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

Advertisements

Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation

Mueller Scorches the Earth

by Andrew C. McCarthy September 23, 2017 | National Review

His pre-dawn raid was meant to intimidate Manafort, not just to collect evidence. Robert Mueller’s sprawling special-counsel investigation is playing hardball. It was not enough to get a search warrant to ransack the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, even as the former Trump campaign chairman was cooperating with congressional investigators. Mueller’s bad-asses persuaded a judge to give them permission to pick the door lock. That way, they could break into the premises in the wee hours, while Manafort and his wife were in bed sleeping. They proceeded to secure the premises — of a man they are reportedly investigating for tax and financial crimes, not gang murders and Mafia hits — by drawing their guns on the stunned couple, apparently to check their pajamas for weapons.

Mueller’s probe more resembles an empire, with 17 prosecutors retained on the public dime. So . . . what exactly is the crime of the century that requires five times the number of lawyers the Justice Department customarily assigns to crimes of the century? No one can say. The growing firm is clearly scorching the earth, scrutinizing over a decade of Manafort’s shady business dealings, determined to pluck out some white-collar felony or another that they can use to squeeze him. You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump’s Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it’s supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor — make that: 17 hyper-aggressive prosecutors — and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find. …/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451649/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-manafort

 
So it is an investigation in search of a crime. More, it is an investigation seeking to justify itself — job #1. See justification of itself and its conduct is the central mission. The rest is collateral. And to do that by or using any means necessary.  Whatever it takes.

Interestingly enough, someone else has also described Mueller’s operation as building another DOJ. That gives me pause, it sure seems that way. Just what we need, another department of justice, or injustice as the case may be.

Now if it were up to me to try to explain this investigation(no one is better than McCarthy), this would only be my starting point. The how and why is another matter.

In the meantime, just imagine if they tried this on Clinton. Oops, no they never would even think of it. But there would be no major Special Counsel “investigation” anyway.

(next)

2 Major Problems, Government

There are two things that stand out lately. Take your pick, they go hand in hand.

The thought of a weaponized government, against people, and then that government weaponizing information and intelligence against people should scare anyone. You could say that sounds like what Russia is doing — or did last year, in the eyes of the left.

No that describes our government under Obama’s reign. I could add politicizing government, for its own political objectives, but that goes hand in hand with the weaponizing. That could not be done to this degree without intent.

Instead of the broader left being an ideological movement and just another loosely connected political party, it now operates more like an organized crime syndicate.

Thus, it ( the left) uses any resources or information as a means to its political objectives. Some say “but the left doesn’t all agree on everything.” Well, it doesn’t have to. Though the ends are being served regardless.

What is the solution? I don’t see a simple fix to either of those.Once the government has been weaponized against the country, the way it was in the last 8 years, it is hard to repair. We’re finding out now. And when a party operates that way, there is no turning back. Together, they give us a radicalized government. But we have been screaming about this for years, no one was listening. Like we made this tangled web up?

So it was suggested by Newt Gingrich on Hannity that Congress needs to step up, investigate, talk to all the Obamafiles and do its diligence. Well, except does anyone have any degree of confidence in that happening, even in a Republican Congress? Or if they did, would anything come of it? At least we are finally talking about it. Now the fun begins.

I guess that is major problem #3. Yet look at what stuff government is investigating.

Have a look at one night’s coverage. Teed up and tee’d off.

Right Ring | Bullright

DOJ says what? IRS cabal stand down

Why? Wait, is someone playing a sick joke? Alice just stepped through the looking glass.

Jeff Sessions’ DoJ Will Not Investigate IRS Suppression of Tea Party Groups

Breitbart — by Neil Munro | 8 Sep 2017

Republicans slammed the Friday announcement by President Donald Trump’s justice department that it will not investigate the official who allegedly oversaw the IRS’ secret sabotage of Americans’ civic groups before the 2012 election.

