One liberal from Alabama with style

You have probably heard of him by now but in case you haven’t, he will impress you as the best poster child for vile liberals. In fact, there may even be a few liberals repulsed by him, but you likely would not hear them admit it. Why? Let the man tell you himself.

Liberal man loses job for calling Gatlinburg fire victims ‘toothless, pond scum’ Trump supporters

RightWing News

Have we become such pathetic wimps that words will NOW hurt us? Move over sticks and stones…

A young man from Alabama has called out residents of Gatlinburg as “mouth-breathing, toothless, Trump-suckin’ pond scum,” after last week’s deadly wildfires that have caused massive damage. That comment online has now cost him his job and has also made him public enemy number one in the eyes of online commentators, who are now pointing to him as the cause of the fire…

Read more

Oh, then he got fired. Well, I can’t say I’m sorry. Just what was it about the people or Gatlinburg that really set him off? A lot of people speculated he could be one of the arson suspects. Who knows, that might be a stretch?

But if there is one person who really identifies with arsonists that did it, here is your only friend in the world. Or maybe there are plenty of Liberals who do celebrate what the arsonists did that just aren’t as loud and proud about it as he is? What a way to fame. Wikipedia will now have a stupid liberal page with his name on it – Coleman Bonner.

Liberals, he’s all yours.

Those messy Trump voters

That would be a better title for Van Jones’ self-serving documentary on Trump voters. He tries to explain Trump voters to America — who made him an expert on the subject?

Van Jones called it “The Messy Truth”. He talks to Trump voters like they are aliens from Mars. He mockingly uses them for a sounding board. Even when trying to cover up their arrogance, they can’t help bathing in elitism.

Red State:

Just what we’ve all been waiting for Van Jones is going to explain Trump voters to us. In a new CNN series entitled, “The Messy Truth”, Jones attempts to understand those who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.

Yes. They made a TV Show about this.
(CNN)

I got tired of just sitting on the CNN set, talking about Donald Trump voters.

So, days before the 2016 election, I decided to fly into a battleground state — and talk to them.

I visited Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where a major battle was fought in America’s Civil War. I wanted to know one thing: Are we on the verge of another civil war?

Read http://www.redstate.com/mickeywhite2/2016/12/05/cnn-van-jones-messy-truth/

One of his best tales is that he went out pre-election and talked to these Trump people. I’m sure.(Not) Considering they all thought Hillary would win it makes no sense.

Here is Van Jones, the guy who’s election night rant called it a “whitelash” against a black president, now a self-anointed expert on the species. What this is about is defining Trump voters. Apparently he has no need to define the Hillary voters.

Of course he doesn’t retract his whitelash comment, which went viral election night. Since they won, he now only needs to define them. I thought we defined ourselves during the election. The truth is a lot messier for Van Jones than he thinks.

Obama’s faulty “radar screen”

CNN tried to help Obama explain his legacy in an interview with Fareed Zakaria.

Rise of ISIS surprised Obama

“The ability of ISIL[sic] to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen,” Obama told Zakaria.

Oops, cleanup in isle one. Anyone would have to ask “what the hell else was not on your intelligence radar screen? And why the hell wasn’t it?” Not Fareed.

But don’t expect his sycophant media darlings to breach that deep subject with him. It was similar to his statement that his big error was not having a “day after plan” for Libya. He drops these assertions then….silence.

We know at the very same time his intelligence radar was failing, he was dismissing the threat of the ISIS caliphate by calling them a JV team, making excuses for them, and instructing us that they are not Islamic. Or he was engaged in arguing against people — lecturing us on — using the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” He was lecturing Christians about the Crusades and our lack of love. Most of which he took great pleasure in.

What was going on there besides his malfunctioning radar screen? It was that he embarked on a misinformation campaign about it all. It seems to reveal he did know but was in denial and trying to deceive us about it. Obama’s fellow travelers were also busy saying that our real threat was not from ISIS — and their vast network of sympathizers — but from “homegrown,”white Christian terrorism. Aka “Look over there, don’t look at Islam.

That was all part of Obama’s misinformation campaign he rolled out on America while the Commander-in-Chief’s radar screen was supposedly on the fritz.

So he didn’t know or realize the threat of “ISIL” in real time. Normally he has to find out things from the media, first, and then be reminded while discussing his legacy.

