Media in Meltdown Mode

First we had Brian Williams in liar-gate and now the steaming fresh George Stephanopoulos ‘donation derriere-gate’. But what is the message, other than media is not the responsible organ of public trust it ought to be? Media seems to be in a meltdown.

It makes an overall statement of lamestream’s credibility — right, it has none. More importantly to the point, what is the error it committed? They knew the track record and who these guys were when they negotiated and signed these mega contracts.

Breitbart: (Stephanopoulosis worse than Williams)

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer argued George Stephanopoulos’ behavior is worse than Brian Williams’ on Monday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Earlier, Schweizer said … “He certainly knew that he had donated to the Clinton Foundation and he also knew that — as I lay out in the article, he had participated in all these events. I mean, we’re not just talking about George Stephanopolous’ time — his money. We’re also talking about his time.

Does the MSM think a huge contract is going to change who they are? Does creating a nice job around them change anything?

Let’s take it a step further. The Clintons are perfect examples. Do we think the money or prestige of a large charitable foundation, in their name, is going to change who they are? Put some more lipstick on that pig. Was making her Secretary of State? Is running for president? Of course MSM knows who these people are and so do we. They are who they’ve always been.

So what is the shock and consternation from the media corporates? They knew what they were getting. Most of us saw the red flags when Stephanopoulos first surfaced as a media mogul. Sure they can install George at the head of a division or anything else, but guess what? He is still George Stephanopoulos — not wonder boy, Mediatron. Progressives love to reinvent themselves, they do it all the time, but it doesn’t change who they are.

Now we’ll have the debate, controversy about Brian Williams coming back. That gave me an idea. Why not put him back on journalism and embed him in Hillary Clinton’s campaign on the road? Between the two of them they would be able to create some of the best alternative reality we’ve ever heard. And that might be just the thing to kick start Hillary’s campaign. It would make for the most fascinating air-brushed coverage to draw the viewers, too. It’s the best of both worlds, media and politics, which in their case are pretty much the same thing. But they would know what they are getting.

The “I-word” rears it ugly head

It isn’t just the word but who is opposing Obama’s power abuse that really matters.

Johnathan Turley once again bashes the usurpation taking place under Obama.

(TPNN)Respected liberal George Washington University Law School Professor, Jonathan Turley, speaking regarding the House GOP’s lawsuit against Obama for unconstitutionally using executive orders, issued a chilling statement on Wednesday, saying that “this could be a historic moment.”

We’ve been having one giant historical moment after another since the Usurper-in-Chief entered office, then rammed his Obamacare through despite all the warnings. Or his Libya adventure. To his recent campaign minions meddling in elections around the world. Fortunately, the rest of the world wasn’t as stupid as America to fall for their plans.

Unfortunately , Turley didn’t use the past tense. We have changed. Obama has changed it. And finally Congress applauded his efforts. About the only thing he hasn’t done yet is abolish the term limits. At this point that might even get wide approval. They’ve gone along with everything else he’s done — again, past tense. The fact that a suit is even in the courts is only an afterthought. Not that it is a real challenge.

But the problem goes much deeper in that we have an unimpeachable president. We are only kidding ourselves that we don’t. Certainly that was never the founders’ or the framers’ plan. It’s no longer King George across the pond we have to worry about. History has already been changed. The only recourse left is through unwilling-to-act courts.(everyone knows that too) So the genie is already out of the bottle.

 

“Our system is changing, and this body [Congress] is the one branch that must act, if we are to reverse those changes,” Turley urged.

Turley said that there is a new model of government emerging, one in which our Founding Fathers thoroughly rejected, and pointed out that when Obama announced his unconstitutional dictatorial powers, Democrats in Congress cheered him on.

“A dominant presidency has occurred with very little opposition. Indeed, when President Obama pledged to circumvent Congress, he received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevent.”

Obama came in promising fundamental change. We got it in spades.

There is a lot of this going on

The title on this article could be slightly misleading to people today. It may not be just what you expect.

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

Bradlee Dean May 15, 2015 | Western Journalism

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from. […/]

More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-only-christians-in-america-today-would-just-sing-louder/

We certainly have our problems today, and Christians nor churches are immune to the culture contributing to the apathy. Many do recommend singing a little louder. Not to make it a left and right problem, but there can be no denying the liberalization and its political influence gnawing at the foundation.

Just a little louder, please. And ignore those 55 million babies piling up, too. Climate change is a symptom of man but killing millions of babies is commendable and dignified. Preserving the habitat for the Delta Smelt is something worthy, while sacrificing babies on the altar of protecting abortion is worth fighting to preserve. Got values?

National discrimination day

Obama jumped on the LGBTQRSTUV agenda to celebrate a national day against Homophobia and transphobia. Since they are calling it National day against homophobia and against discrimination, I can call it what I want with free speech. Right?

So I guess they went all out to declare this national day. Why can’t we declare national heterosexual day? Now really, doesn’t it sound much better to have a day after something you support rather than something you are against?