“This is a terrible decision,” said a statement from Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes and the IRS. His statement continued:

It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and Constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees – who will now have the green light to target Americans for their political beliefs and mislead investigators without ever being held accountable for their lawlessness. Not only has the Department of Justice chosen not to hold [IRS manager] Lois Lerner criminally liable for obstructing an official investigation by the Inspector General, the Department continues to defend the Internal Revenue Service’s unconstitutional actions against taxpayers in ongoing civil litigation.

“The decision not to prosecute Lois Lerner is a miscarriage of justice,” said an accompanying statement from the chairman of the tax policy subcommittee, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam. He continued:

On top of Ms. Lerner’s actions against taxpayers – denying tax-exempt status to groups for political gain and failing to protect taxpayer information – the Department’s response blatantly ignores our most troubling finding: that Ms. Lerner intentionally misled federal investigators in a flagrant violation of the law. This is unacceptable and Ms. Lerner must be held accountable. Our democracy is injured when those who taxpayers entrust with great authority ignore the law to advance their own political agenda without repercussion.”

Tom Fitton, head of the Watchdog law firm Judicial Watch, joined the criticism, saying:

The scandal has been underway since 2013 when the IRS admitted that its officials had slow-rolled and blocked routine requests for tax-exempt status from conservative Tea Party groups while giving quick approval to liberal groups. That obstruction of tax-exempt status made it difficult for the conservative groups to raise funds needed to campaign against then-president Barack Obama during the 2012 election. Under Obama, the IRS and the justice department stonewalled and blocked subsequent investigations, via many tactics such the destruction of email records.

GOP officials and members of the non-profit groups hoped that Trump’s deputies would investigate and prosecute the wrongdoing.

But the September 8 letter from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department said it would not even reopen the investigation because officials require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a government employee intentionally discriminated against an applicant for a tax-exempt status based on viewpoint.”

Prior investigations had found mismanagement that disproportionately hurt conservative groups, and the recently appointed department officials reviewed the new reports and concluded that “reopening the criminal investigation would not be appropriate based on the available evidence,” said the Friday letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd.

That answer was a response to an April 12 letter from the two GOP leaders on the tax committee, which included more information about Lerner’s activities, and a request that the department “take a fresh look at the evidence presented in the attached referral.” The referral is provided here.

“I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Sessions, but I’m troubled by his Department’s lack of action to fully respond to our request and deliver accountability,” Bray said in his Friday statement. “Today’s decision does not mean Lois Lerner is innocent. It means the justice system in Washington is deeply flawed.”

 

My outrage meter shattered. When WTF becomes the only viable response to events….

Oh, so there is not enough things going on now at present that we have to import a scandal from Julio Obama’s residency. Like didn’t Obama cronies run out of free passes long ago?

And while they are at it, maybe someone should explain to all of us why Obama’s lying John Koskinen is still Commissioner of IRS?

Conspiracies gone wild

After going through some random possibilities (there are a lot of them), I came up with one whacky sort of conspiracy theory. Considering the state of affairs, probably all too logical.

Start with one big coverup, larger than any I ever saw. That’s the Russia, DNC and all the inter-connections to the election, corruption, that we know about so far.

No, not the Trump thing. That all is just part of the massive coverup of the greater scandal on the Left. So Trump and Russia is a diversion. But it doesn’t end there.

I figure on January 2oth the clock started ticking. That was when everything goes, no matter what, to throw at Trump to create this bonfire. That keeps people and hopefully the new administration from looking into what really went on for about eight years.

Now 7 months in we are at code red. They have done a good job dragging out every basic thing so far. Except that more info is oozing out of the woodwork about all those old scandals, the ones that Obama said never existed. More than expected.

But it is getting to such a critical stage now that the only plan B is in full operation. It was to drag, stall, obfuscate, divert, destroy, deconstruct until the 2018 election – by any means. The left has to try to “win” the House. The only way to keep the obfuscation of everything going, and damaging material hidden, is to at least gain control of the House.

Then they reclaim control, the agenda and flow of information. They can ride that until the 2020 election when they must get control of the White House to bury all the evidence starting to ooze out. Sure, it is a long shot but it is the only one they have.

At this current rate, there will be enough stuff coming out it would be hard to overlook or prevent a major special investigation. They probably thought that, with any luck, it would take us longer to uncover what we already know. But that is why the giant diversion is so necessary. All the yelling and screaming on Russia is part of that giant cover up.

The mountain of stuff includes the DNC scandals, the Obama scandals, DOJ and intel scandals, with foreign policy chasers, from the past eight years. It also involves most of Obama’s key operatives, including 2 attorney generals, FBI Director, and intel officials. Those smoking guns seem to be everywhere.

It would all feed into the largest investigation in history and Dems are determined not to let it happen. That requires a giant coverup and diversion. Nothing bigger than Russia. N. Korea is even useful. Hell, they would be happy to use Iran in their smokescreen, too. Then they can throw in military or cultural issues wherever they can.

On top of that we have the mountain of scandal around Hillary, servergate, Clinton Foundation, uranuium, money, and her pay to play scandals — all of which she thinks are safely buried because she lost. But they need to be exhumed and chronicled so it never happens again. “What Happened” should have a giant question mark after it. We need two Independent Counsels. So no election autopsy was desired. The relay race is on.

We are sitting in the middle of this narrative of lies from 8 years. Stench is everywhere. So now they have to bet everything on getting to the next election before the dam breaks. The one plus on their side is that there is a knuckle-dragging reluctance from some Republicans to even look into it. Shell-shocked critters lurking in the Swamp.

But the voices are getting louder and evidence is mounting that is harder all the time for critters to ignore. I think that’s another reason Obama spent most of 7 months out of the country. (he was always out of the country when the SHTF) Obama doesn’t want to be anywhere near this nasty coverup. But all the radicals know what to do.

Because this includes obstructing Congress and the administration’s agenda along with the inner workings of government in various places, it is the equivalent of holding government hostage to the left’s agenda. That is further aided by the activists and holdovers embedded throughout government. Compare those radicals to sleeper cells in common cause with the left, whether they are actionable participants, leakers or disruptors.

A huge coverup it is but nothing like MSM is trying to fabricate and peddle.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

Supreme Hubris

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

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


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

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

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

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

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

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

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

Conflicted Nation

Starting with the Trump investigation debacle — basically to retry the campaign and election — we have all the players in position. What do we end up with?

Mueller – conflict; Rosenstein – conflict, Comey – conflict; McCabe – conflicted. But the issue at the forefront in this carousel of conflicts is deciding if Trump obstructed justice? How’s that for a very sick joke? Sorry. it isn’t. No crime… but plenty of ripe conflicts.

Actually, Mueller should never have even accepted the job since a main focus seemed to be the firing of James Comey, which made him a key witness.(a priority of Comey’s to be at the center) On top of all those conflicts, we have all the political conflicts.

Well, the election never ended and the Deep State is still casting their ballots, daily. We have conflicts everywhere with a conflicted, biased media to selectively cover it. Just wait till they get to the Constitutional conflicts.They’re still creating them.

Now we have a nation of conflicts.

RightRing | Bullright

The Gangsters’ Beat

There was a time when mob bosses were the bad guys and the FBI were considered the good guys. One was supposedly the answer to the other — guess which?

It’s sort of different now that an FBI Director acts more like a mob boss than a good guy. These days, everything seems upside down or inside out.

So it was yesteryear that, despite any current problems, the FBI usually enjoyed a degree of integrity and credibility even when approval waned for other government.

There also was a time the Department of Justice stood for nonpartisan justice, not for another political branch of government. It retained its reputation by remaining objective. Gone, under Obama, are those days. Likewise with the FBI.

Every department in government was politicized under Obama. If it was not radically ‘activated’ by the Left, it wasn’t for lack of politicization. It probably was just yet to be sufficiently proven in public.

Under Obama, the lines were blurred between the gangsters and government officials. The latter had an Omerta and both is a Cosa Nostra — “our thing”. Black Lives Matter and the radicals had a revolving door to the White House. Racists were in charge of racism.

Obama wanted to put on his shoes to march with protestors. When they chanted pigs in the blanket, the White House and Department of Justice were silent. Then cops were killed. But the Dep. of Cosa Nostra only cared about forcing mayors and police to sign consent decrees. Any shooting by a police officer was scandalized to ignite riots and usurp police departments, which provoked no reaction. Wait, the response was cops were told to stand down as violence rose.

Then the Department of inJustice handled the Clinton investigation with FBI carrying its water. (Mob rules) Surveillance rises and there is no leak or outcry. No one was on the people’s side. Feds and DOJ were conveniently locked into their political cocoon.

In comes Trump and when leaks occur, there is no investigation or will to find them. Trump complains about surveillance and leaks so they deny it, ignore him, or feel a reflexive need to correct him. Trump cannot tell the Washington cartel or Cosa Nostra what to do. No, they can’t have that. Wise guys revolt or break windows.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Busted

You don’t say…..mainstream media hasn’t or won’t, that’s for sure.
Washington Examiner

Federal contractor arrested for sending classified intelligence to news outlet

“A 25-year-old federal contractor is facing charges she leaked a classified National Security Agency document to a news outlet in May. The charges come about an hour after the publication of a story based on an NSA document detailing Russian attempts to hack American voting systems.

Reality Leigh Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.”

Read at Washington Examiner

Let me guess, a Hillary Clinton voter/supporter? Just a hunch, call me psychic.

Burned on intel security deal

Probably people reading here would have heard some of this info before. But it is put together in a good article from AIM’s Cliff Kincaid.

Follow the intel trail of the CIA and its latest IT expansion. Just happening to award the contract to Bezos’ company over IBM, in spite of charging 54 million more than its big-blue competitor. The swamp has expanded.

The Washington Post, Amazon, and the Intelligence Community

by Cliff Kincaid on March 13, 2017 | AIM

One of The Washington Post’s big disclosures on Sunday was a front-page story about President Donald Trump’s choice of a cemetery. It was the latest contribution from reporter David A. Fahrenthold, whose job it is to probe every aspect of the life of the new President, no matter how esoteric and trivial. On the other hand, when it comes to covering the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and his ties to the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), the paper is AWOL. …/

Read http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-washington-post-amazon-and-the-intelligence-community/

So, in view of all that, I’d say they need to either reopen that clouded bid or just cancel it outright and transfer the contract to IBM. I would trust them a lot more with this intel security than the Bezos startup. (and I’m not a big IBM fan) Deep State scored, bigly.

This cannot stand. We the people know when we’ve been burned, when we see it.

At the very least, where the hell are the hearings about it, the investigation, and the protest over conflict of interest? But then the company used the fact that it had this contract to further line its pockets and boost its credibility. Where’s the outrage?

I’m pretty sure there is even more filth and connections there than he touched on.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey, Comey… Mueller’s homie

Is there a nutjob in the house?

The People’s Pundit Daily

Comey and the Clinton Email Case: The Untold Inside Story

May 11, 2017

Mr. Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump Tuesday on recommendations from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, claimed the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information was “unanimous.”

However, multiple sources not only told PPD the decision wasn’t unanimous, but also that the former director undercut their investigation from start to finish.

“Comey was never an investigator or agent. Special agents are trained and were insulted that Comey included them in his artificial ‘we,’” one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. “To suggest all agreed there was not enough to prosecute, was misleading. It’s false. Trained investigators agreed that there was more than enough. He stood in the way.

The story told to PPD must be retold in the proper context…./

See https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2017/05/11/fbi-james-comey-clinton-email-case-untold-inside-story/

Context is everything. Interesting also that Comey and Mueller are best of friends and it is unanimously praised. That’s like David Axelrod being independent about Obama.

Normally, that is what you’d call a Huge Conflict of Interest. Yet even among the 535 members of the cesspool in DC, no one finds this fraternal friendship problematic and praised the selection of an unbiased “Special Counsel.”

