Seen This Movie Before, Lousy Ending

There are things considered natural responses to human tragedies and pains, like empathy and compassion. Not all people may be so equipped in those areas. Some may be slower in response to it than others. Some may be incapable of those reactions.

But that was usually the general rule.

However, when a person is shot by a policeman, why is the instant response looting and rioting? What causes that because apparently it is a cause and effect scenario? It has become a downright phenomena. A black person is shot in the course of enforcing the law and the knee-jerk reaction is looting and destroying businesses that have nothing at all to do with the act. They go from claiming an innocent victim to creating innocent victims.

But somehow this rioting and looting is to go on, unobstructed as can be allowed. Where is this in the Constitution or in any rules for a functional society? I haven’t found them yet. Though this has become the normal, typical reaction to the events. It also seems to be organized in moments. Within hours, caravans of cars come in heading for the high value stores as mobs of people do the rest, to carry out out an organized pilfering process. They cart off any merchandise and disappear into the streets from where they came.

Daily Mail:

‘We’re coming for you’: Mayor Lightfoot’s warning to looters who ransacked Chicago in night of ‘straight-up criminality’ that saw 100 arrests and 13 cops injured

    • Chicago’s Magnificent Mile was hit by looters after hundreds of demonstrators clashed with police
    • It was triggered by a shooting earlier in the day and an armed suspect was wounded by police
    • The man had opened fire on cops and they returned; he was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive
    • Crowds however gathered in protest after false information spread that the officers shot a child
    • People then started organizing on Twitter and Facebook to loot downtown in a caravan of vehicles
    • By the time police caught up with them, they’d started ransacking stores, snatching all that they could
    • 400 cops were dispatched to the area but they faced intense violence including, in some cases, gunfire
    • On Monday morning, the chaos was still ongoing as officers arrested people who were still inside stores
    • Bridges were raised and tunnels closed for police to try to get a handle on the escalating tensions
    • It coincided with the sixth anniversary of Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri
    • Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said the looting had nothing to do with peaceful protest over police brutality
    • She warned the protesters that police were already scanning HD security footage to identify and arrest looters, saying: ‘We are coming for you’
    • Lightfoot said the city does not need the National Guard’s help; Trump is yet to comment but on Monday he urged Portland to accept federal assistance after a riot was declared

    Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot warned looters who ransacked the city that they are already being hunted by police who are reviewing HD security camera footage from the chaos which saw more than 100 arrests, attacks on 13 police officers and widespread unrest.

    The chaos began on Sunday afternoon when police responded to Englewood where there had been complaints of a man with a gun. The suspect has not been named but was described by police on Monday as a 20-year-old man with a criminal history that includes charges of burglary, child endangerment and assault and battery.

    When officers arrived at the scene, he began running and opened fire on them as they pursued him. The cops returned fire, wounding him, and arrested him. He was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive.

See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8611143/Another-night-violence-Looting-breaks-Chicagos-Magnificent-Mile.html

Despite what she says, what makes this time any different than other times where she did nothing or little in response to crimes and shootings? Every weekend there are drive-byes and shootings, some victims are children and toddlers, yet she does nothing. Now she says: attention criminals, “we’re coming for you!”

The renowned expert, AOC, said weeks ago that some of this crime wave is because people may have to go out and steal a morsel of bread for their family to survive on. As if the person has no other choice. It was crazy talk when she said it but now, once again, we see the same reactions playing out over another shooting by police of a black man in Chicago. No one cares what led up to it, or the reason for it; it only turns into another lucrative looting opportunity. Except they aren’t stealing bread, baby formula and diapers.

Daily Mail:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested the rise in crime in New York City is because ‘desperate’ people are ‘stealing bread to feed their children’.

Police data shows that shootings in the city last month were up 130 per cent year on the year – from 89 shootings last year to 205 this year.

But Cortez asked: ‘Do we think this has to do with the fact that there’s record unemployment in the United States right now?”

The Hill reported:

AOC on increased NYC crime: “Maybe this has to do with the fact that people aren’t paying their rent & are scared to pay their rent & so they go out & they need to feed their child & they don’t have money so… they feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry.”

So there you have it. Apparently those people in Chicago are just shoplifting some bread to feed their family. Let’s see if they can explain this latest looting frenzy. Cleanup in isle #1.

Still it is a phenomena, I tell you.

Gee, I wonder if AOC has ever felt any empathy or compassion for people struggling to make ends meet while paying their exorbitant taxes, and just trying to survive? Nah.

Right Ring | Bullright

Changing Times

There is a whole series of things that don’t add up, or make sense, in the way they used to.

We are now told by Democrats that the schools are not safe for our children.
Further, they tell us parents should refuse to send them to protect them.

In a local exercise in one town, the kids created a mural. Part of the design process in developing it asked each child to name one thing they hoped for. A fourth-grader said safety and security. Another older kid explained he hoped for a safer community, so they would not be afraid to walk the streets and just feel secure. And those two kids happened to be black. See any themes there?

That security could take some policing. But look at the defunding-abolishing police plans. How does that help? Wait a minute, police do not make the community unsafe. Yet we need to do away with them. How will that make us more safe and secure?

