, the New York Times rebuttal (written Andrew Rosenthal) implied that it was just the GOP who complained which lays the ground work for the idea the dispute is just politics. The issue, however, is not a Republican versus Democrat thing it's a "FOUR people died thing" and we are holding Obama to task with his Sept 12, 2011 televised promise when he said "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act." Within about a year Obama began referring to it as a "false" conspiracy. Perhaps what he meant to say was "If you want your Benghazi justice; you can keep it." We all know what that kind of promise means.

Read more…


I know that I am jumping out on a limb here. Yet, we as true followers of the republic must bring attention to those among us that don't represent us or the republic in which it was founded. We must expose these frauds or RINOS and replace them at the ballot box. If there is a duplicate blog I apologize.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham would be an obvious start. These two guys don't have a soul. They go as the political wind blows and their ass is up to the highest bidder wherever the money comes from. Vote for anyone more conservative that runs against them. They just need to be gone.  Next. 

Read more…

4063723163?profile=original            Should America’s Heartland Voters Reject Hillary Clinton Mini-Series?

What does it matter!” cried out the former U.S. Secretary of State defiantly when testifying before a January Congressional Committee investigating the Benghazi murders of 4 Americans. This is the time tested belligerent stagecraft Hillary Clinton has perfected over the previous forty plus years of her public political life that America, New York and Arkansas have become quite familiar with. It is her very indignant attitude and self righteous zeal that has been manufactured in the den of liberalism that the mainstream media and Hollywood adore.

Who but an audacious Hillary Clinton could whipsaw a congressional committee with a chilling snare and at the same time send a tingling up the legs of mainstream media pundits and liberal supporters? She now has reached the pivot point in her life where two alphabet soup networks, NBC and CNN, want to hand her the White House on a small silver screen platter by creating a docudrama and miniseries of her Royal Highness Hillary Clinton. Hold the credits…

A brick has been thrown into the works by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus who is sounding the alarm. Priebus claims, according to Fox News, the airing of these shows is not to reveal the whole truth of the life and times of Ms Clinton, but rather to showcase Hillary Clinton as a “larger than life” presidential candidate.

Coincidentally, while Hollywood and TV reviewers will be sending up kudos and adulation to the film projects, CNN and NBC would be fielding so-called journalists who would be eviscerating Republican presidential contenders during the debates. Or worse yet, they could do a Candace Crowley hatchet number on them as she did to Mitt Romney during the Presidential Debate with Mr. Obama. Crowley’s feigned apology is not accepted.

So should America not care about two networks that have fawned over her and her lady chasing husband former President Bill Clinton? Well, you be the judge. Scandal and misrepresentation of the truth seems to be part of the political theatrics of the Clinton approach to American politics. Sort of has that musical ring to it, and goes something like this… “Ain’t no Mountain High Enough to Keep Me From Lying to You!”

“What does it matter!” she bellows out! Did it matter that during Hillary Clinton first practiced her skills at fabrication by lying while working as part of the legal team during the Watergate hearings investigation of President Richard Nixon?

( read more )

Read more…


The important thing to remember about the Democrats, is that they are now operating by techniques which used to be the exclusive domain of the Communists.  That is the price we all pay, for the Democrat party being led by a Marxist in the White House, and a power-hungry ultra-feminist waiting to replace him.

If I was making a list of rules for these radicals, this rule would be number one:

There is always a hidden motive.

Now that they are fully under communist control, the Dems NEVER do something to be nice.  They do stuff to win.  And there is a REASON behind any action, or lack of action, and that reason is going to be something which you are not going to like, once you figure out what it is.

Fast forward to the IRS scandal.  It looks like a gift from God to the Tea Party.  Right?  Very convenient that they just outed themselves on that one, isn't it?  Maybe even a little strange that their head bad-girl, Lois Lerner, was the one who did the outing.   Kinda makes you wonder......

Wait.  Stop for just a minute and think.  Are the Democrats really going to just GIVE us a scandal?

Of course not.  Something is up.  Rule number one.  There is a hidden motive.

Now, it's easy to jump to the simple, conspiratorial explanations, like the Obama/Hillary axis trying to deflect from Benghazi.  And it may be fun to speculate, but we really shouldn't.  The Democrats love it when we put on our tinfoil hats.

I've been waiting a long time for a good explanation - not only of the politically dangerous Tea Party targeting by the IRS - a hugely risky move - but this even more.  WHY in Heavens name, did they out themselves on it, when it could have gone unnoticed for years?  And why did the mainstream media jump on it?  Very uncharacteristic, wasn't that?  Yes, but there was the AP scandal, too, which inflamed the media - RIGHT?  Well, yes.  But remember - the AP scandal was revealed by the Justice Department - which is a 100% minion of the White House.

So what the heck is going on?  Why did the White House suddenly decide to come clean on scandals?

I am going to offer a controversial hypothesis - that "coming clean" on these particular scandals, at this particular time, was built into their plan.

First - let's look at the bigger picture of the IRS scandal.

Peggy Noonan had a really great post on her blog, entitled "Where Was The Tea Party?"   Which referenced Stan Veuger's blog post, entitled "Yes, IRS harassment blunted the Tea Party ground game".  And the point which Stan makes, and which Peggy affirms, is that the Obama regime (I love to call them a "regime") took note of Sarah Palin's Tea Party explosion in 2010, and did everything to muffle the Tea Party in 2012.  And if you look at Stan's numbers, then it's clear that the IRS harassment succeeded in keeping the Tea Party down in 2012, and keeping Obama in power.  THAT is what they were trying to do.  AND IT WORKED.

Things are different now.  Why - the Tea Party is doing wonderfully.  Pundits across the political world are speaking of its "rise from the ashes" - even if grudgingly, in the case of liberals.

Have you noticed that the Democrat trolls are only a minor presence, compared to when Obama tried to ram through his gun control agenda?  It's as if they disappeared.  Well, let's be honest.  Do you really think we scared them off?  Do you really think they just gave up?  Are they really all that afraid of us now?

I feel like slapping our collective side in the face and saying "WAKE UP!"

Of course not.

But if you're just a wee bit cynical, you do NOT need to reach for the tinfoil hat, to figure out what is going on.


The mid-term elections are coming up.  In the wake of IRS-gate, it looks like the Tea Party might actually do pretty well this time.  The smart money would say that Tea Party groups are going to help Republicans get a few seats this time.  Control of the Senate is even within the realm of possibility.

Wow.  Too bad it's not 2016.

And that, my friends, is exactly why our Democrat friends made ABSOLUTELY SURE that this scandal would come out precisely when it did, in early 2013, in precisely the way it did, after they CAREFULLY prepared for it.  Not in 2014, when it might result in an overwhelming Republican upset, but when the risk was minimal.  Not in 2015, either, when they might lose the White House because of it.  2013 is the safe bet.  It's like an insurance premium.  A cost of doing business.  Do something highly illegal - beyond the pale - to keep control of the White House in 2012.  Then get weaker in 2013, and lose a few seats in the House and Senate in 2014.  As few as possible.  But no matter what happens, don't risk 2016.

But there is something more than just them winning in 2016.  There is 2014.  Think about it.  It's almost as if the Democrats WANT the Tea Party to fire up in 2014, just like it did in 2010.

What's up with that?

Well, if Tea Party power really is cyclic, let's look at a sine wave.  Actually, this figure shows both a sin and a cosine, which are fundamentally related.

720px-Sine_and_Cosine.svg.pngConveniently, you can use the red and blue curves to represent Republicans and Democrats.  It's even calibrated right, in terms of 2 pi = 4 years.  The blue curve (Democrats) leads the red curve (Republicans) from left to right, which is also convenient for our purposes.  The curves don't mean exactly same things.  If they meant victories (high) and defeats (low), then the blue would just be a mirror image of red - red peak above blue valley.  No - in this case, red means Republican victory or defeat, but blue means what the Democrats are DOING to affect it - positive or negative.  They are LEADING the Republican results with what they are doing to SHAPE the outcome.  The exact lead is rough and variable, but the idea that it should lead on average by about a year is dictated by the 4 year presidential election cycle and the actual relationship of the curves.

Just consider the red curve.  That would be the Republicans, who are to a large extent dependent upon Tea Party turnout.  IF somebody wanted to engage in voter suppression tactics, then it's pretty easy to get noticed if they did it all the time.  That would be like trying to make the red curve never go above the middle, or like shifting it down by a level.  That would be something static like the old poll taxes, which doesn't change, and which people notice.  Somebody can fix it, and the advantage disappears.  But the Democrats have gotten very smart about voter suppression.  They realize that the best way to pull stuff on the Republicans is to vary it in TIME.  Do things OCCASIONALLY, or PERIODICALLY, and you can actually get away with it.  So now we not only have to look for dirty tricks - we have to look for fly-by-night dirty tricks.  ACORNs, anyone?  They're hot, dirty, and GONE in a flash.  And, of course, the IRS scandal.

