What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Winners and Losers of the week

Fox heavyweight Charles Krauthammer has interestingly called special counsel, Robert Mueller the winner of the week. His loser was McMaster. It’s all in how you see it.

NRO – National Review – had the story:

Charles Krauthammer named H. R. McMaster his “loser of the week” due to his damaged reputation, and then he explained why the winner of the week was Robert Mueller:
My loser: H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser. On the night of the report of Trump spilling secrets to the Russians, he was one of several trotted out to say the story was false. The next day, he is contradicted by Trump who said he was within his rights to say what he said, implying that he did say it and the story was true. McMaster holds a press conference the next day, where he had to reconcile the irreconcilables. It was a sad sight for a man who spent decades establishing a reputation for integrity and consistency.

My winner is Robert Mueller, who is going to be the chief investigator for the Russia probe. He is now the man who is in charge who has a mandate to investigate essentially anything and is politically untouchable, cannot be fired. Technically he can; politically he can’t. He’s the most powerful man in Washington.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447818/robert-mueller-russian-probe-special-counsel-most-powerful-man-washington

 

If Mueller is the latest standard, allow me to write the new definition for Webster’s:
Winner in that you get an unlimited appointment with an unlimited mandate, and then get get to move your entire law firm into it. – Winning.

And winning is when your own conflict of interest is irrelevant or ignored unanimously by your peers.

My loser of the week has to be Obama, who was instantly driven further into exile by Trump’s new trip to Saudi Arabia. The country that could not be bothered to roll out the red carpet treatment for Obama is quite relieved that he is gone, and definitely not missed by the Saudi government.

It became even more clear after the arrival how much Obama was despised, a bright red carpet and reception for Trump. It seems to take a real bad thing to recognize a good thing.

Also big losers are those Democrats, media, race baiters and haters who are left in Obama’s vacuum to defend his lousy legacy of lies. Losing.

What’s in the news numbers?

Gee, you could have reversed those numbers under Obama. But I’m sure it would be even worse with the sycophant media. I’d like to help them out.

So given that I think there are some questions reporters need to be asking Trump:

What type of phone do you prefer?

What is your golf handicap? What’s your best score?

What is your favorite room in the White House and why?

What is your favorite meal in the White House?

Who is your very favorite late night show host?

What is your favorite singer?

Do you like boxers or briefs?

Do you sing in the shower?

What is your favorite monument on the Mall?

What do you want to be remembered for most?

What is your least favorite thing about the White House?

Do you ever send out for food? If so, what?

Do you ever use the balcony in the residence?

Do you use the theater regularly, and what movie did you watch last?

Who’s your favorite actor?

What is your typical morning like?

If you could change one thing in the White House, what would it be?

…. feel free to add your own inquisitive question. Inquiring minds need to know.

Ref: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641

Comey, Comey… Mueller’s homie

Is there a nutjob in the house?

The People’s Pundit Daily

Comey and the Clinton Email Case: The Untold Inside Story

May 11, 2017

Mr. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump Tuesday on recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, claimed the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information was “unanimous.”

However, multiple sources not only told PPD the decision wasn’t unanimous, but also that the former director undercut their investigation from start to finish.

“Comey was never an investigator or agent. Special agents are trained and were insulted that Comey included them in his artificial ‘we,’” one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. “To suggest all agreed there was not enough to prosecute, was misleading. It’s false. Trained investigators agreed that there was more than enough. He stood in the way.

The story told to PPD must be retold in the proper context…./

See https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2017/05/11/fbi-james-comey-clinton-email-case-untold-inside-story/

Context is everything. Interesting also that Comey and Mueller are best of friends and it is unanimously praised. That’s like David Axelrod being independent about Obama.

Normally, that is what you’d call a Huge Conflict of Interest. Yet even among the 535 members of the cesspool in DC, no one finds this fraternal friendship problematic and praised the selection of an unbiased “Independent Counsel.”

