Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Bill O'Reilly: Is President Obama Delusional?

On Monday night, Bill O'Reilly issued a scathing Talking Points Memo, (TPM), on the "actions" or "non-actions" of President Obama.  O'Reilly even injected the "D" word in asking the question many Americans may also wonder---is the President DELUSIONAL?   During his TPM, O'Reilly also pointed out how the top two Democratic presidential candidates are both clueless and deceptively inept on how they would tackle ISIS and their latest brazen attacks on the West.*

Later into the TPM, O'Reilly played a clip of Mr. Obama challenging those who believe "his strategy" is not working, and, if there's someone smarter than his advisers in the White House that have any better ideas, he'd like to hear from them.  O'Reilly's reply was simple, resolute, and practical in calling for NATO Nations to declare war on ISIS.

Watch the video, and decide for yourself if Mr. Obama and the Democrats don't seem to be lost, or have a solid answer or strategy for dealing with ISIS and their growing threats throughout the world:


* If you missed Hillary Clinton's response in her feeble attempt to both describe ISIS, or how to deal with them, go back to 3:22 of the video where Mrs. Clinton clearly has a problem with defining "Radical Islam" as she dances around the subject.  Mr. O'Reilly called it gobbly-gook, while also stating "a five-year old could have understood the question", [from the moderator], yet Hillary must think her audience is in a similar age bracket.  Not to be outdone by Hillary's dance routine, our resident socialist/communist/Marxist Bernie Sanders tops the lunacy of the Democratic left: "In fact climate change is directly related to the growth in terrorism".

Thanks to Bernie, Mr. Obama doesn't have the inside track on being the most delusional brick in the pile, but he's definitely in the top three.

Addendum:  It should also be pointed out that in Mr. Obama's news conference at the G-20 summit, he became irritated when reporters made it abundantly clear that ISIS has not been contained.  Senator Feinstein blows this contention right out of the water.   Calling the terrorist attack in Paris "a setback" probably didn't help.   Which is why your's truly had to take to twitter to remind our dear leader that "not breaking 100 on the golf course is a setback".  

Monday, November 16, 2015

Chilling: Movie Trailer Shows the Reality of Our Enemies and Their Strategy

After watching the trailer on Morning Joe this morning, (11/16), I hunted down the Youtube video to post here at COTR.  

Even though this a only a movie trailer, (produced and released by Showtime and the series "Homeland", the fictitious person, (Rupert Friend as CIA operative Peter Quinn), explains to his fellow Homeland "leadership" the reality of the strategy of the Radical Islamist, (ISIS), in plain and simple terms.

Watch the trailer first, and then ask yourself; how far off from reality is the statements Quinn poses to this panel?

"To Die For The Caliphate, and Usher in a World Without Infidels---that's their strategy".  (and it hasn't changed since the 7th Century)

Conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh said that this short segment "put the war on terror against militant Islam in the best perspective it has ever been stated."   Limbaugh speaks about how much they, [the radical Islamist] are committed and how little this nation seems to be anything but committed to taking them seriously or combating an enemy that may very well come to our shores----OUR HOMELAND.  

I fear what transpired in France is only the beginning of these Jihadists' objectives bread for generations in their resolve to destroy the West and our way of life.  Make no mistake, they are far more dedicated to seeing their Caliphate come to fruition than "we" are in any attempt to stop them---that IS their strategy.  And, as the original trailer points out here, this nation, and its leadership, simply doesn't have one. 

(note: I hope to find a little better version of this video to replace this one, but for now, this is it.)

Friday, November 13, 2015

Terror in Paris

BREAKING!! PARIS UNDER TERRORIST ATTACK!! Multiple explosions; 60 DEAD; Yelled ‘Allah Akbar!!’

AWFUL NEWS. There has been a shooting at a Paris restaurant where two have died, and there are reports of an explosion at a soccer stadium where France was playing against Germany.
6:12 PM EST: An interview with someone who was at the theater when the attack commenced is posted here. 
6:06PM EST: Hostage at Bataclan Hall has updated his situation, saying: “still alive, just cuts.. carnage.. bodies everywhere”
More at the link above........