What happens when the rest of traditional America has pride, is that a problem? Yep. That’s exactly where “rights” stop.

One more day on the national calendar. One that allows them to hate. What happens when Muslims declare a national day against Islamophobia? Right, it already is a national day against both of those every day.

Ed Show

The infamous mouthpiece of MSNBC has taken his roadshow to the courtroom. I don’t know all the details, but this article explains some of them.

Ed Schultz does courtroom drama about as well as he does his TV show. (Daily Caller)

A strange thing came out, the big mouth apparently wanted (or was ready for) to get a show on Fox. This gave me a vision of him sitting in a room making a deal with Roger Ailes That gave me my laugh for the day. See article for his run around on his partnership.

I’d love to know what that dialogue would have been. A little satire:

Roger: So Mr. Schultz, can you give me at least 3 format options for a show?
Ed: ah, humma, humma, will you settle for one?
Roger: well, that was not my question. Can you?
Ed: I got peeps for that. Well, I had peeps… before I said I didn’t. They will provide that….but I’ll deny they did of course… yea, we will have at least 3. I mean I will. Sure.
Roger: Give me a name for this show you’re hawking.
Ed: Ed’s Talking-heads show…
Roger: Are you committed to that name?
Ed: Sort of
Roger: So on a slow news day, Ed, what would you do for filler.
Ed: oh, that’s easy, I pick on and attack Republicans… you know, lots of material. It’s kind of my specialty.
Roger: And you have lots of experience at that?
Ed: you bet, haven’t you heard of me on Air America or somewhere,  before I called them “rotten business people”? I was up for the syndicated personality of the year…
Roger: Can’t say I have. Now what kind of contract were you looking for?
Ed: a big one that can cover my partners and me, the one’s I won’t have once we start. You know, seven figures and up ought to work.
Roger: But we have no idea if your show would even work in any of our slots.
Ed: Well, I’m flexible on anything except politics. So whatever fits.
Roger: I have to give it some thought. Who should I contact, you or your partners?
Ed: What partners?
Roger: hey, is this some kind of joke? I know, it’s like who’s on first, right?
Ed: yea the first slot works for us….I mean me… us is my wife and I.
Roger: Okay, Ed, you’ll be the first guy I ever fired before I hired.
Ed: I’m not sure when I … I mean we start?  It wasn’t my red hair, was it?
Roger: I don’t usually do this but here’s the number and address for MSNBC, I think you are going places.

After reading the article, it seems his courtroom cabal is not a settled science, and debate is not over. And all his schmoozing with unions doesn’t seem to help when he’s trying to cut an associate out of his picture.

Selective first amendment

It’s so strange what some people will use the first amendment for, besides toilet tissue.

Just ask Pamella Geller, or her art exhibit in Texas. Well, let’s get something straight, there are no safety zones for the first amendment. So Geller knows this full well. Regardless, she had the exhibit/contest anyway. Now the post exhibit is being scripted, and it ain’t pretty.

Now that it’s over, and we all know the shooters who attacked it were stopped before carrying out their apparent mission, we have a new discussion. One on the first amendment. Sure, before the exhibit many complained about her holding something so controversial, if dangerous. No such controversy over the Muslims holding a “stand with the prophet convention” with all the characters it had — the one place guaranteed not to have a suicide bomber crash the party or a terrorist attack. Media wasn’t in a feeding frenzy over that.

Since the exhibit and the events are now history a new phenomena unfolds. That’s right, the fallout in the media and talking-head establishment over the exhibit. Sure they can gang up on Pamella Geller and actually blame her for what did happen. Let’s not misplace any of that venomous blame on exactly the right parties, Islamists. Instead let’s blame Geller for holding the event in the first place. Surely she knew something would happen. Surely she knew it would inflame radical Muslims. She was courting disaster. Surely she new the potential harm that it could attract. Right?

Check, check, check. She knew alright. And she went ahead and held it anyway, shrug. Why? What’s wrong with her? Is she just doing it for publicity? What a stunt, they say. Well, notice anything in all this criticism? Yes, it is the first amendment rearing its ugly head, once again,. I don’t mean that she had the event, I mean their criticism about it.

See article at Pamela Geller’s website.

After that came the denunciations. No, not against the Islamic fanatics. But against Geller.

From all across the Liberal dials, plus The New York Times, came blasts of outrage against Geller for being “provocative” and “asking for trouble.”

See, they can all come out safely to criticize her with their first amendment “rights”. Oh, that’s the thing to do now. But as to her taking a stand in defense of the first amendment? Not so much. Though they are right on board with calling her out or blaming her for the fallout from it. They’ll even claim it is the responsible thing to accept the criticism for it.

So let me understand the issue correctly. The guys with hoods and machetes get to define free speech. Then, as a course of action against would be assailants who don’t fall in line, hold them up to ridicule in the very-vocal and critical mainstream media. So the cries of outrage come against any cartoonists or a person who would hold such an event.