Even in the media, no one seems to find it troubling. Instead, they celebrate the fact that the two good friends go way back, personally and professionally. Cosa Nostra comes to mind. Maybe we ought to subpoena all the correspondence — writings and otherwise — between the two?

O’Reilly’s take on Roger Ailes’ death

I am slightly offended by Bill O’Reilly’s analysis of Roger Ailes’ rise and demise.

His assessment seems far too kind to the radical left and their objectives.

This quote comes by way of the Conservative Tribune

“We are living in a rough age, with technological advances changing behavior and perspective. The downside of that is turning us into a nation where hatred is almost celebrated in some quarters,” O’Reilly stated. “Roger Ailes experienced that hatred and it killed him. That is the truth.”

http://conservativetribune.com/oreilly-knows-killed-roger-ailes/

Except that analysis almost blames technology for the state of hatred of the left. No, actually it is an old hatred, just manifesting itself by any new means possible.

The left has long celebrated its vitriol and hatred — mainstreamed really since Reagan. Morality has nothing to do with it but the ultimate result of it is a valid charge.

However, I sense another book by O’Reilly, “Killing Roger Ailes,” is already under draft.

As I have said before, it seems only when ones own ox is publicly gored does one recognize the size of the problem. It suddenly becomes serious then. It’s always been dangerous.

Hillary Clinton in Hot Seat on commencement speech

Observer

On June 8, Hillary Clinton is scheduled to serve as the Class of 2017 commencement speaker at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, where she will also be awarded an honorary degree. The announcement has incited protests from several members of the Haitian community who plan to protest the speech and are pushing the college’s president, Rudy Crew, to rescind the invitation.

“Every time the Clintons get in a bind, they run to the black community to whitewash their tarnished image,” said Komokoda, the Haitian group protesting the speech, in a statement.

http://observer.com/2017/05/haitians-protest-hillary-clinton-commencement-speech-medgar-evers-college/

No, don’t rescind the invitation. Please, allow Hillary to be protested and shamed. (not that she has any) Pay them. She’s made enough money on it all, hold her accountable.

Maybe students will come equipped with some nice stiletto heels.

Exploiting people, particularly poor people, is the Clinton’s expertise. In office or out makes no difference. Perhaps she will get some long overdue ridicule? Furthermore, why should Obama be off the hook either?

Who’s Your Prosecutor

The goring and gnashing of the establishment teeth has begun, using the special counsel, Robert Muller, to do it. It’s time for revenge.

A career guy and former FBI Director who has worked under both sides, celebrated as impeccably neutral on both sides of the isle.

Precisely, an Establishment figure both sides respect says it all. This is now their establishment guy, no doubt about it.

Beginning Of The Rest Of The Story

The first rule of the WH should be “Our WH policy is not to comment or conjecture on pending investigations.” — ‘Investigations have their course and we have ours.

2nd rule: Do not compound the injuries.

I believe all this investigatory fog is a deflection from Hillary’s and Obama’s trail of scandals. The Left has pushed all that aside. They are obsessed with no room left.

The official age of establishment cynicism has arrived.

Oh, so we went from an establishment consensus of the first unimpeachable president in history for Obama, to having the most impeachable president in history.

RightRing | Bullright

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Seeing is not believing anything the left does

Every time the radical left elevates someone to immortal status (victim, martyr, hero etc), just look in his or her closet, if you can pry it open: Khizr Khan, Hillary Clinton, Michael Brown, Bill Ayers, Che Guevara, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Tookie Williams, Kathy Boudin, Obama et al.

Dubbing James Comey as the Boy Scout poster boy was a classic. It didn’t prove anything except that he fooled a lot of people. Sure there were those on the right that said he was the pillar of integrity and honesty, even going so far as using him as a textbook example of proper behavior. If you like that sort of behavior, that is. Honor?

