Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Dems’s Daca fix is no fix

Trump does have a knack of exposing things or revealing the distinguishing contrast. That’s what he did with DACA.

The president left for Davos and left his own DACA offer on the table. Seems everyone has been talking about it ever since. Now you can like his plan or not like it. I don’t really, however, it was a very generous offer to Dems.

Well, what happens with anything he does or says? Dems attack it with rabid venom.

So it revealed more about the left’s position than Trump’s. Remember they are the one’s who started this and held our budget process hostage to DACA. They are the ones with all the desires for and promises on immigration reform.

The Left zeroed in on changes to immigration policy like chain migration while attacking border security. So it turns out that the left really does not want to change anything about immigration. Let me repeat, they don’t want change. That means of course that things would stay the same. I see a real ransom note here, it’s from illegals to the US.

They complain Trump’s plan would cut numbers of legal immigration. They don’t want to change the number of immigrants coming in. Of course legal meaning that charade of chain migration we have now. Sure those numbers would and should be reduced.

That means they want to keep the levels where they are at. They don’t want to change that process or numbers. And they don’t want to change border security.

But if they won’t even agree to reducing the number of out of control immigrants, or huge chain numbers, then what do they want to change? Nothing. The only thing they really want to change is to convert illegals to legal and deportables to non-deportables.

So all the fuss is about one thing, granting amnesty to illegals.

Also they don’t want the wall. And they never criticize the catch and release program Trump is trying to end. We had the anchor baby problem and now we have the dreamers problem, which is virtually granting amnesty to entire illegal families et al.

In doing so, it would start the entire cycle over again. That’s what the left wants. Or until the day it becomes a completely open border. Call it “the border of failures.”

Not to forget when they do come, they get to make all the demands they want (power) holding our system hostage to their whims. The left nor the illegals will tell us what they are really about and what they want. Plus they just set a new precedent.

That’s the question the left needs to be asked, what change?

Right Ring | Bullright

PSA on Immigration

This is a friendly Public Service Announcement

Okay, sports fans: this is the USA and our immigration policy should not be designed, written and run by immigrants. And no amount of “this is not who we are” is going to change that.

 

Comprende??

Libs DACA Pipe Dream

Let me deconstruct the left’s DACA paradigm of the issue and paraphrase it. This was written before yesterday’s White House meeting over it.

So by virtue of their illegal entry and status here, for as long as they’ve been here, we must do something more for DACA people. More than we’ve already done and given them.

We need to make them legal citizens and change their status. After that, give them the right to decide who the next immigrants should be. The chain goes on ad nauseam.

But the left wants to hold all of America hostage to this demand by threatening to shut down our government if we don’t cave in. And it must be the number one priority.

Then DACA people can use their newfound status to choose who our next immigrants will be. They come illegally and get to decide who else comes to the country. 800,000 easily turns to 9 million or more. Then they pass the baton like a relay race.

In the next stage, those new imported immigrants would get to decide who comes to the country next. Why did America turn the immigration system over to the immigrants?

I’m offended that they hold our entire government hostage to one sub-identity group. And it is not critical to the rest of government. It’s insulting. Talk about a dream.

Now Diane Feinstein and Steny Hoyer tried their damnedest to make an offer to just do DACA with no strings, border security, or wall… with only a promise they will take up the other things later.(if ever) Same old Democrats: just give us what we want now and we’ll talk after. The same thing they did to Reagan. And this was no coincidence.

Remember Wimpy on Popeye?

Right Ring | Bullright

Perpetual deals

Department of Negotiation is officially open. And what a grand opening it was.

Trump was in full swing prodding Congress it has to do something on DACA. Of course the sticking point for Dems is border security. They want nothing to do with a wall.

I’ll give them the benefit that there may be a negotiation to be had. If only Dems will accept the wall. The people already decided on it, they want it. But why don’t the Dems want a wall? Why won’t they agree to one? I saw Jorge Ramos run out to the media afterward bitching about a wall. It’s been decided. What is the problem with a wall?

No one has told us why and they cannot explain their opposition to a wall.

Now suppose they get this negotiation done. It might solve a singular problem. What will happen is it would start a race for the next group of people in line to demand their deal or fix. You know how these illegal organizations work, they continue incessant demands.

Right Ring | Bullright

DACA Caca

I just can’t stand this DACA debate caca anymore. It’s time for a good old flush.
As if there is any debate, but the caca keeps getting deeper.

I noticed the left calls us Americans deplorables yet cries their hearts out for “undocumented” illegal immigrants. Dems, I see what you did there.

A couple facts:

#1)The reason they are here in the first place is because the border is broken.

Not because “the immigration system is broken.” The Dems busted “the system.”

#2)The only reason the problem exists is because the Democrats refused to secure the border 30 years ago on Reagan. Liars that they are. Happy anniversary!