But Muslims and Islamists holding a “stand with Prophet Muhammad” and rally against “Islamophobia” that is perfectly acceptable and receives no criticism. Follow that with a cartoonist draw contest and the long knives come out. (pardon the pun)

Now class, we have our lesson on the first amendment. Thou shall not criticize the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or any Muslims, Sharia Law, or whatever hateful genocidal deeds they do. Got that class? Oh there will be tests on it too. But it is alright to use Islam in any way to condemn, attack, promote bigotry and hatred, or otherwise assault anyone else or their freedoms. In fact, not to worry, media and lots of outraged mouthpieces will make excuses for their right to do it. And media will question the motives of anyone who would criticize Islam. This is very important class, so I hope you’re taking notes and getting all this.

In the event of misconduct, such as the cartoonists or others, the first amendment shall be used to condemn the offender for his wrongful, provocative misuse of the first amendment. So everyone can now apply their first amendment toward criticizing the organizer of an event, but not to defend or sympathize with the offenders. Isn’t it funny how they were absolutely chomping at the bit to apply their first amendment toward the offender, yet cannot muster any defense for the accused. Oh, and the accused shall just be pronounced guilty — as if it is even possible to prove his/her innocence.

See they weren’t willing to use their first amendment to support Geller’s first amendment. But they are happy to use their first amendment to attack and condemn her — something Islamists also wasted no time in doing.

Somewhere over the top

A very typical thing occurred. Obama went out to talk about poverty… in an untypical way. I saw a writeup on a blog which took him to task.

So I don’t want to belabour[sic] the point. What’s new? Others have covered it.

But that wicked irony of going to Georgetown University to rail about poverty, and the pure hypocrisy therein. Think of the many colleges or Universities he might have gone to, but he chose that one. Soooooo…

I wonder if that is completely lost on Obama, in which case he is so out of touch he could have held a poor seminar at the Ritz Carleton and it wouldn’t have occurred to him?

Yet Romney mentions the 47% or the numbers on food stamps and he gets lambasted.

Que Sera Sera: 2016 and beyond

Whatever will be will be….

It’s a Spanish phrase famous in a Doris Day song. The phrase, according to Oxford, means the “fatalistic recognition that future events are out of (beyond) the speaker’s control.”

One that might fit the current political landscape. It certainly would have popularity with some laissez-faire advocates. Apply that to politics and look at the rot you can have. At some point one realizes things will be what they will, so why bother? Maybe it is not for us to decide or say anyway?

Given the passive attitude from some about our politics, the phrase can fit well — too well. Without some major change things will be as bad as they’ve ever been. Maybe worse. Just to keep further erosion at bay would require major intervention. And our passivity certainly doesn’t help.

I appreciate the word from Oxford fatalistic. The definition of fatalism, from Oxford, is “The belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”

That could describe a cynical view on politics, too. Combined, it’s kind of dual unavoidable negativism that seems to flow uncontrolled. We can simply bet on receiving more of the same in the future, to which we say “Que sera sera.” Oxford adds: “A submissive outlook, resulting from a fatalistic attitude.” That tends to describe some attitudes.

The old saw is two things you should avoid in conversation are politics and religion. Why? They are considered divisive. Many people like that advice. But it goes a little further, they don’t want to know about either of them. When it comes to elections, they can say they’re all crooks, liars and con artists, and its a sham anyway.(libs prefer that verbiage)

Ignorance may be a virtue in some quarters.

Why would people get excited when one candidate is as bad as the next and where honest, good people would not be running? How do you counter all that negativism? You can’t, since you also know it is about as bad as it gets. There is not much to base hope on.

If you examine it from the other side it’s a bit more personal. Sure, if we keep doing what we are currently doing, in our involvement, then it will probably remain the same or even get worse. Though it does not get better by leaving things to their own devices saying “see, this is what we always have.” No, it doesn’t change and we don’t change. So we have the chicken and egg, which came first question?

Plug in the same scenario to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. [1]There really is not much to look forward to and [2]we pretty much know what to expect with Hillary.(aka evasion and diversion) The chances of either one changing are almost zero. Yet in spite of that gloomy outlook, there are still people willing to support and vote for her. What is wrong with that picture? We all know what to expect with her, right? So “Ready for Hillary”?

She could hardly be more obvious. She is not willing to answer any questions and believes any real accountability is beneath her. She has a team who believes much the same as her, that all she has to do is run to get into office. Then everything according to plan, past is prologue. You think we had scandals and problems with Bubba? Well, meet the new and improved version. Then everyone can just sigh and say, “see, this is always the way it is no matter who is in office… they’re all skunks.” But those people never seem to accept their own culpability for it either.

Reference: Oxford Dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/que-sera-sera

RightRing | Bullright

A word on business appreciation

(isn’t there a national holiday for that or something?)

It’s being reported that CVS will rebuild two locations in Baltimore following the nasty, ugly riots and fires that followed. Sounds like a good idea, no?

In a press report, they say they are going to also donate 100,000 to a United Way in Baltimore area, and the “Fund for Rebuilding Baltimore.”. They claim they are really obligated to people’s health, and this is an extension of their efforts to help people.


Truth Revolt

“Our purpose as a company is helping people on their path to better health,” [CVS Health CEO Larry Merlo] said. “There is no better way that we can fulfill that purpose than to reopen our doors and get back to serving the community.”

You don’t say?
Well, pardon this satire: (hopefully everyone knows how satire works)

It turns out that it’s a great sign of appreciation to get looted and burned out. Who knew? It simply means they like you, in urban lingo. So take it as consumer appreciation.

This is not the first time. In Ferguson they looted and burned auto parts stores. That is probably where locals buy all their fancy accessories, parts and brakes for their rides. Naturally those stores would be at the top of thugs’ list to loot, destroy and burn. It’s a sign of endearment. It’s urban speak, sort of like getting jumped into a gang. But once you are in, well, all those perks.

So this is seen by retail insiders as a wise business move.(and great for the bottom line) It’s what you do. Maybe, like some stores in Ferguson, they will have the privilege of being looted or destroyed multiple times? Hey, that means you have really arrived.

So quit being so hard on them, it’s the right thing to do. Seems the more they like you, the more they rob you. Don’t you get it? It makes sense.

See you next riot ‘business appreciation day’. And what a healthy community it will be!

H/T to Truth Revolt

Summarizing the bad news

So it comes down to logic and reading the tea leaves.

Society has gotten to the point we now have discretionary law enforcement, from the top. At the same time society has gotten so structurally fragile police cannot and won’t be able to protect people. Partly, that may be understood. But on top of those challenges, they also made the conscious choice not to try to protect individuals or private property. That decision comes from those in power and elected, not LEOs by themselves. So when push comes to shove, as it often does, they already made the choice.

This is understood by people who understand the law and purposes of government.

Bad enough they feel at a loss to protect a given person in a situation. Then they have made a bureaucratic decision not to protect you. This crystallized in Baltimore as a Fox reporter was covering the protests had a cop tell him that the reporter should know that if he got into trouble out there, the cops could not protect him. The police could not risk starting a riot to try to save or protect the reporter. It was a tell tale sign. There was a rational reason for the cop to say that to a reporter, but it reveals a larger problem.

As the Mayor of Baltimore and whoever else made the decision to stand down, it was equivalent to making a choice not to protect people or property. It swung the pendulum against protecting innocent citizens or victims. The burden was on innocent citizens.

When they made that conscious stand down policy, they reversed the purpose of government, which is to secure the rights and property of people… to ignoring and deliberately not protecting people. Now it is worse than defying their oath and obligation. They made a decision to forfeit your property, as if their name was on the deed.

Yet worse is motivations and who benefits. They made a choice to protect government, themselves, over your property. In fact, they are actively protecting government, while ignoring property and security. So the fundamental purpose of government almost exclusively is protecting itself. The job of LEOs is to preserve and protect itself.

Government has been engaged in this. It’s first and only priority is to itself. We now have government, of the government, by government, for government. Nothing more. This is why so many people question not only the purpose and intent of government, but much of its existence. Is it really just for itself, for the benefit of itself and nothing more?

RightRing | Bullright

Every which way…. but lose

This is probably one of the most painful columns I have had to write. Had to out of a sense of obligation. Someone should say it.

Ferg-us-soon and Baltimo’ have taught us something. They weren’t the first riots and won’t be the last either. No, that isn’t the lesson. Most of us are still alive to remember the 60’s riots. We remember Martin Luther King, too. Even that is not the real lesson in this stuff happening.

Like anything else, the real lesson about catastrophe or disaster is what you do about it that counts. Still not quite the lesson. Have we learned anything after the sixties’ riots? It was that people need to get involved in the political process to affect any change. But those were mostly civil rights issues etc, important stuff. Today it can be over one person being hurt or killed, not that it doesn’t matter but that is all it takes. (in truth it probably won’t even take that in the future)

There is a whole grievance industry built on decades of people having a chip on their shoulder. Sooner or latter it explodes. What do we hear about people who go out and commit mass murder or destruction? It’s that there were problems all along which manifest themselves, ultimately, in committing the acts. That’s what we hear anyway, like it was an unavoidable train wreck bound to happen. Someone should have stopped it somehow, before it was too late. Who can we blame? We’re told all this by psychologists, sociologists and professors in Ivy Towers, and finally by mainstream media.

So the potential is there for it to happen, maybe it’s always been there? You are always going to have a few disgruntled people etc. These are the lines we are fed over and over again, like a Christmas fruitcake.

No, I don’t want to ague that they don’t have a point. Sure there are always going to be crazies. We know that. There are always going to be problems, issues, disasters, “tragedies” — however they define the term. There will be broken people, humans, behind it. We may always have disgruntled people: have nots, you got yours I want mine, or whatever their grievance is. They live out an act of revenge. But this is not about that.