Obama parses the damage by explaining it this way:

“Have we been flawless in the execution of what is a complicated policy in the region? Absolutely not. I think flawless is not available when it comes to foreign policy or the presidency, at least with mere mortals like me at the helm,” he told Zakaria. “But have we made, I think, the best decisions that were available to us, at each stage? The answer is yes.” – more

Still he claims to have made the best decisions… at each stage, even with a radar malfunction. Is he contemptible? Now we are being lectured about fake news stories.

RightRing | Bullright

Words of Wisdom from Tony Dungy

From Tony Dungy’s book “Quiet Strength”:

We might even become famous. But in the end, what will it mean?

What will people remember us for? Are other people’s lives better because of the way we lived? Did we make a difference? Did we use to the fullest the gifts and abilities God gave us? Did we give our best effort, and did we do it for the right reasons?

God’s definition of success is really one of significance –the significant difference our lives can make in the lives of others. This significance doesn’t show up in win-loss records, long resumes, or the trophies on our mantels. It’s found in the hearts and lives of those we’ve come across who are in some way better because of the way we lived.

See: http://www.coachdungy.com/product/quiet-strength/
Interviews: http://www.coachdungy.com/video-interviews/

I saw this quote around but it only made me want to get the book.

The Day That Lives In Infamy

History.com

Just before 8 a.m. on December 7, 1941, hundreds of Japanese fighter planes attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor near Honolulu, Hawaii. The barrage lasted just two hours, but it was devastating: The Japanese managed to destroy nearly 20 American naval vessels, including eight enormous battleships, and more than 300 airplanes.

More than 2,000 Americans soldiers and sailors died in the attack, and another 1,000 were wounded. The day after the assault, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan; Congress approved his declaration with just one dissenting vote.

Read more: http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/pearl-harbor

Coverage and Speech

Fake News Is Obama’s Legacy

Fake news is the new code word, wolf whistle for Liberals. Media have made a cottage industry of naming anything remotely foreign to them a #FakeNews story.

So naturally the story of Pizzagate is now considered Fake News. Who really propels fake news stories? That would be the liberal Democrats. Lie whenever you have to; make it up to fit the purpose.

Well, we had an entire fake news construction of the disinformation campaign on Benghazi. Remember the video cause of Benghazi? Remember how it was up to us to prove that video narrative wrong? They withheld any evidence. Then they wrote the narrative that Benghazi was a manufactured story. Everything was a manufactured, fake story to them.

Before Benghazi, they wrote the fake news story ‘GM is alive and terrorism is dead’ — certainly no threat. So they went to any lengths to call Benghazi attack, even on 9/11, anything else but terrorism. Fort Hood was workplace violence. The fake news story of “hands up don’t shoot” went all across the media and is still repeated.

We had Solyndra and all those fake stories in their green agenda. Later, they went under and taxpayers money was lost. They lied about those.

But it was more than that. The whole Obamacare concept was designed, built and sold on lies. Constructed on deception. We call that fraud. If it was a private business it would be called false advertising. It would be labeled fraud or bait and switch marketing.

Speaking of fake news stories, Obama keeps saying he had a scandal-free administration. No media challenged him. Some things are so outrageous you know it’s a lie. But no one tells POTUS. I can already see the number one word in Trump’s presidency will be “lie.” Yet the word was banned under Obama’s reign.

Obama has a knack for lying. So virtually every time he addresses people he’s pushing fake news. Remember the JV team for ISIS? Remember terrorism has nothing to do with Islam? We found the intelligence was manipulated to deceive and paint a rosier picture. He didn’t want to hear bad news.

Then Obama always claimed to know nothing until he saw it in the media. Even though that would make him incompetent. But saying his administration was — until his last day — scandal-free is utter bullshit practically no one can believe. Still he repeats it. Reality has no impact on Obama. A fiction writer is his top foreign policy adviser.

He lied about Iran. He lied about the TPP trade deal. He lied that the Iran deal was not a treaty, to circumvent the Senate. Iran was fake news. He said there was no ransom for hostages. He said there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. And that was a huge scandal. Scandal-free? Now he touts his great legacy which is fake news on steroids.

RightRing | Bullright

Mean and nasty Dems discuss their nasty campaign

As much as what Dems say is irrelevant, I can’t resist calling out some of these statements.