In fact, if safety and security are on the minds of kids, let’s also take cops or security guards out of the schools. That should make kids feel better and safer.

Schools are too unsafe and risky. But joining thousands of unknown, random protestors in the streets is encouraged. Peaceful protest is lighting buildings on fire; going to church threatens the community. Rioting is exempt from rules — for the good of the country.

Splitting up people walking on a beach is necessary, while marching shoulder to shoulder in the streets with protestors is protected and sanctified.

It used to be people stood at attention for the national anthem. But kneeling is now protocol. The flag and anthem used to be a symbol of pride, honor and respect — not the object of disdain. The flag is triggering. Kneeling at the flag or anthem used to be a form of protest, but today that is the symbol of conformity. Standing at attention is now protest.

Demand the economy be shutdown and remain closed, then complain about the unemployment rate and economy. How’s that make any sense?

You cannot risk going out to vote… but get out there and protest.

Let’s not forget protecting vulnerable nursing homes by forcing COVID-19 into them. That protects thousands of lives. Then blame nursing homes who were forced to take them.

In other news, Beijing Biden is all about creating jobs by destroying them in mass. That is called a progressive economic plan.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Structural Inconsistencies

Structural and systemic racism are the rage, as white privilege is drummed into our heads. But people do not seem fooled. A recent Rasmussen poll found more Americans believe that blacks are more racist than whites. How can that be?

“Just 15% say [the term “racism”] refers only to discrimination by white people against minorities.”

But that is not what we are told. Is that why they are trying so hard to convince us?

Rasmussen also found that:

“When it comes to the violent anti-police protests that continue in several major cities, most voters are sure of this: President Trump sides with the cops, while Democratic leaders line up with the protesters.”

So, can the people really be that smart? Where’s the rub?

“Voters strongly agree with President Trump’s decision to end an Obama-era regulation intended to push low-income housing into more affluent neighborhoods in the name of racial diversity.”

“For blacks (63%), the racial or ethnic make-up of their neighborhood was much more important than it was to whites (35%) and other minority voters (44%).”

“Eighteen percent (18%) say most white Americans are racist. But 25% believe most black Americans are racist.”

Just So Good — Charles Hurt

First Nadler busted a move during impeachment, then he busted his airbag at hearings. That is to hear Charles Hurt tell it, anyway.

Jerrold Nadler’s air bag didn’t deploy, but Jerrold Nadler the windbag did

Nadler tries to blame riots on Trump and Barr

By Charles Hurt – The Washington Times – Monday, August 3, 2020

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
On his way to a hearing last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler was in a car accident.

Thankfully, the New York pol was unhurt. But the accident caused Mr. Nadler to be an hour late to the hearing.

Watching Mr. Nadler during that hearing, which starred Attorney General William Barr, you might think he had hit his head in the accident. But, alas, Mr. Nadler was already that dumb. Even before the accident, he was severely damaged goods.

That said, it is always unwise to underestimate Mr. Nadler. Just ask House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the slender California Democrat with a long neck.

In a race to a microphone on the Senate floor earlier this year during the impeachment proceedings, Mr. Schiff thought he could just take his time and slowly saunter over. Something about Mr. Nadler made Mr. Schiff think he could play rabbit to Mr. Nadler’s tortoise to the microphone.

Au contraire!

With a microphone serving as the carrot, Mr. Nadler proved swifter than any rabbit. Mr. Schiff was left spinning in Mr. Nadler’s dust. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, reigning world champion in the five-yard microphone dash, marveled from the peanut gallery at Mr. Nadler’s Olympic abilities.

Perhaps, it was the waiting microphone before the empty chair in the House Judiciary Committee hearing room last week that saved Mr. Nadler’s life. No mere automobile accident would keep him from holding court — especially when he himself is the court jester.

As it turned out, the automobile accident was so minor that the air bag did not deploy — until he got seated in the hearing room. And then the giant air bag EXPLODED.

“You really can’t hide behind legal fictions,” Mr. Nadler raged at Mr. Barr, who had just explained that as a member of President Trump’s Cabinet he was not at liberty to divulge privileged discussions with the president.

Though Mr. Nadler attended law school, it is not clear if he was ever a terribly successful lawyer. Somewhere along the line, however, he got struck with just enough common sense to realize that the rioting in the streets that he and fellow Democrats refuse to condemn and Mr. Nadler is on record calling “a myth” does not look very good heading into an election.

So, Mr. Nadler sought to blame the riots on Mr. Barr and, by extension, on Mr. Trump. Yes, Mr. Nadler — AKA the exploded air bag — blames the riots on the only people who are lifting a finger to curb the riots and enforce, you know, the laws. You know, the ones arresting rioters for assaulting innocent people, firebombing public buildings, torching police cars and using lasers to blind officers.

“The president wants footage for his campaign and you appear to be serving it up to him as ordered,” Mr. Nadler wheezed.

Yes, the looting and arson and bloodshed, the roping of statues in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, is all the fault of President Trump. And Bill Barr.

“Shame on you, Mr. Barr! Shame on you!”

By then, all the air had leaked out of the giant air bag and when Mr. Barr offered to answer the questions he had been called into the hearing for, the wheedling Nadler could only gasp, “My time has expired. My time has expired.”

