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)

Dems’ two-phase strategy

It bears repeating:

First, the collective left undermined the legitimacy and integrity of the election.

Next, they try to redefine what the election was about.
So the narrative went from border security to all about amnesty for illegals.

Memo:
Obamacare repeal
Tax reform
The Wall
Jobs
Trade deals
Border security
Illegal immigration
National Security
Terrorism
Politicization of gov
Judicial restraint
Corruption
Drain the Swamp
(sigh)

And back to the first. Repeat…

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

Evil Obama clowns’ radical rabid strategy

Time for a situational evaluation. Obama is not gone, Even as his legacy is shrinking into thin air, he trots around as if he were a king. He pops up everywhere conspicuously to undermine Trump’s agenda and administration. Along with his perpetual criticism — something he has experience at, criticizing and undermining sitting presidents.

Obama’s former advisers have morphed into trolls across social media — including Fiction Ben Rhodes — to preserve Obama’s disappearing agenda, desperately trying to lay credit to anything good happening now. So the Shadow Government of Obama is now fully operational. He denies the past and the one president policy. He has no real legacy, he must steal one, or create one from thin air. Enter fiction writer Ben Rhodes to the rescue.

As Bill Clinton said about Obama’s campaign: “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” And it’s getting bigger every day. So many lies, so little time, so much to hide, so much to revise, so much to do — nipping at the heels of Trump.

The insults fly from everywhere at Trump, both personal and on his presidency. Something Obama never had. The opposition of the Resistance is in ful bloom, with the willing collaboration of media. The calls for impeachment have begun and they push the 25th amendment, something reserved for drastic circumstances. Another historic first.

But the left and Democrats’ desperation calls for drastic measures. So they attach the word unpresidential to everything Trump does: his Twitter, his speeches, his choices, his actions. Everything Trump does is called dangerous. Obama weaponized government.

However, what is truly unpresidential and unprecedented is Obama. The lying chameleon is on the loose and fully engaged in undermining the 45th president of the United States. He is unpresidential at every level, like he always was. What he is doing is unprecedented. He went straight on the road, armed with his expense account and vacation stipend, to travel the world on his campaign to undermine the current president, Trump.

What one president policy? One president at a time policy. The attacks and politics should stop at waters’ edge. Remember all that? Gone like the wind. But Obama won’t leave the stage. On Trump’s first trip, he went wheels up for the Middle East and they rolled out the attacks. Incidentally, Obama’s specialty was always going overseas to attack America and his political opponents. None of that was strange because it was normal under Obama. Yet they shunned anyone criticizing Obama, or fighting back. Press refrained from being critical anytime, especially when Obama went abroad.

But now that offshore targeting is the new normal. Yet it is now unpatriotic and unpresidential and unprecedented for Trump to say anything to defend himself or even criticize the press offshore. Obama thrived on offshore attacks. Media celebrated them.

Obama is trolling Trump around the world on the public stage. He seems to think he is still president that what he says still matters. So he talks to world leaders after meetings with Trump. He tells them his policies, which apparently Trump should be obligated to pursue, are the only option. Who exactly does he think he is? He cares nothing about America, and never did. He aids and abets our enemies, seeking to undermine the current administration any way he can. He is invested in America’s demise, as much as Putin.

At the very same time, his apologists come out to defend his operational strategy by saying he is reluctant to get politically involved in current policies. No, he is not reluctant at all; he is more anxious now than he ever was to talk about N. Korea as a threat, or other problems he left in his wake. He wants to be very involved. Who can tell him to back off? He cannot give up the podium. He refuses to let the current president do his job. Then his network of hacks are busy in the media and public stage criticizing him, as if they care anything about America or Americans.

Maybe he has too much time on his hands simply because there are no current investigations or special counsels in place for what he did, at every level? What we need is some form of accountability for it all. We really don’t need hearings, though, we need prosecutions. We need grand juries and indictments. We need hearings about stripping him of his privileges. We need these rat bastards to testify for what they’ve done.

 

Finally, we need to enforce the One President at a time Policy. Obama doesn’t seem to get it on his own. He always had problems about rules applying to himself. He always had to push the envelope of what he couldn’t do. So where is Congress to tell him?

Now on his second trip abroad, to the G-20 summit, they stage one great question about, what else, Russia and the elections. So Trump is attacked for responding to the question. Media later conflated world “diplomacy” with the way he answered the hostile press. They are two separate things. He goes to the G-20 Summit and all press cares about is Russia and the last election. He gives an excellent speech in Polland, mentioning Russia, but all they care about is Russia and the last election — “attack on our democracy.”

The press is attacking our democracy every day, denying the results of the people’s will, stomping down and mocking the people’s freedom of speech. Then they totally ignore the huge mess that Obama left us. No honeymoon… they want to steal the election victory from Republicans. Just act as if it didn’t happen. Then they want to impeach him.