Now even Iggy knows that if he leaves the barn doors open at night he’ll have an empty barn in the morning. It’s not about having a fetish for barn doors.

Dems removed the door from its hinges… busted it real good. But then they don’t believe in borders or security anyway. “Everybody in the pool.”

Something like what would happen to my farm if I had no fences, boundaries or enforcement. I’d have no crops either and could kiss the farm bye-byes. So we bought the farm and Dems gave it away, as much as they could. Never mind their reasons.

Obama illegally created the DACA caca for illegals. And one for parents that got derailed.

Now they demand we keep DACA legal but can’t have border security. Sound familiar yet? They’ll promise some border security, if we guarantee amnesty to these undocumented. So they can back out and screw America. Then they’ll want broader amnesty for the other 11+ million more, using their activist courts.

Now whenever I have a defiant bull I find a way to control it before it can do any damage. I don’t grant it amnesty. But Iggy still has doors on his barn too, for a good reason.

They want amnesty for DACA so they can screw USA again. What part of screw America don’t we get? Anytime anyone tries to talk me into forfeiting my barn doors and fences I get a little suspicious. So goes the pussheads on the left.

Now where is that branding iron?

Pope walks like an Egyptian

The Pope hits the road to Egypt, which especially lately has been paved with Christian persecution by those underappreciated peaceful Muslims. According to CNN :

That history will provide the Pope an opportunity to plead, again, for nations to open their borders to migrants fleeing violence in the Middle East, a stance that puts him at odds with populists in the United States and Europe.

The meetings with prominent Muslim leaders, including the Grand Imam of the venerated al-Azhar University, offers a chance for the Pope to continue an oft-overlooked aspect of his papacy: his outreach to Muslims. [more]

But Francis walks like an Egyptian as Pope. So he’ll make sure to get in his digs, mainly to the West, that opening our borders to migrants from the Mid-East will purify our hearts. If only we would open up to 12th century barbarianism, we’d be the better for it.

When do we stop playing by the Muslims’ Rules for Radicals book?

Anyway, Francis is on the road again. Does he learn, like the first Francis, that you cannot appease these people? Let’s see how empathetic he is for victims of Palm Sunday.

A Potpourri of Liberal Hypocrisy

Three things you can always be assured of: death, taxes and liberal hypocrisy. No region on earth is more saturated with it than California — proudly known as the incubator and purveyor of liberal thought.

Since that is an established fact, it would be an overload to list examples. Liberals, i.e. Democrats in lockstep, are demanding San Fran and the sate divest and boycott any construction companies who cooperate on building the wall.(seems even bidding)

It’s okay to discriminate against them — it’s encouraged. But if we threaten to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities refusing to follow the law, they threaten to sue.

Move along to Maryland, wonderful little Rockville. Here they have a crime where two illegals (undocumented) raped a 14 year old girl in a bathroom in school. One 18 and the other a minor. Outrage erupts from sane people. But Montgomery county is a sanctuary area, so good luck nailing them. How much more should a school be a sanctuary for citizens of a community? But never mind.

In fact, liberals want to declare all Maryland a sanctuary for illegals. They are threatening that any town or county doing otherwise would have its state funding cut.

You see how backwards this all is? It’s completely upside down or reversed. They’ve made official, unlawful resistance to law the new normal. (not the exception) Oops, we’re sorry, there are no exemptions You can’t opt out of it — that would be unlawful.

Another case in the South is in Texas. We all know they take a stand, right? Well, they have Sanctuary Sally, an elected sheriff officially denying her oath and refusing to cooperate with federal law. Even worse, she ran on a platform of defying the law.

Add her to the coalition of Resistance. At least Governor Abbot is trying to resist ol’ Sanctuary Sally. Not so much in Maryland or California. They get rewarded there.

I have a new medical term for this craziness: Sanctuary Psychosis.

Their biggest fear or problem is how to obstruct or avoid the federal law.

Meanwhile, Trump rolled out his second national security executive order that was immediately met with an act of defiance from Hawaii to halt it. Yes, national security is the very last thing government should be concerned with. Preserving lawlessness is a priority.

Let’s go even deeper — not into the abstract but into the liberal hypocrisy epidemic.

Ryan and Trump try to pass the repeal and replace Obamacare plan. Whamo, it meets with stiff resistance. Okay, you might expect as much. But the same problems Obamacare had, has are the same ones they accuse are in this plan. Liberals sent their mutiny of militia to townhalls to protest, claiming they were just like Tea Parties.

As the bill got yanked, when it did not have the votes, liberals ran to the microphones. Nancy Pelosi declared it a huge victory for the people — who have a failed system that is doomed to implosion. That’s a victory. Your skyrocketing premiums and deductibles you can never meet are… “a victory.” Fight to save that.

We’ve now seen hypocrisy on a scale never even imagined before.

