Rights Under Seige

I get miffed in this gun control fever, even by some 2nd amendment supporters. I suppose it is an insult. Attaching the words common sense to it means nothing to me.

This debate – as they call it – rages on over gun control. But it will never end with the left; and there are no limits.

To be perfectly honest, I’m getting real tired of people or government trying to redefine what our rights are. That is the very heart of the problem.

It cannot be up to the current crop of politicos in office, or the climate in Washington, even who is president, to determine what our rights are.

If it is up to the current political climate, then at one time our rights will be defined one way and under different leadership they will be defined another way. It will go from pandering to our rights to debating how much restrictions or controls they can excerpt over them. I don’t want to live in a country like that. I don’t need a politician sucking up to me about preserving my rights. Or how only he/she will protect my rights.

We hold elections to determine who represents us, not as a referendum on our rights. Those are inalienable rights, so why are some people trying to make them conditional?

I just want them protected, as an obligation of the office they hold. It is not an arbitrary duty but some people make it one. I am not transferring authority over my rights.

On the other hand, I don’t want an endless diatribe on how much you are going to restrict or control my rights — telling us we need a national discussion on my rights. Why should their chief objective be to control, redefine and reinterpret our God-given unalienable rights? I’m sorry, it is beyond insulting and offensive. Don’t do me any favors.

I also don’t want our rights up to redefinition and reinterpretation every couple years. That is usurping them, not preserving and protecting them. It cannot be up to a few people, some politicians, or even a large group like the NRA to solely defend the 2nd amendment. It is ultimately up to the people.

My unalienable rights are not a bargaining chip for elected officials and fundraiser to line their campaign coffers. They swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to nullify it. It is a Bill of Rights, not a bill of suggestions.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dangerous Has No Parallel: war by other means

Democrats (or progressives) have bequeathed us the most dangerous times. There are hardly any parallels. But if you did mention any, everyone would scramble to talk about that other time not this one.

It is a direct result of what Democrats have done and continue to do. We are careening toward a space that none of us should want to go. Yet Democrats are full speed ahead.

Two things serve as illustrations. The first is a complete reversal from the talk in 2016. When Republicans had an unprecedented array of candidates, we heard a drumbeat that no one could beat Hillary Clinton. They even had Bernie on the same par.

Until they did get a bright idea saying that, according to polls, the only guy who could beat Hillary and presumably Bernie was John Kasich. They told us he alone had the best chance of winning in 2016, even if he could not manage to win the primary.

How times change. Now in 2020, all the polls suspiciously show every top candidate on the left beating Trump. Is that a laugh? And coincidentally, the top Democrats have a 9 or 10 point lead. Where have I heard that before?

I think the left needs a different calculus though. Notice how they rank Democrats with Biden at the top and down the list — and he has a large lead over others. I’d like to see a completely different ranking considering the times. Why not rank them by threat level or who is the most dangerous? That would be useful.

For instance, one of their candidates is Inslee. Sure he is not one of the top contenders but he certainly has a dangerous factor. He is so green he can’t see straight and wants to abolish coal. Basically he wants the biggest war on energy we have seen yet. If it destroys America, they don’t care as long as they did it “green” it would be something to be proud of. Place your bets.

Bernie is a complete danger to everything else that makes America work. We don’t know exactly how he could and would do any of it. That leaves executive order as his only means. But he does have enough of a commie, socialist base to make him dangerous.

Biden, well, he is no stranger to selling out America. And he never had a foreign policy that worked. He could be a gift to China or N. Korea. And you know about their deal with Iran. Plus he would bring back all the same actors as we just got rid of in there. And Deep State would be rejuvenated. The myth that he has some understanding with blue collar working people is hilarious. Yet the media have sold that lie long enough.

The whole purpose of guys like Joe or the others is that they don’t want a great economy. Their goal is the opposite. And they want everyone begging at the door of federal government. Biden being some kind of uniter? Well that’s just not how any of this works.

Elizabeth Warren, if she doesn’t scare the hell out of every sane person, I don’t know what would. In fact, that is her whole gig, threats and intimidation. She wants everyone subservient to all-powerful government. That would be the best setup for pure socialism you could ask for.

Now Democrats have moved on again in their wish list of agenda items. Next up, let’s talk about reparations. While they are all out on the campaign trail talking about unity and healing divisions, they are all pushing the reparations train now. Nothing more unifying than that. A bloody civil war was not enough for these people.

How about reparations for the most racist institution in the last century, the DNC? It was actually built on racism.

If those primers aren’t enough to get your danger juices flowing, then there are Dems’ daily positions and reactions to hard current events as they happen, to give you a glimpse into their collective mindset. There is always the tried and true hate America plank of the party. The anti-American wing has eaten the entire party.

Shout out to the borderless and lawless agenda here. But it is not some small marginal group of the far left anymore. So the calls to abolish ICE weren’t enough of a clue? How about the cop killers that get radio silence from the party? Better yet, undermine any remaining control of the border – or its legal controlling authority. Not just against the wall, they are against any enforcement of our borders or our laws. And they take to the streets on a moments notice to protest our enforcement of law and order. Heck, they are organized in such a way as to facilitate and encourage illegal immigration. And they make no bones about the fact that they give illegals preference over law-abiding American citizens.

How about those sanctuary cities? Oh, I’m sorry, did I mean sanctuary states now? The main purpose of Democrats, more and more these days, seems to be to facilitate crime waves and defend the criminals and those who harbor them. Then blame any cause of it on bad America.

Might as go all the way, while they are at it. Onward to late term abortions right up to the delivery date. Let’s even put that up for grabs, just in case you did not avail yourself of killing the baby at first chance, try try again. Who can say no to that agenda anymore? Who could draw arbitrary lines on institutionalized baby killing?

Even that is not quite enough to quench the appetite for evil. What they need to do is get rid of the Hyde Amendment. There cannot be any room for a wall in our government against directly subsidizing killing babies. Better still; just remind us all that abortion is a pillar of our economy. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Hadn’t seen enough of this anti-American sideshow yet? Well there is great news for you, then. How about a basic war on the bill of rights? How about a war on freedom and religious speech? What are progressive values without that? It’s a great fundraiser too. That would eliminate half the problems in the country if they could just tear out the heart of freedom. The rest of the agenda would come a lot easier.

And take out the 2nd Amendment.

While they are all for resistance to this president, administration and legitimate election results; they are all about limiting any resistance to their agenda by any means necessary. Fill in the blanks there too numerous to mention. Just say nothing is off the table.

Right Ring | Bullright
Bernie

The March for lives?

Since yesterday was the students March for our lives and today is Sunday, I thought a scripture might be appropriate for the occasion.

Well, other than it being just another big registration drive for Dems, you know, everyone wants to defer to the expert wisdom of these kids. Who could disagree? That’s the idea.

And just for a reminder that there is really nothing new under the sun.

Isaiah 3 (NASB)
4And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
5And the people will be oppressed,
Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor;
The youth will storm against the elder
And the inferior against the honorable.

12 O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.

 

One girl named Naomi Wadler, who led fellow students on a walkout at her school, said:

“My friends and I might still be 11 and we might still be in elementary school, but we know,” she said. “We know life isn’t equal for everyone and we know what is right and wrong.”

And of course Obama chimed in with an always relevant piece of outhouse wisdom:

 

Nothing can stand in the way. Forget that, unfortunately, nothing stood in the way of this shooter in Parkland to commit this atrocity. Nothing except a coach who tried to intervene to save some students and died.

But no law enforcement officer stood in his way, no social worker, school employee, sheriff deputy, FBI agent, or school resource officer on the scene. Nothing. But they deliberately ignore all those failures on the record. Yet nothing can stop these kids, this anti-gun movement, now.

Obama must be snickering about that. No stopping the shooter, just stop NRA and any legislators in their way.  I get shivers when I hear Obama talking about “change”.

Yet there were some counterprotestors calling to protect the Second Amendment.

“I like talking to people I disagree with so I can get a broader range of views. I’d say there’s a lot of misinformation and I came to talk to people,” Eric Ciabottonia, a 19-year-old engineering major from Penn State University.

Right Ring | Bullright

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

The Sanctuary Argument Problem

I have just the argument for the Sacnctuary Moonbats. But I promise they won’t like it.

You know their ever-loving, illegal alien argument for Sanctuary Cities. They claim it makes us safer. We all need to follow their lead, they say.

So the mantra goes that the Sanctuary policies — lawlessness — makes the city safer. That’s why they do it and need it. See, the illegals won’t be afraid to call the police or report crime, or will not commit crimes, so they say. Thus, crime rates go down. This is the latest airtight argument for Sanctuary Cities. (plus they are supposedly a shinning example) Illegal aliens are afraid of their illegal status. Let’s just humor them and play along.

Then I have the perfect but real argument they cannot reject. Gun owners and second amendment advocates respect the rule of law as law abiding citizens because they don’t want to jeopardize their rights or carry permits. More legal gun owners makes us safer. Non-gun owners have nothing at stake. So the more legitimate gun owners we can have, the better and the more safer we all will be. That’s a win.

Here is the difference and contrast. Notice how Sanctuary advocates always blur the line. They morph legal and illegal immigration. They will only use the word “immigration.”

Gun owners don’t advocate for law-breaking gun owners, like criminals and gangsters. They don’t have any problem condemning the criminals and their use of guns. They don’t stand for lawbreakers. That would make them look bad. We don’t lump them all together in one, gang members and black market guns with upstanding gun owners.

However, the illegal activists and advocates cannot distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Doing so would ruin their cause. Actually, it is a real insult to immigrants who follow law and become legal citizens to equate the two. It is offensive to legal immigration. Yet they do it all the time, asserting no difference from one to the other. They only say that we must change laws so that illegals can become legals. That is amnesty.

You won’t hear the second amendment activists and voters saying that we need to legalize all illegal gun owners. They certainly do not unify behind that idea of lawlessness either.

Right Ring | Bullright

Rights in question by definition

This is about a wide range of events, not just on the Las Vegas shootings.

I pray for all the victims, families, and all the heroes too. My heart goes out to them.

All these many issues and events are connected with a common theme. It’s pretty simple. Principles and philosophy are keys to the common denominator in all.

 

The phrase has repeatedly been proven so many times that “Democrats don’t trust people with their own money.” That always keeps coming up, and we keep saying it. Of course it doesn’t change though, it’s always the same way in the end. They don’t.

But not only don’t progressives, liberals or whatever, not trust us with our money; they don’t trust us with the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th or the 9th amendments. The same theme throughout is that you cannot be trusted with those “rights” or the freedoms, even those which are not enumerated and retained by the people.

1st: they don’t trust you with your freedom of religion, speech, or assembly. It doesn’t matter that you are secure in those rights. Either the government or others know better and so you are not capable of using your rights to your best interest. That they should have veto powers over those “rights”. Limited by any means.

2nd: You cannot be trusted with the rights to own arms, that someone needs to oversee and regulate or limit your rights. (first they tried to say your rights don’t even apply but Heller decided that. Now they are up to the less right you have, the better for society)

5th: You cannot be trusted with your own freedom of private property. Kelo decision tried to answer that. Your right stops at government’s need and greed. The Supremes freely and liberally reinterpreted what “public use” means — whatever they want it to, including economic value to the community. Secondly, likewise “just compensation” means what they say it means — for what public use they deem fit — for your property.

Hitler once corrected a reporter on how he was not opposed to ownership of private property, just that property owners should consider themselves agents of the state.

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” They believe in limiting your enumerated rights and so naturally they are suspicious on your ability to handle any of your rights not enumerated, which they can disparage, regulate or deny. Basically, they reserve their right over your rights. I cannot find their superior, sovereign power.

So is there a running theme here? I think so. But now we see that they just don’t trust us, or people in general, in their freedom. Notice they are very suspicous of our motives or use of our rights. And I’m suspicious of progressives’ sincerity about the Bill of Rights.

And of course by denying or restricting those first ten of the Bill of rights, they also infringe on the 14th amendment of due process and equal protections of the laws.

It becomes clear with any serious thought that the left, who spouts platitudes about rights, just does not trust you — or anyone opposed to their interpretation, thinking, or ideology. Thus, your rights must be subservient to their ideology, agenda and political convenience.

Liberals don’t trust you with your money, rights, freedom, or property, or believe in your ability to protect it. That government’s duty is to control our freedom, not secure it.

Right Ring | Bullright

A Democrat message in a bottle to anyone listening

Welcome to the Left — I mean the new reality. (oops even ‘reality’ is a pun now.)

I heard interesting conversations from libs in the last few days, after the Alexandria shooting. It was “one nut,” “one crazy guy.” So you point out that it is more than one guy out there with the DNC. They scoff. Then you point to tweets and Libs’ blame of Trump for even shooting Reublicans. Nice. They deny it has anything to do with partisan politics.

They tell you how they condemn all forms of violence by anyone. “It is not a left vs right thing,” they claim, “we support peaceful action.” Why can’t we all get along, why the bitterness? We point out the Left’s problem and propensity for violence, so they claim they haven’t seen or known anyone like that. You can only play dumb for so long. (below)

Actually it looks and feels a lot like arguments about Islam and terrorists. The same tactics and strategy in both. If it is one thing I concluded over the years, it is that violence is the Left’s plan-B when it can’t get its way.

To the rescue: Pat Buchanan has ‘Exhibit-A’ chronicling the long, bitter history of the Left with hatred and the violence accompanying it. Hey, they don’t call it Hard Left for nothing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, who aspired to end his life as a mass murderer of Republican Congressmen, was a Donald Trump hater and a Bernie Sanders backer.

Like many before him, Hodgkinson was a malevolent man of the hating and hard left.

His planned atrocity failed because two Capitol Hill cops were at that Alexandria baseball field, providing security for House Whip Steve Scalise. Had those cops not been there, a massacre would have ensued with many more dead than the gunman.

More at: http://buchanan.org/blog/long-history-leftist-hatred-127223

But we have an evolving view playing out in front of us. Here is an exchange.

Excuse number one:(from a Dem strategist)

Sigh or high-five, who can be sure?

Of course it is only a sampling, there are too many to mention. It is cool to talk up their hatred insisting that somehow the Left’s violence could be justified because of Republicans’ agenda or what we did. Blame the victims as if Repubs should have expected this.

And then there is the class war argument. How long have libs been running on class warfare? Yet the idiots have that figured out too. Dems class warfare is our fault too — even though it is about all they have to run on. Their strategy is blamed on Repubs.

Have you ever witnessed a bunch of people more averse to taking any responsibility than the liberal left? Republicans and conservatives aren’t even in the same race.

Radical Islamic agenda and gun control

Eric Bolling filled in on the O’Reilly Factor. A former Obama advisor, Nayyera Haq, argued for more gun control laws. Eric laid out the Islamist problem spreading like wild fire. Well, it’s hard to deny, hard as libs try.

The terrorist was “a homophobic who clearly had mental health issues”.

She claimed we are making progress on ISIS, but that as we make gains in the ME, ISIS gets desperate calling for lone wolf attacks. “As you beat back ISIS on the ground in Syria and Iraq, they spread to Europe and US. So that’s a separate problem,” she said.

Then came the revelations of CIA Director Brennan. He tells us the are coming here and scheming to exploit the refugee program and immigration. Nayyera Haq said:

“I think a big part of the answer is: now that it’s coming to America homeland, let’s not make it easy for people to get weapons like AR-15s or any other weapons… now, absolutely.”

Did she make that loud and clear? We have to sacrifice our rights and guns because the terrorists are coming here. That might have been a Freudian slip, but it’s the ugly truth. They must crack down on our rights because of Radical Islamic Terrorists and jihadis — which they can’t even mention — are obsessed with killing. Target guns not terrorists.

Let me flush that out further. Immigrants, real immigrants, typically come here to assimilate into America. Islamic radicals come here to assimilate America to them, Islam. They don’t want any part of assimilation and if we have to sacrifice or lose things because of them coming here, all the better. That is not immigration, that’s an invasion, a hostile takeover. But Islamists already declared war on us, so it’s no surprise.

Incidentally, the Radicals and Muslims are some of the most vocal supporters of gun control, why is that? I’ve read articles by so-called moderate, liberal Muslims for gun control. Stop looking at their Islam faith, blame our gun laws, they say. Absurd.

So now for a message to our Commander and Denier:

Mr. Obama, if you really want Americans to resent Muslims, then take our rights away and demand we sacrifice our guns because the Radical Islamists’ political agenda cannot be controlled or defeated. That will make Americans respect Muslims more, won’t it?

That is not a wise trade off: making new rights and protections for Muslims while you take away our Constitutional rights. Then again, Obama will not enforce the laws there now, and scrubbed regulations for offensive words. What these radicals and terrorists are doing is treason, something like what you’ve been doing. But here is the king of deception himself.

“The reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism,” Obama lectured us after Orlando.

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam. It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.”

“It wouldn’t make us more safe, it would make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” – NOLA

Even within that rebuttal he could only call it extremism. Obama is an extremist obfuscater of the first degree. Our greatest threat is still sitting in the Oval Office.

RightRing | Bullright

Rev Graham disputes Obama’s gun control agenda

See: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/

Dir. Brennan:

“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

“We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks,” he said. “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”

“They’re taking advantage of the liberties that we’ve fought so hard to defend,” he said.

But Comander-Divert-and-Deny is worried about guns. Never mind immigration, border or refugee crises. Priorities. He has already disrupted our law enforcement process and supplanted political correctness throughout. He ignores the central, overwhelming threat. The one he shall not name, RIT. I smell another Obama lecture coming to Americans .

Message — target guns not Islamist terrorists.

National Immigration Propaganda Month

How do you know the dog days of summer are here? That would be when the Left and Obama embark on another #Hashtag campaign, #IamAnImmigrant. Or to be more specific, June is dubbed national Immigrant Heritage month.

Our borders and laws are being ignored so the Left starts another ad campaign, recruiting celebs and people too start using the new hashtag.

The left and Obama have ridiculed Trump’s use of Twitter. But these artisans of social media in the administration make no bones about using social media to rally their political support — all the way to Egypt.

The last hashtag you’ll see them promote is #America. Not without a few adjectives at least. But in the case of immigrants, no adjectives are needed or wanted. No need to say illegal immigrant. No need to say legal immigrant because it is all the same, to them. There are no qualifiers to immigration in their minds.

Fox News

According to the latest CBP figures, agents detained 27,754 unaccompanied minors from Central America in the first six months of the fiscal year, almost double last year’s total of 15,616 and just shy of the 2014 record of 28,579.

The numbers for immigrants traveling as families is even higher, with 32,117 apprehended — almost triple last year’s total of 13,913 and well above the 2014 “surge” figure of 19,830.

The immigration rush isn’t just at the southern border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, almost 500,000 immigrants who entered the U.S. legally last year overstayed their visa. Yet, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency removed fewer than 3,000 overstays, or less than 1 percent.

Breitbart

Nonprofit organization Welcome US gathered a star-studded group of Hollywood celebrities to kick off its “I Am an Immigrant” campaign in honor of Immigrant Heritage Month[also anti-Trump].

The group produced a video featuring 50 influential celebrity figures, including actresses Rosario Dawson, Kerry Washington, Julianne Moore, Lupita Nyong’o, Tracee Ellis Ross, and actors George Lopez, Guillermo Diaz, and Bobby Cannavale.

 

Incidentally, this is not to overshadow other officially endorsed hashtags like Obama’s WH promotion of #WearOrange. That one is for gun control. In my mind, a “wear orange” hashtag should support an indictment of Hillary. But for gun control or gun violence, they pick wearing orange as the designated color.

Then Hillary, on ABC, could not clearly say there is a second amendment. She said “IF there is one” it needs to be regulated. Gee, I wonder if “regulation” could be used on immigration, something clearly in need of legislative regulation, enforcement?

Tale of 2 wealthy candidates

This is a comparison between Trump and Romney. Both independently wealthy but the contrast couldn’t be any greater.

When Romney ran, his wealth was an embarrassment used against him. Trump’s wealth is a good thing. He self funds. There are pros and cons to that but…like it or not.

Trump doesn’t hide from his wealth, it’s part of who he is. Yet he relates to working class people just as well. Romney had difficulty relating to regular or working people.

Romney’s wealth was used a weapon against him. They don’t seem able to do that with Trump. Are Democrats going to go with the old rule book and demonize him for being rich? Nice try, what will that do? Trump’s wealth is an asset not a liability.

What a difference. Romney would wait to see which way the wind was blowing before making a position statement, parsing it any way he could. Romney had his circle of advisers, who also blew it. Remember the debate where he finally took on Obama and Benghazi? Then he dropped the ball and fumbled the rest of the race. He swore he was the only one who could stand the heat and take on Obama and his long train of abuses. But the left defined him early and often, which he had no answer to. He was disconnected from the actual voters. Romney had his political record and his schizophrenic stances. Finally some concluded he really didn’t care if he won — even with all the RNC’s help and defense.

Trump, on the other hand, has none of the Romney attributes. He does not play by the politically correct rule book. Romney was all about political correctness. Trump is not the wall street insider. He is not predictable as the morning dew. He does respond and answer critics without taking days, even weeks, to formulate a palatable response. Trump swings hard. For a guy who wrote a book on “no apologies,” Romney certainly was apologetic for a lot of things, especially his wealth. Finally for losing. Romney had a history and dynasty aspect to his political career. Trump is very much all on his own, with no family baggage.

Romney allowed himself to be defined by the critics. Trump refuses to fit their mold and play their games. In fact, Trump changes the game. He defines his opponents. Refreshing.

Romney stepped on the conservative vote. Trump broadened the playing field. Trump points to the exact Romney-type people who created the messes. How many people sat out the vote and didn’t participate in 2012? The fix seemed to be in with Romney from early on. Trump redefined what the Washington fix is.

Trump can identify with people where Romney could not. Romney gave the impression of the Northeast RINO. Trump exudes the street fighter persona that Mitt only wished he had. Romney got lost in staff bureaucracy. Trump owns the face of his campaign. Romney was perpetually on defense. (don’t ever run again) Trump is on the offense to spite his critics. Trump attracts attention, Romney put people to sleep. Romney had the golden opportunity handed to him. Trump was attacked from the onset. Trump has the scruffiness of a cab driver. Romney would not think of such things.

Oh but now Romney resurfaces as a backseat critic in the primary process — I guess that’s all you could say Romney won — with his widespread team of gurus and composites in tow. Romney was entrenched in the establishment which separated him from the working class. Romney had the top down approach, Trump has the bottom up “movement” approach. When did you ever see anyone get a tattoo of Romney on their leg? Trump has a brand, like it or not, and a following. Romney had his family and a close set of advisers and hacks. Romney was the carefully scripted candidate, Trump is not.

We were told Romney expanded the party tent. RNC pushed that one. Trump actually does and attracted new and young voters. Actually, a study in December showed Trump had at least 5 points more support among young voters than polls suggested.

So Romney decides he knows better than all injecting his criticism for Trump — possibly on behalf of the RNC establishment et al — to call for a release of Donald’s tax records. There might be a “bombshell” in there he says. Romney goes down the maybe road. Romney takes Harry Reid’s slimy strategy, then asks “What’s he hiding?”

The Romney campaign was train wreck of record chases. No one bests the Democrats at their own game. Romney could not even use Obama’s spurious record trail to his benefit. Failure defines Romney. Winning defines Trump. Still, Trump’s own opposition research turns up things when needed, unlike Romney’s. Now Romney calls for records all over the liberal mainstream media. He even uses their catch phrases like a weapon. Romney is no friend to conservatives, he’s the consummate political hack carping from the bleachers. So the guy who couldn’t take on Obama now plays Mr Rough and tumble critic with Trump. This just shows Romney as the elitist establishment insider he is.

Mitt makes Trump look better, if that’s possible. Thankfully it is not 2012, again.

RightRing | Bullright

Curiouser, haunting Benghazi details

Benghazi always seems to come back to what didn’t we know and when didn’t we know it?

BOMBSHELL: Here Are The Stunning Instructions The Benghazi Rescue Team Received

Will this be a new Benghazi “ghost” to haunt Hillary?

Duane Lester January 20, 2016 | TPNN

From the beginning of the heated controversy over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi, people have wondered why no U.S. response force was sent to defend and rescue the diplomat and the other victims of the assault. New evidence now indicates that not only were fighting forces on the way, but they were deterred by not being cleared to enter Libya, leaving our people to the relentless murderers on the ground.

And that may not be the worst of it.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson says she was informed of military teams ready to deploy or actually heading to Libya before they were told to stop or turn back, even as the 8-hour-long attack continued.

“This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway,” Attkisson claims. “They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died. Those attacks went on for eight hours.”

On her show “Full Measure,” Attkisson interviewed Col. Andrew Wood, the man who once led a Special Forces anti-terrorism unit that protected Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya. He said his team was removed a month prior to the attacks, despite warnings of terrorist activity and possible violence against the U.S. facilities in Benghazi. He told Attkisson about the team mentioned in an email as “spinning up” to respond to the attacks on September 11, 2012.

“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood reportedly claimed. “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”

There has been speculation about President Obama’s involvement in the non-response to repeated pleas for help during the prolonged attack on the U.S. compound. Some claim that Obama or someone very close to him issued a stand down order, denying those whose lives were on the line the support that might have saved them. Often the reason cited for such a supposed order was to protect the president from scandalous involvement in a horrific situation just prior to the 2012 election.

Attkisson noted on her show that as of today, “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack on foreign soil.”

h/t: PJ Media

Original article at http://www.tpnn.com/2016/01/20/bombshell-here-are-the-stunning-instructions-the-benghazi-rescue-team-received/

 

This also goes to the heart of another scandal, Fast and Furious, based on my opinion. From my reading and understanding, any time the US has an operation involving another sovereign country the President must be briefed and sign off on it. It’s part of the chain of command. That means Obama cannot have the plausible deniability he continually implies. That also means he okayed gun running operations going south of the border.

It means the latest 50 cal gun found in El Chapo Guzmán’s hideout is a direct product of that and that the guns used in killing people in Mexico and in the US were part and parcel of Obama’s operation. So does it make sense that these were rogue operations he was unaware of or not under his oversight as CiC? No way, José . Even Eric Holder could not have conducted it without Obama’s approval.

But then as the article asserts, it gets worse. We don’t have any account or detail of what Obama was doing on the Benghazi attack. And despite that “lengthy” hearing, we don’t know what all Clinton did, or didn’t do, on the night of the attack and after. If memory serves me, she did not speak to the Sec of Defense until the following morning. And as the article states, we now know that security forces were pulled from the Benghazi compound earlier, before the attack ever happened.

On both F&F and Benghazi we have no account for the involvement of the Commander in Chief. Despite Hillary taking full responsibility for Benghazi, again in 2015, she never did. Pursuant to that “responsibility,” would she ever be running for President in 2016?

Prof of gun rant goes to Washington, as Obama’s guest

Check out this university professor in Nebraska who apparently is in love with the “F” bomb but hates guns with a similar passion. In case you wonder English is her subject.

Amanda-Gailey-Rant-Edited

The woman, Amanda Gailey, an English professor, is also the director of a group known as Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, according to her Facebook profile.

Source: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/14/fk-police-officers-fk-laws-professor-gets-personal-invite-to-meet-obama-after-this-rant-294264?hvid=2ZZYR4

This is why we need a license and background check on the first amendment. Yet this gets a personal invitation to the WH.

DWS does it again

Here comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz playing the abortion card.

The millennials are complacent on abortion. Does she have any idea how stupid she sounds? Don’t answer that.

The Hill

For many in my generation who lived the majority of our lives with the right to make our own health care choices, there wasn’t a sense of urgency after Roe v. Wade settled our right to a safe and legal abortion. Since then, opponents worked aggressively to chip away at women’s reproductive freedom and they have awakened a sleeping giant in the millennials leading the fight in defense of the progress we’ve made,” she said. Read more

Dems can’t stand up for the 2nd amendment but they can stand up for a contorted right to privacy as a sacred right of abortion. A “Right” to kill a baby for any reason, any time — or “progress” as DWS calls it. But guns are somehow the problem in America.

After all, Hillary’s estrogen level must be running a little low, since she had to deploy Bubba Bill on the campaign trail to rally support. Now Debbie has to go browbeat the millennials for not faithfully supporting the right to murder babies. No rest for the wicked.

Step right up – rewrites R us

Always be suspicious when a Democrat or progressive tells you that “most Americans want” this or that. I would say run but we can’t afford to and cede that soundbite to them. It is never true when they declare to speak for most people. If most people really knew exactly what these social salesmen were all about then most people would not have anything to do with it all. But Dems have this perception illusion going on.

The latest of these tactics is playing out in the age-old push for gun control. They are always going to be looking to take guns from law abiding people and nothing is going to stop them. Not even the will of the people when it speaks loudly and clearly. It didn’t stop them on Obamacare or a myriad of other things. But when a majority of people disagree with Democrats, it doesn’t matter anyway, even when you point it out. Then, like Obama tells us, people are too stupid or don’t understand.

The Dems’ conversation always starts with “what most Americans want’. That’s the first clue you’re about to be scammed. If you walked down the street and people screamed to you that most people are buying a certain item, would you go buy it? No, but somehow we are supposed to buy their schemes that way. (they are not plans) The only problem is when the people don’t go along with their plans – when they don’t want what Dems are selling. Then what Americans want is irrelevant.

What Americans want doesn’t matter when Americans overwhelmingly don’t want Syrian refugees. Most Americans want accountability in government, especially from the administration, but let’s scratch that off their list. Most Americans wanted accountability on Benghazi but that didn’t matter. Americans by far really want something done about our VA system and people to be held accountable, but that is not at the top of the to-do list for the administration. Most Americans do not want a sniveling, weak-kneed Obama traveling around the world throwing America under the bus, apologizing apparently on their behalf. No, they resent that but it still doesn’t stop Obama from delivering it.

Now they tell us most Americans want gun control. They even say that NRA members want to close this or that “loophole”. Two things are on the rise: gun ownership and purchases; and membership in the NRA. Do we think that both of these are because people want tighter gun control? But that’s what they’d have us believe. Any time Democrats really want something, you can count on them saying it is what “most Americans want.”

In fact Obama has taken a string of unilateral actions because people do not want them. So he does it anyway. Amnesty was very unpopular. Yet Obama comes out and tells us about what most Americans want as if he were reading our subconscious. And you can count on their favorite key word being used, loopholes. I have said before that the second amendment is not a loophole, but that is what Leftists would have you believe.

CBS reports:

After months of legal review, the White House is expected to unveil executive measures aimed at reducing gun violence, as soon as early next week, according to those briefed on the executive branch’s plans.

In early October, shortly after the mass shooting at an Oregon community college, President Obama assigned White House and Department of Justice lawyers to comb the law in search of any unused administrative authority available to him.

What Obama didn’t or couldn’t get for Christmas, he is now looking to indulge himself with by executive actions. President-Selfie has an appetite for gun control and he doesn’t care what is on the House menu. So he will gorge himself on drunken executive power by writing executive orders. He plans a meeting with Loretta Lynch on Monday to pave the way for his smorgasbord feast.

If you think I may be over dramatizing Obama’s actions, then you only have to look at what he is really doing. First thing off Christmas va-K, in the new year, he goes right for gun control even before his final State of the Union Speech. That drops a big clue about what will be in the dictate which is typically a laundry list for executive power — and appetite thereof.

If it is one major accomplishment for Obama, when he leaves office to return from whatever spawned him, it will be to never have found the limits of the Presidential Constitutional authority. Apparently something he never believed existed. So he wanted to be sure to slay any myth to the contrary. The only limitation he accepted was the two-term one, but even to that said if he ran again he would win. He had a backhanded comment for that inconvenience.

People gave up writing his epitaph long ago because they could see reality unfolding. Here he is on the verge of re-writing the second amendment. His record of civil war byproducts wherever he goes, in tow. He’ll avail himself of the power to change Constitutional rights.

http://twitchy.com/2015/12/31/cbs-presidents-proposed-executive-actions-wont-eliminate-gun-show-loophole/
Read about the loophole scam.
2nd Amendment Fight — “there is no online gun-store loophole”
Washington Times — “the gun-show loophole myth”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Rendezvous with Terrorism Speech

Dr. Evil acted the part delivering his post terrorism address. But after assorted tries he finally attempts to nail down a message — a message but not a strategy. 4-Point BS.

First, was his comment he would call the president of France later to express his sentiments on the Paris attack. Then, when in Paris, he had a failed press conference getting hammered by questions on terrorism. Then he went to Manila and made statements on the terrorism attack, refusing as he does to call it Islamic terrorism. Then after San Bernardino was labeled an act of terror, he delivers his Saturday address talking about gun control So third bite at the terrorism apple, he has an address on terrorism. He finally called it terrorism only when he could not deny it.

Obama needed to mute the criticism of not making a formal announcement about it. Alas, still, maybe it is Americans fault for the non-inclusive prejudice against Muslims and our rampant Islamophobia? Hardly, they threw the terrorist couple a baby shower just months before. That’s a sure sign of Islamophobia.

All’s fair in warfare, or maybe not.

Obama has become the problem in the way Islam has become the problem. Complacency has led to being complicit. If he wants to manage this homeland terrorism how he managed ISIS, then we are certainly in for more pain with no gain. Obama’s complacency has brought us to this point. So if Sen. Blumenthal can declare Congress complicit for failing to enact gun control, then he should see the reality that Obama is complicit by his failures.

Islam is complicit by their complacency for years to do anything about it. There is a war within Islam, except there is only one side fighting it. Radical Islam is at war with us and only one side is really fighting it. But Obama is building a Climate Caliphate saying that will prove something to ISIS and Islamists.

The San Bernardino attack proved the fallacy in the administration’s terrorism theology. Remember that one? They claimed terrorists are caused by lack of jobs and poor socioeconomic conditions. Syed Farook was working for the government, with all the perks, as a so-called public servant. Scrap that theory, or label government employment a prerequisite for terrorism too. Nope. Oh, then it was droughts are the cause terrorism. There must have been a drought in San Bernardino. He was a health inspector of restaurants. But if only we could give them good jobs and good economic conditions, and prevent the climate from causing droughts. Then stop them from being victims, too.

Obama spoke from the Oval office:

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

Again he refers to it as a tragedy. Can we move on to the terrorism it was?

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

Yes, thank goodness the FBI already determined it was terrorism, so you are a little late informing us of that. Still he emphasizes coworkers, as if that really had anything to do with it, except to provide them an opportunity for a soft target. But there he goes parsing the words that we have no evidence of connection to a wider conspiracy at home. (Disclaimer alert) Tell that to the dead and victims in San Bernardino. We know they were connected to terrorism abroad and she swore allegiance to the Caliphate. Pay no attention to that or his trip to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The obvious money connections mean nothing either. Oh, it must have been a lucrative government job to amass that arsenal of supplies by his lonesome, making that socioeconomic cause even more ridiculous. They must have dumped all that income into Islamic radical terrorism. So just lip service calling it radical terrorism.

Then he finally admits it is an act of terrorism, born of a radical religious ideology. The “perverted interpretation” some argue is more common and mainstream than many people accept. So this was cover for Obama’s ass to call it terrorism and implying a radical element to it. They were not just walking along, minding their own business, and fell victim to this perverted radical Islam, as victims themselves. No, there were only those real victims and the shooters were not victims. An ISIS spokesman prayed God would accept them as martyrs. Yep, martyrs that kill 14 and wound others in an ambush attack? Definitions shift like Obama.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure.

Wait, you mean the War On Terror term that you abolished in political correctness and naive strategic failure. A war you tried to undermine by scrubbing any reference to radical Islamism in our strategy, plans, or rules. And your war on the term “terrorism?”

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe.

Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been hampered and crippled by your P/C-fied policies and playing politics with our nations security. Treasonous by nature. If someone would have hindered our response after Pearl Harbor would we have allowed it? You mean those counter-terrorism measures our people carried out in spite of your undermining the central objective to root out Islamic terrorism in and out of the country. Kudos to them for that.

And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

No, most of us know that, though it could be called a cancer, there is a cure even a short term one you are unwilling to commit to. And making statements calling it a JV team is not the prescription, nor is the denial about the source of this terrorism and ideology. That even inspires the cancer to grow. Pampering Muslims does little to combat it in the immediate future and makes it harder to confront in the longer term. An effect not lost on the terrorists.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

You do not have to tell us the threat is real. That is confirmed in real time. You’ve been in denial about it all along, deceiving, saying things like the world has always been a dangerous place. Seems you have no issue with tough talk when it comes to Republicans or even shutting down the government, or getting your way — any way you can, even abusing the Executive-Order pen. Tell us what groups like ISIS are hoping for. Inaction is what they are hoping for and counting on. We are being smart, then, by denying the severity of the threat, by relentlessly criticizing our own people for calling it a threat? Drawing upon every aspect of American power? Really, that is the height of deception you’ve been engaged in. You have constrained and criticized the use of American power. Instead, you use the bully pulpit to chastise American patriots. You take shots at Congress from foreign shores and play politics with our resources, including our military.

So in that manner we will succeed? This blind faith in you strategy has not been working to date, but still you say just believe and stay the course. (the one that brought us to this point) Strong, smart, resilient, relentless. Being strong and smart is not something we lack. It is you that has buried your head in the sand, as in Benghazi blaming it on a video for political reasons. Being nowhere to be found on the night of the Benghazi attack. Or going into Libya by sidestepping Congress. And look where that has led. Or your support and direct involvement in the Arab Spring from the beginning, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, a fruitful exercise.

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary.

But it is not just the social planners of terrorism who are a problem. It is the terrorists on the street, in sleeper cells that do the damage, and lone wolves.

In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

You mean the lackluster politically correct effort you made so far? But now France and others have stepped in to do something besides return armed bombers. Since now you have finally allowed hitting oil tankers. Wouldn’t it have been achievement if you had done some of that before, when ISIS columns were moving into the neighborhood?

Second, training and equipping to the tune of 500 million that produced four warriors.

Third, working with friends and allies sounds a lot like the first. Wait for others, lead from behind. Works every time.

Fourth, more American leadership from behind in the international community “to focus on the common goal of destroying ISIL — a group that threatens us all.” Let’s hope that proves more productive than the Iran deal. A leadership that you, Obama, have failed to demonstrate so far. I only wish you would show the same passion for that as you have for the global warming agenda.

This is our strategy to destroy ISIL. It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition. And we constantly examine our strategy to determine when additional steps are needed to get the job done.

You mean those changes you have been so stubbornly against? Yeah, more of that. Or you mean the job of leaving it for the next president to deal with after you removed the thousands of support troops from Iraq and grew the numbers and support for ISIS?

That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country. And that’s why I will urge high-tech and law enforcement leaders to make it harder for terrorists to use technology to escape from justice.

Finally, after an DHS spokesperson said they stand by that policy, you will now “review”(look at) that visa program. Lets hope you don’t look at it like you did the Keystone Pipeline.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

It is actually a red herring. A great talking point on the left. We have a program plagued with problems now which you want to use to control gun screening.

Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists. For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.

Another red herring, the Constitution or anything else has not stopped or prevented you before from acting, such as in Libya.

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That’s what groups like ISIL want. They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield.

That makes no real sense. If they cannot defeat us on the battlefield, why would they want us there? I get it, you are not interested in a war, even if they have declared one on us. Yet you call on Congress to declare authorization for you to act.

Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future Presidents must take to keep our country safe, let’s make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional.

Right never forget what makes us exceptional, while denying we are exceptional. That makes sense. By the way, a good many people wish they could trust you.

Let’s not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear;

Let’s talk about that. We aren’t forgetting and haven’t. Just that we value our freedom and sovereignty more than you do. You want to entangle us and give away our sovereignty. How does that make us free or freer?

Now that you mention fear, you are building a Climate Caliphate based and founded on fear. And it seeks to limit our freedom and economic freedoms. How is that compatible with what you advocate? More specious words meant more to deceive rather than heal a climate of frustration with your use(abuse) of power.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s “hateful” rhetoric

Obama worries about people “…falling victim to hateful ideologies.”

In Obama’s Saturday Address:

“It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years — the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies.”

“All of us…need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.”

I worry of people falling victim to that hateful ideology coming from the White House.

Are we all feeling like victims yet? The man who doesn’t know widows from terrorists.

Obama is worried about “loopholes” yet the fiancée visa loophole, or other amnesty policy (advocacy), is not a problem. DHS said they stand behind that policy. Let’s close those real giant loopholes in America. The 2nd Amendment is not a loophole!

RightRing | Bullright

It’s terrorism, stupid

Only here would we spend a day and a half debating whether or not this is Terrorism? Nah, we can’t jump to conclusions.(what jump?) Obama again calls it “a tragedy.” They wouldn’t even release the name because it might point to Islamic terrorism.

But they jumped to a gun control problem. Obama ensures the American people that ‘we are going to get to the bottom of this’. I really wish he hadn’t said that. It is not the guns that are the problem here.

All the Democrat pols sounded like parrots talking about gun control and politicizing the act within minutes. Then they say the prayers aren’t working and a paper declares “God is not fixing this.”

Yet oh don’t talk about the elephant in the room, Islamic jihad terrorism, or Islamic radicalism.(shhhh) What nonsense. Sorry, but God doesn’t have a lot to work with there.