But that’s okay, because Obama is still busy flirting around having personal meetings with world leaders, present and former: Trudeau, Merkel, Moon, Macron, David Cameron, and Matteo Renzi in Milan before slidinng into home-turf in Indonesia. Even NYT, libs paper of record, comfortably acknowledged, “One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Obama was trolling President Trump.” Why be forgiven for thinking it, that is what he is doing? Then they quickly added too that:

Mr. Obama has generally tried to stay above the political fray in his nascent post-presidency. But in these charged times, just breaking bread with a world leader can take on a political subtext. It is a tension his advisers recognize, and say they try to mitigate by holding get-togethers at Mr. Obama’s hotel and avoiding the trappings of leader-to-leader meetings.”

He’s really trying not to have these be platforms to weigh in on the issues of the day.” – NYT

No, he is not refraining from leader to leader meetings. He is making a point to go talk to them. For Pete’s sake, he is obviously and intentionally trying desperately to undermine Trump’s presidency. He is the first Presidential Troll.

Just last year, Obama had a completely different view. Obama wasted no time after election, on 11/14, saying ““there is one president at a time.” Then in December, at Christmas, the White House chief liar and adviser, Ben Rhodes, reiterated:

“On the president-elect, the first thing I’d just say is that there’s one president at a time. President Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, and we are taking this action, of course, as U.S. policy.” — Rhodes on Israel policy — Washington Examiner

I guess Obama now thinks having a foundation gives him license to operate with some presidential status he only wishes he had. But if they can pretend, certainly Obama can too. They’ll go along with Unprecedented, Treasonous and historic Unpresidential Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

175 & Counting Lawsuit and Blackmail

Who are the 175? Well, it’s the beginning, and growing, number of plaintiffs who are part of a class action lawsuit against CNN for its discriminatory practices.

Wonder why you don’t hear about this and it never comes up on their own news network when they talk about discrimination? Funny how that is.

Here’s Something You Don’t Hear Much About: The 175 People Suing CNN For Racial Discrimination

By: Joseph Curl | Daily Wire

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings)…./

There has been much ado — and rightly so — over the goings on at Fox News Channel – sexual harassment, hush money allegedly paid to victims, a string of high-profile resignations (some of which were really firings).

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

“The lawsuit against CNN, meanwhile, claims the company’s Atlanta headquarters is rife with racism,” The New York Post wrote on April 27.

Minority employees had to endure bigoted remarks such as “It’s hard to manage black people” and “Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?,” according to a complaint by former workers Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert Jr. filed in Atlanta federal court.

Colbert Jr. also claims he was paid thousands less than white colleagues as a manager at the affiliated Turner Broadcasting System.

Henley, a former CNN executive assistant, says she was fired in 2014 for complaining that black employees were being paid less than white counterparts.

See more: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16140/heres-something-you-dont-hear-much-about-175-joseph-curl

 

Another Offensive Move from CNN media

Compounding their injury, CNN has now engaged in a blackmail campaign against the meme-maker of the CNN – WWE smackdown video, featuring Trump. These people apparently have no sense of humor whatsoever. And they cannot take any mockery at all, even while they ridicule and mock the American people and White House daily.

They threatened this social media person, a 15 yr-old kid man, with exposing his real identity and other posts they found objectionable. How they got the information, supposedly from ISP via TWC, adds to it. They basically made him agree to shut up.

But what difference does it make who made the clever little video joke that went viral? Only CNN cares because they claim it “incites violence.” They also want Twitter to shut down Trump’s Twitter account for posting it. Now they claim they’ll continue asking Twitter why they haven’t taken action? Whew-wee, have they taken it too far or what?

That is the same network chronically complaining about ‘off-camera’ White House press briefings. That curtails their grandstanding and filibuster capabilities. Even though there is no such requirement in our US Constitution to them.

The same network who daily uses more anonymous sources than freckles. They demand protection and guarantee it to “sources,” no matter how controversial their leaks are. No problem, the leakers need Constitutional protections.

However, a private citizen who made a clever, funny meme on the internet is sought, bullied, threatened and blackmailed by CNN into silence. (Read, threaten to turn left-wing goons on him) They don’t really have a clue on the first amendment or the Constitution.

So the lesson, class, is no free speech in the first amendment for the people. Only plenty of far-reaching protections for the MSM elite media, “press” though.

Conclusion: CNN has become 1st Amendment Assassins — my first amendment view.

(*Correction: so it was not a 15 yr old kid, but again that only matters to CNN)

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

Feel the Bern: Sanders proposes Christian ban in government

Bernie Sanders doubles down on his Christian hatred during confirmation hearings. Since by the left’s own definition disagreement with other religions is hatred, a phobia, then Bernie Sanders has one gargantuan phobia.

See article for Bernie’s condemnation of a Christian who does not deserve to be in government and should be banned from it on grounds of his belief.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

Oh, I feel the Bern. Had he spoke to a Muslim, I can assure you that conversation wouldn’t have happened. However, a total belief in Marxism would be a qualifier for public office.

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

RightRing | Bullright

Harvard does separate and equal, by choice

Now isn’t it neat when black students decide to have their own graduation?
From the halls of Ivy League to separate but equal. What can Brown do for you?