This is bigger, it’s about what is acceptable to do in society or not.

It’s about moral boundaries, decay, wanton destruction. It’s about disgust for our system, be it the political one , capitalism, or government writ large. It’s also about feelings too numerous to mention. It’s about a sense of who cares how much damage it takes? The reasons are no clearer than the violence or its objectives. It is becoming all too common. It goes from one event to the next like wildfires. It looks for an incident to justify itself and finds it with frequency. No, you cannot eliminate the causation because they will find it anywhere, anytime they want. You cannot beat them at that game. Find it — some justification — they will.

But we must look at the whole, too. We now have a political system with a win at any cost mentality, whatever it takes. Sound familiar? They take pride in that philosophy. If Alinsky tactics are bad, those are only the starting point and only a means. The real enchilada is in the ends. They can twist any issue into a banana peel to slide off into massive protests sparking riots and looting. We know there are professionals out there who do that. Whatever the last one was will be nothing compared to the next in their minds, progressing in damage and passion. They can plug in their formula to any issue and come up with the same answer and results — protests, rioting, looting, burning down and destroying neighborhoods, creating chaos.

As much as government or some in it try, they have no concrete answers to it. Oh, they say we need economic development, jobs and mo’ money to combat it. It’s always the same patent answers no matter the issues in question. Spend more is the prescription for everything. Meanwhile, our legislators and politicians continue on their own win at any cost campaign. They are not oblivious to what is going on, but which one is really the priority? It has to be their jobs and winning elections above all else. That’s just the way it has to be.

Look at the real problems with the protests and riots. They breed on themselves. And there is always some debate through it, in all the media attention, as to what the answers are. Even after, the debate goes on and maybe hearings or an investigation into the problems. How many grueling studies or whatever have been done? How many columns are written on the dynamics? How many “passions are flared” comments will come out of it all? Still the same thing happens over and over. Then there are the political racketeers who say the answer is voter registration to give people a voice, to affect a change. Yep, we’ve heard it all before. It’s as predictable as the taste of that fruitcake. That airbrushes a sense of legitimacy over the whole thing. “Now if you will only vote we can work this thing, or problems, out.” We just need their involvement in the system. Right?


We seem to forget.

We had the riots in the 60’s and they were told the same thing in the aftermath. Where did Bobby Rush come from, the only one who managed to beat Barack Obama? So they did get involved. Let’s call them activists now. They went into the influence game and made a difference. We’re seeing the results of it play out before our eyes. They have made an impact. And today the very same radicals from the sixties hold higher offices around the country. Look at Chicago, look at Baltimore, Elijah Cummings, Eric Holder, and countless others like Maxine Waters. And they also went into academia to influence society and culture. Then they got control and look what happened? We even got Obama in the White House. He set up a network administration of radicals. They got involved, no? Now we see the fruits — and that fruitcake is tasting worse and worse. (apologies if you like fruitcake — just a metaphor)

Flash forward to what we see now. Even before the riots ended they had the registration drive. Sign up, we need people like you in our process. I understand their ploy to make everything about voting and the process. Has it worked? Has it stopped the problems? Along the way, progressives and liberals have actually politicized every possible thing within reach. They complain about the process being so politicized or that the problems are so politicized. But that is what they have done with every stinking issue, politicized it.

Of course there is going to be hypocrisy, they assert. So what? Well, remember when there were all those Tea Party rallies around the country. They were not burning down buildings, rioting or looting. Let’s not forget the answer in that case was not to register people to vote, or tell them to get involved in the system. No, in fact, it was the exact opposite. They called them racists and mocked anything they did. The last thing they wanted was them to get involved in the process. In fact, they resented them for doing just that. Of course then we had government’s jihad against them, whether they were business owners, running for office, or starting non-profits to make a difference. Remember it was all out war against them.

The very same people and government who now goes out to plead the case for these rioters and looters. We see an organized pattern of backing off the police and allowing rioters and looters to have their way. Then there is an attempt from mainstream media to refer to them as “mostly peaceful protests,” even while it is going on right in front of cameras. But police being stood down sends a sharp, disturbing message to protestors et al. The officials come right out to say let them riot and loot, it’s only property. Yea, who cares about that? The message is even worse and more profound than that.

If there is to be a fringe benefit or quid pro quo to the protestors, it this rioting and looting aspect. Someone gains and someone loses. I’ve said this is all part of Obama’s economic recovery program. It really is, it is redistribution in the most basic form. Sure it is a bit more crude than the the methods politicians and Washington uses. But hey, same effects.

Over the last few years we’ve heard an awful lot of talk about how communities have been militarized to the point of having the same equipment right here on our streets as they have in heavy combat war zones. Yes there is some undeniable truth to that. What do they use it on? Then there are countless no-knock raids carried out all over the country everyday.They incorporate some of the same military-style tactics. Whether it is federal agencies or local communities, the same rules or tactics seem to apply: explain later. And they use them on a multitude of issues. Swat teams practice their maneuvers for use on schools and public buildings. All communities have swat teams with much of the same military-type hardware.