The whole hearing proved as enlightening as a clown car smash-up derby. Nobody was actually seeking answers. They just wanted to scream at Mr. Barr. And, whenever the attorney general offered to reply, they shouted, “Reclaiming my time!”

As Mr. Barr noted, this is not normally how hearings go. Usually, the government official (in this case, Mr. Barr) is required to provide actual answers to actual questions posed by the committee.

But these are no more “hearings” than the bloodthirsty arson and mayhem in the streets are “protests.”

It’s all smash-and-grab politics and Jerold Nadler is the mythical air bag lording over all of it.

• Charles Hurt is opinion editor of The Washington Times. He can be reached at churt@washingtontimes.com or @charleshurt on Twitter.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/3/jerrold-nadler-attacks-on-william-barr-par-for-cou/

Keep On

What do we do? We should continue to pray for our country, the people, and ourselves. Pray we overcome this evil mist hovering across our country.It cannot defeat us.

Other than that, elections will still come on November 3rd and we need to vote. But now with what states have done in mail-in voting, and Dems’ other antics, we should realize it will be weeks before we know a final result on the election. You can expect delay.

I’m hearing, thinking and figuring it will take at least a month to count votes. I don’t see how to avoid that scenario. It should make Bush vs. Gore look like child’s play.

I get a reminder every time I look at my mail. There are no postmark dates anymore. Well, what does that tell us?

Keep on….. but knees are for praying.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Cancel Culted: Real Life

I heard the news that Mike Adams has died. He was a criminology and sociology professor at University of North Carolina – Wilmington, and a regular writer of columns on TownHall.com. Apparently it was a suicide.

I did not know Mr. Adams but I almost felt like it because of reading his personalized columns, which always brought a strong sense of right and wrong, civility and a little Adams humor mixed in. Plus he had the flair for activism.

But often they were true-life stories, on many of his encounters with the modern Left. Being a professor and his activism naturally provided a wealth of resource material for them. He was in their world – but not of their world. And a Christian at heart.

Anyway, as I heard this news it seemed like such a loss. If it is one thing Mike Adams had to offer was his intellect and wisdom on controversial and moral issues — such as pro-life and Christianity. And a knack for explaining them.

Now with that, I am posting an old 2005 column that can be found on TownHall. Ironically, those same columns often caused him so much ire from the campus establishment. Yet he refused to let that shut him up. He actually seemed to thrive on it, which likely drove them crazy in their ivory towers. Its written at one of those times he was under attack.

So here it is in full, followed by a special dessert:

Life and how to live it

Mike Adams  | Posted: Jul 26, 2005

Over the weekend, I received several emails from readers warning me that I might lose my job over the article I wrote criticizing my university’s new harassment policy. Readers who sometimes suggest that I should learn to hold my tongue fail to understand my simple philosophy of life. It is an uncompromising philosophy that guarantees both peace of mind and success in any important endeavor. It can be roughly summarized as follows:

1. If you want to be happy and successful, you must immediately disabuse yourself of the notion that there is no such thing as good and evil.

If, for some reason, this is difficult for you to do, take the time to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. If that still does not convince you, take the time to visit Auschwitz.

2. You must also immediately disabuse yourself of the notion that good and evil are simply relative terms. There are moral absolutes and they have absolutely nothing to do with your personal feelings and perceptions.

It should be noted that people who claim to believe in moral relativism are just lying in order to make themselves appear to be morally superior to others. Their actual belief in moral absolutism is revealed when, at some point, they openly proclaim that there are no absolutes. If everything is relative, the philosophy of moral relativism can’t be absolutely true.

3. Take some time every day to fine-tune your understanding of the difference between right and wrong.

Recently, a good friend of mine lost his mother to cancer. He later made a casual suggestion about the need for some sort of handbook, which could be used to sort out the difficult problems and answer the difficult questions one encounters in life.

Fortunately, such a handbook exists. It is called the Holy Bible.

No one can call himself educated if he has not read the Bible at least once. Even after several readings of the Bible some things will remain unclear. Some questions will remain unanswered. Nonetheless, upon every reading of the Bible, greater wisdom is gained. After all, life is a journey. It is not a destination.

By the same token, one should never go to a psychologist or any other counselor who is a self-proclaimed atheist or agnostic. I cannot think of a single important principle the field of psychology has established that wasn’t already established in the Sermon on the Mount.

4. Life will present you with plenty of encounters with good and evil. Just as you should never pass up an opportunity to promote good, you should never pass up an opportunity to combat evil.

One of my favorite verses of the Bible is James 4:17. It states that “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” That verse reminds us that we don’t have to actually do something to be morally culpable. In other words, there is such a thing as a sin of omission.

It can often be tough to step up and combat evil when one may be risking, for example, one’s job. We humans are so weak and frail that it is often tough to stand up for what is right even when the consequences are merely ostracism or momentary ridicule. In those times, the following verse (Hebrews 13:5) helps: “For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”” Remember when you read that verse that, quite literally, nothing else in life matters.

In the past, I have been faced with some risky decisions that involved the prospect of taking on campus radicals; some have been communists, some have been feminists, all have been, in some way, morally decadent. But some of these morally bankrupt individuals also happened to have some degree of power over me and over my economic livelihood.