N. Korea, Syria and Russia became 5-alarm problems the day Trump took office. Obama hadn’t done a thing but hey, now that they are Trumps’ probs, they are super urgent.

Obama never lifted a finger in office to fix his Obamacare , but now Dems scream it needs to be fixed. Now they say premiums and deductibles are too high, and claim it is Trump’s problem to fix — that he’s responsible for it. Really?(or so they assert)

So we’ve been there, done that and have all the scars to prove it.
Now they tell us how ugly those scars are.

RightRing | Bullright

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

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

What message Brexit sends

Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.

But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?

“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.

Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)

Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.

Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.

Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.

Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.

Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^

Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?

It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.

RightRing | Bullright

National Immigration Propaganda Month

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

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

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

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

Fox News

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

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

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

Breitbart

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

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

 

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

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

Mexico lashes out at US, Obama hears voices

Mexico does what they do best, complain — or bitch in layman’s terms. Let’s see, besides wanting a third of our country, they continually harbor inflammatory sentiments that really tick me off.

Mexico replaces top US diplomats, citing hostile climate

April 6, 2016 | AOL

(Reuters)

“We have been warning that our citizens have begun to feel a more hostile climate,” Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu told local radio after the announcement.

“This (anti-Mexican) rhetoric has made it clear that we have to act in a different way so that this tendency being generated doesn’t damage the bilateral relationship,” she added.

More: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/06/mexico-replaces-top-u-s-diplomats-citing-hostile-climate/21339608/

No wonder people champion building a wall or, gasp, enforcing the law and borders. If Mexico officials were really listening, which we have to assume they are, then you’d think they’d be willing to consider what they can do for us since we do so much for them?

But they do and say this stuff just to intentionally frustrate Americans’ efforts. Is it any wonder Americans are fed up? “Bilateral relationship”… is that a good joke?

Then Obama recently said he consistently hears complaints from people around the world about rhetoric etc. Maybe, if he were listening, he’d hear all the reasons they question us or distrust our actions. Nah, he’s busy blaming the Republicans that have not been in charge of administration policy. Call me sick and tired of this horse manure.

Is Obama listening when terrorism goes epidemic, or when refugees create a hostile atmosphere across Europe? Or when our citizens are attacked by illegal immigrants — “just here to work for a better life?” Who only knows what all the voices in Obama’s head are telling him? Maybe Obama ought to consider listening to the people in our own country fed up with abusive power, corruption, tone deafness and his third-world leadership? (not to mention running and spending this country into the ground)

Sorry for the little rant. Yeah, Mexico, stick it in your ear since you’re such a great example of integrity. This is precisely what calls for no demands a person like Trump to call a spade a spade. The more public the better, the harder the better. If Mexico is trying to convince us of the necessity of a wall, or border control and enforcement, then they are doing a great job.

Speaking of voices Obama is listening to:

Wa Post

Now the Trump critique is coming with increasing frequency and ease. Asked Tuesday whether Trump’s proposals were already damaging U.S. relations, Obama answered unequivocally: “Yes.”

“I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made,” Obama said. “They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that.”

The Democratic National Committee quickly circulated video of Obama’s remarks, arguing they illustrated how Trump “simply doesn’t have the temperament necessary to be commander in chief.”

Seems Mexico is worried about what it characterizes as attacks on Mexico when America has actually been under attack by Mexico for years.

Earlier Obama had called Trump’s plan for Mexico to pay for the wall and other proposals on border plans half-baked.

“People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account. They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that,” Obama said in his press conference.

Since “half-baked” is the subject, I imagine all the ways that applies to Obama. How about the failed Libya policy, the ‘failed state’ result, or meddling in Egypt and alliance with Muslim Brotherhood? Or how about that red line in Syria, or calling ISIS a JV team? Or refusing to attack ISIS oil lines financing the Caliphate, or maybe refusing to call ISIS and terrorists Islamic terrorism, or the denial that they are Islamic? Or maybe the dissing of France after the terrorist attacks? No shortage on half-baked irresponsibility there.

Talk about pushing “policies…examined, analyzed [as] effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account,” really?

How about calling Climate Change the greater threat to world and national security? Going for the trifecta, pushing a video cause for the attack of terrorism in Libya. Like labeling the Fort Hood Islamic terrorism attack as “workplace violence.” Like executive amnesty in the face of an invasion. Calling the problems on our borders a perception problem. Or like saying there is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

Half-baked assertions or… fully cooked up lies? But there is a whole bowl full of consequences — some would argue about how unintentional they really are.

How a North American Union is born

Ted Cruz – Wolf in Sheep Clothing!!!

So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.

Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)

Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?

But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’

Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.

And watch Hillary distance herself from NAFTA.