Even so far back as the nineties military tactics were used to scoop up little Elian Gonzalez to ship him back to Cuba, authorized right from the justice department. They had military style deployments at Ruby Ridge and Waco run by Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Lest you blame this too on George Bush, this was alive and thriving long before he took office. Sure there were hearings over it, but so what? They also had hearings over baseball and steroids.


What’s the point?

Well, there are many points. It is an evolving landscape of militarized action on people when government deems it necessary. (subjectively and selectively) Now it has evolved again to the point of making a calculated decision, in the case of riots — racial et al — to hold back the police presence. There has been a calculation to let the looters loot, and let the rioters riot. They’ll stop eventually.

In the meantime, in the heat of the situation, the calculation has been made to let them have the private property — loot. So private property of people is now the bargaining chip for communities and federal government. Let them steal or destroy property to pacify the thugs. Let them have at your property if it can calm things down. It doesn’t buy that doesn’t matter, they’ve already made that calculation. “Why get involved and inflame the situation further? It’s only property.”

Yea, and it’s only private property.Your loss, but then who cares about that? If they are determined to loot, then let them loot. That business or home you worked all your life for, scrimping and saving, is now just a bargaining chip for government and communities. Criminals, thugs and looters know this. The principle is very simple and basic though, sacrifice private property for the greater good. Socialism has no better tenant. Your private property is on the chopping block, whether it is by eminent domain abuse, taxes, “civil disobedience protests” or riots. It is there for the purpose of sacrificing it to criminals and thugs to appease a situation. When we all just start realizing that we will be a long way closer to the truth. Just that they have finally codified that process.

To politicians and government it is every which way but lose. To private citizens and property owners, it is every which way at your loss. They win, you lose — fairly simple.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s alternate reality on Benghazi

Hillary will certainly set the record for revision. She now paints herself — not four dead American patriots — as the victim of the Benghazi terrorism attack.

Hillary Clinton: I’m the Real Victim of Benghazi

by Ben Shapiro30 May 2014 | Breitbart

Hillary Clinton may not be much at administering the State Department, but she’s certainly a pro when it comes to expressing outrage at her own persecution. For the woman who is supposedly the world’s most powerful feminist, her sense of victimhood remains surprisingly strong. That’s never been more true than in her new book, Hard Choices, which points out that she – not the four men who died in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of September 11, 2012 – is the victim.

The Clinton camp reportedly leaked the 34-page Benghazi chapter of Hillary’s latest tome to favored outlet Politico. The portions quoted by Politico demonstrate an offputting self-pity and a false righteous indignation utterly at odds with Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State.

According to Politico, Clinton writes, “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country.” Of course, the sacrifice of those who served our country wouldn’t have been necessary if Clinton had done her basic duty in protecting diplomatic facilities overseas. And when it comes to politicizing Benghazi, it was the Obama administration that repeatedly lied for weeks to the American people about the source of the attacks to continue portraying President Obama as tough on terror during election season. […/]

More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/30/hillary-im-the-real-victim-of-benghazi/

I’m pretty sure out of even all the tangent “victims,” like millions of Americans, that she is not one of them. No, I’m absolutely positive about it. There’s no doubt in any cosmic reality.

Even her taking full “responsibility” for Benghazi was a giant Bernie-Madoff-sized lie.

“As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day,” Hillary writes.

But donning her victim shoes on Benghazi takes the cake. Reality should have no place for either Clinton to hide, especially anywhere near the Oval Office. Madoff got hard time and Hillary pens “Hard Choices”(aka selfish ambition) then runs for president. No scruples or morals whatsoever.

Answer to Baltimore’s woes: Mo’-Money

Whenever there is a question about conditions in Baltimore, the answer is always more money. Maybe that isn’t completely fair.

Well, the first answer is what is being spent is just not being “spread evenly”.

Trouble in Baltimore

So if you just apply more ointment (money) to the wounds (conditions), it will bring everything right up to standards. Or something like that.

That’s the sales pitch anyway. See right before the riots, Mayor Chaos-Blake was in the process of doing just that, asking (Republicans) for mo’ money for schools. (and stuff)

And darn it, now she’ll probably have to go ask for even more because the people are destroying the city. Not to mention the very students in those schools developed a penchant for chucking rocks and bricks at police. But never mind that now.

Anyway, they are all only doing that because they don’t get or have enough money. If you will only give them more money, they will not be destroying their neighborhoods.(no proof but so what?) It’s so simple. Spend now, or spend more later…. or both. See video below.

Donna Edwards: Wealth needs to spread more in Baltimore.

Translation: Just spread that wealth like peanut butter and we’ll tell you when to stop. We can’t manage our city but we know when enough is enough, trust us.

