Taking A Long Walk With Stupid

If you are expecting a self-deprecating apology piece here, you might be disappointed.

My current theory, which I will try to prove, is that when you post a few thousand things on the internet, you are entitled to make a couple stupid things. Seems like that should be a certainty. I’ll just amuse myself by taking a walk down that road.

I’m not sure yet what the ratio is, for example 2 per thousand or five or whatever, but there must be some scientific number that could be applied to it.I suddenly noticed that I may be seriously short of my quota and will try to catch up on it.

With a healthy dose of imagination and lack of reality, I’ll give you a glimpse of what passes for stupid. The rest is up to your judgement.

I will attempt to leave truth behind because, hey, you cannot do stupid too well without a fair denial of reality at certain points.

We came through what is declared as an unprecedented election that no one could have predicted or expected. Then comes the realm of filling the role people elected him for.

Post election, about the only thing we heard a lot about is Russia. If you were one who could not find Russia on a map before the election, I bet you at least can now. If you didn’t know anything about this strange (apparently) unexplored place on earth, then you were in for a real treat in 2017.

I’ll take stupid for 500, Alex.

Hey, how many people know the presidents or leaders of countries around the world? But now we all know who is president of Russia. Even the dumbest liberals do. (Boris Yeltsin not so much) He’s probably better recognized than Oprah Winfrey.

But then that is the beauty, you don’t have to know anything else — and nothing is required — only that Putin is in control of Russia. And that probably is not changing anytime soon. You don’t have to know their political system or their policy on any issue. What is Putin’s world view? That’s irrelevant, again.

If you follow the mainstream media coverage, one thing you probably have learned in this adventure is that Putin is Right-wing and his political platform is “conservative.” There can be little debate about that, they tell us. Anything else must be wrong or a lie.

Its’ enough to know that Russia is evil and Putin is their leader. Well, that about sums it up. No need to clog up brain cells with any nuance or moral equivilance of Russia to our own country. That could cloud the matter.

It’s not just for foreign policy. It’s a home game too.

Now that I have a craving for stupid, why not go all out and say that actively defying federal law makes sanctuary cities safer? Add to that the more illegals you can bring in — to protect at the expense of others — the more safe that community will be.

I made mistakes and even been stupid before, but I don’t think it ever reached this level.

While I am drinking the stupid juice, I should make a judgement about the Trump administration. Normally the beginning of a presidency gets a honeymoon period. Now I see this president not only will not have one but that in even a shorter time he will have to accomplish everything he said he would do. That’s hardly too much to ask. And he should also have to fix all the problems created and festering for at least eight years. That’s fair.

And then, let me try this for stupid: just say all the things that Obama was not challenged on for eight years, how about we challenge and hold the new president accountable for all that? Being no one had the guts to do that before, lets all feign righteous indignation over all the problems we turned a blind eye to for 8 years — while whistling past the graveyard.

Speaking of whistles, maybe we can now reward and pat so-called whistle blowers on the back when we couldn’t even encourage any under Obama, since that concealed the flood of corruption and politicization which went undeterred.

Being stupid now, I almost forgot the central tenant: we need to pound the podium at every chance to push impeachment. No, there aren’t enough votes but repetition equals reality. At least get some indictments now, which we couldn’t dare have under Obama’s Legacy of Lies,

There’s a new doctrine: elections do have consequences, i.e. denial and impeachment.

To complete my trip to Stupidville, I must rely on mainstream media and trust them as the sole information source. Their objectivity really impresses me. And if in doubt, when questions do arise, I can always count on former Obama mouthpieces to clarify them.

I also see I need to trust the FBI and intelligence, including the deep state, in what remains of the administrative state to keep everything running smoothly. Yeah, let me put all my trust in that despite what Trump attempts to do. How helpful are they? Fortunately for us, we didn’t need them, the dissent, or whistle blowers in the last administration… but times now have changed. Investigations are now heroes.

And with classified information and intelligence being spread across 17 intelligence agencies, at breakneck speed, they should be quick to point out all the flaws in real time. Having that whole cabal trying to “Factcheck” reality saves on revision later. Let’s just distort reality right from the beginning.

Now that I really look at it, maybe this stupid thing is just not my cup of tea, even for a temporary stint.

RightRing | Bullright

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

Got Milk?

Let me do serious for a minute instead of media’s mockery of anything related to Obama.

There was a wiretap of candidate Trump before the election.

So the control area of debris here is: a former president’s administration, two campaigns in a heated race, and a current president’s administration.

