Where have we gone?

What a day that OJ was back in the headlines, once again in live coverage. I am not going to talk about him but how this comes up in present circumstances does say something,

Where is responsibility? The media have shown what they are and when do they accept some accountability for outcomes? It reveals the bias and race-baiting going on in media.

When does media analyze and accept its roll in all these major events? I won’t even get into people like Geraldo Rivera or Greta Van Susteren, CNN and all nonstop.

Now we have media anchors today admit at the time of the OJ murder case they were still in high school listening to all this. So this celebrity case phenomena was part of their culture experience growing up. It’s interwoven. What effect does that media precedent have?

Another Chapter in the OJ saga is over, but what does it say about the media circus? Along with other current events. So we also have the grandstanding, sensationalizing media and the damage that has. But there is no shame in media. So Oj’s very long 15 minutes continues along with the media games.

Sort of reminds me of the Bnghazi attack. Life of four Americans ended in a violent attack in 9/11/2012, while the central actors in the events went on undeterred to have high profile careers, even like running for president. It seems like the same culture.

RightRing | Bullright

One flew over the Kremlin in 2016

I’m posting this as an op-ed opinion piece. – for educational and informational purposes.

So I have no personal commentary on or about it for now. Perhaps it deserves a reasoned response, perhaps it speaks for itself and the author?

(since I’ve seriously dabbled on all things Russia for years, I don’t rule it out)

You decide what to make of it.

How the GOP became the party of Putin

Hot Air [excerpt]

“How did the party of Ronald Reagan’s moral clarity morph into that of Donald Trump’s moral vacuity? Russia’s intelligence operatives are among the world’s best. I believe they made a keen study of the American political scene and realized that, during the Obama years, the conservative movement had become ripe for manipulation. Long gone was its principled opposition to the “evil empire.” What was left was an intellectually and morally desiccated carcass populated by con artists, opportunists, entertainers and grifters operating massively profitable book publishers, radio empires, websites, and a TV network whose stock-in-trade are not ideas but resentments.

If a political officer at the Russian Embassy in Washington visited the zoo that is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, they’d see a “movement” that embraces a ludicrous performance artist like Milo Yiannopoulos as some sort of intellectual heavyweight. When conservative bloggers are willing to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from Malaysia’s authoritarian government to launch a smear campaign against a democratic opposition leader they know nothing about, how much of a jump is it to line up and defend what at the very least was attempted collusion on the part of a brain-dead dauphin like Donald Trump Jr.?

Surveying this lamentable scene, why wouldn’t Russia try to “turn” the American right, whose ethical rot necessarily precedes its rank unscrupulousness?”

James Kirchick Posted at 9:00 pm on July 19, 2017

Posted at Hot Air (I’m sure there will be commentary there – from larger Politico)

“All In” the Obama propaganda

This is one of the biggest statements of Obama apologists to validate his “legacy” of lies that still echoes across media in America.

” Improved America’s Image Abroad

With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years.

Favorable opinion toward the United States rose during Obama’s first term in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent, and have stayed high ever since.” – Washington Monthly

You’d have to give that one 5 giant Pinocchios. 10 of 15 countries surveyed? Really, that’s proof positive — 2-thirds, 66% of their countries surveyed. No sense in repeating the nonsense of this basic claim. It is debunked by flat history.

Anyone watching in the last 8 years, who wasn’t in a coma, can clearly tell you that is a lie, and that world opinion of the US suffered not improved. There were a whole lot of reasons for it. That is simply Obama’s claim, nothing more.

Even if it were true, it proves what exactly? Seems the world has funny reasons for liking us, like when they are rolling us or it is to their advantage. We should celebrate that?

I would bet, like his ballyhooed approval polls, that most of it is based on a personal like of Obama. Did countries, even in Africa, appreciate Obama lecturing and trying to force gay marriage on them? Leading from behind must have turned them on.

How about the countries where he meddled in their affairs and elections: Egypt, Israel, Canada, Russia? Then lighting the Middle East on fire, they must have loved that part? Or the refugee crisis he promoted across the globe. ‘Give us more, please.’

His severe bias against Christians was definitely a winner, with the Christian persecution he ignored. Love is in the air. Seems more like an abusive relationship with ‘we the people’ to me, but they probably liked that. When the world likes you, just consider the source. Then ask why? Brace yourself for the answers. So it didn’t take long to unlike us?!

Quote from Wa Montly as just one of many sources for the commentary.

RightRing | Bullright

MSM ignores any real news to beat the Russian Bear

Holding fast to conspiracy narratives pushed by Hillary Clinton (and her campaign of trolls) on Russia meddling, misogyny, racism that cheated her out of her destined Ovalating Office. Unfortunately, she is right, that media will follow her lead every time. While she and the entrenched media establishment are baited and trolled by Russia. They would take career Russian propagandists word or version of events over Trump’s almost every time.

It’s really easy if you are in the Kremlin hell-bent on sowing discord in America. If destroying credibility in American institutions is their goal, then the Left hands them a victory flag. So even when Trump goes to Poland to make a classical academic defense of western civilization, especially then, they have a collective panic attack and cannot recover. But intensive care could not treat their disease.