The two campaigns had a meeting at Harvard to discuss the election and results. Whoa, Dems are drinking nasty juice. I always called vodka mean juice but there is something worse, Democrats’ talking points.

They never miss an opportunity to play the race card. If anyone made this election about race, it was Democrats, from the beginning to the last day. No, it continues on.

CNN

Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said the Trump campaign had operated in the world of “dark arts.” As an example, she flashed the final issue of the National Enquirer, essentially describing Clinton as a corrupt criminal who should be thrown in jail.

“I don’t think you guys give yourself enough credit for the negative campaign you ran,” Grunwald said. “I think it was an incredibly effective negative campaign, and you guys don’t get credit for it.”

“Dark arts,” nothing vaguely sinister about all their name-calling, is there? How about Dems’ dark arts of smear and illusion? (with some help) Apparently she missed all the negative media/press coverage about Trump and his campaign. But Trump’s campaign doesn’t get enough credit for actually winning.

Dems favorite word is Dark. Everything Dems do is dark. They labeled the Republican convention “dark” while their convention was mired in scandal before it began. DWS had to resign…. but then she was hired immediately by Hillary. Surprise. Talk about narratives? Even Hillary’s campaign was a scandal.

Over the course of the two-day conference, the Clinton team attributed their general election loss to a myriad of factors. They said they faced huge headwinds within the electorate because of the strong desire for change: “We underestimated the force of that wind of change,” Mook said.

“Underestimated” the force of change” — ya think? Clinton ran on tailwinds of more of the same. Headwinds won, thank God. We didn’t underestimate the force of Hillary and Obama’s WH. Can’t say they did not try everything in their corrupt arsenal.

Then they went all out nuclear blaming the FBI and Comey for throwing the election to Republicans.

Clinton advisers also blamed unfair media coverage — noting that it was a struggle every day to get Clinton’s message to break through in a media environment dominated by Trump.

Hillary Clinton went 275 days without a press conference. Is that someone being denied media coverage?

“What hurt us was (the Trump campaign) coming after her or the press picking at us,” Palmieri said.

Press was picking at Hillary’s campaign, really? Where and when was that? They did attack Trump 24/7 and it continues. What alternative reality they live in.

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

What are Democrats to do? “Resistance” everything

So guess what the minority party in Congress wants to do?

Here’s what the resistance looks like: We block f’n EVERYTHING

Nov 29, 2016 1 — Daily Kos

We are the opposition, we are the resistance. The 2009 through present-era Republicans have written the new rules, and they are: OPPOSE EVERYTHING—even if they might otherwise agree.

So it’s up to Democrats to do NOTHING to legitimize the loser of the popular vote. Absolutely nothing. They oppose, they block, they filibuster, they delay.

Read more

So the people who claim to speak for a majority in America are actually the minority party. Wait, someone is not reading the tea leaves here!.

In other Demonrat news, the party doubled down on Pelosi — or is it tripled down?

(ABC) Pelosi was challenged by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who has argued that younger members with a vision for expanding the party’s economic message and geographical outreach is key to future electoral and legislative success. After the vote, Ryan said the Democratic caucus needs to come together.

The party’s new leadership was chosen today in a private meeting using secret ballots.

Now see what Dems do with their valuable popular vote? I rest my case.

Why Romney?

After following this courtship of Trump and Romney, I just cannot see the objective. Everything seems clouded by chaos and that aroma of elitism.

I can’t understand an appointment to Secretary of State for Romney. There are other places he could be squeezed into. Like a cabinet of commerce to focus on jobs.

Secretary of State? He does not have the foreign policy experience with all these countries. He could be a turn around guy but not the scope of State department.

Now that he is dug in so deep as the front runner, it would be hard to not pick him.

Democrats are almost giddy about his choice. But they had nothing but contempt for Romney in 2012. They had him exporting jobs and selling out America all over the world. His dog is still on top of that station wagon going down the highway. Now they have such admiration for Romney in 2016. They’re waxing nostalgia about him.

What about those confirmation hearings? Every statement he made about Trump will play on a loop and Dems can do what they do best, push an alternative reality. That is probably the reason they are happy. Romney will have to answer for every one of those comments, which Dems agree with. Repubs will be forced to defend Mittens as an all-star choice.