Comey put Martha Stewart behind bars but couldn’t find corrupt conduct with Hillary. Just can’t get there, even if it wasn’t his duty. He’s notable for overstepping his job, usurping power, but now that is not a problem to the left. After what he did for Clinton, he then turned around to claim Trump’s accusations of being wiretapped before the election were “outside the realm of normal” …“crazy.” Tell me about crazy.

In light of Trump exposing the spying and data collection, a simple doctrine has surfaced:
The good guys get spied on and trashed while the bad, crooked or corrupt guys get a free pass — often promoted. That’s just how the left rolls.

Always be cautious who the left designates with hero, victim status.

RightRing | Bullright

Age of Chaos in Government: by usual suspects

The Democrats and liberal leftists, Marxists have embarked on a Shock and Chaos campaign. Trump and DOJ fires FBI Dir. Comey and all the liberal fruits rise to the top.

Leading Democrats say they either lack confidence in Deputy AG Rod Rosentein, or that it is shaken, after only confirming him weeks ago. Dems say they will stop a new nominee any way possible until a special prosecutor is appointed. One can see where that is headed — or how many resignations can they call for? They took the opportunity to renew calls for protests against the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, their hearings in the House and Senate will continue in any case. They will have Comey testify in closed-session, then in public. And at least two Senators, Blumenthal and Warner, hope to hire Comey in their Russia-collusion investigation. They also want to start a second, stealth investigation in the Judicial Committee to look into the AG’s office, including Rosenstein’s actions and AG Sessions, along with new nominations.

In the midst of this, Democrats and and mainstream media, like David Gregory, have said Trump could not fire Comey in the middle of this investigation. Apparently an FBI director has termination immunity if FBI has an investigation involving or surrounding the president. Really? Sounds like a job security plan to me.

Not alone, Dems are trying to enlist usual turncoat Republicans McCain, Flake, Sasse, Graham, Collins to reinforce their efforts to prevent any new nominee and push for Special Prosecuter et al. Then they will double up on their usual radicalizing any process.

Enter the up and comers: Senator Corey Booker, potential wannabe Obamafile, takes to the MSM circuit to declare, “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!” (maybe he should have a chat with president flexibility – Gumby)

Then, having created all this chaos in their shock treatment, Democrats think they can use that “sad” state we are in to try to impeach the president. It should be laughable, but for them it is not. Plus they have their media/press accomplices to drive their narrative.

So welcome to the Radical-United States of America, at the pleasure of Democrats.

*(photo cred – Wiki)

RightRing | Bullright

Harvard does separate and equal, by choice

Now isn’t it neat when black students decide to have their own graduation?
From the halls of Ivy League to separate but equal. What can Brown do for you?

Ivy League Black Students Decide To Hold Their Own ‘Black-Only’ Graduation Ceremony

Amber Randall — 05/08/2017 | Daily Caller

Black Harvard graduate students plan to host a “black-only” graduation ceremony later in May.

Approximately 125 students will participate in the ceremony, which took over a year to plan, reports the College Fix. The event is supposed to celebrate how black students have succeeded in higher education.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s Black excellence and Black brilliance,” Michael Huggins, a master’s student in public policy, told The Root. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

More at http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/ivy-league-black-students-decide-to-hold-their-own-black-only-graduation-ceremony/

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

Veteran who killed her service dog on camera found dead

veteran

Police Lt. Todd Joyce said Sunday investigators believe that 23-year-old Marinna Rollins killed herself. Joyce declined to explain what evidence detectives found. He says police were called to her apartment early Sunday after her body was found by friends.

Rollins and 25-year-old Jarren Heng were charged last month with cruelty to animals after investigators say they tied the dog to a tree and shot it multiple times with a rifle. Cumberland County District Attorney Clark Reaves said the two could be heard laughing on a video recording they made as the dog was killed.

The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office told the Fayetteville Observer they found multiple videos of the shooting filmed by Heng and Rollins and text messages talking about the shooting.