Then came his next trip to France with liberal Macron, their macaroni boy of Paris they fell for head first. This time MSM decided to downplay coverage of the visit ignoring most of the ceremony, except the presser to push Russia questions. Even the centennial of WWI and France’s Bastile Day got marginal coverage. Jake Tapper called it just a photo-op for Trump. Right a 100 year anniversary is just a photo-op , world history just gets in the way. After all, that is the way they see it.

So now, once again, another historical marker pops up that media seems too preoccupied with Russian propaganda to notice — or give due diligence to. It’s like you have this Russian spy novel playing out in the background to obfuscate any real news.

US Has Produced More Oil Than Saudi Arabia For 4 Straight Years [GRAPH]

Daily Caller

Saudi Arabia has lagged the U.S. in oil production for the last four years, according to federal data compiled by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Perry created a chart Saturday showing just how far behind Saudi oil production has trailed U.S. production. Rising U.S. production combined with OPEC policies drove crude oil prices down to new lows. Monday, a barrel of oil costs $46.26, while the same barrel would have sold for $109.04 in June 2014.

U.S. oil production, on the other hand, is increasing. The U.S. imported about 60 percent of its oil in 2007, but by 2014, the country only imported 27 percent of its oil — the lowest level since 1985. Rising oil production has reduced demand for Saudi oil abroad too, keeping prices low.

Saudi Arabia can likely handle cheap oil better than other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations, but cheap oil is still devastating the country.


Read at Daily Caller

And yet they wonder why we call MSM Fake News? Everything positive — as they define it — about their messiah’s golden throne was heralded from the mountaintops to make sure it echoed to anyone. It was unavoidable. They ran his Saturday addresses to tout all the great, but invisible, good news. It was good because they said so. Job numbers, even when bad, were called good. Or, as the Bible says, “those who call evil good and good evil.” And it worked, or saturated the airwaves to a point no one else could be heard.

Spending, national debt, budget issues. Remember Obamafiles claimed he halved the budget ‘deficit’ to cover the 2o trillion dollar explosion. The fairy dust worked, put some lipstick on that pig and sell it like the sweety-pie lie it is. He depleted the military, and budget, but who cares about that thing? All is good, they said. ‘These are the good times.’ Never mind that you did not see or feel it. You weren’t alone though. Most didn’t, still you had to listen to regurgitated talking points of how great things were going.

No, we weren’t wrong. Our instincts were not misguided. We weren’t misinformed. We were not too stupid to understand. We were not uneducated halfwits. We were just being constantly lied to on such a level, to such a degree, that Americans never were subjected to before. Even low information voters knew something was wrong. Economists, real ones that is, were not impressed. But even they had a hard time getting any information out. It was all being blurred, blotted out, and intentionally drown out by the so-called good news coming directly from, and being dictated by, the White House.

But it was all good in those days and there were no questions to ask, because no questions were necessary. Just report the White House talking points, life was easy for reporters. Obama would even tell press what stories they think should be covered, and what stories they didn’t think deserved time.

Guess what happened?

Remember Benghazi, IRS, Lois Lerner, or Fast and Furious? Leading from behind was actually a defense strategy they could get behind. Meaningless red lines were all the rage. Russian intervention? It really is not intervention when you are inviting them into Syria and altering your national policy to their liking and getting nothing in return. Of course that is not intervention. That is failed US leadership like we never experienced before either. It was complicit failure. Now they are paranoid about intervention? They opened the door, invited them in, coalesced with them. Is it any surprise Russia wasn’t the greatest or most respectful house guests, when Obama shows no respect for our own house?

Then, to top it all off, when Obama left he had them all declare that he had a completely scandal-free administration, not even a little one. Remember that? So it was an insult on reason and intelligence. It was a fraud. Obamacare was created, built and sold on lies. They named it the Affordable Care Act.

The article above, while it is good news to be ignored under Trump, will likely be co-opted for propaganda value by Obamafiles — who are just as active outside the Office as they were in the White House. So they are quite anxiuos to take credit for anything good. It is what they do. Though our growth and oil business in particular was in spite of Obama’s war on energy, not because of it. But that doesn’t stop them from laying claim.

Anyone dishonest enough to prop up Obama’s regime for 8 years is certainly going to use any dirty trick to that end, to credit Obama with a net positive. A guy like Obama that never had to live under or feel the effect of his own policies. Calling evil good was quite popular, getting even easier with practice. It was instant revision everywhere.

So now that we have oil production growth, who do you think can find fault with our achievement? That’s right, the same people who will gladly try to lay credit to it. But the Left’s “green” team will condemn it as a negative. Oil, fossil fuels is bad juju. Which is why we knew Obama was never supportive to the industry. Yet he wants credit? In your dreams, Obama. And if America was not as innovative, like we’ve always been, this could not have happened. Certainly it was nothing Obama had a hand in.

However, we shouldn’t be afaid to admit good news, because some of it took place under Obama’s tyranny. It began and was under way before him. Like Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. But Obama did about everything he could to step on it.

Under Trump, all good news will be summarily buried, or tortured by Obama revisionists if it refuses stay in the hole. Since the Left controls the media, that is the way it is. And whatever they can tie to Obama’s Legacy of Lies, they will. Memory Lane is not a place I’d want to live, if I were Obama

RightRing | Bullright

Having An Emotional Fit

This would be laughable under most circumstances….except that it was the most important presidential election in decades. Well, Libs don’t disappoint in their effort to emotionalize their reactions to the election — as only they can emotionalize.

So CNN had this article, including clips of voicemails from election dissenters. Here is just one gem from a woman who complained she had to take off her Bernie bumper stickers because of fears. Afraid too, to even go back to rejoin her family. Oh the pain and humiliation of it all. She said this:

“I finally had to take the Bernie bumper sticker off my car,” Gibbens continued in her voicemail. “I almost got rear-ended at an exit coming off the freeway. I mean just harassment because I had a Bernie sticker on my car. It’s really ugly. It leaves us scared because there’s so many people who seem more emboldened to be bullies.”

Scary because so many people seem emboldened to be bullies? Could that be those bullies on the Left? No she isn’t talking about the real bullies. How about weaponized bullies?

The article goes on to apply psychoanalysis to their emotional meltdown. As I said, it would be funny, except they are serious. Of course this is just as dangerous as the psychiatrists desperately trying to diagnose Trump from their clinical armchairs. And just as fruitful.

Paula Niedenthal, a psychology professor, opined on the caller:

“There’s this anxiety about being exposed. You have a bumper sticker, it’s almost like having a Green Bay Packers sticker and being in Texas.”

Yes, it’s every bit that bad in another way. How can therapists so easily identify with these nuts? Yes they do need real psychological help, but not because of the results of the election or because Trump won and is president. But could it be because of their very deep expectations that Hillary was going to win or, indeed, that she already did win?

There was no room for doubt. Then they were crushed when their beliefs didn’t comport with actual results. ‘How could this be?’ ‘We all said she would win…what happened, what went wrong? This cannot be happening. I won’t believe it! I won’t accept it!’

You can almost hear those internal deliberations echoing in their vulnerable brain cells. Could it just be that their expectations ran so far ahead of the truth that they could not possibly handle an alternate result? Isn’t that what elections are: a verdict, a final decision from the people? How can one know in advance, or be so sure, of the election?

It seems they had so much invested in their outcome. Even Hillary was so invested, literally in the preferred outcome, along with her backers and donors that there was no room for a different outcome. The amount of money riding on it alone was huge. But of course that would be hard to accept. They did it to themselves. Republicans, on the other hand, were tasked to believe the exact opposite before the election: no way, no how was it possible to win. What with the Democrat machine, their blue wall, illegal vote and all. Now, after the fact, Republicans are supposed to be apologetic for the results. Really. The only acceptable reaction to the left is for us to apologize for winning, and to deconstruct it.

Democrats are so far in denial that they have no options but to dissent from reality. Of course there is nothing acceptable to the left with what has happened since election.

It is worth looking at the piece (here) and listen to the voicemails.

RightRing | Bullright

Reruns and old sitcoms, sitcare

Forfeit the issue, argument, resistance — whatever you call it — of Obamacare? Painful thought. But it seems that is exactly what is being prepared in cesspool headquarters.

So we aren’t de-rooting Obamacare but fertilizing it and guaranteeing its survival. And I am pretty disgusted about it.

As if that were not bad enough a thought, it appears as though they put it in such a central position as to take down, or at least compromise, the entire Reepublican agenda. So Obamacare has found new life holding an entire agenda hostage. And it is not giving up.

Hostage negotiators? Well they are on the scene, but seem prepared to negotiate away the very hostages held captive. I.e. we the people and whoever else cares.

Is this the way it all goes down after 8 years of work and grassroots effort? A horrid thought. Is this how it ends by Republicans morphing back into the one-party duopoloy?

Haven’t we seen this movie before? We know how it ends. And that brings us right back to why we are here in the first place, Namely disgust and the sheer American will to break the chains that bound us — ‘mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.’

Before anyone goes berserk to blame it all on Trump not being conservative enough, much of this obfuscation is coming right from the Republicans. Certainly in the Senate. They have a stranglehold on government that I doubt we have ever seen before.

Trump? Well, he can come and go but these Republicans will remain, to some degree. Enough to take down or prevent any new agenda from taking shape., Enough to kill it in infancy. Would Repubs even agree on the epitaph?

My good friend Pepp forwarded me this Breitbart article. Have a look and see what you think. I am afraid Rand Paul is pretty much right on the mark.

I’ll go back to asking how many healthcare stocks are in all their portfolios in the cesspool capital? Bad enough to cede the Obamacare issue, but it seems poised to hijack the rest of any Republican-led agenda, from Taxes to economic liberty or trade. It is just my opinion how much effect it has on everything else.

Republicans seem positioned to allow it to happen. The Dems don’t have to do it. The insurgency within is enough to derail anything on the table.(or under it) Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey announced the reason they had no plan to replace Obama care is they didn’t plan on winning the election. Good excuse Pat. Well, this kind of train wreck is not caused just from Democrats. With media running opposition for Dems, it is hard to get a descent message out. Climate of disgust remains high 6 months in.

Read: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/12/exclusive-sen-rand-paul-senate-gop-decides-keep-obamacare/

RightRing | Bullright

Mayor De Blasio Joins G-20 Protestors.

De Blasio jets to Germany to join G-20 protesters, skips police ceremony

By Katherine Lam – Published July 07 | Fox News

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio defended his decision to join protesters at the G-20 summit in Germany a day after an NYPD cop was assassinated in the Bronx.