ESP and Liberal minds (2)

Once again the subject is language and liberals. The Baltimore Mayor did a stunning reversal, or whatever you call it, on what she clearly stated in a press conference.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

She later challenged the reporter who challenged what she said. Then she said the problem was the media twisting her words that she never said. Well, she did and we all heard it, but therein is the problem.

Fox’s Megyn Kelley took on the Mayor’s denial. Go to the video tape. Yep, that’s what she said, we heard her. Then it came to pundit commentary, so the token leftist was all bent out of shape that we actually applied her words to her. How dare you! He said what she really meant by those words, and that no mayor or official in the country would allow or want destruction taking place in their city. But she said it.

He went on to interpret what she intended or “meant to say”.(which requires revision) But that the mayor’s heart and concerns were in exactly the right place. It wasn’t just one Democrat pundit, many of the left said the same thing. So they could reinterpret her words into a harmless intent of goodwill, which she really meant. (we all know what she meant) Except for one thing, what the mayor actually said — in her own press conference, not behind doors in private. Though it makes one wonder what she says behind closed doors?

She also used the word thug to describe criminals, but then later revised her words to “misguided young people who need our support.” Apparently that revision satisfied the perpetually-peeved protestors because I haven’t heard any more rev interpretations.

It turns out that Liberals have the gift of telepathy on demand. Yes, they can read minds and intentions. They are good at it, too, because their powers are limitless. Then it’s treated as an official translation and reported that way. For example, if someone says “the sky is blue”, liberals can go out to translate what he meant was it is some color other than white or red, never mind clearly calling it blue. Media would report his intentions. Leftists say if Mayor Blake had it to do over again, she would have said something else. So they can just go ahead and fill in all those blanks for her.

Like Hillary goes out to say they were dead broke leaving the WH and people come out to translate what she really meant by that. So actually dead broke can mean a whole lot of things, I just thought it meant dead broke. Hillary has a village of interpreters.

What about when Obama goes out of his way to make some sort of racial or stereotypical slur? That is fine, the problem was your ears. Libs will rush out to say what he really meant. They say he was right to say those who “cling to guns and religion” with “antipathy” toward others, and it needed to be said. Since he is right, they say he should not apologize but be congratulated. But when you are correct about the term thugs — when even Obama used it — you should be shamed, scolded and forced to apologize… for being right and using the correct term. (no ESP interpretations allowed)

And it turns out the media that can do telepathic interpretations, and police language the rest of us use, runs prison TV on a loop on weekends. We should be shamed and cast as racists for using the word “thug,” while Baltimore’s Mayor Chaos must be given wide birth to telepathic interpretations on whatever she says. Having MSNBC’s #1 race-baiting anchor for a spokesperson, and running the translation efforts for the Mayor, should settle any outrage or dispute over what she says. I’m glad for their ESP expertise. Without their telepathic translators we would never know what looney leftists really say. And often the translations are worse than their actual statements.

RightRing | Bullright

What’s in a word? A lot…

When the left has nothing left they pick on language as a last resort. Political correctness has been their tool of choice. So again they take to being the language police. Now we are back to their favorite tactics, pin the tale on the racist.

They constructed a whole defense around the word “thug”. That’s right, I said that vile, ugly, racial term. Can you believe they have nothing better than to play language games?

The word thug describes the behavior of, well, thugs: be they male or female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Portuguese, Sicilian, Latino, gangsters, politicians, government officials. white urban teenagers, parents, teachers, union organizers, activists, etc. It is a generic term, or so everybody thought. And along comes the left, academia, media, even professors to say that term is a euphemism for blacks and a racist term. Apparently “thug” is a pejorative — like duh — that they don’t like. Who knew there was a lock on the term?

I’ve described many different people as thugs including politicians like Harry Reid. Let’s get something straight, it is the behavior that begets the label thug, not a skin color or demographic. I’m more amazed how these language and redefinition police have hijacked the term into some narrow and twisted definition. Of course when calling Bush, his administration, conservatives or Tea Partiers thugs that is a different story.

I just don’t understand how description of behavior can be turned into a slur. Every word the left doesn’t like it labels a slur or a racist term. After all, they’ve turned the generic word gay into a sexual identity. That is until someone uses their term in a way they don’t like, and then they attack you for using the term as a slur. Get it? It is not the term at all, it is the person using the term they have issues with. But they are afraid to take their argument up on those terms, so they make it about terms of language. They use the word lesbian. But when you use it they attack you for using a pejorative. Of course the word homophobic is loosely used and its use is freely encouraged.

So it is a game. It’s all about who uses the word that counts. We must know who is using it as to what it means. Terms the left uses all the time are deemed symbols of of hatred, animosity, racism and incivility when used by conservatives or Republicans. I’ve already mentioned a few. “Pride” is sexual awareness. The word protestor is a noble term to the left. But when a conservative uses the term it is supposed to be a slur of hatred. In other words, you meant to call them something else but just substituted a generic word “protestor” instead. See these self-anointed language police get to put all these parameters and qualifiers around words and terms. We get to define what we mean by our words, not them. They think they get to define not only the words but the person using the term.