Anne Bayefsky
CNN: Hostages texting that they are being killed 1-by-1. Begging for police raid.

Anne Bayefsky ‏@AnneBayefsky  7m7 minutes ago
CNN:  Reporter inside concert hall escapes. Says it's a blood bath.  People hiding inside are texting, but are no police inside.

Update: Police finally stormed the concert hall---14 reportedly rescued---two terrorist inside killed.

Sad Update:  Just this very morning:

"Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” President Barack Obama seemingly downplayed the threat of ISIS in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that aired on Friday’s broadcast of “Good Morning America.”

Stephanopoulos asked Obama if ISIS was gaining in strength, to which Obama denied they were.

“I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” Obama responded. “What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”

Sadder Update:  News service now reporting 100 dead inside concert hall.

Sunday, November 8, 2015


National Review's David French posted a story (Nov. 6th) about Politico's latest attempted hit-piece on GOP front-runner Ben Carson.  French makes the piece a little amusing with the headline---"Politico Is More Dishonest Than Ben Carson", but the crux of the story is about how "it appears it [Politico's story],engaged in its own spin campaign, hyping the story beyond all reason" according to French.

But, of course, this didn't stop Politico from going forward with their own "fabrication"/spin:

"Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Friday conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point and attempted to recast his previous claims of a full scholarship to the military academy — despite numerous public and written statements to the contrary over the last few decades."

While French calls this "a clever bit of wordsmithing", the fact that Politico had to edit out the word fabrication in their headline, leaves most political junkies to see just what Politico was up to, and how they failed miserably.  My guess is this is only the beginning of the liberal press's all-out assault on Republican candidates.

What I want to know is, how is Politico going to handle a New York Times' story about Ben Carson's newly created "love-child"?   Surely we can see this coming down the line if Carson remains at the head of the GOP field.  And, all the Times will have to say is, "we have reliable unnamed sources"*, and that will be enough for the drive-by media to run with it.

What I find fascinating is how the drive-by liberal media no longer carries the muscle they had just two election cycles ago, where a carefully calculated/fabricated hit piece automatically spelled doom for the candidate. NBC, CNN, Politico, and the other liberal maggot infested conglomerates are no longer carrying the invincible hammer of destroying a political candidate with the strokes of a keyboard, as evidenced by Politico’s attempted hit piece on Carson.  We can certainly thank the nationally recognized “fabricators” such as Dan Rather and Brian Williams for their “contributions” that have diluted the power they once wielded.

* (Speaking of unsourced stories, two days ago, Politico’s Josh Gerstein posted a “story”/”SCOOP”, (basically absolving Hillary Clinton of her handling of classified emails), using a single unnamed source throughout most of the story---”Source: Key Clinton emails did not contain highly classified secrets”.  Gerstein also states “A senior intelligence official told Politico that the [classification] process is “ongoing”, BUT, this official also asked not to be named.  Several online publications ran with this story, (including the Hill and DailyKos), yet, a quick google search reveals NOT ONE MAJOR NETWORK OR NEWS PUBLICATION has linked this “story”.  Twitchy is reporting that the story has been edited to include, “However, after an initial version of this story Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue has not been fully resolved”.  See how this works?

Strike Two Politico!  One more, and, as SF Giants broadcaster Mike Krukow likes to say, “Grab some pine, meat”!!!  The meaning is simple---the batter is relegated to the bench made of pine.  Whoever the drive-by media sends up to the plate lately, seems to be enjoying having splinters up their derrières. 

Hilarious Update: Ignatius Hits GOP: No One Wants President Who 'Whines About Media Coverage'

Friday, October 30, 2015

Backfire---How the Liberal Media’s Futile Attempt to Sabotage a Debate Turned Into Boon of Wealth for Republicans, While Leaving Egg on the Progressive’s Faces.

Why did the liberals get unhinged after this last Republican debate?  I posted all but a few twitter comments complementing how these candidates reacted to an obvious plot by NBC, (and their puppets at CNBC), to make the candidates look inferior to their Democratic counterparts, and I got a barrage of liberal tripe that went far beyond the usual retorts.

Did the Republicans, (specifically, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie), get under their thin skins?  Has the culmination of the unity liberals observed these past few days, (through the “unification” of the House---albeit questionable---with the youngest Speaker ever to take the gavel, prefaced by the rousing performance of a unified Republican field of candidates turning the Liberal media on their heads), caused the Liberal contingency to go on a full throttle defensive?

Let’s make no mistake, the “performance” of the moderators at CNBC to denigrate, divide, and belittle Republican candidates was deliberate.  Period.  It only took moments into the debate to realize the questioning format was designed to put the Republicans into a “circus of clowns” before a national audience.   But, what transpired was a full on, (and unified), assault by Republican candidates who had heard enough of the childish denigration from the moderating panel.

The first question of the night, (to still perceived front-runner Donald Trump), by John Harwood set the tone for the evening:

"Mr. Trump, you've done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build a wall and make another country pay for it, send 11 million people out of the country, cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit, and make Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others," Harwood said. "Let's be honest," he added. "Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?"
Let's be honest Mr. Harwood, if you, or any moderator had taken this deplorable tact of questioning to Hillary Clinton in the last Democratic Debate, they would have been castigated by the audience and the national liberal media.  Harwood not only asked Trump a condescending and insolent question, he also arrogantly debated with Trump while Trump was attempting to answer the question.

The other two moderators, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla followed suit by interrupting several of the candidates in mid-stream of their answers, as if they had some kind of right to inter into the debate rather than listen to the what the candidate had to say---the Candy Crowley Syndrome, who set the bar in the Obama/Romney debate by incorrectly correcting Romney on what is a terrorist attack.

Ted Cruz took the “leadership position” in the retaliation by ripping the panel apart by recapping the montage of questions/attacks already asked, (see inserted video below).  And the reaction from the Bolder, Colorado audience was instantaneous as they approved overwhelmingly of Cruz’s measured reprisal.

Marco Rubio then got into the fray, (by taking a question about political PACS), and turned it right back onto liberal media

“Sen. Marco Rubio hammered away at the “mainstream media” in the third GOP presidential debate, casting it as a propaganda machine for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

"…….The Democrats have the ultimate super PAC, it is called the mainstream media,” Mr. Rubio said, before panning the way the mainstream media has handled Mrs. Clinton."

To complete the trifecta, Chris Christie had heard enough of the panel’s ridiculous “questions”, when one of the moderators asked Jeb Bush about how he felt about fantasy football and possible federal intervention:

“Are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football? Wait a second, we have $19 trillion in debt, we have people out of work, we have ISIS and Al Qaeda attacking us and we’re talking about fantasy football? Can we stop? Can we stop? Seriously?”

No one, (not even the mainstream liberal media), expected the backfire they would receive that night and the following morning after this debate.  The level of arrogance and disdain from the CNBC panel of moderators reverberated throughout both the conservative and liberal press, leaving the taste of bias even on the lips of the liberal left.  What CNBC, and by extension NBC, did was inexcusable, and, it certainly backfired.  While their attempt intended to put Republicans in a disfavorable light, what transpired was an inevitable avalanche of criticism that put the moderators in the center circle of big tent clowns.  In the words of the great orator in the White House, “they acted stupidly”.

Cruz and Rubio reportedly raked in over two million in donations after the MSM gaffe.  Many of the other Republican candidates got tons of extra air-time the following morning on almost all of the news networks, and the narrative of the day was, “who put these arrogant asses in charge of running a debate?”----a question that should also be asked of Reince Priebus and the RNC, but that’s another story.

For now, there’s a ton of egg on the faces of the liberal media contingency in this farce of an attempt to moderate a debate.  They flat-out embarrassed themselves with an obvious biased intent, and thought they could get away with the ploy.  Liberal Journalist and Journalism took a huge step backwards. Actually, they climbed into the gutter-side of politics and drug their liberal comrades along with them.