Remember State is one of Dems’ favorite departments. What a circus that will be. So that gives them all the ammo to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. Dems whole plan is to start to defrock Trump from the beginning. Romney is cut from central casting to play a lead role. Of course Mitt doesn’t care about being used by the Left. He has been their willing pawn all along. Useful idiot comes to mind.

Maybe it is supposed to remove him from the bleachers and the 2020 lineup? I don’t see either. Maybe it is a setup for ‘good cop bad cop’? I don’t see a benefit to Romney.

So I have some real mixed feelings about Mittens turning State Department hero.

Students choose Castro over Trump

Surprised…not! I know, it must have been a trick question. Nah.

Campus Reform has the pathetic story.

  • Fidel Castro’s recent death evoked conflicting assessments of his legacy from world leaders, but college students are no more prepared than prime ministers to justify their support for the Cuban dictator.
  • A number of students at American University acknowledged the brutality of Castro’s regime, but insisted that he was a better leader than Trump because he did “good things” for the Cuban people.

President-Elect Donald Trump, for example, referred to Castro as a “brutal dictator,” whereas Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called him a “remarkable leader.”

Read more @ http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8455

Really what can you say about that? I think it is self-explanatory. Are we  in trouble?

And for your amusement pleasure:  let’s see the DNA.

The evidence is in. I think it’s a hung jury on that one.

Morning in Kooba? — Not in forecast

In a remarks on the passing of Castro, Justin Trudeau made sympathetic statements.

Antananarivo, Madagascar
November 26, 2016

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the death of former Cuban President Fidel Castro:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

Then he took heat for his comments and tried to clean up the firestorm by mentioning human rights problems.

The Star (Sunday)

“He certainly was a polarizing figure and there certainly were significant concerns around human rights,” Trudeau told reporters Sunday. “That’s something that I’m open about and highlighted, but on the passing of his death I expressed a statement that highlighted the deep connection between the people of Canada and the people of Cuba.”

Sorry, Justin, “legendary revolutionary and orator” sort of covers human rights concern.

Not to be outdone stateside, Jimmy Carter made his own remarks.

Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country. We wish the Cuban citizens peace and prosperity in the years ahead.

What a time to “fondly remember” all those visits. There’s to fond memories.

Awaiting Mitt Romney’s apology tour

After campaigning against and trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign/election, even his Republican nomination, Romney now contemplates the real consequences of issuing an apology to try to seal his Secretary of State bid. How far can he go?

I do hope he likes groveling but is it enough — after all he has done?

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Transition Team sources told Ed Henry from FOX News that Mitt Romney is preparing a public apology.

Mitt Romney is reportedly very interested in the Secretary of State job. (See)

But is it enough to apologize? And I don’t mean only to Trump but to all the people who supported or voted for Trump. He owes them plenty — whether he gets the job or not.

Remember he wrote a book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Ironic now that his appointment requires an apology just as a precursor.

Has anyone out there in Rightville considered what a Mitt Romney confirmation hearing would look like? I think I’d call it a smorgasbord for Democrats. They’ll eat it up.

Political overload: it’s everywhere

The momentum of political speak — protests, lectures, and political correctness — has built to an all time high. Is anywhere politics free? Seems All lines have now been crossed.

If you go to a football game, chances are you could be treated to a political message of some kind. “Bend a knee if you agree” to dissent. Go to a dinner and you might find protestors lined up somewhere along the way. Go to any community event, people may complain about the state of politics or about the “nasty election” season.

Turn on TV to watch some comedy relief and you could be inundated with a political narrative — funny or not depending on the comic’s political point of view.

Now if you spend the outrageous amount to see a Broadway play, they’ll kindly lecture you about politics and diversity. “We are the stormin’ norm now.” But don’t misunderstand it for a “conversation” because there is only one side with one point of view, theirs.

Have children in school? Well, they’ve already been lectured about global warming politics and that whole agenda. But now chances are your child may be encouraged to join the march against the duly elected president-elect. There could be counselors on staff to deal with students’ trauma and grief from the election.

Go to a basketball game just to know the owner(Cuban) is immersed in politics and currently boycotting the Trump hotels. Don’t be surprised what you may hear. Or you could be treated to gestures by players about Black Lives Matter. This is an issue alone, all-star players pushing a political agenda. (where are the days of just sports?)