Even in the media, no one seems to find it troubling. Instead, they celebrate the fact that the two good friends go way back, personally and professionally. Cosa Nostra comes to mind. Maybe we ought to subpoena all the correspondence — writings and otherwise — between the two?

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Obamacare has no cures

Now that the nation’s healthcare is hostage to the government, is everyone happy? Of course not. Those are the stakes, like it or not. It’s hardly debatable. Pardon the rant.

Who do we have to blame that on? Barack Obama and his pack of radicals. We tried to tell people 7 years ago, when they politicized the healthcare system, that it was a bad thing to do. No, they wouldn’t listen. So Obama and Obamacare weaponized the nation’s healthcare and used it against us. Our medical system is subservient to government.

So if you resented the idea of a government bureaucrat between your doctor and you, look out. Now you have the entire federal government between you and your healthcare. But that is exactly what progressive liberals and socialists wanted. The state will do with it what it wants. What does that make you? Why not just call it Serfcare instead?

The politicians are up to their eyeballs in your healthcare. What’s next, asking them if you can have that knee surgery? Yet the whole thing is considered a healthcare right.

The implications are far and reaching. That means every election is potentially a referendum on our healthcare. Each administration, or Congress itself, can take it upon itself to rewrite the nation’s healthcare. Sure, we used to think that was too big a reach for them to do. Not so anymore. To redo Obamacare may be an arduous task which gets easier the more it is debated and voted on. If changed, the next administration can change it back, almost like an Executive Order. Now we see the truth.

What effect does that have on the industry itself? Who knows. Doesn’t offer much for stability, does it? That is not a calming feeling to the people.

Bad enough that now we already have accountants doing yeoman’s work being questioned from customers about their individual healthcare tax implications. They have to tell people what their tax penalty is and the in and outs to comply with the nannycare system.

Now many pundits see the writing on the wall. Charles Krauthammer said that in a few years there won’t be any debate about government involvement in the system.

Krauthammer told Chris Wallace:

“I think historically speaking we’re at the midpoint,” Krauthammer answered. “We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years we’ll be in a single payer system.” – Blaze

Now I don’t want to accept that as point of fact. I don’t want to think single-payer is now inevitable. Certainly it has gotten closer simply because of the government usurping and controlling the whole issue. So he is right in that once that began, the game and paradign has shifted. We can try to get it back but that will just be our version of the government based/tied system. The next political leaders have a chance to have it their way. We’ve already had how many elections with healthcare at the center.

Could it be permanently fixed in that position? I mean every election, indeed political candidate decision, may be factored by your healthcare or medical situation. Is that what politicians want; what people want? Politicians have enough problems doing the job they are sworn to do now, but have each one be a de facto lieutenant for healthcare?

And that was the problem with politicizing healthcare in the first place. Then passing Obamacare and a federally controlled system etched it into a permanent political issue. We saw that coming. Did libs? Did they care? They only wanted a single-payer system anyway. That’s the problem. What will future townhalls look like?

The process we are engaged in is even worse. Every argument conservatives used against Obamacare7 years ago is now used by Democrats against Republicans. That’s absurd. You cannot argue the failing points of Obamacare against a new plan, when you gladly endorsed Obamacare despite all the lies and problems. Now Dems repeat 7 yr-old criticisms that were used against them. They dug up all the old valid complaints on Obamacare, including wanting to kill off people. I thought it was rich but it is an orchestrated campaign.

First, Dems claimed their protests were duplicating what conservatives and Republicans did in Tea Parties. Then they started to disrupt and mock politicians at townhalls, saying that’s what conservatives did. They claimed it was the beginning of their mid-term come back — right after election — calling it the resistance. Faux imitation is not flattery.

So all of it supposedly follows the Tea Parties’ formula. (much as libs delegitimized those) Sigh. Even to the floor of Congress when Republicans passed the bill singing “nah nah nah nah, hey hey, goodbye.” Confident, aren’t they? But it is not healthcare or issues they care about, it’s power and politics. Even as a minority they are adept. Healthcare is a ward of the state. Screw up the nations healthcare, and supposedly it is a political victory?

RightRing | Bullright

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