De Blasio appeared on the “Ask the Mayor” segment on WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show” Friday, calling in from Hamburg. The mayor departed Thursday evening to attend protest events, keeping hush about his plans until hours before he left.

De Blasio told Lehrer the government of Hamburg invited him to come about 10 to 12 days ago and he was going to announce the trip earlier this week.

“They wanted, I think, to represent the fact that there are a variety of views in the United States on how to proceed on the big issues that face this planet, particularly on climate change,” de Blasio said.

De Blasio continued to attack Trump, with the mayor saying, as the “leader of the biggest city in the country,” he has the responsibility to represent the U.S. differently from the president.

“We are not going to be intimidated by President Trump and we are not going to turn away from our values,” de Blasio said. “I have said many times this is not someone you get something done by compromising with or yielding to. He only understands strength and we have to show strength.”

De Blasio is expected to attend several events surrounding the G-20 summit in the next two days, the mayor’s press secretary Eric Phillips wrote on Twitter. De Blasio will also be a main speaker at the Saturday demonstration “Hamburg Zeigt Haltung,” or “Hamburg Shows Attitude.”

The trip will also include a visit with his son, Dante, who is currently in Berlin for a summer internship, The New York Post reported.

More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/07/de-blasio-jets-to-germany-to-join-g-20-protesters-skips-police-ceremony.html

Protesting G-20 and Trump is far more important than a cop being assassinated in the city. He cares nothing about those optics either. But that’s how commies roll.

He has a “responsibility,” as mayor, to attack the president but no responsibility to the police who protect the city. It’s the height of elite arrogance. Lecture us on “values”.

And say hello to Obama, I’m sure you’ll cross paths.

Hey, De Blasio, that guy you are protesting in Germany, and aligning against, cares more about protecting the people and preserving the peace in your city than you do. Every day.

Big Bird DeBlasio goes off to join the “Welcome to Hell” protests. Duty and values call. Wonder if he’ll get the t-shirt?

What’s in a meeting?

…Billed as the most significant meeting in recent times?

A lot of built up anticipations. It’s what the Left and media do. The fallout.

A simple metaphor could be appropriate to set the stage for the Russian talk: Obama cocked the gun and team Trump is now trying to disarm the weapon, particularly on Syria. Another way you could look at it is: there is a three-alarm fire and the Trump administration is the fire department.responding. No matter what it takes to get it under control and put it out, there is major damage that cannot be avoided. Coming to terms with that view is necessary.

Two items lead: 1) mentioning the Russian meddling, 2) talk on cease fire in Syria.

So Syria is on the table as a major issue. Let’s remember how Russia got there, by way of Obama and an invitation. But now that Russia is there, let’s all talk about what to do and how to fix it. (some hubris) Even Ukraine, per any mention, is much the same.

Naturally, Putin and Russia would rather deal with — realistically or not — a marginal issue like Syria. There is suddenly talk of Assad leaving, at some point, and more future discussion. Of course, Putin seems willing to discuss that. (no surprise) Now that they are in there, they will have a controlling interest in it and the region — by propping up a vulnerable dictator. See the way it works?

The question now is do we play along by accepting those premises? Again, because it is centrally important, they are there by intervention and will benefit through their current involvement, in the aftermath decisions. It’s like having the arsonist stick around to help deal with the damage from the fire. You welcome his help. What he is doing there in the first place is dismissed as unimportant. That’s the strategy.

I am a bit of an ideologue on Russia. They aren’t really ideologues but opportunists.

Russia for its part wants meeting talks to be about distant side issues — important as they might seem — rather than dealing with the central concerns on Russia. Media assists on that. As long as Putin keeps the conversation about those marginal things he’s ahead. He can debate details or denials on those matters without touching his family jewels. So they have a bargaining chip they stole along the way. Assad, Syrian crisis, ISIS, refugees?

Yet here we are; what the left wants to talk about is elections. Our crown jewels seem to be on the table, or that is the appearance. Then media wants to control the interpretation of any results. Breaking through arbitrary barriers is a central key.

BTW: I forgot to add that the 3-alarm fire was called in and confirmed on 1/20/17.

RightRing | Bullright

Evil Obama clowns’ radical rabid strategy

Time for a situational evaluation. Obama is not gone, Even as his legacy is shrinking into thin air, he trots around as if he were a king. He pops up everywhere conspicuously to undermine Trump’s agenda and administration. Along with his perpetual criticism — something he has experience at, criticizing and undermining sitting presidents.

Obama’s former advisers have morphed into trolls across social media — including Fiction Ben Rhodes — to preserve Obama’s disappearing agenda, desperately trying to lay credit to anything good happening now. So the Shadow Government of Obama is now fully operational. He denies the past and the one president policy. He has no real legacy, he must steal one, or create one from thin air. Enter fiction writer Ben Rhodes to the rescue.

As Bill Clinton said about Obama’s campaign: “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” And it’s getting bigger every day. So many lies, so little time, so much to hide, so much to revise, so much to do — nipping at the heels of Trump.

The insults fly from everywhere at Trump, both personal and on his presidency. Something Obama never had. The opposition of the Resistance is in ful bloom, with the willing collaboration of media. The calls for impeachment have begun and they push the 25th amendment, something reserved for drastic circumstances. Another historic first.

But the left and Democrats’ desperation calls for drastic measures. So they attach the word unpresidential to everything Trump does: his Twitter, his speeches, his choices, his actions. Everything Trump does is called dangerous. Obama weaponized government.

However, what is truly unpresidential and unprecedented is Obama. The lying chameleon is on the loose and fully engaged in undermining the 45th president of the United States. He is unpresidential at every level, like he always was. What he is doing is unprecedented. He went straight on the road, armed with his expense account and vacation stipend, to travel the world on his campaign to undermine the current president, Trump.

What one president policy? One president at a time policy. The attacks and politics should stop at waters’ edge. Remember all that? Gone like the wind. But Obama won’t leave the stage. On Trump’s first trip, he went wheels up for the Middle East and they rolled out the attacks. Incidentally, Obama’s specialty was always going overseas to attack America and his political opponents. None of that was strange because it was normal under Obama. Yet they shunned anyone criticizing Obama, or fighting back. Press refrained from being critical anytime, especially when Obama went abroad.

But now that offshore targeting is the new normal. Yet it is now unpatriotic and unpresidential and unprecedented for Trump to say anything to defend himself or even criticize the press offshore. Obama thrived on offshore attacks. Media celebrated them.

Obama is trolling Trump around the world on the public stage. He seems to think he is still president that what he says still matters. So he talks to world leaders after meetings with Trump. He tells them his policies, which apparently Trump should be obligated to pursue, are the only option. Who exactly does he think he is? He cares nothing about America, and never did. He aids and abets our enemies, seeking to undermine the current administration any way he can. He is invested in America’s demise, as much as Putin.

At the very same time, his apologists come out to defend his operational strategy by saying he is reluctant to get politically involved in current policies. No, he is not reluctant at all; he is more anxious now than he ever was to talk about N. Korea as a threat, or other problems he left in his wake. He wants to be very involved. Who can tell him to back off? He cannot give up the podium. He refuses to let the current president do his job. Then his network of hacks are busy in the media and public stage criticizing him, as if they care anything about America or Americans.

Maybe he has too much time on his hands simply because there are no current investigations or special counsels in place for what he did, at every level? What we need is some form of accountability for it all. We really don’t need hearings, though, we need prosecutions. We need grand juries and indictments. We need hearings about stripping him of his privileges. We need these rat bastards to testify for what they’ve done.

 

Finally, we need to enforce the One President at a time Policy. Obama doesn’t seem to get it on his own. He always had problems about rules applying to himself. He always had to push the envelope of what he couldn’t do. So where is Congress to tell him?

Now on his second trip abroad, to the G-20 summit, they stage one great question about, what else, Russia and the elections. So Trump is attacked for responding to the question. Media later conflated world “diplomacy” with the way he answered the hostile press. They are two separate things. He goes to the G-20 Summit and all press cares about is Russia and the last election. He gives an excellent speech in Polland, mentioning Russia, but all they care about is Russia and the last election — “attack on our democracy.”

The press is attacking our democracy every day, denying the results of the people’s will, stomping down and mocking the people’s freedom of speech. Then they totally ignore the huge mess that Obama left us. No honeymoon… they want to steal the election victory from Republicans. Just act as if it didn’t happen. Then they want to impeach him.

But that’s okay, because Obama is still busy flirting around having personal meetings with world leaders, present and former: Trudeau, Merkel, Moon, Macron, David Cameron, and Matteo Renzi in Milan before slidinng into home-turf in Indonesia. Even NYT, libs paper of record, comfortably acknowledged, “One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Obama was trolling President Trump.” Why be forgiven for thinking it, that is what he is doing? Then they quickly added too that:

Mr. Obama has generally tried to stay above the political fray in his nascent post-presidency. But in these charged times, just breaking bread with a world leader can take on a political subtext. It is a tension his advisers recognize, and say they try to mitigate by holding get-togethers at Mr. Obama’s hotel and avoiding the trappings of leader-to-leader meetings.”

He’s really trying not to have these be platforms to weigh in on the issues of the day.” – NYT

No, he is not refraining from leader to leader meetings. He is making a point to go talk to them. For Pete’s sake, he is obviously and intentionally trying desperately to undermine Trump’s presidency. He is the first Presidential Troll.

Just last year, Obama had a completely different view. Obama wasted no time after election, on 11/14, saying ““there is one president at a time.” Then in December, at Christmas, the White House chief liar and adviser, Ben Rhodes, reiterated:

“On the president-elect, the first thing I’d just say is that there’s one president at a time. President Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, and we are taking this action, of course, as U.S. policy.” — Rhodes on Israel policy — Washington Examiner

I guess Obama now thinks having a foundation gives him license to operate with some presidential status he only wishes he had. But if they can pretend, certainly Obama can too. They’ll go along with Unprecedented, Treasonous and historic Unpresidential Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

175 & Counting Lawsuit and Blackmail

Who are the 175? Well, it’s the beginning, and growing, number of plaintiffs who are part of a class action lawsuit against CNN for its discriminatory practices.

Wonder why you don’t hear about this and it never comes up on their own news network when they talk about discrimination? Funny how that is.

Here’s Something You Don’t Hear Much About: The 175 People Suing CNN For Racial Discrimination

By: Joseph Curl | Daily Wire

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings)…./

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings).

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as “It’s hard to manage black people” and “Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?,” according to a complaint by former workers Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert Jr. filed in Atlanta federal court.