Add to that the chronic leaks epidemic just to spice it up.

Is that enough to give you pause?

 

For your viewing pleasure:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hannity-hammers-valerie-jarrett-over-wiretap-scandal-and-wins/55075/

Obama’s information spreading campaign

Even before he made his grand exit, Obama did all he could to set the stage for Trump. It’s called sabotage most places. But it’s just a day in office for the radical-in-chief, Obama.

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
//…

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”

MORE at NYT

The real story is there for all to see of Obama’s shadow government and its expansive influence. He would not be happy to give up power. And he isn’t finished.

Shadow government up and running

It may still be in the early, trial phase but the shadow government seems to be getting its feet on the ground as fast — or faster — than Trump can get his own administration up and running. Which is all probably their main objective. So here we are.

Loretta Lynch Played This Shocking Role In Setting Up A Coup Against Trump

American Patriot Daily News

The Trump administration has been plagued by leaks from the intelligence community.

Many believe these leaks were intended to destabilize the Trump Presidency and represent a soft coup.

And you won’t believe the role Loretta Lynch played in this plot.

Shortly before leaving office, Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed a directive loosening the rules on the NSA’s ability to share intercepted electronic communications with 16 other federal agencies, as well as their foreign counterparts.

The New York Times reports:

“In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.”

Now some critics are arguing this new order was the driving force behind the leaks that took down National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, is one of those critics.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, he argued that this order created a “shadow government” by expanding the pool of people able to access intercepted communications which would otherwise be classified.

Zero Hedge reports on his remarks:

“There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They had 8 years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks.

If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left.”

Obama supporters within the intelligence community have waged what some believe is a coup against Trump by using cherry-picked leaks to frame the information in the most damaging light possible.

Was this coup ultimately enabled by Loretta Lynch?

At least one expert is saying “yes.”

Original article at http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/loretta-lynch-shocking-role-setting-up-coup-against-trump

But it is not just the shadow government concerns at issue, it also enables the deep state that seems perpetually plotting against Trump. We have a real problem there.

It’s strange(not) that information was a rare commodity in the Obama adminstration. Now they spread information everywhere, leaks abound. No leaks and whistle blowers under Obama. Now, with their loyal allies in the media, they’ve become the angry yet powerful and permanent opposition. That is why the leaks need serious investigation.

All this information flowing, but yet we still do not even know the whereabouts of Obama during the Benghazi attack. How’s that?

Realted: https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/investigation-bring-down-obamas-shadow-government/

Obama Exits To Go Nowhere

So what do you call a Farewell Address when you don’t actually leave? Just asking.

No, it’s not a trick question.

Obama has said he is sticking around Washington and not going anywhere, and may be frequently speaking out. Yet he had the need to have a farewell address.

Do traitors make a farewell address now? Times, they are a changin’ I think. What if Benedict Arnold had got to make a farewell address. What would he would have said? Would it top Obama’s self-centered soliloquy? He even quoted a fictional character.

I’ve already heard now that Obama — the great orator he is was — is leaving, we won’t hear anything like this for a long time. I sure hope not, or ever hear BS piled that high.

His exit is just as radical as his two terms in office was. He’s not leaving, you morons out there drinking Obama juice. He’s ousted from the Oval Office — not gone.

Lay off the stuff… it will kill you if it doesn’t eat you from the inside first.

Not gone, not forgotten… just ____________ (there)

RightRing | Bullright

Congressional Review Act, Thanks Harry

Law backed by Harry Reid will haunt Dems in 2017

By Susan Crabtree | 12/16/16

One of outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s greatest legislative achievements will come back to haunt Democrats early next year.

President-elect Trump has promised to repeal two federal regulations for every new one issued, and the Congressional Review Act, which Reid co-sponsored in 1996, will give him a running start.

The law gives Congress the power to rescind any unwelcome late, so-called “midnight” regulations from an outgoing president through a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress.

Since its passage as part of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1996, it has only been successfully used once, but Republicans are promising to leverage its full power in January to kill rules the Obama administration has issued in its last months in office.

In his 77-minute farewell address on the Senate floor last week, Reid included the Congressional Review Act as one of his top accomplishments in the Senate, along with passage of Obamacare, the 2009 stimulus bill, a taxpayer bill of rights and several other measures

Republicans, with the help of the Congressional Research Service, have compiled a list of roughly 50 regulations they could go after early next year.