The curves tell us that the Democrats will back off, or even use positives, to get the Republicans to peak in the most useless times, vis-à-vis control of the Executive branch.  Take the big blue peak in the middle as 2013.  That is right now.  The Democrats are doing stuff that lets the Republicans LOOK like they're OK.  And it will lead to the red curve peaking in 2014, or maybe just a wee bit early, so that the Republicans don't do TOO well.  So they feel complacent.  Hooray!  They just won.  They overcame the IRS scandal!  What a comeback!  Yeah, they just won the LOSER ELECTION - the mid-term that doesn't really control the runaway left-wing executive branch.  But yeah.  They won.

Watch what the blue curve does.  It starts heading down even as the election approaches, and once the Republicans win, it really dives, just as you would expect after the Democrats get "defeated" and have to get "serious".  Remember - the blue curve is not how they are doing - it's WHAT they're doing to the Republicans.  When it goes downward, it means that the Democrats are going increasingly negative in terms of what they do to the Republicans.  So this means that - starting RIGHT NOW, the next IRS-type voter suppression is ACTUALLY LAUNCHING.  Whatever the next big dirty trick is, it's about to start happening.  And it will kick in big time starting after the 2014 election.

The next dirty trick will be timed just like IRS-gate was.  Just like 2010 and 2011 were the big years for cheating to kill the Republicans in 2012, you can expect that the trick will unfold in 2014 and 2015 to kill the Republicans in 2016.  They want Hillary in there BADLY.  And they will offer a sacrifice to the Tea Party in 2013, for a good Republican showing in 2014, to accomplish that goal.

We thought that Hillary got out of the Obama administration so that she would be "free" from her Benghazi troubles.  Well, if this theory is correct, then it was actually so that Hillary can't be tainted by whatever HUGE scandal Obama is going to use next against Republicans and the Tea Party.  This way, the Obama administration can even do something which is 100% impeachment-worthy, and Hillary will be clean.

How do we stop it?  Don't get complacent in 2014.  That is when the new trick launches.  The Obama regime had great success moving illegal orders through the White House legal staff and the lawyers at the IRS, as well as using the unions to carry back-channel dirt, so keep your eyes on all of them.  By 2014, he will likely have some of his voodoo appointments in place, such as the horrible Hispanic commie racist Perez in Labor.  And we know that Eric Holder will still be there.  Expect some new nastiness to hit starting next year.

The media will try to help them.  When talk of the new scandal happens, the media will invoke "scandal fatigue".  This is just like the way that early inklings of IRS-gate were ignored in 2010.  Pretty slick, isn't it?  Use the Republican victory to mask the beginnings of the next Democrat deviousness, because the media is so easily led by public sentiment.  If the Republicans are doing well, it's not "fair" to go after the Democrats.

Bottom line:  The Democrats are WAY past their old tactic of controlling the explosion.  They are actually shaping the explosion.  They are even timing the explosion.  They are getting extremely good at "using" - if you will - the  element teapartium.  They used to just use it to inflame their base.  And they will still do that.  But they've gone way beyond using the Tea Party as just a negative boogeyman.  Now, they're using us as a power source for their own purposes - as a component in their cyclic engine of presidential re-election.

Translation:  The Obama Democrats have figured out how to lock the Republicans into the chump cycle.

Well, friends - it's high time we put a raw potato up their tailpipe, and a little sugar in their gas tank.  And maybe yank out a control rod or two.  After all, what's July 4th without a bit of fireworks?

Translation:  Break the cycle.  Disrupt the next evil trick.  Tie Hillary to it, and make her go down with it.


Next time:  Bringing Down Hillary

Read more…

4063627637?profile=originalElectoral College Reform would have given America a Better Election Day Result For the Nation

Presidents Day is nearing and conservatives will have something to celebrate that day four years from now when the Electoral College is returned to the voters. Currently, there is a movement in motion in several key presidential electoral battle ground states to return constitutional selection of the president to the voters by using congressional district selection of Electoral College electors. This move would even the playing field in presidential campaigns, to be more reflective of the true will of the people of a state, instead of voters being held hostage by the large urban population centers.

Large urban centers typically out vote the majority of congressional district by stealing votes in cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Chicago. This results in state winner-take all electoral votes swinging unfairly and even illegally to a candidate like Barack Obama. In 2008 and 2012, Obama’s Chicago-style thuggish election machine worked to intimidate, manipulate and otherwise steal a presidential election in dozens of precincts in urban areas with impunity.

This process has created a false narrative that America has chosen a left-leaning socialist agenda that gives permission for citizens to be stripped of their Second Amendment gun rights, or states being forced to stand down against illegal aliens taking their health care, jobs and now their rights.

The solution has been clear for many years, and states like Nevada and Maine have already set the pathway toward a more balanced true representation of a state. They have initiated congressional district selection of presidential electors. In these states citizens can select their presidential candidate of choice, without being held hostage to the will of another congressional district or districts.

Currently, there are several states that have launched efforts to create a more fair and balanced Electoral College initiative. Michigan, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are some that are entertaining the idea. Yet their governors are showing timidity in fully embracing this patriotic concept.

Michigan’s governor, Rick Snyder who is up for re-election in 2014, had previously suggested his consideration for the move for voting fairness. Now, according to TPM, he is backing away.

If Snyder and a few other Republican governors are appearing weak in the knees about restoring electoral power to the state voters, this is probably the best time to know this. It gives the conservatives, the Tea Party and other like-minded voters the opportunity to put them on notice: No support for voter rights – No re-election!

Why is this crucial? Think about how the presidential election would have been turned on its head. Obama would have been shown the White House door, if the will of the people had been truly expressed by each congressional district!

(Click to read more)

Read more…

4063572656?profile=original  With Sarah Palin America should be

  ready for a true conservative voice

           in the White House

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

( Click to read more )

Read more…

                           4063606751?profile=original                    Will Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack

                                      cover up Congressional committee testimony

Typically, when most liberal political kingmakers pontificate about the next Clinton to grasp the presidential mantle, it is done with an air of obvious entitlement.  Hillary Clinton has positioned herself for this office ever since her days as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Watergate.

It was in the congressional backrooms that Hillary, began a pattern of alleged deceitful behavior that would serve her through many a state and federal prosecutorial investigation.  These investigations followed her and her husband, Bill Clinton from Arkansas to the White House, and now beyond.

Yet, the most onerous of Hillary claims has been linked to a web of mangled White House storylines concerning Benghazi Consulate security, attack, murders and what the president knew and when did he know it.

Fabrication of events is not new for Hillary Clinton, and according to her former boss Jerry Zeifman, who was “counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,”  Hillary Clinton was fired from her position on the committee as a s...


The mainstream media kept this embarrassing side note out of the public eye when her husband, Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 and in her own run for the U.S. seat from New York in 2000.

Yet, Jerry Zeifman, seemed compelled to alert the nation about Hillary Clinton, who in 2006 was making coordinated moves to run for President in 2008.  In his book, “Hillary Pursuit of Power,” he stressed, while working on the Judiciary Committee, Clinton,… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules."


Therefore it should be of surprise to no one that she was caught up in purported lies while First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the United States.  These scandals included in Whitewater illegal activities, the Travelgate cover up and her conveniently manufactured lie about coming under attack while visiting Bosnia.

( Click to read more )

Read more…

Come down, come down from your ivory tower, Barak!

Contrary to all evidence from recent history, President Barak, “the Liar,” Obama still thinks that if he “ ‘says it’s so,’ PRESTO! It is definitely so.” Using an EPA directive, Mr. Obama, has decreed that by 2016 the fuel efficiency standards for all models of combined trucks and passenger car fleets of new cars in the country will be 35.5 miles per gallon . . . an efficiency increase of almost 10 miles per gallon. Just as Obama said he will create five million “green tech jobs” without any underlying technology” to back him up

. . . now the anointed wunderchild believes that his magic silver-tongue will overnight create almost 37% greater automobile efficiency. In the real world, Mr. President, cause and effect still rule the day!

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been seemingly pushed to the back burner in Obamaville these days. Besides the mileage demands, the Environmental Protection Agency directive set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what they say would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard (which again is something Mr. Obama says is so, but which in all probability has no real connection to real physics, chemistry or mechanical certitude). The EPA has now issued its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions following the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision concerning such EPA edicts.

Since you seem to have overlooked it, Barak, let Ol' Rajjpuut remind you, the EPA is not allowed carte blanche to invent demands out of blue sky or to establish rules based upon foreign say-so (such as the global warming myth now unravelling everywhere as we speak) but must make actual studies, scientific and repeatable studies on its own part, need we remind you, that verify the truth or definite possibility of what it's asking or demanding. So, Barak, where are those studies? When did the EPA invent the new technology to finally and irrevocably replace ICE (the internal combustion engine) on American soil? Show us something, Loudmouth, show us something! How about you spell out U-N-C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L for us yet again. Does your White House floor mat not say "Welcome" like everybody else's or does it start out "We the people, in order to create ". . . .?

Here's your "satisfy our idiot progressive base" party line: "These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies," according to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air." Such noble goals and such B.S. execution . . . get real, Mr. President! Other countries can fail to meet these ridiculous goals and live with it by selling their cars elsewhere. With your interference today, the U.S. automakers cannot survive unless they meet the goal established . . . did you just personally invent a prototype of a 40% more efficient engine process, Mr. President? If not, butt out, fool!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…