When, in the past, I have contemplated the prospect of cowering away from these situations, I have sometimes found strength by thinking about some old war veterans; some in my family, some friends, who risked or even gave their lives to preserve our nation and our freedom.

The next time you find yourself tempted to cower from something you know you should do, just imagine a roomful of old war veterans. Get in a quiet, dark room. Close your eyes, concentrate on their faces. Then just imagine walking up to one of them to have a face-to-face talk about what you are cowering from and why.

Once, I imagined myself walking up to my grandfather who was hit with grenade shrapnel in World War I and saying something like this:: “Thanks for serving to protect my First Amendment Rights. I’ve been meaning to stand up to some campus feminists who are violating the constitutional rights of some students on campus. But, frankly, I’m afraid of feminists and what they might say about me.”

You might want to end this mental exercise before you picture one of those veterans punching you in the nose.

Just remember that Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to run from what is right. And war heroes didn’t die on the battlefield for you to cower away while this country is destroyed.

5. Standing up against that which is wrong invariably means that you will have to take on a lot of angry people. If you cannot do it with a sense of humor, you are less likely to prevail.

Without question, liberals are the angriest people in America these days. If you respond to them with anger, you will allow them to conceal this fact while playing upon stereotypes of conservatives that are no longer accurate. In addition, you will not be able to influence people in the middle.

Now, you know a little more about my simple philosophy of life. In my next column, I plan to answer Dr. Phil’s favorite question: “How?s that working for you?”
To be continued. …”

More irony is that he was engaged in a battle with the NC Governor over shutdown. And yet another with the NCUW over words in some tweets. The cancel culture mob was after him. He was going to retire August 1.

He subsequently wrote many many more parts of ‘Life and how we live it.’ I think it was up to 8 last December. Always apropos. RIP Mike Adams.

Now for a sense of what effect Mike had, here is an older clip of a Rush Limbaugh Show using one of his letters for a backdrop. Enjoy the truth and humor. (2013)

Right Ring | Bullright

USA, we have a problem

Let’s break all this violence, protesting, rioting down to the least common denominator.
It is so basic even a grade-school kid can understand it

1) These mayors, governors and public officials got elected.
2) Then they swore an oath.
3) Now, either they can do the job or they can’t. Which is it?

If they cannot or will not do the job, then there is a big problem. The rioters and Antifa are now only part of this whole mess. The solution to violence is not defund or abolish police.

But it appears in some cases, despite the public outcriy and destruction, going on for months on end, that some of these elected officials cannot even be forced to do their jobs.

Now who is going to do his or her job?

It does not and cannot get any simpler than that.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

President Of Pith

I don’t know if anyone has considered the benefit of having Trump for president, at least one of the many. And it could easily be overlooked.

Some Americans are fond of writing letters to their president. You know that feeling you get from expressing your view and exercising your first amendment. Now that is good stuff to be encouraged.

However, what a pleasure it is to write to someone when you don’t have to start from scratch. He gets it. I mean he surely gets hundreds of said letters. He probably skims some for highlights or details. He catches the jest of things. I’m guessing, in this White House, there is some means of counting the good letters vs. bad ones with daily/weekly tallies. Just speculation.

But it makes it easier talking to someone when you know he is informed or shares your concerns on a subject. Someone who understands the political terrain like you do. Well, all this goes into realizing you don’t have to start from the beginning, You can start on a certain pre-established ground that he does understand your point of view. He gets it. You don’t have to explain the metrics of how or why you got to this view.

And a second point is that this definitely is a person who appreciates brevity. Remember when Bill O’Reilly always told people to make their email replies pithy, complaining how he got thousands of emails? Well, this master of pith once got his email read on air. But then he actually commended the sheer pithiness in assailing the point. I suppose that was the best part because it alone was probably the reason he read it in the first place, and the reason the point came across. Success.

Well, I could compare this president to others in my lifetime and I think it would be a different story even for George W Bush. But W had a deaf ear anyway so anyone writing had to consider that. Even with him, you had to lay out the foundation or it wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Not with this president. Nope. You can be as concise as you want and realize he probably got the jest of it just fine. And being pithy probably upped the chance of being heard.

But in the end, he doesn’t require you to make a thesis for him to understand or be influenced. In turn, we understand him just fine because he is not out to impress people with flowery lingo that means nothing of significance. He speaks directly about things.

After all, this savvy president has mastered the art of Twitter very effectively.

Our letters can be similarly to the point and I find it refreshing. As someone who has logged 1500 word letters to a president before, I appreciate the courtesy. I call that an improvement. Likewise it is refreshing also to know lengthy treatises on a subject do not impress him. He gets it.

Now if I could just find another adjective besides pithy.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Where Oh Where?

Everyone has heard of the Tunnels To Towers organization, the group that helps fallen and wounded first responders or vets with their housing or mortgage expense.

A great organization doing great work.

Well, in their ads are quotes from some of the soldiers they are helping. One line always grabs at me every time I hear it: “where do you go when home isn’t home anymore?”

Those powerful words hit me like a ton of bricks and I have no answer to the question. That is a wider question, too. Where do you go when home isn’t home anymore?