Colbert Jr. also claims he was paid thousands less than white colleagues as a manager at the affiliated Turner Broadcasting System.

Henley, a former CNN executive assistant, says she was fired in 2014 for complaining that black employees were being paid less than white counterparts.

See more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16140/heres-something-you-dont-hear-much-about-175-joseph-curl

 

Another Offensive Move from CNN media

Compounding their injury, CNN has now engaged in a blackmail campaign against the meme-maker of the CNN – WWE smackdown video, featuring Trump. These people apparently have no sense of humor whatsoever. And they cannot take any mockery at all, even while they ridicule and mock the American people and White House daily.

They threatened this social media person, a 15 yr-old kid man, with exposing his real identity and other posts they found objectionable. How they got the information, supposedly from ISP via TWC, adds to it. They basically made him agree to shut up.

But what difference does it make who made the clever little video joke that went viral? Only CNN cares because they claim it “incites violence.” They also want Twitter to shut down Trump’s Twitter account for posting it. Now they claim they’ll continue asking Twitter why they haven’t taken action? Whew-wee, have they taken it too far or what?

That is the same network chronically complaining about ‘off-camera’ White House press briefings. That curtails their grandstanding and filibuster capabilities. Even though there is no such requirement in our US Constitution to them.

The same network who daily uses more anonymous sources than freckles. They demand protection and guarantee it to “sources,” no matter how controversial their leaks are. No problem, the leakers need Constitutional protections.

However, a private citizen who made a clever, funny meme on the internet is sought, bullied, threatened and blackmailed by CNN into silence. (Read, threaten to turn left-wing goons on him) They don’t really have a clue on the first amendment or the Constitution.

So the lesson, class, is no free speech in the first amendment for the people. Only plenty of far-reaching protections for the MSM elite media, “press” though.

Conclusion: CNN has become 1st Amendment Assassins — my first amendment view.

(*Correction: so it was not a 15 yr old kid, but again that only matters to CNN)

A primer thought on Russia talk

No there is no plural to ‘talk,’ yet. Anyway, we come from different points. First off, one has to know Russia is listening to every public dialogue or conversation we may have. An open society does have its downsides.

Who cares what I think? I already read liberal egotists’ papers on how Trump should ‘proceed’. Arrogant, aren’t they, for people who got nothing done in the last eight years? Or have any thing of value to show for it.

Principles are different. We are generally concerned about benefits. Russia obsesses over opportunities. Those can be far apart. We see benefit, Russia sees opportunity. Having a namesake the “Art of the Deal” doesn’t quite translate the same way to this subject. In it, Trump emphasizes a benefit to each side as grounds for a deal. Russia fixates on opportunity in any given scenario — even chaos. Best to know that going in.

We, typically, want to benefit or appease both parties. That was the way it has been seen in the recent past. Face it, Russia rolled Obama. That has to change. It’s like “carrots and sticks” vs, shovels. Then libs’ election debacle, that matters to Russia?

Secondarily, economics is not a driving force to Russia’s policy. It is not an economic debate to them. Putin is not obsessed with, and has little use for economic principles. He’s always been rather bored with them. It was not Obama’s wheelhouse either. So there should be no illusions that this can be based on economics. Russia would have to see the appeal or opportunity for them, which escapes him now.

The liberals have been offering all these suggestions to the administration on what it should do. Helpful sadists. More dysfunctional crap. But agreeing on any basic groundwork for discussions? That’s the big question. Is it even possible? My doubts remain.

There is a small tactic to consider. Twice in the past months, both Lavrov and Putin have used humor. One was a smack down of Andrea Mitchel about manners. Funny. Turn that ‘no manners’ claim and joke back on Russia. It could be a humiliating tactic. Very useful. But a tactic cannot be a strategy.

RightRing | Bullright

A cue from Britain right on time

So the violence, the left says it abhors, is really just a matter of taste. And it is not even a matter of wolf whistles or code words. Boldness of speech is one of the lefts’ tactics.

Punch a Nazi, shoot a Republican — how far you want to take it is a matter of taste

Washington Examiner – Op-Ed
by Dan Hannan | Jul 3, 2017,

There’s a bellicose undertone in a lot of Leftist rhetoric these days. People who preach peace and tolerance, rainbows and unicorns, can switch to a very different wavelength the moment they start talking about conservatives.

Listen, for example, to the way even mainstream Democrats discuss Donald Trump’s healthcare reforms.

Here is Hillary Clinton: “Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party.”

Here is Elizabeth Warren: “I’ve read the Republican ‘healthcare’ bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives”.

And those are the leaders, for heaven’s sake. Gaze into the maelstrom of left-wing Twitter and Facebook activism, and you find an altogether less restrained tone. Republicans, you read, are monsters who have gone into politics for the express purpose of murdering the poor. They are not political opponents; they are enemies of humanity, vermin.

Here is a typical example from a Bernie Sanders supporter, who saw the healthcare reforms as proof that Republicans hated the working class:

“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

Not long afterwards, the man who posted those words went to a congressional baseball practice session intent on shooting Republicans and left a GOP Rep. Steve Scalise in critical condition.

You can just about follow his logic. Even many moderate leftists now seem to agree that Republicans are murderers, intent on killing low-income Americans for some opaque reason of their own — possibly sheer sadism. And, if Republicans are murderers, then getting your shot in first is a form of self-defense, is it not?