No, not a bad April Fools’ joke

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

In pandering to Hispanics, Latinos and media, Hillary makes a profound declarative statement on Wednesday:

Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”

Read: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about/

Children and family members. So did she leave anyone out, like maybe friends of family members and children? Well, who does that leave? How about single people with no family or children here. How about criminals and felons who have no family or children here. It’s just ridiculous, who’s left?

When Hillary was asked about her rogue server, which has caused her all the trouble:

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”

In an old Laugh-In comedy skit, Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) used to crawl into a big rocking chair like a 5 year-old saying something like “no one told me not to … So I did.” Hillary’s point is no one told me it was not allowed (disallowed) so I naturally did it.

But at the same time her Department was sending around notices telling people not to use their private email for official business. Translation: no one told me what I was doing was wrong, so I kept doing it. Duh! You can “bet your sweet bippy.” “And that’s the truth.”

Open Letter to Pope Francis

I’m not much for these open letters, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

Open letter to Pope Francis

… and the cadre of Leftists who push these critiques on the American people.

Pope Francis, since you have taken aim at our dialogue on policies in this country, I thought it fair to ask you about your recent Mexican visit tour.

Why did you not say to the Mexican government and the people:

Why are you allowing such an exodus to happen from your country? These are good people that make great contributions to society. Why do you let them go off to improve their lives and the culture in other countries. This is a terrible loss to Mexico. Why are you not doing more to prevent this?

Francis, why are you not more concerned about the cause of this huge problem than you are with our security policies? These people could do a lot to make Mexico much better. Why not attack economic policies that cause such hopelessness in these countries?

Since your suggestion was people who want to build a wall rather than a bridge are not Christian, then the same condemnation applies to most people (many Christians) in the USA. Virtually every Republican candidate supports building the wall. So you are calling them all, and people that agree with them, not Christians?

Surely, if you cared to look, you would know that this a problem stemming all the way to the 198o’s. It is more than 3 decades old. Now that we are finally preparing to take action on it, you criticize our extremely patient and deliberative response. Why can’t you criticize the circumstances in these countries behind such mass exodus and migration to America?

In fact, you must be aware that you are putting your Papal approval on the policies in these countries that are exporting their citizens across borders. Why are you not critical of their policies? Why don’t you call that behavior Unchristian? You are de facto endorsing the mass illegal invasion of the US. As I said, this has been going on over 3 decades.

Why do you not address the gangs and the coyotes who make their living on transporting these people? Or criticize their behavior that is taking advantage of these people and exploits them like some material object? How about all those who have died or fallen victim to crime en route to America? Where is the Christian compassion for them? What about the American victims created by gangs of thugs or criminals which illegally come to this country and assault good Christians and American people?

In the context of the Biblical example of Jesus, are you calling on Mexicans and their leaders to put down their stones? Do you call them Unchristian for exporting people? Yet you can criticize us for deporting illegal aliens back to their country of origin.

Franklin Graham, in a FB post , said “My advice to the Pontiff—reach out and build a bridge to Donald Trump. Who knows where he may be this time next year!”

Why be so divisive in your words and actions rather than building bridges with Christians and other countries? You were awarded a lot of good will among Americans in your visit. You squandered that on divisive rhetoric injecting the RC Church into our politics. Unfortunately you are building walls not bridges. Now Pope John Paul II knew something about building bridges — and maintaining them.

Signed,
A sincerely disappointed American Christian

RightRing | Bullright

Refugees come … to make yogurt?

Here they come. Welcome wagon put out in Idaho. Is this a refugee plan or a business windfall? Whatever floats your yo-gurt.

American yogurt billionaire: ‘Hire more Muslim refugees’

Calls on biggest U.S. companies to join Islamic surge
WND

Ever wonder why the federal government would be sending hundreds of foreign refugees to a relatively small town in Idaho?

Wonder no more.

They’re sent there, many of them, to work in the world’s largest yogurt factory.

As WND previously reported, Twin Falls is in line to receive about 300 refugees this year, many of them Muslims from Syria. And the state of Idaho, despite its reputation as a mostly white, conservative farm state, has been a popular destination for refugees in recent years.

That man is Hamdi Ulukaya, a Kurdish Muslim and immigrant from Turkey who created the billion-dollar U.S.-based Chobani yogurt empire.
Read at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/yogurt-billionaire-hire-more-muslim-refugees/

Can you say boycott? I think he’s a little too smooth even for yogurt.

So why is he not using a little of his American-made billions, with other bleeding hearts, to build some refugee community over there? (I wonder) The costs must be cheaper there.

Instead, he spends the USA’s money to bring them here at our expense, for his benefit.
For a multi-billionaire he is spending a whole lot of OPM — Other People’s Money.

Curiouser, haunting Benghazi details

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

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

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

Duane Lester January 20, 2016 | TPNN

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

And that may not be the worst of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t: PJ Media

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

 

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

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

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

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

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright