When Tucker Carlson gets it wrong

A while back I was watching Tucker’s show on something about the Clintons and Hillary. Well, he with disclaimer that he hoped this was the end of the Clintons and this would be his last reporting about her. He was sick of the Clintons. That is because she should just go away…. and presumably be forgotten.

Well, I took issue with that when he said it. I said no, we need to keep her alive in news and I, for one, don’t want to forget her and the damage she did. Same with Obama. We need to remember that horror, so that history does not repeat itself.

The real danger is we do forget what they did to this country. It must be memorialized, this poison to the root of our republic. And too, how it was all maliciously mishandled.

Fast forward to his latest show where he talked to Alan Dershowitz. If people remember, Alan has defended the Clinton legacy of crime to some extent. No need to investigate it all. But Carlson agreed with him in the end that we should not criminalize certain actions like emails etc. as a means of going after her or, to be fair, the Trump things.

Well, why should Clinton’s scandal get off the hook of accountability? It is the conduct and rule of law not the position of the person that is the problem. Carlson seemed to think we should just let it go, even though it continues. Just for the sake of ridding ourselves.

There are still thousands of Hillary’s records we haven’t gotten from the State Department. Huma Abedin carried out boxes of documents from State claiming they were personal. That is a lie, no doubt about it. Communications on Muslim relations and records of gifts received and/or to the Clinton Foundation. (some of these gifts can be very valuable) Government also has strict guidelines to deal with gifts.

But once again, she interrupts any proper process. And once again it is records. Hillary doesn’t have a great record on records. She can just whisk them away. She was planning on having all that sealed when she became president. She was always fighting transparency. Does Sandy Berger ring a bell?

Now Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said that the DOJ is actually defending Hillary from transparency. What the hell is going on? Why does she need government to defend her? She and Obama seem to have enough defenders or operators in the Deep State.

So Tucker Carlson goes along with the liberals in suggesting it doesn’t matter anymore. Really? He just takes the bait.

But they can probe back years or decades with Trump in a Special Counsel investigation. And Lois Lerner also applied to have her records sealed. The whole damn cabal of characters needs investigated, along with Obama and his dep of injustice. Now is not the time to delete our memory.

I know exactly the right place for them. And it’s not just for weekend visits.
But let it go? I don’t think so. We let it go for way too long already.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

It’s a strange swamp, Master Jack

We have now reached the point where I have to say that hearings on oversight of the DOJ and Mueller’s rogue operation can be called triggering. On both sides.

Yes, I said it. Dems prove they are triggered just having hearings of Rosenstein. I have my own problems with it that cause frustration and raise my anger to new levels. But Democrats were triggered even before the hearings.

Then Democrats question the fact that we have lost trust in the FBI in particular and the DOJ in general. But not really. They only claim the service of thousands of agents is noble and that, I suppose, we should appreciate their service. That is not the point.

If the entire agency is saddled with this ‘corrupted’ leadership, what good is all that? Seems it is a hard time for FBI and big-government liberals who usually defend it. The problem is this rotting stench coming from the top of the agency diminishes their ‘professional’ service.

We are in strange times. What better illustration of the times than this.

Crazy is Democrats using basic anti-discrimination policy to defend blatant political discrimination and bias within a government agency. They seem to want to give a pass to the political bias that has been exposed in DOJ and the investigations of Trump and Hillary. But the bias only goes one way.

So if anti-discrimination policy can now be used for the very reason to be biased and discriminate, we are in a strange place. But they did almost the same thing with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Radicals and Deep State bureaucrats don’t just wear their biases on their sleeve for all to see, but now they want to use political bias as the justification.

Being triggered like Dems are, especially at the loss of the election and Trump’s victory, they are expected to use the full weight of their bias against the president and his administration. In short, that is what they are there for and what their bias is for. Then they use the bias for what they did as the defense for what they did. Political motives rule.

In that light, I guess hearings about such topics and agenda could be triggering. The culture of bias at the top taints all else, because it is meant to. So don’t worry about Mueller’s investigation being corrupted, it was created by and a byproduct of political corruption.

Right Ring | Bullright

Party hacks invade Alabama

Leave it to liberals and Progressives (socialists) to read all kinds of wild interpretations into Alabama’s election. It means this and it means that…a point or two difference.

Same old lies and exaggerations and deceptions. Another overreach for giddy Democrats. Though they think it represents a sea change or momentum shift? And then one against Trump, and one big boost for Democrats. Really.

But during the election they said it all about the sex accusations. A referendum. Now that it’s over, that’s all out the window to claim it was a huge, broad message. What hacks. And of course this after Mitch spent 30 million against him.

The whackos are whacked

Probably one thing makes me madder than anything else lately. (well I chuckle I don’t waste too much anger) It’s one constant, old theme.

Are you ready? It’s the left and Democrats telling us some things transcend party. Then there is Jones in Alabama saying time to put state ahead of politics. I think I heard Pelosi and Franken use that line. Pretty sad. Anytime they tell you something is over or above politics, laugh at them.

It joins a familiar refrain I see on social media, like this profile: “Independent moderate. Do not cater to either party.” So you go down their list and see all the hard left stuff they post or like. But non-partisan? Nothing can be further from the truth. Why bother lying?

Moderate is the new code word for liberal and proud of it, or progressive activist. Why they all have to try to keep the lie alive, I don’t know. I mean it gets old. So someone tells you they’re a moderate. They aren’t, they are a card carrying Bernie socialist.

Therein is the game: paint all progressive hard-left policies, and the supporters, as the middle of the road “mainstream.” (another word that irritates me) Enough with the anger purge. I feel so much better.

Obama Slimed Trump And America Again

Obama running around the country warning about Nazi Germany is really rich. The guy has no shame or conscience. He hasn’t gone rogue, he’s been rotten from the start.

“The danger is growing complacent. We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly.”

That’s what happened in Germany in the 1930s, which despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolf Hitler rose to dominate. “Sixty million people died, so, you’ve got to pay attention. And vote.”

Does he mean fall apart quickly like they did under Obama?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked on Fox about Obamas remarks and said maybe he could reconsider, and hoped he might realize how distasteful those inflammatory comments were. No, Sarah, that is exactly why he said them. It is his intent to inflame. That’s his purpose. But retract them? No chance. He thought it was a home run.

With what Rev Wright has preached in Chicago, with Obama in the pew, that could be considered temperate. Anything in any way condemning America would be an easy par for the course.

Take his words “garden of democracy” though. I guess he hasn’t accepted that the Garden just chose its leader despite the Resistance, opposition from every corner. If democracy worked for him, I don’t know why he cannot accept it when it doesn’t go his way? He is just like Hillary, he can’t deal with the democratic results. He cannot take rejection.

That Garden doesn’t just take its cues from its office holders and the establishment. That is what unnerves him. We didn’t listen to his insidious threats or Hillary’s. We didn’t buy his nuclear fear mongering from the White House podium. It was just as rich when Obama declared that Trump was not fit or qualified for the office. He’s a hypocrite in search of a new word. Bombasticrite maybe?

Actually, Obama’s radicalized government was a threat to the people, Germany move on over. And we found it was a threat to the very democracy he used to create it. We were only lucky to pivot from it, though we have not recovered yet.

Then imagine the irony of him in Chicago saying his biggest regret was not getting gun control through. (He should lecture the gangs) Oh that sweet smell of arrogance.

Hey, I guess he had to sharpen his venomous rhetoric since Nancy Pelosi had already said ‘this is Armageddon.’

Pelosi said on the tax bill:

“It is the end of the world. The debate on health care is life/death. This is Armageddon.” […] [She then had another swig and came back to say] “The only reason it isn’t the end of the world is because America is a great country… and the greatness of America, and the fact that God is always with us is what gives us hope. But it’s very important for the people to know how adversely they will be affected by all of this.”

Well, it is a little hard to come back from Armageddon. I mean once you’re there…

That’s just the way it goes, one day you are in Armageddon and the next you are in the Weimar Republic with Hitler on the doorstep.

Right Ring | Bullright

Left’s dual rules: Cake Bakers eat your hearts out

So, we get it: the cake bakers are disturbing hateful bigots for not making cakes, but cleanse the campus coffee houses of conservatives. No tolerance whatsoever.

Constitution.com

“Members of the Fordham University College Republicans club were recently asked to leave an on-campus coffee shop because they were wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”

The left calls offensive things triggering which deserve banning. But a cake baker must be forced to bake them a beautiful cake against his will.

God’s morality police of the left?

Jerry Brown—Who Favors Legalized Killing of Unborn—Says: ‘I Don’t Think President Trump Has a Fear of the Lord

CNSNews.com
By CNSNews.com Staff | December 9, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who favors the legalized killing of unborn children, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he does not believe President Donald Trump “has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God” based on the fact that Trump removed the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.

The “60 Minutes” episode will air tomorrow. On its website, CBS News reported this about it:

“Brown told Whitaker that President Trump is wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and misguided for calling it a bad deal for America. ‘That’s a preposterous idea, not even a shred of truth in that statement,” Brown said. “I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility… and this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.’” [……./]

More https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/cnsnewscom-staff/jerry-brown-who-favors-legalized-killing-unborn-says-i-dont-think-president

 
Well, since Jerry Brown is now a member of the Inquisition — no, he may be running it — I guess that is supposed to be the final verdict.  At least Hugo Chavez sprinkled his rhetoric with the “smell of sulfur” coming from the UN podium after Bush left it. The latest charge is God opposes Trump. Just imagine that being an official position on Obama?

Recently Alan Dershowitz called out Laurence Tribe to a debate on the Constitutionality of leftists’ obstruction of justice charge. He demurred, so far. He struggles to defend it.

But Tribe did lash out at Dershowitz for “defending” the legitimacy of the “Devil Incarnate” who is president, Donald Trump.  So Tribe has turned theologian, too. 

Yet all because Dershowitz appealed to the Constitution.  Tribe asserts that he cannot debate it now, before Mueller’s investigation is concluded. (hoping he can find something to hang his unconstitutional hat on and stretch the document into play doh)

And just days ago, Nancy Pelosi played the God card. Oh yes she did! Ah, Nancy takes the path to say that God is on the side of Democrats and their amnesty strategy for DACA and illegal aliens. Pelosi must be the chosen prosecutor for the Inquisition.

Following her lead, am I to infer that if the government does shutdown, it must be divine intervention in favor of the Democrats’ lawless positions? Well, it is the message.

Now a word from Reality, not resistance

US Engulfed in the Most Corrupt Event in History and All Roads Lead Back to Former President Obama

Gateway Puntdit | December 8, 2017 by Jim Hoft

While the mainstream media (MSM) focuses on the fake news Trump-Russia collusion farce, the US is engulfed in the most corrupt event in its history and all roads lead back to former President Obama.
As a matter of fact, the fake Trump investigation is a major piece in the attempted coup d’état currently in place and the MSM’s fake news reporting is part of the Coup.

Just this past week former UN Ambassador John Bolten stated that this is the “First Attempted Coup D’état in US History” –

More: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/us-is-engulfed-in-the-most-corrupt-event-in-its-history-and-all-roads-lead-back-to-former-president-obama/

——————————————————————————————————————-

As a bonus prediction,  I’d say if it is Friday, then it is time for some sort of leak on Trump/Russia from the Mueller Special Counsel, planted in media, meant to drive the weekend anti-Trump narrative. I could be wrong but…. And all of it intentionally looking at the wrong people and events. Guess who they aren’t investigating?

The Resignation of Me, Al Franken

I’ll include the whole miserable, all about me, speech.  But the lies are just as significant. He married Paul Wellstone, Bill Clinton, and a hat-tip hint to Tom Steyer and impeachment just for flavor. The only guy who could mention I more is Barack Obama.

But I will only go after extensively venting my oratory hole.

Franken said his resignation will take place in the coming weeks.
Read a full transcript of his remarks below: (italicized for emphasis)

Stay tuned for when he actually vacates the Capitol premises.

A couple months ago I felt that we had entered an important moment in the history of this country. We were finally beginning to listen to women about the ways in which men’s actions affect them. The moment was long overdue. I was excited for that conversation and hopeful that it would result in real change that made life better for women all across the country and in every part of our society. Then the conversation turned to me. [1]Over the last few weeks a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was upset. But in responding to their claims, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation because all women deserve to be heard and their experiences taken seriously. I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that in fact I haven’t done.

First strike, have a denial announcement. Did you expect anything else from someone who had to worm his way into the Senate by stealing an election? ‘I respect their voice!’

[2]Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently. I said at the outset that the Ethics Committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard and investigated and evaluated on their merits, that I was prepared to cooperate fully and that I was confident in the outcome. You know an important part of the conversation we’ve been having the last few months has been about how men abuse their power and privilege to hurt women. [3]I am proud that during my time in the Senate I have used my power to be a champion of women. And that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day. [4]I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks but I know who I really am. Serving in the United States senate has been the great honor of my life. I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator, nothing, has brought dishonor on this institution. And I am confident that the ethics committee would agree. Nevertheless today I am announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning as a member of the United states senate. [5]I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the senate with the full support of his party. [6]But this decision is not about me. it’s about the people of Minnesota. And it’s become clear that i can’t both pursue the ethics committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator for them. Let me be clear. I may be resigning my seat, but I am not giving up my voice. I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in as a citizen and as an activist. But Minnesotans deserve a Senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day.

There is a big part of me that will always regret having to walk away from this job with so much work left to be done. But I have faith that the work will continue because I have faith in the people who have helped me do it. I have faith in the dedicated, funny, selfless, brilliant young men and women on my staff. They have so much more to contribute to our country, and I hope that as disappointed as they may feel today, everyone who has worked for me knows how much I admire and respect them. I have faith in my colleagues, especially my senior senator Amy Klobuchar. I would not have been able to do this job without her guidance and wisdom. [7]And I have faith, or at least hope, that members of this senate will find the political courage necessary to keep asking the tough questions, hold this administration accountable, and stand up for the truth. I have faith in the activists who organized to help me win my first campaign and who have kept on organizing to help fight for the people who needed us: kids facing bullying, seniors worried about the price of prescription drugs, Native Americans who have been overlooked for far too long, working people who have been taking it on the chin for a generation, everyone in the middle class and everyone aspiring to join it. [7]I have faith in the proud legacy of progressive advocacy that I have had the privilege to be a part of. I think I’ve probably repeated these words 10,000 times over the years, Paul Wellstone’s famous quote, “the future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” It’s still true. It will always be true. And most of all I have faith in Minnesota. A big part of this job is going around the state and listening to what people need from Washington, but more often than not, when I’m home, I am blown away by how much Minnesota has to offer the entire country and the entire world. The people I’ve had the honor of representing are brilliant, creative, hardworking, and whoever holds this seat next will inherit the challenge I’ve enjoyed for the last eight and a half years, being as good as the people you serve.

This has been a tough few weeks for me, but I am a very, very lucky man. I have a beautiful, healthy family that I love and that loves me very much. I’m going to be just fine. I’d just like to end with one last thing. I did not grow up wanting to be a politician. I came to this relatively late in life. I had to learn a lot on the fly. It wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t always fun, and I’m not just talking about today. This is a hard thing to do with your life. There are a lot of long hours, and late nights, and hard lessons, and there is no guarantee that all your work and sacrifice will ever pay off. I won my first election by 312 votes. It could have easily gone the other way. And even when you win, progress is far from inevitable. Paul Wellstone spent his whole life working for mental health parity and it didn’t pass until six years after Paul died. This year a lot of people who didn’t grow up imagining that they’d ever get involved in politics have done just that. They’ve gone to their first protest march or made their first call to a member of Congress, or maybe even taken the leap and put their names on a ballot for the first time. [7]It can be such a rush to look around a room of, full of people ready to fight alongside you, to feel that energy, to imagine that better things are possible. You too will experience setbacks, defeats and disappointments. There will be days when you will wonder whether it’s worth it. What I want you to know is that even today, even on the worst day of my political life, I feel like it’s all been worth it. Politics, Paul Wellstone told us, is about the improvement of people’s lives. I know that the work I’ve been able to do has improved people’s lives. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. For a decade now every time I would get tired or discouraged or frustrated, I would think about the people I was doing this for, and it would get me back up on my feet. I know the same will be true for everyone who decides to pursue a politics that is about improving people’s lives. And I hope you know that I will be fighting alongside you every step of the way. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. ###

 

Well, too bad he didn’t yield the floor after two words, “I resign.” Don’t count me out until…

Let me paraphrase:

[1]  How they “felt” my actions affected them. I’m shocked. Not that they are upset. But let’s make it clear, I am not admitting anything. They felt erroneously.

Newsflash: Franken, it is not about what they felt, it’s about what you felt.

[2] I remember it differently, like a mutual feeling. I preferred the ethics committee as the right venue…only because I had no choice. So I agreed with it, naturally.

[3] Like all progressive superheroes — of which I must be one — I used my powers only for good, in the end. I championed women, yeah, that’s the ticket. I earned a reputation from women I worked alongside. What I did with other women doesn’t matter.

[4] They all have painted a fraudulent picture of me…. just like I had to fight them for my first election. (Cain Mutiny) But I know who I am. They apparently don’t.

[5] I see that huge unfairness irony of a president and another candidate, but now they are worried about little ol’ me, Al [hands] Franken? Why me? I’m a scapegoat for them.

[6] But this is not about me….. it’s about voters. (ignore how I talk about Me a lot)

[7] I know, you all need an arrogant, idealistic, self-serving lecture on running for [progressive] office. I’m a perfect example. I’ll be with you cheering you on. I’ll channel all your other progressive heroes to my career. It’s borrowing, no stealing, but what the hell?

It’s all been worth whatever the cost to others. They owe me an apology.

Oh, I did not dishonor the institution. I only complimented it and made it so much better with my super-heroic presence, Al Franken. But I shall resign. Adios, sometime, I think!

I smell another DOJ, FBI rat

Rats are not jumping ship, they own the ship — embedded deep as they are. AG Chris Wray’s testimony talked about an IG investigation on the Clinton investigation.

Golly gee, there is one. A new deep state probe. Hopefully, it won’t get the same response another IG got over his report. It seems to me, they put a specific qualifier on this new IG investigation into if political bias played any roll in it, for a reason.

Why is it looking just for a political bias? “Improper political considerations.”

The setup seems clear to set a narrow scope to then say we looked and can’t verify any political bias influence. (they are professional snakes after all) Just saying. How about basing it on right and wrong, fairness, based on law, bias — not only verifiable political bias? These are the games Comey played, too.

They can clearly skew or deliberately blow an investigation without just leaving trails of political influence. It would be just as screwed up. Corruption doesn’t need a political marker. But dog and pony shows can be fun to watch.

People can be influenced by money, power, or their careers. Or they can be incompetent or intentionally incompetent. Corruption doesn’t have to be only motivated and biased by politics. And political bias could be harder to show. (Though this batch of scum does wear their politics on their sleeves and backsides)

Geesh, haven’t we seen or learned enough from the IRS targeting scandal? Even there they covered up and glossed over the political biases pretty well. How long did that take to come out? Just set the dial for expected outcome. Move along now.

Right Ring | Bullright

And then there was Light

My editorial juices have been running a little low lately, and I have been tapped out of ideas feeling, as Solomon said, that there is really “nothing new under the sun.”

My friend Pepp recently wondered if Shakespeare was alive today, what he would say? That got me thinking with all that is going on today, he would have a field day or go crazy. One or the other.

Then I saw this article in the Federalist by someone that caught my attention. It was sincere, only by a self-described liberal who had awakened to the media bias during the election. I hope you check it out. From that point of view it is informative.

Up until now I figured it was mostly a lost cause, but this person gives me a little hope that there is life out there after the liberal bubble. (her own term) Though it made me think of the countless others I see on social media. I could almost write one profile to include them all. These are your typical liberals from not-so informed to hard line Marxists. And there often is not that much that separates them.

Anyway, so predictable that you can expect their words. I’m beyond, way beyond, feeling sympathy. I mostly accept that they are not reachable anyway, which seems a fool’s errand to try convincing them of anything. It is what it is, as they say.

But this piece gave me renewed hope for some of them. (I am not going soft or gushy) For a moment, I considered their point of view, or perspective. I know what they think. I may not know the why in many cases. I know the what though.

Their view of the media, their positions, their favorite candidates and policies, even their dislikes, and best what sets them off. Maybe that is a study in psychology in itself. Considering their perspective did reveal something I hadn’t thought much about.

One of the triggering things to them is always conservative media. Fox News is akin to poison to them. More than anything else they love to bash Fox, almost as much as Trump. That is the key.

Now think for a minute what that person thinks and feels, not their ideas. Well, Fox is the worst thing that came along. And if you were they, it is Faux News and always lying or agenda driven. However, it is the central problem. That means all other mainstream media is okay but Fox is the problem.

So that presents a simple view. One just has to believe Fox is wrong and everything else is, well, right. It is not hard to take that there is only one enemy, maybe a few marginal others, while everything else is friendly and honest to you. They don’t try to lie to you.

Doesn’t that make things so much easier thinking only Fox News is wrong? Sure, then you accept everything else as authentic at face value. You can accept it. You don’t have to be suspicious and question what comes from Mainstream Media.

Go a step further and you can accept all our institutions as good, except on their structural racism thing. Other than that everything is on the up and up and the media all have pure motives because, after all, they agree with most everything you think and believe.

It’s much easier and simpler that way. They are on your side. Everyone is looking out for you too. No, they don’t really like America, or that antiquated patriotism. The government is your friend, or should be. The government shouldn’t even believe in an exceptional America or us first. Blame America first is cool.

But then there is always world globalism which is basically on your side too. It’s a rosy-eyed view but the enemies are caricatures backed into corners. They are the flat-earthers and the like. But the general “mainstream” (i.e. liberal stream) all thinks and believes much like you. And those are the people who get to authority, because we stick together and get them there.

I figure that is so much simpler, it’s an easy way out, and lazy. In that backdrop you’d have to think that coming out of that la la land would be a challenge. It’s much easier to stay and believe in that illusion. Or keep believing, as Obama said. You don’t need critical thinkers, you just need lock-steppers.

So now isn’t that a crazy way to look at things? But you don’t have to think or worry about things except those creatures in the corner infringing on your paradise. Then there was Obama who confirmed to them all that they owned this phony paradise. Now they are flailing at anything that might distrurb those happy thoughts. They’ve already infested everything and everywhere of importance so that they are embedded and radicalized. All of it is based on your ideological worldview that you all accept, voluntarily of course.

I followed it out because it really makes the case of an easier less-complex way of looking at things. Well, you can be suspicious of those outside that bubble. You may question their motives all you want. Make fun of them, mock them, call them names, they are like animals anyway.

Still it is an easier lifestyle. Corporations and even markets should be in your favor. Everything should be in your favor because your are the ideal people. And within being a member of that society you can do anything. Those outside it should be questioned and accused on every little thing. You have an exemption card. You don’t want to leave.

It just gets me that all you have to know is that Fox is wrong. Everything and the media is right. They are the intellectual betters so don’t need to question anything except Fox. And in that situation it seems the only way to change that thinking would be on their own. You or I could probably not convince them. So they have to see it. It must be their doing.

Reference article in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/im-liberal-agree-sean-hannity-american-journalism-dead/

Right Ring | Bullright

What they did and why on Benghazi

Read and weep. It is coming to a head only about 5 years too late.

The Hill

In the days after the 2012 attack, Obama administration officials initially said it was related to spontaneous Muslim anger over an anti-Islam video tape and not a planned-out act of terrorism.

DeSantis argued the example highlights the politicization of the FBI.

“What operational reason would there be to issue an edict to agents telling them, in the face of virtually conclusive evidence to the contrary, not to categorize the Benghazi attack as a result of terrorism? By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public’s interests, the order is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI,” DeSantis said.

DeSantis and several other lawmakers say they plan to press Wray at a hearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee about growing concerns that certain FBI supervisors allowed political bias to cloud judgments or decisions.

More http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363666-gop-lawmakers-cite-new-allegations-of-political-bias-in-fbi

We may have known but all this needs to be flushed out like toxic poison. Obama and Hillary’s legacy is as bad as it can get. But the people need to know their government was corrupt and nothing more than hacks were running it. And still on life support behind the curtains. Their next best hope is mainstream media to help them.

Meat — toxic masculinity

Eating meat promotes toxic masculinity, academic journal says

Fox News

An academic journal has published an article by a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University that argues eating meat maintains a society where “hegemonic masculinity” is the norm.

Anne DeLessio-Parson, whose article was published in Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, based her research on Argentina’s “meat-centric” culture.

“I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender,’” Anne DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”

MORE: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/05/eating-meat-promotes-toxic-masculinity-academic-journal-says.html

[Giant Eye-roll]
They will absolutely go to any lengths to promote their political agenda, which now does not stop at food. But it seemed to be working all those years for us. Hmmmph.

What Discrimination?

How about another backwards thing? For years we’ve been lectured about discrimination by the left. I’m not sure why since it shouldn’t be a partisan thing. But they seem to think it is the right’s dream or agenda to discriminate. Well, a funny thing happens when you parse it all down to politics, which is what really drives the left.

The left is all worked up about Little Sisters of the Poor, birth control, the abortion agenda, Obamacare, and now baking wedding cakes for LGBTQXYZ’s. Tuesday is the day a case is going to the Supreme Court to decide. But you know the drill, you cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake. Period! So there are activists going around trying to force bakers to make them a cake. If you refuse, they sue. It’s the new fad for the left.

Issue of the case: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

But who cares about any of those Constitutional rights?

Details

The agency, however, dismissed that explanation as “a distinction without a difference,” and it ruled both that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated Colorado anti-discrimination laws and that Phillips had “no free speech right” to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld that ruling and told Phillips – among other things – that if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.

The problem with their discrimination complaints is that discrimination is the business model of the left. It is their M/O. They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do and they won’t take no for an answer. Discrimination is the enforcer.

Take their boycotts, for example, which are based on discrimination. That’s how they do politics. They want anyone to refuse to do business with Trump supporters or anyone who supports the Republican tax plan. They’ll use any businesses they can in their agenda.

They look for advertisers of Fox or Fox shows and then rally their activists against them, by phone calls, twitter or Facebook campaigns. They target businesses into submission to their agenda. Then the business or corporation is to take action against a particular person, show, or program host. Have a bad decision in court they don’t like? Well, organize the people and boycott the offending parties. Beat them into submission.

They like to black list or boycott anyone or thing that does not conform to their political agenda. But that is their model. They get things done by coercion, intimidation or force, by any means necessary, bullying them to cooperate. Or else you will be barred, marginalized or retaliated against just as those who disagree with them are. That is the big stick they use against you, discrimination. The Black Caucus discriminates based on ideology.

It’s the same principle that caused Senator Schumer to single out a woman in a restaurant in NY and berated her for voting for Trump. He followed her outside to continue his verbal assault on her. When Barack Obama was in office during the government shutdown he sent word out to the departments that the public, people, needed to be made to feel its effects. Obama’s IRS targeted individuals and harassed them due to their political beliefs.

In Senate nomination hearings, Senator Feinstein told nominee Amy Barrett that “dogma lives loudly” in her. The statements caused NYT and media to then take up that mantra in media and columns. So they operate as a caliphate. But a senior Catholic scholar took issue with their discriminatory track against Barrett.

Ashley McGuire said: “An accomplished professor and legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame, the qualifications and credentials of Amy Barrett are unchallenged. That the left continues to treat her Roman Catholic faith as an impediment to office is a testament to just how beholden they are to their anti-religious bigotries.”

So true; it is a validation of Democrats own bigoted, discrimination agenda.

In another infamous hearing, Chuck Schumer was so worried about “deeply held beliefs” that would disqualify the nominee. He was determined to make that the deciding factor on nominee Bill Pryor in 2003. (just in case we think this is a new phenomena)

Charles Krauthammer, at the time, took him to task for his bigoted discrimination:

Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. “His beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held,” charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) , “that it’s very hard to believe–very hard to believe–that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.”‘

An amazing litmus test: deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.

Of course, Schumer’s real concern is with the content of Pryor’s beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to “anybody who had very, very deeply held views.” Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination. — Chicago Tribune column.

So that about covers it. You see, ‘it’s the discrimination, stupid.’ Only now it is out in the open. They use words like “so far out of the mainstream” all the time. Code talk. Who gets to define “mainstream?” Of course, they or Schumer and Feinstein do. Judging by the direction the Democrats have gone in the past few years, mainstream is now in the San Francisco Bay. Don’t agree with abortion? A litmus test is discrimination.

If you don’t follow them into the Bay, or at least to the shoreline, then you too will feel the wrath of their discrimination. It’s only a matter of when and how. Discrimination is alive.

Though the left will be the first to raise discrimination objections as a defense. Rep Conyers is rolling out a whole discrimination defense. The radical left made discrimination the basis of an anti-travel ban campaign. They discriminate against conservatives on campuses, or Trump voters in the heartland, while accusing them of discrimination.

Saul Alinsky was probably their top cleric of discrimination. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s the way, uh huh-uh huh, we like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Sanctuary Argument Problem

I have just the argument for the Sacnctuary Moonbats. But I promise they won’t like it.

You know their ever-loving, illegal alien argument for Sanctuary Cities. They claim it makes us safer. We all need to follow their lead, they say.

So the mantra goes that the Sanctuary policies — lawlessness — makes the city safer. That’s why they do it and need it. See, the illegals won’t be afraid to call the police or report crime, or will not commit crimes, so they say. Thus, crime rates go down. This is the latest airtight argument for Sanctuary Cities. (plus they are supposedly a shinning example) Illegal aliens are afraid of their illegal status. Let’s just humor them and play along.

Then I have the perfect but real argument they cannot reject. Gun owners and second amendment advocates respect the rule of law as law abiding citizens because they don’t want to jeopardize their rights or carry permits. More legal gun owners makes us safer. Non-gun owners have nothing at stake. So the more legitimate gun owners we can have, the better and the more safer we all will be. That’s a win.

Here is the difference and contrast. Notice how Sanctuary advocates always blur the line. They morph legal and illegal immigration. They will only use the word “immigration.”

Gun owners don’t advocate for law-breaking gun owners, like criminals and gangsters. They don’t have any problem condemning the criminals and their use of guns. They don’t stand for lawbreakers. That would make them look bad. We don’t lump them all together in one, gang members and black market guns with upstanding gun owners.

However, the illegal activists and advocates cannot distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Doing so would ruin their cause. Actually, it is a real insult to immigrants who follow law and become legal citizens to equate the two. It is offensive to legal immigration. Yet they do it all the time, asserting no difference from one to the other. They only say that we must change laws so that illegals can become legals. That is amnesty.

You won’t hear the second amendment activists and voters saying that we need to legalize all illegal gun owners. They certainly do not unify behind that idea of lawlessness either.

Right Ring | Bullright

Speaking of FBI and penalties

Someone touched a nerve.

Matt Drudge zings Mueller probe: ‘What is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?’

by Daniel Chaitin | Dec 2, 2017 | Washington Examiner

Matt Drudge, editor and founder of the Internet news powerhouse Drudge Report, put the special counsel probe on notice Saturday.

In a flurry of tweets, stark against an otherwise empty Twitter page (Drudge has a habit of deleting his prior tweets), the influential but reclusive conservative figure painted Robert Mueller and his Russia inquiry team as a farce.

“Mueller’s secretive grand jury made up of residen[ts] from DC, where 91% voted for Hillary…,” he began, referring to the grand jury Mueller put together to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

His tweet came a day after Mike Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to the FBI about his talks with Russian officials. In the run-up to Friday’s bombshell, prosecutors had canceled scheduled grand jury testimony related to Flynn. The grand jury in Washington already had indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former associate for crimes related to their lobbying work abroad…./

“We know what happens when one lies to the FBI,” Drudge said. “But what is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/matt-drudge-zings-mueller-probe-what-is-the-punishment-when-the-fbi-lies-to-us/article/2642391

Well, that is the trillion -dollar question, isn’t it?  But I won’t wait for any answers. IOW, “we lie when we want to or need to, and we make a habit of not being accountable for it.” Penalty? Actually, I think it is rewarded. Why else would they need to?

Pain of Kate Steinle

Kate’s inconvenient accidental death trial is over and the illegal alien gets off on all the major charges. Even worse the media dumps the story.

There are events that cry out in desperation to be editorialized. Kate’s murder was one such case. News can report something like “the jury did not convict on any charges accept possession of the gun…. and it is a sunny mid day in SF otherwise — in case you are considering a protest.” Look how media didn’t touch or want to mention this story.

But now that liberals got a verdict sympathetic to illegal aliens that can be politically useful, they want to add an editorial byline. Then came the perfectly timed Flynn story.

Kate’s is the prefect case that demonstrates all that is wrong with American justice. She stands pointing out the problems everywhere. Let me put it bluntly: Kate Steinle put America on trial, and the verdict is total disgust. Everywhere but with the 12 jurors.

So now liberals are using the process argument in an attempt to explain our outrage. It goes like this: we should not blame jurors when it was obviously the prosecution that blew it. But that neither explains nor excuses the total injustice done. Might as well blame her.

On about every level, Kate’s case offended the very fabric of our now corrupted system of justice. First Kate was randomly murdered while sightseeing by an illegal alien that shouldn’t have been here, never should have had a gun, and who should have been turned over to the Federal authorities that wanted him.

Secondly, Kate was victimized again by the very due process that was supposed to render justice. Then she is being victimized again as she is used to advocate for illegals, and as a political tool to the left for amnesty, immigration reform, and sanctuary city policy. It’s amazing how that is even possible but it is going on.

Not only is there no remorse for Kate, she is robbed of her due process. She’s treated like accidental collateral damage. Though she is collateral damage of failed justice. How many times can they revictimize Kate? It doesn’t end for her and others like her.

Then the shooter’s attorneys come out afterward to bash the White House and administration. Gee, you don’t know when to shut up, do you? Then a former federal prosecutor chimed in blaming it all on ICE. So the murder was caused by ICE. Another mouthpiece says it demonstrates why we have to fix the broken immigration system.

No, it doesn’t have to make sense. They just use it.

Even in a similar state, a drunk driver killing another person gets what is called first-degree vehicular manslaughter and second-degree reckless endangerment and between 7 to 12 years in prison. So being an illegal immigrant with a lengthy record has perks? From the minute that shot was fired on that San Francisco pier, Kate’s victimization began and continues to this day.

The message is clear, they close illegal immigration and all it entails over the life of a US citizen in a sanctuary city. Then are willing to extort that life in their perverted process.

Sanctuary cities = sanctuary criminals = sanctuary crimes.

Right Ring | Bullright

UK upset with Trump tweets

What’s all the rage here and in UK? What’s all this dust up about Trump retweeting a few videos? Never seen them all so vocal in a tizzy over something on Twitter before.

Why British MPs chose Islam over Trump

Ezra Levant Rebel Commander

On last night’s show, I explained the true motives of the British MPs blasting Trump over his re-tweets about Islamic violence.

Unlike establishment politicians, Trump is willing to call out the Islamic migrants who travel illegally to Europe to commit acts of violence and terror.

Read more here.
Watch his video here


See https://www.therebel.media/why_british_mps_chose_islam_over_trump

He says the real message though is to Brits, don’t you share videos like these. Good point, but the message is clear, and so are their real concerns. Free speech be damned.

All that intimidation and political correctness (wrongness) might have worked well with Obama. After all, he operated the same way. But it doesn’t seem to work now and that is their problem. Forget what is done in the jihad, we are supposed to pretend it doesn’t happen. Ignore it — not that it will go away, just block it out. Never mind Obama’s religious bigotry toward Christians, or the persecution we saw time and again.

Message received. Interesting who they blame is the bad guy, isn’t it?

Megyn the opportunist

EXCLUSIVE: ‘No one wanted Megyn here, she was forced upon us and today reinforced why she will NEVER be part of the Today family.’ Staff are outraged at ‘smug’ Kelly and her insensitivity to colleagues over Matt Lauer firing

Daily Mail

  • Megyn Kelly used her platform to describe Matt Lauer’s firing as a ‘sign of progress’ on Wednesday 
  • She said she had no ‘official knowledge’ of Lauer’s alleged misconduct but knew ‘people were sniffing around the issue’
  • ‘Megyn saw this as an opportunity to mark her territory – but she failed and has lost the support of EVERYONE at NBC,’ an NBC insider told DailyMail.com
  • ‘We now have the highest paid person at NBC News hosting one of the lowest rated shows and rather than being humble, she takes the first opportunity to take the spotlight and make it all about her’ 
  • ‘And here’s something we’d like to say about her – she’s terrible on morning television, her show is terrible, her staff think she is terrible’
  • Kelly is now NBC’s highest paid host with an annual salary of $23million  
  • Lauer, 59, was fired on Tuesday night after NBC executives received a ‘detailed’ complaint from an unnamed colleague Monday. News broke on Wednesday
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5132803/Today-staff-throw-shade-Megyn-Kelly-Lauer-firing.html#ixzz502XcOXVG 

Creating a scene wherever she goes. Just can’t help herself. What’s next on her list?

Food and Taxes cookoff

I anticipate that aroma wafting ahead. Every time you want to count on Congress doing something, inevitably it seems to end in disappointment. Why is that?

The trick in cooking some foods is the seasoning. Now we find key in cooking up a tax reform plan is the use of SALT. (state and local taxes) It is also what causes the most argument among chefs. Some prefer salt free and others don’t want to change habits.

How this plays out across America is the largest debate we’ve seen so far. Yes, there are always class warfare warriors. They’ll use anything they can to make the rich vs poor paradigm the whole issue. And they’ll be those who only look at it from the corporate or wealthy side — not particularly concerned about lower or middle income. (as if government is not doing plenty already) The fair people’s minds look at the whole reality.

Taking away something, we see, creates a reality unto itself. The same applies on taxes. Take away and someone surely complains. It is someone’s bread ticket. And we are taught to think and act out of our own self-interest, whether that is on voting or on policy. We are supposed to stay in our lanes, which mostly is how we got into this predicament.

The fight and debate goes on.

You heard much of the debate about taking away SALT deductions; or keeping them in place to protect people in high-taxed states. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground. Now I’m no moderate, but there is no position to please both sides. Or so we are told.

There are creative things they can do like capping that deduction. Maybe halve the amount one can claim? Or how about cut it off by income so the wealthy do not get the deduction? No, do away with it all at once is a tough pill for some to swallow. But why, at last report, will corporations still get to claim SALT deductions?

Except for one thing: if these states are exorbitantly high taxed, then they have been that way for some years and didn’t suddenly become high. That means those people have been reaping the rewards of high-tax deductions for years and years. While low tax states, or no tax states, have not had that big deduction — meaning they kept more of their income out of state coffers. This is the difference in the states, they say. Right, on one hand many people make more in those states while more is taken in taxes, then deduct it on their federal income taxes.

If you look at the whole picture it is a dramatic difference in policy. We have catered to the high taxed states. I think Ron Paul says what government subsidizes it gets more of.

The good news is that taking away the SALT deductions from high-taxed states puts incredible pressure on those states. What we need. Already they are moaning about it. It could be the biggest lever against higher taxes.Their raising taxes gig would be up.

So the point to remember is that the high-tax states have been benefiting on that paradigm for years. They get government to reimburse or subsidize their tax policy. Taking that away sends shutters up their liberal elitist spines. Yet they have benefited for years on that spending, by offloading their costs to the federal government.

Now the truth has hit the fan

But to start with it is a pill to swallow, doing away with that deduction. It does take something away from some people, who are already paying a lot of taxes. Obviously, I never liked what legislators and liberals used to call targeted taxes. Why don’t they call it ‘targeted-voter tax cuts?’ Those were canards meant to apply to a narrow populace. Little bang for the buck. And the I got mine’s cheered it. No one ever cared to address the mass imbalance on taxpayers. So if you are making a lot of money, why shouldn’t you get relief? Sure people at the bottom need some help as well. Loosening the chains on the economy also helps that.

I suppose it is still up for debate and people can have different positions, based on their factors. If we are honest conservatives, we should not want those deductions — or the high taxes for that matter. Both are real. Pull out the rug and the panic begins in state capitols. Good you say. But some people do get hurt. Leave then im place and the game never changes, does it? The elitists and establishment crooks continue on their road, unabated. No, change needs an appropriate force or resistance. Could this be it?

Now if the object was to strike some balance, there could be ways of doing that. So far, it appears there is no list of options.

Also missing in all the highlights of both tax plans is the issue of carried interest loophole, or the infamous hedge fund loophole. When it was such a prominent part of the debate and campaign, even on the left, its absence speaks volumes. People want to see that and loopholes closed. Now that is popular. Why make it all about SALT when they aren’t yanking hedge fund loopholes? Seems money talks and so do interests of donors. Republicans have barely mentioned it. They still need better P/R to cut the clutter.

Its a smorgasbord of interests.

Right Ring | Bullright