Go to campus and you might hear or see an anti-Trump protest. It may institutionally support anti-Israel positions of the Left. Or it could be naming itself a sanctuary campus to harbor illegal aliens.

Going to church is always safe from politics or activism, right? Maybe not. You could be lectured about corrosive politics and “can’t we all just get along?” If its a liberal denomination, he or she might preach on the socialism of Jesus.

Work is usually a safe zone, right? But an international company announced if you support Trump, or don’t like their frequent anti-Trump statements, then you ought to resign.

Many people say Thanksgiving might be trigger zones for politics — if you can avoid the subject, which sort of depends on other family members cooperation or not.

And the youth today talk about trigger warnings from conservative points of view or Republican speakers. Trigger warnings about offensive “hate speech” are everywhere. So everyone else’s free speech must be curbed.

Any major event is now a political target for terrorism as well as the left. So there is politics of protest and politics of fear. Black Friday? What are all these people lobbying us for? It is mostly offensive to me but that doesn’t matter… the point is to force it on you. If we are offended it is called ‘free speech,’ while our dissent is called ‘hate speech.’

I haven’t even mentioned something as simple as watching the news, which really is more like non-stop political messaging now. Newscasts are littered with the liberals and talking points. And that innate bias in any coverage. Look at the newspapers at the store? Talk about triggering, outrage is in. Headlines are meant to inflame.

I thought the height was Pence going to a play and getting booed on the way in, then lectured before he can leave. Then he gets protested in the street. Spending all that money on tickets doesn’t prevent them from trying to ram their politics down your throat.

Now something as simple as driving to work or going to the store could turn you into a pawn in some leftist protest, caught in their web of “civil disobedience” and held hostage. Just don’t protest an abortion clinic. That will get you trouble. The Left is in a perpetual state of protest. Never mind how much it offends you or your freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Romney: yea or nay?

Well, it is turning into the most controversial nomination. Romnation?

We all know the history, I’ve written about it. Now Romney is on the platter served like a Thanksgiving turkey. Is it?

Politico

In a brief statement to the media, Romney called their discussion “far-reaching” in regard “to the various theaters in the world where there are interests of the United States of real significance.”

“We discussed those areas, and exchanged our views on those topics — a very thorough and in-depth discussion in the time we had,” he said. “And I appreciate the chance to speak with the president-elect and I look forward to the coming administration and the things that it’s going to be doing.”

Seems to be getting as much push back from Repubs as it is endorsements.

Hmmmm…. Is it a turkey?

Stocking the Cabinet of Deployables

Let’s review what Obama’s administration looks like: cabinet secretaries, sub cabinet, and all those influential and controversial Czars.

In order of succession to the Presidency: 15 cabinet, 6 sub cabinet, 32 czars

Vice President of the United States

Department of State

Department of the Treasury

Department of Defense

Department of Justice

Department of the Interior

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

Department of Energy

Department of Education

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Homeland Security

The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:

White House Chief of Staff

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Management & Budget

United States Trade Representative

United States Mission to the United Nations

Council of Economic Advisers

Small Business Administration

Then there were all those controversial Czars which Obama denied were czars.

“Green Jobs Czar” ————- “Diversity Czar”

“Car Czar” ————————- “Cyber Czar”

“Intelligence Czar” ————– “Regulatory Czar”

“Safe Schools Czar” ————- “Border Czar”

“Science Czar” ——————— “Climate Czar”

“Energy Czar” ——————— “Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar”

“Pay Czar” ————————–  “Health Czar”

“Homeland Security Czar” or “Drones Czar”

“AIDS Czar” ————————- “Manufacturing Czar”

“Weapons Czar” ——————– “WMD Czar”

“California Water Czar” ——— “Asian Carp Czar”

“Great Lakes Czar” ————— “Information Czar”

“Technology Czar” —————– “Auto Recovery Czar”

“Drug Czar” ————————–  “Domestic Violence Czar”

“Urban Affairs Czar” ————– “Gitmo Czar”

“Mideast Czar” ———————- “Iran Czar”

“Stimulus Accountability Czar”

What’s missing? I know, how about a “Hope Czar” – Ambassador of Hope?

Oh but the Obama administration pushed back on using the term Czar. Maybe he just didn’t want to call them czars. Let’s hope Trump — or no other president for that matter — ever has a penchant for czars like Obama.