“They can be heard on the tape laughing and giggling as the dog was being killed,” Reaves said. “It was a therapy dog.”

Court documents show Rollins received…

View original post 90 more words

Obama: Profiles In Lies

Let’s get this straight: the guy who lied about Bengazi, lied about Obamacare — just to get it passed — who promised Putin and Russia more flexibility after his last election, (when he’d no longer be accountable to voters), who rejected accountability, the guy who voted present in Illinois on all the tough votes — Obama.

That guy deserves a Profiles in Courage award?

“It is my fervent hope, and the hope of millions, that regardless of Party such courage is still possible. That today’s members of Congress regardless of party are willing to look at the facts and speak the truth, even when it contradicts party positions.

I hope current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential; but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable.”

The “vulnerable” – unless, of course, it is babies or life in the womb who deserve abortion. And call that “social justice.” too. You channel that courage so well, Obama.

Was it for courageously meddling and intervening in Israel’s election, in Egypt’s election, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, refusing to call it Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Obama, the guy who lacked a strategy to deal with ISIS, who called them a JV team. The guy who drew a red line and ran away from it. The guy who wore the race card on his lapel to provide immunity from criticism. The guy who only wanted positive reports back from our military operations. Courage, expedience… he lectures Congress?

Those courageous feats, and more, earn him the Profiles in Courage Award from the JFK Library. The words Obama and courage do not belong in the same paragraph.

H/T to the Guardian

Obamacare has no cures

Now that the nation’s healthcare is hostage to the government, is everyone happy? Of course not. Those are the stakes, like it or not. It’s hardly debatable. Pardon the rant.

Who do we have to blame that on? Barack Obama and his pack of radicals. We tried to tell people 7 years ago, when they politicized the healthcare system, that it was a bad thing to do. No, they wouldn’t listen. So Obama and Obamacare weaponized the nation’s healthcare and used it against us. Our medical system is subservient to government.

So if you resented the idea of a government bureaucrat between your doctor and you, look out. Now you have the entire federal government between you and your healthcare. But that is exactly what progressive liberals and socialists wanted. The state will do with it what it wants. What does that make you? Why not just call it Serfcare instead?

The politicians are up to their eyeballs in your healthcare. What’s next, asking them if you can have that knee surgery? Yet the whole thing is considered a healthcare right.

The implications are far and reaching. That means every election is potentially a referendum on our healthcare. Each administration, or Congress itself, can take it upon itself to rewrite the nation’s healthcare. Sure, we used to think that was too big a reach for them to do. Not so anymore. To redo Obamacare may be an arduous task which gets easier the more it is debated and voted on. If changed, the next administration can change it back, almost like an Executive Order. Now we see the truth.

What effect does that have on the industry itself? Who knows. Doesn’t offer much for stability, does it? That is not a calming feeling to the people.

Bad enough that now we already have accountants doing yeoman’s work being questioned from customers about their individual healthcare tax implications. They have to tell people what their tax penalty is and the in and outs to comply with the nannycare system.

Now many pundits see the writing on the wall. Charles Krauthammer said that in a few years there won’t be any debate about government involvement in the system.

Krauthammer told Chris Wallace:

“I think historically speaking we’re at the midpoint,” Krauthammer answered. “We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years we’ll be in a single payer system.” – Blaze

Now I don’t want to accept that as point of fact. I don’t want to think single-payer is now inevitable. Certainly it has gotten closer simply because of the government usurping and controlling the whole issue. So he is right in that once that began, the game and paradign has shifted. We can try to get it back but that will just be our version of the government based/tied system. The next political leaders have a chance to have it their way. We’ve already had how many elections with healthcare at the center.

Could it be permanently fixed in that position? I mean every election, indeed political candidate decision, may be factored by your healthcare or medical situation. Is that what politicians want; what people want? Politicians have enough problems doing the job they are sworn to do now, but have each one be a de facto lieutenant for healthcare?

And that was the problem with politicizing healthcare in the first place. Then passing Obamacare and a federally controlled system etched it into a permanent political issue. We saw that coming. Did libs? Did they care? They only wanted a single-payer system anyway. That’s the problem. What will future townhalls look like?

The process we are engaged in is even worse. Every argument conservatives used against Obamacare7 years ago is now used by Democrats against Republicans. That’s absurd. You cannot argue the failing points of Obamacare against a new plan, when you gladly endorsed Obamacare despite all the lies and problems. Now Dems repeat 7 yr-old criticisms that were used against them. They dug up all the old valid complaints on Obamacare, including wanting to kill off people. I thought it was rich but it is an orchestrated campaign.

First, Dems claimed their protests were duplicating what conservatives and Republicans did in Tea Parties. Then they started to disrupt and mock politicians at townhalls, saying that’s what conservatives did. They claimed it was the beginning of their mid-term come back — right after election — calling it the resistance. Faux imitation is not flattery.

So all of it supposedly follows the Tea Parties’ formula. (much as libs delegitimized those) Sigh. Even to the floor of Congress when Republicans passed the bill singing “nah nah nah nah, hey hey, goodbye.” Confident, aren’t they? But it is not healthcare or issues they care about, it’s power and politics. Even as a minority they are adept. Healthcare is a ward of the state. Screw up the nations healthcare, and supposedly it is a political victory?

RightRing | Bullright

Ripples in a world of news

Leaked Docs Show UK’s Spy Bill Would Force Internet Providers To Track People In Real Time

A draft of a proposed new surveillance law in the U.K. leaked Thursday shows the country’s government wants the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to give up people’s communications in real time.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, colloquially known as the “snoopers’ charter,” originally passed under the helm of the Conservative Party in November.

Read Daily Caller

Other world news

Venezuela — NBC News

In cities around the country there are reports of political unrest by day and shootouts and looting at night. Scenes include students and housewives armed with sticks and rocks, confronting National Guard troops with anti-riot gear using tear gas, water cannons and other weapons to beat back crowds.

Does any of that sound vaguely familiar?

Who knew El Chapo Guzman had a wife who is an American citizen, with twin girls? Just consider those thoughts for a moment. – NBC News

Maddow on the warpath

Check this out for statements from space. Rachael Maddow on her fear about Trump:

“So it’s a weird tension. It’s a dangerous time for the first amendment and the free press in this country. At the same time, we’re oddly influential with the guy who wants to kill us.” – Rachael Maddow roadshow via Mediaite

Notice Maddow’s flippant use of the words “kill us.” The first literal way to take it is so absurd it is hard to conceive what she meant. For the sake of it, just take it that she means effectually killing the first amendment. That’s bad enough. Killing off the news media?

This is a running screed in media and the left that Trump is killing their first amendment, or certainly that is his goal. I don’t know where they come up with that.

Now if anyone had a problem with the entire 1st amendment, it was Obama. Media sycophants weren’t the least concerned over that: speech, religious freedom, assembly, (bad) press etc. He was at war with most of it, and anyone using it against him.

Double standards, Comey’s lame excuses

Let’s see now: James Comey goes out of his way to bury, seal off, and officially close the Hillary investigation. Well, or whatever the hell he was investigating. That would head off or terminate future, continuing probes once she presumably assumed office. Closure.

But then, at the very same time, he left an ongoing investigation wide open to run the course for as long as he — presumably, he alone — felt justified in continuing the stealthy probe. To that end, he already advanced the narrative in previous hearings that some of these investigations can take a long time, even years. And he’s not compelled to say.

Yet in Hillary’s case he wanted to nail the box shut by officially calling it a closed investigation. Nothing he can do to change those facts.

So what we have left in the smokescreen is an ongoing, never ending, probe involving the Trump campaign or possible ties to Russia. It is on course to run out any clock. No limits. Why would Comey need any? ‘We don’t confirm or deny investigations.