I know the context there but that is a profound thought and question worth consideration.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave

Obama and Biden were responsible for the most egregious abuse of power in US history. Just start there. What a way to be memorialized in history for future generations.

I think we have been looking at this sort of backwards. We think of all the henchmen, or who carried what out, as the bad guys for what they did. But they were only the facilitators. Sure, they were all in on it though the henchmen are the ones who did it. But the orders as well as hatched plans had come from the top.

Obama and Biden did what they did and conducted a spying operation against Trump because they didn’t like who got elected president. But that doesn’t go back far enough because it started while Trump was running for president.

So to unfold this you go to where what Hillary did meshed with what Obama did. That intersection would be the crucial point. But Obama was heavily involved in Hillary’s campaign, as if it were his own re-election campaign.

Hillary is the one who set the law firm in place between her and Fusion GPS to create the dossier, which got back fed into the FBI and intelligence. But it appears that the FBI already had a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign. Both sides appeared to have been working against Trump, but the dossier certainly combined the two if they were not already aligned. I don’t think there was any doubt that Obama/Biden and Hillary were working together all along.

When people try to keep an open mind is when they get into all kinds of trouble. They try to decouple what the parties were doing when it was in concert. By accident? Hardly, the facts keep bringing it back to a unified effort. And if they were not operating cohesively at first, they certainly wanted to be. FBI sealed that.

Team Hillary was desperately waving a flag saying: ‘look here, investigate this.’ And then they went to lengths to create official links within the FBI to Hillary’s campaign. Maybe there is a question on exactly what date they were formally working together, but they functioned as one from the beginning. Both parties working toward the same goals. You could say parallel tracks.

Ah, the Obama – Biden administration wanted to use and offload the problem with Russia meddling right into Trump’s lap. He was a patsy to scapegoat the Russian problem on.

Remember that Russian meddling had been a problem since 2014, long before Trump. Any sitting president would have been aware of it, as Obama was. What to do? He stalled on any action. Then Trump became a convenient purpose to use the Russian problem for. Hence, create the narrative.

But then Hillary was onboard with the same mission. Was that by coincidence? Didn’t they share those same concerns and ideas? One would expect they must have.

Oh but then there was the flowering FBI investigation over Hillary that would wilt away, in July, at FBI’s behest. Not that they were really seriously investigating her/it anyway. The purpose of that case was to go through the motions to clear her of wrong doing. So she could use it to show she was given a clean bill of health.

Past was intertwined with the future. There was Obama’s legacy and Hillary’s future presidency that would cover all of the dirty, dark areas of his tenure. While she would go on to use government for her own personal political gain, in keeping with the pattern.

Trump was an inconvenient interruption in more ways than he could even imagine. And the people could surely not be given the truth about any of what went on. That would be seen as failure from all sides of the cabal. Hillary’s legacy would be to cover his and hers. Both wanted nothing but glowing adoration for generations to come, even while turning the system inside out. (but it would all be for a good purpose – theirs)

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Dems Want A Doormat, Not A President

Democrats don’t want to elect a president; they want to elect a doormat. There is a little bit of a misconception that Democrats want a strong executive for a president.

But no they don’t. They want a suit in the office and a doormat to the White House. They want someone who the mob can demand what they want to, and have him deliver on their every whim. He or she can then rule with an iron fist on behalf of the mob.

The other misconception is Democrats want someone empathetic. They don’t want someone to feel their pain; they want someone to heal their every pain. They don’t care whether the president feels for them as long as he/she performs on the mob’s command.

Besides, “feeling your pain” is a bit condescending, isn’t it? What is that worth?

Democrats don’t want democracy either. They want mob rule. That is as long as they control the mob and it operates in their favor.

Other than that, a president can issue a lofty, Obamaesque speech occasionally to make them feel good. But what he does for them is much more important. And they are a demanding bunch of intolerant brats, with a wish list longer than War And Peace.

Joe Biden delivered an address to Democrats adding a quip about his father saying:

“My dad used to say, “Joey, I don’t expect the government to solve my problems—but I sure expect them to understand it.””

Understand it? That’s about the last thing it seemed capable of under Obama-Biden.
Now let me loosely revise that into a simple theorem of my own.

I don’t expect government to solve my problems….. But I don’t want them to get in my way and keep me down there, or cause me more problems.

I do expect government is incapable of feeling my pains when I have them. But I just don’t want it to cause the pain. And I certainly don’t need it to extort my problems.

But when government does cause me problems and pain, I have a First Amendment right that says I can spell out that problem.

So Joey is trying to create a code to live and govern by. Well, he is a little late. We see the kind of code he and Obama operated by over the years. His family is enriched by his “public service.” Public office is a self-serving position, to him, not a selfless service.

Do you think his dad always told him that? Or did his father tell him that other people’s pains and losses are just a political opportunity for him and other elected pols to extort? That a crisis is an excellent opportunity to abuse political power.

Where did those values come from, Joey? And what oath of office mentions those?

Don’t you always love getting lectured about “values” from Democrats when they prove they really have none? They do their moral preening but then take advantage of every problem or crisis, even when creating it themselves, for pure political gain. Then rub your face in it. This skill is what they are really good at – turning your pain into their gain.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Malicious Intent Of Radicals

I will try to make this brief to the important point. There has been a lot of radical activity lately, what with protests, counter protests, antifa, rioting, doxxing, violence and the like. Most of it carries a pernicious theme. It is almost too much to take in at once.

However, we have some typical reactions to it, along with desensitizing ourselves to it all. We have mob behavior and then we have the reactions to it from Democrats. Enough has been said about Democrats sympathies toward Marxist radicals. They just can’t help themselves from aligning with radicals’ goals and agenda. You know birds of the feather.

But something else comes through, best exemplified in a recent comment from Judge Jeanine on her show. She was talking about all this and referred to the elected officials in Seattle saying “what are you stupid?” It would be easier if we could write all this off as Democrats’ stupidity in how they respond to lawless radical activity of the Left.

We can no longer afford to be that naïve to call them stupid. In many or most cases, they do know what they are doing. And often they have reasons for it . Those reasons are malicious in themselves. Democrats come out of the same radicalism that spawns these protests and riots. Civil disobedience is only a means. But it is way past “civil disobedience.” It is lawlessness.

Now contrast that all with what we see happening on a daily basis. Often the elected and Democrats appear to operate in concert with the thugs – or at least do things to encourage, enable or sympathize with them. This is not by accident.

See the problem is we want to attribute what officials do as being stupid. What if it isn’t? What if it all is intentional? Now that is the only way the whole thing makes sense. In other words, if they know exactly what they are doing. If so, then officials operate collaboratively. Why should we ignore the obvious or pretend otherwise? Because we don’t want to admit the real malicious intent behind what these elected officials are doing. But haven’t we seen enough to have our worst fears validated? I think we have.

Dan Bongino began posing such a question about the mayor of NYC, Bill De Blasio. (real name Warren Wilhelm Jr.) About all the stuff he is doing that harms NYC, he asked, what would someone do differently if they wanted to destroy the city? Nothing, he says. So they would do nothing differently if they intentionally wanted to destroy the city. Get it?

Everyone needs to ask themselves the question if he/she is one of those being naïve about motivations of these radicals? With radicals, it doesn’t matter much whether they are on the street or in government somewhere, same difference. They are serving the same ends.

It can be traced back to Obama politicizing government. So it doesn’t matter whether you are serving in it or outside protesting it. Both sides share the same aspirations. And that radical ideology (for lack of other word) is the same that drives the actions of both.

The real question then is why would we attribute ignorance or stupidity to leftists when they are quite aware of what they are doing, and the consequences of it? Seems pointless.

A current example: the husband and wife in St. Louis, Missouri who defended themselves by bearing arms outside their residence to a mob of protestors, threatening the homeowners on their own property. The prosecutor charged them for threatening “peaceful” protestors.

Judge Napolitano on Fox noted that both husband and wife are lawyers. He said maybe the Soros-funded prosecutor had not considered the charges she placed on them could affect their ability to practice law? But no, no! What if she knew and realized that? Additional harm to her targets? You see, it starts to make sense when you apply reasoning.

Why else would radicals do what they do but to cause intentional harm to their political opponents? It’s the only way it makes sense. Maybe wider damage is the whole purpose.

Another thing we must consider is that reform is antithetical to these radicals. Actually, the last thing they want is reform, in the end, if their real intent is to tear down the entire system. Reform is a much slower way to get to their goals. But they would even use reform (or abuse any reform process) to get their real goals, though that takes work.

In this way, it makes these people part of a larger insurrection hell bent on taking down our government and economic system to replace it with another, Marxist, socialistic system. Even socialism light is not enough for these people. Reform is way too moderate for them. They are more the hard-line Leftists, Marxists of the European flavor.

Closing argument.

Fox news host Tucker Carlson was a target of Leftist attacks and boycotts in the past. His home was vandalized and attacked, repeatedly, and he and his family were threatened. So finally he moved his family and voila, NYT has a piece in the breach to publish (doxx) his new location. Notice how intentional it all is to cause as much harm and inflict as much pain as they can. Ignorance? Not a chance. The Only thing remaining is malicious intent.

So what if we mis-attribute ignorant, naive intentions to Dems they don’t have or deserve? Now who is being stupid if we do that? So is there something wrong with instinctive reactions that play down the malicious objectives of radicals’ actions? Yes, sure is.

And to fight them, we should understand their motives. But we miss that mark when we attribute stupidity, ignorance, or naivete to their motivations. Can we just accept it?

So why would we want to disarm ourselves?
The only obvious question left then is: ‘are we serial deniers?’

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Corrupt Polls

It used to be polls were used to test the public’s opinion on something or a candidate.

Now polls are used to set public opinion on a candidate/issue, to dampen public support.

So they are counter-weighting and over-sampling Democrats in polls by ten points. Even Fox News does it. Then they say “oh look, Biden is up by 8-10 points. He’s winning!”

They want to cement negativism in the minds of voters early on, so bad, and get mail- in voting before the campaign is even over.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is holding down the Democrat fort in his Delaware basement.
That’s just the kind of guy people want to vote for. Not.

Polls don’t decide election results, people do.