Perhaps this is why I received the barrage of tweets from liberals, (uninvited and unsolicited), spewing their talking points in such a defensive manner, you’d have thought Hillary Clinton had been indicted, or, someone took their favorite toy away.

There’s no doubt that Conservative Republicans won this round, and won the night convincingly.  Every one of the candidates firmly united against this blatant assault.  Watching the liberals become unhinged was an unexpected and sheer delight---proof positive they’re getting more and more desperate. 

Mainstream America won’t tolerate another despicable “performance” they saw on Wednesday night.  The outrage was swift and concise---the liberal media got taken DESERVEDLY to the woodshed---and the RNC had better not let this crap happen again. EVER.

Update: RNC pulls out of NBC debate in February

"The Republican National Committee has pulled out of a planned Feb. 26 debate with NBC News after widespread criticism of this week's CNBC debate from both the party and campaigns. 
"We are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack.  
"CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith," Priebus wrote. 
"I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not."

Nothing like closing the barn door long after the horse has exited.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Why We Should Never Forget........

A beautiful tribute to why we should never forget those who gave the ultimate sacrifice----better late than never.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Protecting the Status Quo Washington D.C. Cartel---At All Cost

In a recent article from Politico, (titled: “When Donald Trump Quits”), the author “surmises” that Donald Trump might “bail out” on his quest to be the next President of the United States, based on his past business practices.  The author, (Ben Schreckinger) makes the assumption the Trump might quit because the risk will outweigh the rewards.

“Throughout his career, Trump has demonstrated wild enthusiasm at the start of big projects, and ruthlessly pursued a profit agenda that, in many cases, has led him to ditch the deal when the risks, whether financial or reputational*, start to outweigh the prospective reward.”

Would that our federal government operate under these same parameters---weighing the cost vs. a profitable, (or, at least a neutral), outcome in making the proper decision, that the cost, (to the taxpayers), far outweighs the benefits, then perhaps this nation wouldn’t be on such a debt collision.   This nation recently took in record tax revenues, yet our government still outspends the income.  This nonsense has to stop. 

The problem with the Federal Government and our legislators, (on both sides of the isle), is that they have carelessly wielded the power of the purse, while at the same time inserting written legislation that guarantees they are not held responsible for the outcomes, including that they are all exempted from the very LAWS AND LEGISLATION they create.  It’s all good for us peons, but not good enough for these elite-minded politicians.  This, [procedure of exemption], also has to stop, along with the “blank-check” mentality of unlimited funds.

Could Donald Trump rein in these reckless spending procedures that has been the status quo for our government?  Would he?  When was the last time ANY PRESIDENT seriously went through the books--- decades of laws and spending legislation---and said, “this program is worthless, is not benefiting the taxpayers, and needs to be eliminated”?  The short answer is NEVER, because every bill (real money yearly extracted from the federal coffers), is some legislator’s pet project that’s bringing home the bacon for their district.  Cost, or effectiveness is never a consideration.

I would submit that this, [actually examining, and cutting wasteful and out of date federal programs] may be a primary concern for the Establishment Cartel in Washington, who fear Donald Trump would upset their status quo of uncontrollable spending practices, again, by both Democrats and Republicans.

Would running our federal government like a business, (who are answerable to their investors and shareholders), that CAN NOT spend beyond their means/incomes, really be bad for this nation?  Ask YOUR LEGISLATORS, “when was the last time you considered to ditch the deal when the risks, whether financial or reputational, start to outweigh the prospective reward.  Again, the answer is NEVER.

Put Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush in charge, and I’ll guarantee we will get more of the same status quo spending practices that have gone on for far too long. And, you can bet the power-brokers in Washington will do everything loaded into their arsenals to guarantee one of these candidates owns the White House to maintain this corruptive status.

Maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump plans on changing this, and the power the Washington Cartel has wielded relentlessly for decades.  It's no wonder the folks at Politico hopes he quits.