In effect, he is doing the very thing to Trump that he feared doing so much to Hillary. No way can he claim to be objective. The Hillary probe was a show investigation anyway, done to end possible questions about her later. Just the way she did in Benghazi, Hillary could claim it was all investigated very closely and cleared her of any wrongdoing.

That was the goal in the server/email investigation all along, giving her security of having been cleared. So having this investigation jihad on Trump continue over the course of his first term bothers who? What harm would it do? Why is there a need to close it? All the questions he feverishly felt needed answering on Hillary.

For Trump, who cares?

Something tangentially came out in the latest hearing on Wednesday. Comey admitted that the collateral contact information collected on Americans via foreign target surveillance is stored away. Then he was asked if that database was searchable . Indeed, yes he admitted it is searchable. Which means at a later date, or anytime really, they could access and search that database — meaning search people’s information. Done without a warrant.

Comey recently expressed that old political adage that if he was making both sides unhappy he must be doing something right. Somehow that demonstrates impartiality, fairness, or being apolitical. No, it is possible to frustrate both sides and be wrong all the way around, to both sides. Just because you gored two different oxen, does not mean you were justified in goring either, or that you were fair to each.

5/3/17
RightRing | Bullright

Hillary, blame is her middle name

Everyone has to have a reason, excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the election. But for, but for. And at the top of the list is Hillary with an excuse a month, usually involving Russians. covert MI6 agents, Wikileaks. Now again in her Christiane Amanpour interview.

Clinton said about her all but guaranteed election: “it would have been a really big deal.” Then, somewhere along her trajectory of excuses, she added that “I was on my way to winning the election” on October 27th, when she was harpooned by Comey.

Now it’s a blame rich environment for Hillary.

So she comes out to blame Russia, Comey, Wiki spies and all those influences that tanked her otherwise “winning” campaign. Hillary’s latest incarnation has her almost popping champagne corks while Comey was reopening the investigation of her email scandal — which should have never been closed but for Comey trying to sweep her mess under the carpet and clear the deck for him and Loretta Lynch to control the Justice Department in Hillary’s administration.

I was just walking along, minding my business, “on my way to winning.”

Yet the NYT chain of events on Comey explains that there was an ongoing stealth investigation of Trump campaign whilst she grieved over her self-created email crisis. On the same day Comey exempted Hillary, on July 5, Steele’s dossier was delivered to the FBI. And she wants to talk about influences working against her? Apparently she missed or dismissed the wall of influence against Trump. The people did not have that luxury.

“He [Steele] provided the documents to an F.B.I. contact in Europe on the same day as Mr. Comey’s news conference about Mrs. Clinton.” – NYT

Let’s just call that coincidence how at the time Hillary is being unindicted, so to say, that the dossier was handed to the FBI. And that Hillary and Harry Reid both seemed to know the information in it early on, pushing for public revelation.

Hillary, “I take absolute personal responsibility,” for the loss of election. Yes, just like she took full responsibility for Benghazi, her private server, and emailgate etc. Not…ever!

Then she declared herself a member, albeit leader, of the Resistance. It’s what politicians do when an active movement forms, run out to lead the parade. Name it and claim it. And right, Hillary, it’s all about you — always was.

Now, in his first NYT op-ed, Bret Stephens replays the attitude of Hillary’s campaign showing that they were all too confident. We know Democrats always claim they are right, even when they are wrong. The more they are confronted, the more right they declare themselves. They cannot accept their degree of accuracy as 50 50, crapshoot odds. No, they are in dissent from reality.

Put it this way, it never seems Democrats suffer from a lack of confidence — either about winning or their misguided agenda. They seem to have unfettered faith that as long as they believe it is going to happen, it will. With the election, we heard for months that it was all Hillary’s. That is until election night when reality cast the final vote.

Blame, blame, you know my name….and you can read all about it in my new book.

RightRing | Bullright