Polls are supposed to sample public opinion not shape it.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

China, You’re No Good

Here are the lyrics to my new song. I hope you like it.

China, you’re no good
you’re no good
you’re no good
you’re no good
China, you’re no good.

Hong Kong is gone
But won’t be forgotten

What is the single word that can end Joe Biden’s campaign,
and cancel his political career? China.

But how can we save ourselves from China, though,
If we cannot save ourselves from our own?

China is just no damn good.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Sifting Sands Like An Hour Glass

I still would like to know one thing that has been bugging me for some time. And I haven’t found the answer to it, yet.

Just in the last few weeks we have lost some famous people. Now the latest is John Lewis, congressman from Georgia. Yes, a notable Democrat synonymous with the Left’s activism.

I have no problem celebrating these icons for the achievements and contributions they made. But I see a stark contrast between the way we treat modern icons, for their accomplishments, to how the Left treats famous icons from yesteryear. They can’t seem to acknowledge the country we stand on was built on what these forerunners did back in their day.

Sure they were not all perfect, and neither are these modern day icons – no matter how influential to politics of the Left they have been. But why can we put the new heroes up on pedestals while at the same time rabidly tearing down all those from the past?

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Biden’s Bolshevik Plans

Here’s a short review of Democrats’ plans, I have a direct analogy for anyone listening.

Suppose I want to build a huge project. Now I would not hire a union(s) to design the building. Of course I’ll hire a designer or an architect for that. Likewise, the unions would not have an architect run their unions.

But this roll reversal is exactly what Biden and union organizers have up their sleeves. The iron workers don’t design the bridges. Steel workers don’t design cars. The teachers’ unions do not design our public schools or write the curriculum. Let’s be real about it.

First of all, unions are not accountable to the public, nor are they elected to public office. And they do not want to be. Stop pretending.

What kind of hair-brained idiots are these people?

What kind of economy, country are they trying to create?

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

The Old Country

A long, long time ago, as rumor has it, there was a great country between the Pacific and Atlantic called the United States of America. A proud country in good and bad times.

It was fiercely independent. Many thought there was something about her that rose above other countries. Some thought that more myth and legend but many believed it. Was it more perception of the residents than reality? We aren’t sure though that can be studied.

And indeed this country became a great force among other countries. She tried to help the others in their times of need. She sailed around the world ending 2 world wars and batting down various other conflicts. Real peace eluded her for years.

Her men and women were of strong stock working to build a strong country. And strong it was. They had a certain determination. They had mostly good intentions among them, even in desperate times. In fact, in the worst of times they seemed to rise above petty to pull their resources to solve any crisis. There was a “we are one” mentality.

She, America, was the go to source for markets around the world. She was the ultimate trading partner. When others in the world bought her goods, which carried a great reputation, people were glad to buy them. And it bought plenty from others. The label “Made in USA” meant something throughout the world.

She was a place people around the globe flocked to or aspired to go. There was no other place like it. One of its great presidents referred to America as a “shining city on a hill.” Debates often went back and forth over extending or retracting her interests verses isolationism. Those ideas are still out there in books for consumption. But they sure were passionate about their ideas. They valued their ideas almost as much as the country.

Indeed, they sort of had a reverence for the past though it was not perfect. Yet because they worked through those imperfections that made her even better. And it was hard work. They had a great Civil War in the 1800’s. They united afterward as even a better country, despite differing opinions. They had high appreciation for its relatively short history as a nation.

Through thick and thin there was no better place to be.

The consensus always was instinctively to resist foreign entanglements, but as decades went on resistance grew weaker. They did entangle the country in far regions around the world. It was rationalized as the better choice. Still, they were leery of Global powers of consolidation that opposed their spirit of individualism and freedom.

One of its later presidents called those powers a New World Order.

In time, even that weaker resistance softened. Until it got to a point where some of its leaders were so enamored by this Globalism that they began doing things and scheming to get deeper involved in Globalism. The theory went that enough actions would be irreversible and that, once done, people would grow accustomed making it virtually impossible to undo. Each layer of Globalist policies added more bonds on the people. Even fierce dissenters would not be capable of mustering the resolve to undo it all. So that is the way it went.

Then She had many culture battles domestically, which strained the nation’s unity. It was called a culture war. They bickered back and forth about these cultural issues. Some saw these as bigger than the country itself, while others ignored them entirely. The date always seemed significant. They would say things like, “ it’s the 1970’s.” Or insert any other year up until the 2-M’s. The year was used as a symbol for modernity itself. Similarly, they mocked the past with euphemisms like “ancient” or “dark ages.” In that way, they thought of themselves currently as better, more knowledgeable and improving as time went on. New became old and the cycle continued. Everything in the past was perceived as “old.”

It was almost as if they could not get enough of new, anything new. For some people, change could not seem to happen fast enough. There were those who sat around trying to think up the next new thing that would catch the public’s appetite for change. They were not Nostradamus figures, but commoners trying to ride the fast-moving wave of modernity. Usually, efforts were in vaine. Fads and trends were moving fast enough without that intentional help. There was an education reformer back in the late 1800’s who said “change, if done correctly, can hardly be noticed.” However, the objective of this change was not to be unnoticed but to be obvious to everyone. The more shocking or outrageous the better. In fact that was the purpose.. They wanted change to be highly visible and unavoidable.