For a brief moment, as happens in the aftermath of these atrocities, all sides came together and stressed the things they had in common and condemned violent rhetoric and yadda yadda. But, within less than a month, leading Dems were back to calling the GOP “the death party.”

Don’t get me wrong: The only person responsible for the Alexandria abomination was the perpetrator. Sure, it’s hypocritical to complain about the rhetoric of the NRA or about using a crosshair as a metaphor for targeting a seat and then to talk about Republican “blood money.” But hypocrisy is not the same thing as complicity.

Still, we should be clear about where the legitimation of political force can lead. In Britain, we have recently seen a sudden rise in violent protests, partly because a group of Trotskyists has taken over our Labor Party. The Labor leader, Jeremy Corbyn, refuses to accept the recent election result, possibly seeing Parliament as a bourgeois institution. His deputy, John McDonnell, called for a million people to take to the streets and “force Theresa May from office”. A “Day of Rage” was duly scheduled (the terminology borrowed directly from Hamas), but happened to fall during a heatwave – and, as you may have noticed, Brits are never much use in the heat.

Just as in the United States, the language of dehumanization – what Leftists call “othering” when rightists do it – is becoming commonplace. Following a recent tragedy, in which a tower block burned down, McDonnell accused the Conservatives of murder, as though they had somehow started the fire. Unsurprisingly, there have been violent demonstrations since the blaze: Why wouldn’t you hit back at politicians who – again, for vague and unspecified reasons – want to exterminate the poor?

You thought of Britain as a civil and courteous country? A country whose people say please and thank you, a country of orderly queues, a country whose police go unarmed? That’s what we thought, too. See how quickly thuggish rhetoric can debase a political culture.

Let me spell it out. Either physical force is legitimate in democratic politics, or it isn’t. If you allow it in any circumstances, then its exercise becomes a question of tactics, not principle.

If it’s okay to stop Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter from speaking on campus by rioting, then political violence is legitimate. If political violence is legitimate, then the question of who is an acceptable target becomes one of personal choice. For James T. Hodgkinson, the Alexandria shooter, it was Republicans. For Dylann Roof, the Charleston shooter, it was black people. For Micah Johnson, the Dallas shooter, it was white people. It’s all a matter of taste.

Every act of physical coercion – throwing paint over a politician, vandalizing the property of an arms manufacturer, preventing a speaker from reaching a podium – weakens the taboo against violence. The difference between “punch a Nazi” and “shoot a Republican” is merely one of degree.

Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.

Originally posted at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/punch-a-nazi-shoot-a-republican-mdash-how-far-you-want-to-take-it-is-a-matter-of-taste/article/2627594

VIDEO University to remove cross and Bibles from campus chapel – Good to know where liberals finally draw a line

The Godless assault continues…

Reclaim Our Republic

University to remove cross and Bibles from campus chapel

Kathryn P. Boswell Memorial Chapel, on the campus of East Central University.

June 30, 2017 by Todd Starnes

East Central University said they will remove crosses, Bibles and other religious symbols from a campus chapel to appease a bunch of out-of-town agitators.

It’s unclear when the Oklahoma school will commence with the Christian cleansing of the Kathryn P. Boswell Memorial Chapel. The chapel opened in 1957.

“We will continue to use the building as we always have, for all faiths,” ECU President Katricia Pierson said in a statement to the Ada News. “We do not want to presume to embrace one faith over another. We support all cultures and attempt to make them comfortable when they are here.”

The university’s president went on to say they are “looking at the feasibility of removing the cross on the steeple, but need to respond to the request for removal of religious icons from the…

View original post 544 more words

Otto’s prescient statement

At his graduation in 213, years before what would be a life sentence in N Korea, Otto Warmbier delivered this almost prophetic remark in the text of his speech.

I wish there was a way to know that you were in the “good old days” before you actually left them.” – quoting a TV series “Office” character, Bernard –Otto Warmbier

 
 

But there is no doubt we were not in “the good old days” for the last 8 years, We even knew it at the time. It was not nostalgia. There can be no glamorizing or revising it now.

It was not the best of times. Indeed, it was the worst of times. Not just for Otto Warmbier, but for hundreds of millions of people. In retrospect, Otto is a martyr of America now. RIP

Image source: Wikipedia

Supreme Hubris

The case of the Trinity Lutheran Church wound its way through the Supreme Court this week. A real religious discrimination case, as opposed to a made up one.

Anyone reading here is probably familiar with it, but here is a short summary.

(Syllabus) The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri pre-school and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravel surface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church

What happened was a 7-2 decision in favor of the church. Then the thing that gets me is the 2 dissenters. Sotomayor is a stinging dissent, with Ginsburg and her ACLU ties.

Does that mean, in her view, that she’s okay with the government discriminating against a church? Should we ask? She seems to be the one most aligned with Obama’s zealous worldview than even Kagan. His bigotry against Christians knew no boundaries.

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

“(b) The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character. Like the disqualification statute in McDaniel, the Department’s policy puts Trinity Lutheran to a choice: It may participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. When the State conditions a benefit in this way, McDaniel says plainly that the State has imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must withstand the most exacting scrutiny. 435 U. S., at 626, 628.”