Dershowitz abolishes Bannon fears

With the left on fire over the Steve Bannon announcement, it says more about them than it does Trump. They typically attack the hardest those who threaten them. And Bannon is a huge threat to the Left because they won’t steam roll him or take his ear from a President Trump.

And if we are now going to judge people based on headlines of articles, then no one at the New York Times can have any credibility at all. In fact, just based on those alone I would revoke their human being cards.

Breitbart

EXCLUSIVE – Alan Dershowitz Defends Steve Bannon: ‘Not Legitimate To Call Somebody An Anti-Semite Because You Disagree With Their Policies’

TEL AVIV – Alan Dershowitz, a staunch Democrat and emeritus law professor at Harvard University, is hitting back against the smears claiming White House appointee Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic, arguing it is “not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.”

I think we have to be very careful before we accuse any particular individual of being an anti-Semite. The evidence certainly suggests that Mr. Bannon has very good relationships with individual Jews. My former researcher, Joel Pollak, is an Orthodox Jew who takes off the Jewish holidays, who is a committed Jew and a committed Zionist, and he has worked closely with him. He has been supportive of Israel.

So, I haven’t seen any evidence of personal anti-Semitism on the part of Bannon. I think the (Breitbart) headline about a Conservative Republican being a renegade Jew was ill-advised. But it doesn’t suggest to me anti-Semitism. It suggests to me a degree of carelessness.

I think the larger problem – and it’s a very complicated one today – is how you assess a person who himself might not have negative characteristics, but who has widespread appeal to people who do. And I think that problem exists on the right and the left. I think there are left-wing candidates who appeal to some of the worst bigots on the hard left. Anti-Semites on the hard left. Anti-Israel people on the hard left. And I think the same thing is probably true of some very right-wing conservatives who appeal vertently or inadvertently to people whose values they probably themselves don’t agree with.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/11/15/alan-dershowitz-steve-bannon-smears-not-legitimate-call-somebody-anti-semite-disagree-policies/

However much Obama disavowed their agenda, it doesn’t seem to matter. Now there are chants at CNN that he has to make a full speech about it. it. Games people play. Sort of like Barry’s race (baiting) speech. In hindsight that Obama speech, plagiarized from Deval Patrick, mattered little and did nothing.

Then the media lights up as a white supremacist meeting takes place in Washington. So they tie that to Bannon and Trump, as if there were a direct tie. The reality is these people have a P/R strategy to use any opportunity. David Duke did the same thing. But now media gives them more publicity than they could even hope for. Media plays their rally statements on a loop.

What a game it is. Force Trump to come out every time one of these groups shows their head, which is fairly frequent with the help of the media. Media has given the KKK and other groups the spotlight thanks to its own political agenda. When that is exactly what racists are trying to do, mainstream their ideas, media is complicit in their strategy.

But the Obama administration has already signaled it is formerly dropping its support for Israel, against the Palestinians’ resolution in the UN.

HuffPo

McDonough added, saying that the Obama administration plans to reevaluate its policy toward Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Though McDonough did not elaborate on what a revamped policy would look like, the White House has suggested that its opposition to Palestinian attempts to secure statehood at the United Nations may soften. On Thursday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, “Steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations have been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome. Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution. That means that we need to reevaluate our position in this matter, and that is what we will do moving forward,” referring to past down-votes by the U.S. on Palestinian statehood initiatives.

Not to forget the BDS, Anti-Semitic left and it’s passion against Israel. Or when “Palestinians” are trying to rewrite history. What news? Media is on a race chase.

No time to report on that with Trump on media’s agenda 24/7. What’s the big deal if Obama drops our central Israel policy? The Spite House is not done with its finale yet.

But the press is running around worried about Trump, associations, and chasing invisible racism…when it is proudly residing at 1600 Penna. Avenue.

Unexpectedly, In Wake of Hillary’s Defeat, Donations to Clinton Foundation Dry Up

pundit from another planet

bill-clinton-foundation

Who could have seen this coming?

Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted amid Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential run, it has been revealed. The non-profit organization’s latest tax filings show contributions fell 37 per cent to $108million – down from $172million in 2014, according to the New York Post.(read more)

money-broke-empty-pockets

View original post 4 more words