Well, you can probably see where all this is headed but the country enjoyed some very good years. It was blessed for many years. That is until this need for change and the will of the people were so compromised that the inevitable was certainly inevitable for them. By then, there was a margin of people who weren’t interested in keeping the country as it had been, but looking for a severely different state. They had no pride in what was or is, only in how far they could jettison it. Therein was the problem. Their preference was radical change.

Well, it should have been clear in tell tale signs over years. Sometimes people openly state even their worst intentions. During later elections, campaigns were filled with words about change. One new term grew in popularity, transformation. Most people didn’t know what it meant, at least as defined by those soldiers of change using it.

Then came another term, re-imagine. They claimed they wanted to re-imagine government, re-imagine the economic system. Re-imagine everything. The irony is that with all this re-imaging, they could not have imagined a better country than they had. But their toxic, creative imaginations could not be quenched and leave the once-great country in place.

I see it is getting late, so maybe we’ll read more about this Old Glory another time. It is an interesting story anyway. Sort of mysterious why there are not more books about it?

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Ode To Charlie Daniels

Here is sort of a tribute to Charlie Daniels by Charlie Daniels, in an interview with Pastor Allen Jackson. He did a bunch of interviews out there but I think this is one of his best.

So this is a smattering of Charlie.

“Never Look At The Empty Seats” by Charlie Daniels.

 

But there is an interesting thing. A few weeks before he passed, he wrote a piece on his Soap Box with a timely message on the state of things in our country. Here is a primer and the link. Check this one out. Now it seems even more pertinent.

Pick a Side

Posted on 06.26.2020 by Charlie Daniels

The time is swiftly coming in America when everybody who cares about having a future is going to have to pick a side.

When you get past the very thin patina of “peaceful” protest and look beyond the fallacy that violence and destruction brings about racial equality, you have to come to the conclusion that there is a radical fringe of people who would literally burn this country down, given the opportunity.

You’ll never hear it in the media, but if you’re willing to scratch the surface and dig a little bit, it will dawn on you that this is not a simple protest against the unjust killing of a black man, but a revolutionary street battle against America and everything we stand for and it IS funded and lead by socialist factions, and it’s not just in the US but in many democratic nations around the world.

In other words, an all-out socialist attack on our Republic.

I don’t remember a time in my 83 years when the cowardice, incompetence, indifference and downright impotence of governors, mayors and others responsible for the protection of citizens and their property have been more evident, disappointing and disgusting.

What’s going on in our nation is not a “Block Party” or a “Summer Of Love”…../
Read more> Soap Box

At the time, I thought he had put it all in perfect terms. Time to pick a side.

Well, the country is going to miss you, Charlie. Heaven must have called you home because you wouldn’t have left it any other way. RIP

Right Ring | Bullright

Cancelled Then Or Now?

One pf the most famous post-founding speeches, delivered on a battlefield by Abraham Lincoln, declared the world will not long remember “what we say here,” but it “can never forget what they did here.”

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”Gettysburg Address, 1863.

Wait a minute there, are you telling me that was all a big lie and, at least until recently contested by Black Lives Mater anyway, is still a lie?

Again, I ask, I just wonder when and at what cause would the Left be proud of America? It’s a really simple question. What would it take, since they are not currently proud of America?

Price or cost of that anyone?

Lincoln went on to highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

A new birth of freedom? But Leftists have criticized even the motivation for our country. Why would they believe Lincoln? That’s just more rhetoric propaganda to them.

How much different that speech would have been if it were a concession speech on a Confederate victory: “Sorry, boys, it was all in vain but I can assure you we tried.” But no, Lincoln referred to the birth of the country and this “new birth” – as a further consecration of that original dedication and purpose.

Now then, about this current state of our cultural affairs
.

Oh, Lincoln waited for Black Lives Matter to come along to call him out by correcting it all. He knew they would. Of course Lincoln was wrong and just did not do it the right way. The poor soldiers who fought the war, then, were highly misguided of the entire purpose.

So what do we have some 150 years later? The BLM movement. It has attracted a crowd of attention. People have allied with it and their perception. Just call them “the minders”.

Now what I see on the streets is a whole lot of people who signed on to BLM and have made a choice for which there is no recovery. Without hesitation, they’ve all gone lockstep with something that many probably don’t even understand. Mob rule is not pretty. They would rather have that than even democracy.

They have lent themselves to a revolution to rip this country apart. And they are about to reap the fruits of it. On one hand, the BLM dismisses what was done in the Civil War, while calling forth their own counter-revolution to undo the first revolution. Without giving much thought to the consequences of their action. On the other hand, they misinterpret the original conception of the country.

But Lincoln should have clarified that, to anyone hearing or reading it, both the intent of this nation and the civil war itself. One would think.

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.”

What he admitted there is that this was a test for the survival of that consecration. It was bloody. Now 150 years later, Leftists and the BLM are ripping away at it, asking if we can endure their mobocracy of disdain for it? Or will it too be cancelled in the end?

But then I think Lincoln knew something about the Cancel Culture.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020