I have a little hearing test for those left of sanity. The next time someone uses the word “thug,” just ask yourself if you heard “black urban youth” et al, or the word thug?

I used 567 words to talk about one word. A hundred years ago that would have probably seemed absurd, today it has become necessary.

RightRing | Bullright

When in Rome, 2015 and the climate it’s a changin’

Well, 2015 is already shaping up as a significant year. It’s gotten off to a rocky start as we see, in the first quarter we had 0.2 percent GDP growth. (subject to later revision) That could basically be considered flat-lining and a few whiskers short of contraction. Hey, what’s a few tenths of a percent? Everything .

Then politically it is filled with the same turmoil that got us a new and improved Congress in 2014, and the disenchantment the left and the White House has over that. It’s a little more than a year before the next presidential election, without an incumbent — unless you consider Hillary an incumbent. All of it raising questions about the future.

We’re already deep into protest-palooza spreading across state lines, across the country. They are now a greater threat than natural disasters and storms. National security and terrorism is right back on the front burner with all the hot items the left would like to accentuate.

But then there’s Obama, in whatever scorched earth agenda he has left, trying to navigate the issues in the social chaos he ushered in. His favorite theme of late is there is no greater threat to the world than global warming or climate change. But its a crowd pleaser. Among his leftist base it is on par with income disparity and their demonize the rich campaign. (except for uber-rich leftists)

Reminds me of the old song, Times they are a changin’ (’64). In the words of Bob Dylan, “There’s a battle outside, And it is ragin’.”

Then there’s the creation-worshiping cult of the left. Speaking of religiosity of the faith-based global warming, climate change, or its broader globalism theory, the Pope of Rome has decided to weigh in on the subject.

Pope Francis poised to weigh in on climate change with major document

By Michelle Boorstein — April 27 | Washington Post

The largely secular climate movement is about to get what some predict will be a historic boost from an intriguing source: Pope Francis.
Francis is putting the final touches on what may be the most authoritative papal teaching ever on the environment, a topic bound up with economics, global development and politics and thus very controversial. …/
The encyclical is expected to be published in early summer and,… to influence a civil process — in this case, a major U.N. summit in December on climate change. …/
Continue reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-francis-poised-to-weigh-in-on-climate-change-with-major-document/2015/04/27/d5c268b2-df81-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

So we’ll be in a holding pattern for the encyclical, and the left will be building the hype and suspense until it comes. Meanwhile, they can cite the Pope as a global warming colleague.

Just when you thought the year seemed chock full of turmoil and political fodder — dark enough to block sunlight — it is going to get a whole lot more “heated” before it’s over. If you thought smoldering buildings and looting from protests-gone-rad were bad, stay tuned for the uber-sized battle of global warming coming down the pike – scorched earth style. Now that the Pope is officially joining the fray, it will enlist all the resources it can.

The Climate Caliphate is getting very restless. Jihad is on. If Obama has an unwavering appetite for war on anything, it is for war on coal, energy, the economy, rural America, conservatives and anything standing in his way — he takes no prisoners. It’s a nice diversion from real, immediate problems and threats. ( like an 18 tillion-$ diversion)

Marc Lamont Hill: Baltimore riots “an uprising”.

If you were looking for a poster-child for making excuses for riots and looting, then Marc Lamont Hill would have to be one of your top picks. (so many good choices)

CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill on Baltimore: ‘This Is Not a Riot’ But ‘Uprisings’ Against ‘Police Terrorism’

By Curtis Houck | April 28, 2015 | Newsbusters

During CNN’s live coverage on Monday night of the Baltimore riots, CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill urged viewers to view what was taking place as “not a riot” but “uprisings” in response to African-Americans “dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries” due to “police terrorism.”

When brought into the discussion by CNN Tonight host Don Lemon, Hill declared that “there shouldn’t be calm tonight” in Baltimore since there’s been “black people…dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries” and endorsed the need for “resistance to oppression and when resistance occurs, you can’t circumscribe resistance.”

The far-left pundit continued by citing the need to both “not get more upset about the destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies” as well as “not romanticize peace…as the only way to function” [emphasis mine]:

We can’t ignore the fact that the city is burning, but we need to be talking about why it’s burning and not romanticize peace and not romanticize marching as the only way to function. I’m not saying we should be hurting, I’m not saying we should be killing people, but we do have to understand that resistance looks different ways to different people and part of what it means to say black lives matter, is to assert our right to have rage – righteous rage, righteous indignation in the face of state violence and extrajudicial killing. Freddie Gray is dead. That’s why the city is burning and let’s make that clear. It’s not burning because of these protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray and that’s a distinction we have to make. 

For video and entire transcript, see more at Newsbusters

Resistance can look different ways, just not like riots. Some resistance could look like looting but don’t be fooled. I suppose even armed robbery might look like resistance, too. In fact, cop killing could be labeled resistance under that logic.