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

“[In Locke vs. Davey] Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s restriction on the use of its funds was in keeping with the State’s anti-establishment interest in not using taxpayer funds to pay for the training of clergy, an “essentially religious endeavor,” id., at 721.

Here, nothing of the sort can be said about a program to use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. At any rate, [in Locke] the Court took account of Washington’s anti-establishment interest only after determining that the scholarship program did not “require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Id., at 720–721″

There is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. Pp. 11–14.

Yet the Department offers nothing more than Missouri’s preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns.”

But there is no doubt, in my mind, that the left (anti-Christian zealots) will have their own spin why this is a terrible thing — a bad decision which needs to be overturned. Again, why the dissent in this case is what baffles me?

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

“The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.”

Then she proceeded to dig into the mission statement of the Luthran church to use as disqualifiers against Trinity, based on their expressed purpose as a church. Done in a way that only Obama and likely Ginsburg would approve of.

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

“The Church uses “preaching, teaching, worship, witness, service, and fellowship according to the Word of God” to carry out its mission “to ‘make disciples.’”

So she went straight to the church’s doctrine to use against them. Why not put the mission purpose of the church under the spotlight in order to discriminate against it? Basically, Sotomayor’s litmus is based on ‘what it is‘ not what it is doing, or proposing to do. Thus, Sotomayor wants to discrimiate against them solely because of their religious character.

See decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf

Another Leftist Prof Marched Off Campus

Every event, no matter how evil, is only another ripe opportunity for leftists to expound their vile remarks. Only when outrage is severe enough are there any consequences. Otherwise it is usually just accepted or ignored.

Another hate-filled leftist professor fired for lack of decency

via GOP USA – Washington Times

“Is it wrong of me to think that Otto Warmbier got exactly what he deserved?” asked Ms. Dettwyler in her since-deleted Facebook post, captured on Campus Reform.

[Otto] “acted like a spoiled, naïve, arrogant US college student who had never had to face the consequences of his actions.”

“His parents, ultimately, are to blame for his growing up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted,” Ms. Dettwyler said. “Maybe [in] the US, where young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women.”

Read at: http://www.gopusa.com/another-hate-filled-leftist-professor-fired-for-lack-of-decency/

When you can attack the victim of a brutal dictator like Kim Jong-un and a dead captive prisoner, how far will you go?

But the irony is that what she is blaming the Warmbier parents and student himself of is exactly what the left teaches. She is projecting. They lecture no accountability while bashing parents with any moral standards, trying to put a wedge between families. It’s what the left does. Now she bashes the parents? The spoiled child phenomena is her front yard; it’s what they profess.

A little odd for the university to cut ties with a teacher who expresses so openly what many of them think.

Another actor just couldn’t help himself

So Johnny Depp got into the act or bash Trump fest in the worst possible way.

Wait, in it he said he was not an actor. But in a 2013 BBC interview he said:

Depp stated in a BBC radio interview on July 29, 2013 that he hopes to be involved with “quieter things” at some point in the near future, implying that he will retire from acting. Depp explained in further detail during the interview: “I wouldn’t say I’m dropping out any second, but I would say it’s probably not too far away. When you add up the amount of dialogue that you say per year and you realize that you’ve said written words more than you’ve had a chance to say your own words, you start thinking about that as an insane option for a human being.” [Wikipedia]

Okay, what better way to set off defining yourself by making news in your own words calling for the assassination of President Trump? Picture it, Glastonbury arts festival in England, he remarked to the crowd: (what is it with these people and arts?)

“It’s just a question; I’m not insinuating anything. By the way, this is going to be in the press and it’ll be horrible,” he said.

“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? I want to clarify, I’m not an actor. I lie for a living. …
However, it’s been a while. Maybe it’s time?”

Yea, in all that spoken dialogue over the years, no one wrote that line to deliver. He can be sure it is original and it is him. Now the SS will have to ask him about his own words.

Then he had to go cleanup his statement in an apology, another Depp original:

“It did not come out as intended, and I intended no malice.
I was only trying to amuse, not to harm anyone.”

Right, a joke, didn’t mean any malice. But his original comment said he lies for a living. Oops. He knew it would cause a problem, though he did get some immediate cheers. He goes to England and does this?

He prefaced it by saying he wasn’t insinuating anything but then said “It’s been a while, maybe it’s time?” Really? Your words and the apology aren’t matching up again, Johnny.

Way to venture off into your own original words — not someone else’s. That’s sanity.

On the other hand, maybe Depp would have been better off sticking to someone’s written script. Who knows what else his own spoken words will reveal next?

Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

One of the strangest, and funniest, things I witnessed was Van Jones prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Never mind that 8 months later, Dems never had a real autopsy over the death of Hillary’s campaign.

He gave a speech in Chicago with just that subject on the docket.

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

“The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”

“Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”

“That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”

Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337253-van-jones-rips-clinton-campaign-they-spent-money-on-themselves

It could be the case that she spent more money than anyone in history to not get elected.

Now, despite all the money flowing into the Georgia-6th District, once again their expensive scorched earth strategy ended in ashes, with Ossoff losing by 6 points.

It is not what pundits expected and it wasn’t what Ossoff hoped. And he was beat by a woman…with a real vagina rather than a Planned Parenthoody imposter.

Elections have consequences, for sure….. they empty bank accounts. So while Republicans want to Drain the Swamp, the Democrats just want to drain bank accounts.