“I know some of my Democrat colleagues say, ‘Why did you do that?'” Reid said during his final speech on the Senate floor. “Here’s what I did. I worked with Republican Sen. Don Nickles from Oklahoma … Don and I talked about this. We knew that the administrations would change and it would affect every president, Democrat and Republican.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/law-backed-by-harry-reid-will-haunt-dems-in-2017/article/2609786

Good old Harry left something worth something.

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

Why Romney?

After following this courtship of Trump and Romney, I just cannot see the objective. Everything seems clouded by chaos and that aroma of elitism.

I can’t understand an appointment to Secretary of State for Romney. There are other places he could be squeezed into. Like a cabinet of commerce to focus on jobs.

Secretary of State? He does not have the foreign policy experience with all these countries. He could be a turn around guy but not the scope of State department.

Now that he is dug in so deep as the front runner, it would be hard to not pick him.

Democrats are almost giddy about his choice. But they had nothing but contempt for Romney in 2012. They had him exporting jobs and selling out America all over the world. His dog is still on top of that station wagon going down the highway. Now they have such admiration for Romney in 2016. They’re waxing nostalgia about him.

What about those confirmation hearings? Every statement he made about Trump will play on a loop and Dems can do what they do best, push an alternative reality. That is probably the reason they are happy. Romney will have to answer for every one of those comments, which Dems agree with. Repubs will be forced to defend Mittens as an all-star choice.

Remember State is one of Dems’ favorite departments. What a circus that will be. So that gives them all the ammo to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. Dems whole plan is to start to defrock Trump from the beginning. Romney is cut from central casting to play a lead role. Of course Mitt doesn’t care about being used by the Left. He has been their willing pawn all along. Useful idiot comes to mind.

Maybe it is supposed to remove him from the bleachers and the 2020 lineup? I don’t see either. Maybe it is a setup for ‘good cop bad cop’? I don’t see a benefit to Romney.

So I have some real mixed feelings about Mittens turning State Department hero.

Stocking the Cabinet of Deployables

Let’s review what Obama’s administration looks like: cabinet secretaries, sub cabinet, and all those influential and controversial Czars.

In order of succession to the Presidency: 15 cabinet, 6 sub cabinet, 32 czars

Vice President of the United States

Department of State

Department of the Treasury

Department of Defense

Department of Justice

Department of the Interior

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Labor

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

Department of Energy

Department of Education

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Homeland Security

The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:

White House Chief of Staff

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Management & Budget

United States Trade Representative

United States Mission to the United Nations

Council of Economic Advisers

Small Business Administration

Then there were all those controversial Czars which Obama denied were czars.

“Green Jobs Czar” ————- “Diversity Czar”

“Car Czar” ————————- “Cyber Czar”

“Intelligence Czar” ————– “Regulatory Czar”

“Safe Schools Czar” ————- “Border Czar”

“Science Czar” ——————— “Climate Czar”

“Energy Czar” ——————— “Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar”

“Pay Czar” ————————–  “Health Czar”

“Homeland Security Czar” or “Drones Czar”

“AIDS Czar” ————————- “Manufacturing Czar”

“Weapons Czar” ——————– “WMD Czar”

“California Water Czar” ——— “Asian Carp Czar”

“Great Lakes Czar” ————— “Information Czar”

“Technology Czar” —————– “Auto Recovery Czar”

“Drug Czar” ————————–  “Domestic Violence Czar”

“Urban Affairs Czar” ————– “Gitmo Czar”

“Mideast Czar” ———————- “Iran Czar”

“Stimulus Accountability Czar”

What’s missing? I know, how about a “Hope Czar” – Ambassador of Hope?

Oh but the Obama administration pushed back on using the term Czar. Maybe he just didn’t want to call them czars. Let’s hope Trump — or no other president for that matter — ever has a penchant for czars like Obama.

Campaign rats’ nest of who’s who

So Hillary Clinton — under FBI investigation — has her husband, former president Bill Clinton, the sitting president, Obama with AF-1, the sitting Vice President, a former Vice President, the current First Lady, Moochele, and a slew of assorted sitting elected officials all out campaigning for her to help drag her over the line.

Who’s paying for AF-1? Don’t people find this a bit top heavy? That’s enough; it’s all I have to say about it. And their biggest complaint is Donald Trump talking about a rigged system. Has anyone ever ran against a candidate, a sitting president and VP, and former president at the same time? We’re breaking history everywhere.

The Swamp, Hillary, Creatures, Corruption, Oh My

Obama hits the trail for Hillary. A lot has happened in 8 years and a lot hasn’t happened. The campaign difference between then and now is stark and Obama is caught in his hypocrisy. “Come on, man!”… as Obama repeats in his mocking way.

How can Hillary have been so wrong in 08 be so right for president today? Come on, man. So after setting up a server to avoid the public, those pesky citizens, and exploiting the office in a pay to play scheme never before seen, Hillary is suddenly ready for the White House. In fact, Obama says she is the most qualified person ever. So he was wrong then, and that was before her most recent scandals: servergate, pay to play and Benghazi.

Draining the Swamp is a great metaphor for Washington. Hillary is its ultimate poster child. Her sole identity is the Queen of the Swamp and the greatest single creature in it. Hillary is the metaphor for the Swamp metaphor. According to their rules for radicals, the Aliskyites’ goal is to personalize the issue. And Hillary Clinton personalizes the Swamp perfectly. She is the Swamp creature. Hillary is the bin Laden of the Swamp.

Obama said premiums are only going up for a handful of people who are not subsidized by government, so apparently it is a non-problem. Right, who cares about people that are not subsidized? I guess that was never a concern for Obamacare. Gruber admitted that they lied to get it passed. What happened was a lot of people wrongly believed that Obamacare would not affect them or their own plans. So all Obama had to do was fool deceive enough people that it would not affect them. Who cared about the truth volcano to follow?

Forget about all the real national security threats, the greatest national threat besides Obama is now Hillary Clinton. We cannot Drain the Swamp if we don’t keep Hillary out of the White House.

Yet Obama says Hillary Clinton is just picture perfect for the job, and she’ll focus on protecting kids and families. That is really not just a little green algae in the water.

Come on, man.

RightRing | Bullright

What Difference At This Point Does It Make? — Plenty and she’s not done

Below are two informative videos. First one is the abbreviated biography background on Huma Abedin. The bottom one is like a dossier of Hillary’s scandalous record: from cattle futures to her Senate, to her term as Secretary of State. Scandal should be the Queen of Corruption’s middle name. Consider the first only a primer, and a partner in crime.

Any Senate campaign that is kicked off by Peter Paul and Hsu is probably not going in the right direction. From there it only got worse. She was brought in front of the ethics committee on various things. She then took her national bid for president in 2008 in much the same spirit. Then on to scheming her server to avoid FOIA as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is running on her record of running from her record.

Think up a scandal and it’s probably in her dossier because that’s just how Hillary rolls.

Even William Safire, in his 1996 “Blizzard of Lies” essay in NY Times, branded Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar”. Now she is running on her record of “fighting for kids” and families as the heart of her focus. Give me a break. As Bill Clinton said, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Or as Hillary could admit — if she actually had a shred of conscience — that she “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

As Safire put it in ’96:

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Does all that sound familiar? Pack on top of Safire’s list everything she has done since, adding a mountain of new lies to the old. How about pulling 900 FBI files on her enemies for an appetizer? Smell that abusive power. It eventually comes to her real record, even if you could put aside her trail of scandals, which basically leads to a long Legacy of Lies.

H/T to see Political Insider

Newt on the Fundation case

On a The Laura Ingraham Show, Newt Gingrich said:

“[Lifezette] The Clintons run what is in effect the equivalent of organized crime,” [Gingrich] said. “They had methodically figured out every way to fleece people. They did so at the expense of the people of Haiti. They did so at the expense of poor people everywhere.”

“It is astonishing to me that the level of corruption is so deep that neither the FBI nor the IRS nor anyone has taken apart this whole operation,” [Newt] said. “The more we learn from WikiLeaks, the clearer it is that these people engaged in routine, illegal behavior for personal enrichment. ”

Read More: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/gingrich-clinton-foundation-equivalent-organized-crime/

Good for Newt stating the obvious. Why not call the Clintons’ Cosa Nostra what it is?

Personal enrichment is the name of the game. Cha ching. I am so done questioning why Hillary does what she does. It’s enough to know this is just the way she is. That is what we have to expect if she gets into the Oval Office. What ways could she abuse more power? I don’t know if I can count them all.

War on Christians is real… coming to your neighborhood

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty

By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post

Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.

In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html/

Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.

Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?

It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.

Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)

Catholic League — in 2003

At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.

And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.

Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.

Townhall.com reports

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.

While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.

Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.

That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.

The News Blues

What happened to when news was news instead of a campaign narrative or talking points? No more, those days are gone. Treated to a constant stream of “news” bias, it’s hard to have any confidence in their news at all, on anything. Sliced and diced in their political filters, they dispense it like candy. Public confidence in it takes a hit.

What else is gone is any hint of objectivity. Wiki Leaks purged emails on Friday and within an hour a hot and ‘salacious’ tape appeared about Trump. It was private statements from a decade ago. A Hurricane running up the East Coast and the news shifted to “breaking news” of the Trump tape. So much for real, hard news. But the hurricane coverage does take precedence over Hillary’s Wiki Leaks story. I see what they did there.

Immediately an interjection came from John Podesta saying that Russia, likely behind the hacks, could have altered the emails. But how likely is that? So Podesta has a huge problem, it appears Wiki Leaks has so much more credibility than his own candidate.

It was your candidate who scrubbed and deleted 30 thousand emails, and had the State Department altering classification codes to suit their purpose. I’d go with Wiki hands down over a forgery claim. Funny thing about credibility, when it’s gone it’s gone.

Let’s not forget the Clintons’ Decade of Decadence and Hillary’s decade of destroying women. We learned a lot in the 90’s, didn’t we? The philosophy of “is” was critical to our intellectual acumen. We learned that impeachment was an ideal but highly unlikely. Now that we know that, we don’t even much question that route for Obama. It’s so like nineties, and we’ve “Moved On”. Sometimes news is no news.

The news that comes out now is time released like a pharmaceutical. It’s waiting to go off at the right political moment. News becomes ammunition to create the right ambience when needed. Collect it like baseball cards and trade it. Like everything else that has been politicized by the Left: government, national security, medical coverage, media, and even sports followed suit. News must fit their agenda.

There was a train wreck in Hoboken last week. The train came in at about twice the speed limit and showed no sign of breaking. Well, it wasn’t pretty. Black boxes will tell the story, they hope. One apparently was not functioning. But investigators will get to the bottom of it, surely, sometime. It just shouldn’t have happened, yet it did.

Our election is shaping up a lot like that train wreck. Trump came in too fast and didn’t apply the breaks as they suggested. They weren’t prepared for the fallout. It’s not pretty, but politics and train wrecks rarely are. They are both studied for the same reason, to try to avoid future damage.

Trump is no student of politics nor of standard operating procedures. He plotted his own route. But his plan was not the usual one. It was meant to interrupt the system, and it did. It was meant to derail the establishment control. We decided that, at some point, having all the estabishement running on time, per plan, was not the most efficient system. Corruption just breeds more corruption, and corruption breeds contempt.The wreck was inevitable.

RightRing | Bullright

Denial of sanctuary cities

Tim Kaine told CNN’s Chris Cumo on the morning program that:

“When Donald Trump kind of goes after these phantom sanctuary cities and talks about how bad they are, basically what he’s going after is police chiefs,” Kaine said.

“Instead, what you need to do is work with the community to protect and serve them and let (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) do their job.”

“Phantom sanctuary cities,” really? We know they exist and they are proud.

But we know the problem is police, and local government officials, obstruct ICE from doing their jobs. They don’t notify them in a timely way. They don’t work with ICE. They refuse to cooperate and they are proud of defying the Federal government

So his spin is BS on steroids. The local authorities in sanctuary cities do not inform ICE. They do not message them until after the fact when they release someone. So ICE has to go out spending thousands of man hours trying to hunt them down, if they can even find them. What would you expect from Hillary’s campaign but lies?

Excerpts from CNN:

More than 200 state and local jurisdictions have policies that call for not honoring ICE detention requests, the agency’s director, Sarah Saldana, told Congress last year.

These jurisdictions rejected more than 17,000 ICE requests to gain custody of immigrants in the 19 months ending September, 2015.

The sanctuary movement is said to have grown out of efforts by churches in the 1980s to provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/politics/sanctuary-cities-donald-trump/index.html

So they blame sanctruary cities on churches, did you catch that? Yep, the churches demanded they ignore and defy the law to aid illegal immigrants’ agenda.And they always listen to churches or clergy. See how this works? They cannot even be honest about their own responsibility and actions.

Now Tim Kaine, a devout Jesuit, comes along and calls them “phantom sanctuary cities”. We all know they exist and, more importantly, so do illegal aliens know it. That’s Hillary Clinton’s official campaign calling them “phantom” sanctuary cities. I guess the pains and trouble they cause are just phantom pains too. She should have to explain and defend that. But I forgot we don’t have a free press anymore.

Hillary Clinton: the pro-choice candidate

Are you ready for Hillary Choice 10.0?

Hillary and her campaign knows how to talk to “white, college-educated suburbanites” under 30 from middle income families… or any other ssubset of voters they want to target.

But they just can’t figure out how to talk to Louisianans who lost everything, who come from almost every demographic. That’s a heartless, calculated political hack.

But she knows how to talk to people in Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Hollywood, or with the Rothschilds to raise money. She has that language and message down pat. Choosing between 100K dollar a plate fundraiser and visiting Louisiana…. that is a no-brainer for Hillary.

So that is the kind of person Liberals and Democrats want in the White House picking winners and losers in the economy? (what Democrats/progressives do)

Hillary’s choice is failed

See, it all comes down to choices and priorities. Hillary shows us all the time which are more important. She chose lying over the truth on Benghazi. She chose a private server she could control over the government archive system. She chose to call the Benghazi victims’ families liars.

After lying about Benghazi, she said “What difference at this point does it make?”

She chose to coordinate “pay for play” with the Clinton Fundation for official US business. She chose deleting records and emails. She chose aligning with BLM over fallen cops and threats to police. She chooses open borders and sanctuary cities over national security. She chose censorship over free speech.

She chose her Wall Street connections and hedge fund owners over the people, She chose Huma Abedin and her Saudi connections over America’s interests. She chose not labeling Boko Haram‎‎ a terrorist group. She chose the bad Iranian deal. She chose to support Muslim Brotherhood as an ally. She chooses gun control over self defense. Hillary chose putting companies and miners out of business.

Hillary chooses lying over the truth almost every time she has a choice. She chose standing up a consulate in Benghazi. She chose ignoring security requests. She chose the side of a rapist over the brutalized rape victim. She chose laughing and demonizing a 12 yr old rape victim. She chose the baby-killing agenda and defending Planned Parenthood at any cost. She chooses teachers’ unions over parents’ choice for schools and education. She chose taking and charging hundreds of thousands for speeches, even from a charitable organization that helps youth.

She chose to attack victims of Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions.” She chose breaking rules and ethics at the State Dep. She chooses elite fundraisers over flood victims in Louisiana. Now she chooses to label the entire right, anyone opposing her, as racists. Hillary is just a walking, talking, choosing machine.

Hillary is the definition of the wrong choice.

RightRing | Bullright

Mixed messages at DNC smearing bitter America

Now wait a minute, Obama, you’re always talking about “that’s not the America that I know.” Then there is always the “that’s not who we are” criticism.

Well if we, a large percentage of America, are not the “America that [he] knows” then I wonder what America Obama knows? I don’t think I’d recognize it. I don’t recognize the America he keeps talking about, foisting on us, and pointing to — or his faux reality.

Obama’s DNC speech aimed at Republicans painting his dim picture of us.

But what we heard in Cleveland last week wasn’t particularly Republican – and it sure wasn’t conservative. What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other, and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems – just the fanning of resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate.

And that is not the America I know.

So America, you’ve been broadsided again by Obama and labeled haters.

A week ago, at his White House Summit on Global Development, Obama claimed that America has never been more respected and the world never been more tolerant than now. Anything other than that is a figment of our flawed perception.

CNS News Summit on Global Development

And all of this creates legitimate fears and anxieties that have to be addressed, and at least a feeling, a perception that people don’t have full control over a rapidly changing world. So it is worth reminding ourselves of how lucky we are to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history.

Once againn, we have a perception problem. We are in the middle of a peace surge. Enjoy. Travel at your own risk. He said that is hard to absorb. I guess it is for us dummies who, you know, don’t have the right perspective. The problems always seems to come down to our flawed perspective. If we could only fix that?

Like we were told the border has never been more secure and our perspective was the problem. You have to wonder if he’d be saying that if he wasn’t in office? His perspective would be much different. We know the way he campaigned against Bush.

Here’s more from his Global Development speech:

Now, that’s hard to absorb if we’re watching the newscasts every night, because there’s heartbreak and terrible things taking place at any given moment across the globe. But it’s important for us to remember, not so that we become complacent but so that we understand that good works can make a difference. Think about it. It has been decades since a war between major powers. More people live in democracies. More people are linked by technology.

And sometimes when I’m talking to young interns at the White House who are still immunizing themselves from the cynicism that’s so chronic in this town–I remind them, if you had to choose a moment in history to be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be, you’d choose now. Because the world has never been less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant, with more opportunity for more people, and more connected than it is today….

Well look, American dummies, we haven’t had a nuclear bomb go off anywhere. Okay, so anything short of war of major powers and losing democracies is a good thing. Be happy, people. Though Islamists have waged war against the civilized world, and it is spreading even through these democracies. But fear not, our perception is the real problem. Like Neville Chamerlain, never mind what you see, ignore that because we have “peace in our time.” It tells us something about the America Obama knows, like us always blowing things out of proper perspective. When America disagrees with him, we just don’t get it. We’re dumb and ignorant. That must be the America Obama knows that he is talking about.

He never misses an opportunity to criticize or lecture us. Sorry, Obama, but the America we know is not dependent on your perspective adjustment. We get it.

Obama mocked that we don’t have a single ruler or dictator. Wow, look in mirror. We have a perpetual ruling class elite– that are above the law — who must be kept in power to keep us from hurting ourselves with our flawed perception and all.

Then he went on at the DNC to try to identify with the problems we are facing. Talk about a conflicted message, less than a week later.

There are pockets of America that never recovered from factory closures; men who took pride in hard work and providing for their families who now feel forgotten; parents who wonder whether their kids will have the same opportunities we had.

All that is real. We’re challenged to do better; to be better. But as I’ve traveled this country, through all fifty states; as I’ve rejoiced with you and mourned with you, what I’ve also seen, more than anything, is what is right with America.

“Pockets,” is that what we are? Then he tries to validate our concerns saying “all that is real.” I don’t need him to validate it. Then he asserts what we need to do is continue the status quo by making sure Hillary gets elected, to continue this legacy of malaise.

Bill called Hillary a great change agent, and Obama talked about Hillary continuing his legacy. Then he talks about “not the America I know.” Well, talk about conflicted.

Keep this legacy of failure going. Keep the same people in power that have not done anything to fix the problems for 8 years. The most divisive duo in politics.

Talk about fear: there is so much fear mongering and demagoguery about Trump you can’t miss it. For people who claim to want change, they are awful fearful of those bringing it or anyone who represents it. No, the status quo establishment must rule.

Obama seems to have a lot of problems with this America he knows so well.

RightRing | Bullright

Dem Convention highlights Hillary’s legacy and collides with Obama’s

I’ll mention only some highlights of the Dem-Hillary-Convention. Change-maker in waiting is auditioning for her grand performance, how did she do? Yes America, when searching for a change-maker, the first person on any list should be named Clinton. Ignore her resume.

First up, Michelle came out to make a speech to support Hillary. Her key idea was voting for Hillary for your kids. Okay, vote for her as some national nanny for the kids. That your children, or your emotional ties to them, should lead you to vote for Hillary.

Clinton promoting Clinton

Bill Clinton laboriously told a personal story of his courtship with Hillary. However, it started with a video that was more a campaign ad for Bill Clinton than for Hillary. If you wondered who was really running, I don’t blame you. His seventies’ squeeze should be elected because of who she is. Then he left an entire part of Hillary’s story out. Maybe he’ll have a sequel because he left out all the scandals and her pork future instincts.

He attempted to humanize Hillary but she needs a whole lot of humanization for obvious reasons. Hillary was considered the most widely known, female candidate and yet he has to tell us who she is. Problem is the Hill we all know is not trustable or honest.

Running with Bill Clinton on one hand and Obama on the other, Hillary has staked her campaign in conflict. The two Presidents don’t have a lot in common. So which is it? She is going to continue the legacy of Obama while being another Clinton Presidency, just sounds stupid. Oh, its both. But she could be the worst in both of those worlds.

Change-maker is that Hillary has changed her mind more than any other politician I can think of. Here is Bill Clinton and Obama now campaigning for Hillary. Then Bill calling her an agent of Change, change-maker is laughable. She is part of the establishment.

Here is what I mean. Contrast Hillary running as a change-agent with Hillary in Bubba’s bio. You had a 60’s radical, arguably a co-called ‘change agent’ fascinated and obsessed with Saul Alinsky, which Bill conveniently leaves out. (better to think of her with cutoff shorts and flowers in her hair) Then you have Hillary, the pantsuit queen, on the campaign trail today. Now look at her opposition from Bernie. No doubt who is who. The new establishment radical opposed by the insurgent radicals. Hillary has an optics problem.

Bold Radicals and radicalism

The Democrats are nothing if not bold when it comes to politics. At the convention, on the second night, they trot our the Attorney General who was held in contempt for defying the court and oversight.Then they had the President who was impeached by Congress. And those are supposed to be respected as two of her biggest surrogates.

So here is Hillary of now running against Bernie — today’s version of the 60s radicals — 40 years later. She clearly represents the establishment and the insider, pay to play system. We are to believe she is a change-maker with all her ties to Wall Street as her bank account expanded over 20 million bucks in just the last couple years. But now she is presented as a change-maker, and “the best darn change-maker ever.”

What kind of change have we gotten from Hillary? She has made us more corrupt, and distrusting, than ever. She was the change-maker as Sec of State when the world ignited, ISIS expanded on the global stage, a caliphate was formed, Egypt disintegrated under Muslim Brotherhood with her support, and Libya was transformed into a failed state under her excellent leadership — losing four Americans as she lied about the event — and Syria turned into an all out war zone with a President she said was a reformer. She wants you to conjure up all your emotions to vote for Hillary. Now see her as a change-maker.

I finally understand the convention theme. Democrats decided not to run Hillary Clinton, but instead to resurrect Mother Teresa and run her for President. Hillary was everywhere doing everything. She single-handedly solved every problem in her path. Why do we even need a government or anyone else, just have Hillary do everything? As Bill said, drop her anywhere in the world and come back 30 days later and she will have made it better. But how does that comport with reality? She had four years, not 30 days, and was everywhere. Look at the results.

Now she’s actually running on that record and results — or running from them.

The Tuesday convention trotted out one person after another to bolster Hillary’s record, to personalize her controversial political career. She was behind everything done in the last 20 years that helped people. Over the top? Never mind she stood with Obama and Democrats’ policies that injure people. Controversy and scandal were everywhere.

Obama pulled the same strategy in 2012 when David Plouffe ran Obama as an insurgency candidate, while he was the sitting President with one full term under his belt. How likely is that to get away with? Now Hillary is following the same playbook trying to run as an outsider, riding to the rescue from the very problems she helped create as Sec of State. But do people follow and accept this narrative? Of course Democrats think so. That tells you something about what Democrats think of Democrat voters: they’ll buy anything if you package it right and put it in front of them. What stooges Dems are.

What does it say about Hillary and Democrats in general? Just follow their bouncing-ball narrative. She has all the sitting and past government officials come out and endorse her. Then they come to the convention and gush praises all over her. (Biden, Obama, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Michelle Obama) Yet she is this super star change-maker?

Demonrats called the Republican Convention dark. But the darkest shadow hanging like a plague over this election is Hillary Clinton’s legacy of scandal and corruption.

So Obama, Bill Clinton, Eric Holder, and Joe Biden come in to endorse — prop up — and campaign for Hillary. Let’s make history again. Even David Axelrod suggested they were going to far to blatantly ask people to vote for her just because she is a woman. Then comes the other bombshell that her disapproval and distrust numbers are mainly due to her being a woman. I hope you get that because I don’t want to explain it — i.e. bigotry.

Hillary is super woman and her womb gives birth to all this great and wonderful fruit we have been seeing. Mother nature, Mother Teresa eat your hearts out.

Perception is reality to Democrats.

There is a constant theme in this election. One part of it is that Dems are creatures of perception. They simply believe things are perceived by the public to be whatever perception they can create. Whenever reality intervenes or votes to the contrary they get furious. This convention with Hillary’s campaign is no different. Hillary’s campaign and Obama constructed a narrative of peace, historical achievement, a secure world, terrorism in decline, civil rights on the rise, multiculturalism works, Globalism is our friend, a more perfect union, America united instead of divided due to their policies. Their vision.

America’s strength is in its weakness, according to Obama, and leading from behind is a positive, successful doctrine. Indeed the big one is that we are better off and safer now than anytime in history. But it’s all a big lie. It is not what people see.

Sure you can believe it — it was change you can believe in, after all, emphasis on your belief in it that Obama used as his campaign. Based on nothing. Now they simply assert that everything they say is true. And that the only thing to do is elect Hillary and keep their “winning” streak going. Just ignore everything that disagrees.

Now we are supposed to take our voting cues and marching orders from Obama with this band of politicians and all these establishment operatives. Embedded in that is stay the course and continue the status quo that got us to this peak we are all enjoying.

The other subtext: the justice narrative

The new definition of due process in America is when Liberals get the results they want. If they don’t, then that is injustice. (and that needs to be fixed) Injustice is whatever does not suit their fancy. But it is all outcome based. All that matters is that they get the outcome they want — whether it is politics, voting or elections, income distribution, or reversing Citizens United and Heller — and the justices needed to do it.

Until then, their perception should rule. Ignore reality, the condition of the world, the failed policies, the consequences of leading from behind, or their treasonous acts. Just ignore it all and whistle past the graveyard. All together now. It’s all beautiful all the time.

RightRing | Bullright