Ivy League Black Students Decide To Hold Their Own ‘Black-Only’ Graduation Ceremony

Amber Randall — 05/08/2017 | Daily Caller

Black Harvard graduate students plan to host a “black-only” graduation ceremony later in May.

Approximately 125 students will participate in the ceremony, which took over a year to plan, reports the College Fix. The event is supposed to celebrate how black students have succeeded in higher education.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s Black excellence and Black brilliance,” Michael Huggins, a master’s student in public policy, told The Root. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

More at http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/ivy-league-black-students-decide-to-hold-their-own-black-only-graduation-ceremony/

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Unnecessary Senate intelligence press conference

The Senate committee announced their ongoing investigation into all things Russia in a press conference. That comes as media and Democrats went on jihad against the Congressional intelligence committee. Certainly no coincidence. Senators Burr and Warner turned on the media charm by taking questions. (or charm offensive)

[CSPAN]We”thought that it was time for our first public update of the Senate investigation into Russian involvement in the elections,” Burr said. Let me just say that we cannot say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is: which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States.

In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any campaign contacts from either committee with Russian government, with Russian government officials that might have in any way influenced shape or form the election process. We take that very seriously, it’s not something that can be done quickly and, when you look at our committee, it is in fact our oversight role that we function in every single day. This is just on a little larger scale.

For those that might think or have suggested that this is outside our expertise, let me remind you that the last public investigation that we did was the Senate investigation into Benghazi. We devoted tree professional staff into that investigation. It took one year and, in comparison to the public hearings that happened in the House, our report [came out] much quicker than what they were and I think are consistent with, in fact, what the House process looked like at the end.”

(Oops, for a minute there I thought he was going to say investigation into Obama. No attempt to upstage the House investigations there. Under the bus they go. )

But what did we learn? Next to nothing. They appeared to be saying “hey, look at us…. we’re the real investigating agency here.” Oh, and then they went into their dramatic prose about how big this investigation event is. Historical. Just the way we like to see an investigation formally kicked off, telling us how monumentally important their endeavor is. Then they praised their own skill and accomplishment — to contrast with the debacle media turned the Congressional investigation into.

Well, I only have one question that supersedes all others. If the Inspector Clouseau’s of the Senate are so good, proper and excellent, then what happened to their integrity and efforts over the last eight years? That is like praising Comey’s credibility — who is doing his own sequestered investigation, which he announced.

I’ll agree that, in the zero-sum game, last week’s coverage over Nunez teed up the confidence coup for the Senate to extort. Like it or not, it is a zero-sum process.

Since we are in a state of Constitutional constipation, and everything is so unprecedented serious and outrageous now, where was all that unprecedented work over the last eight years? I’m still waiting for the investigations into what was going on in the DOJ, IRS, EPA, and the State Department that approved uranium rights to Russia. Time constraints?

Do you smell what the elites in the Senate are cooking?

Now they grandstand on the duties and their self-anointed integrity. “You can trust us.” Well, then Burr went the additional yardage in saying that they would not be doing a witch hunt. So with these great investigators the right couldn’t even manage to provide a decent witch hunt, even for entertainment, in the last eight years. And what they did with/to Benghazi? Forget-about-it. Case closed.

Now we are in prime time Constitutional constipation to restore our confidence in their deliberate and orchestrated processes. (Sigh, dramatic eye-roll) The record be damned, full-speed ahead. Remember during Benghazi, the investigation was the problem. And it did not get widespread cooperation. It’s what the left and media attacked.

And if everyone stretched out Benghazi for so long — through mid-terms and into the next election cycle — how long can they stretch this out?

RightRing | Bullright

MSM meets cable, or the Hannitization of America … or not

CAUTION: this content requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ted Koppel gets Sean Hannity on and tells him, and Fox, he is bad for America.

But wait, ol’ Teddy has kind of a habit of doing that
He told O’Reilly he pretty much ruined the country. (very optimistic)

So Teddy does have that going for him. But then, to be fair to Koppel, he delivered similar commentary about Rush Limbaugh and others. Many others.

What is interesting, though, is what he blames. He accuses Rush for starting it, but that his rise(creation) was only because of the absence of the Fairness Doctrine when that ended. Ah, so ol’ Ted has confidence in the Fairness Doctrine being the cop on the beat.

Well, we know how that worked don’t we?

It was used just as much for censorship as for fairness. And MSM personas like him would be protected as knights of the fairness castle. Everything flowing through them. So Koppel would like to put free speech, and press, back in the bottle if he could… but he can’t.

Thus, he now goes on the circuit railing against these opinionators and pundits as the villains of the news media. No, Ted, you did a fine enough job in ruining journalism, media, America, and confidence in media all by yourself.

Sorry Teddy, the 1st Amendment did not include the Fairness Doctrine, and I’ve also checked all amendments since. Nada. But nice try — even if it sounds so official.

If you wanted Pravda, you could always move to Russia where government will gladly be the arbiter of what news media can say. Got that, Ted?

(Instructions… now grasp handle and press downward to flush.)

Note: I will say he has real points on his “Lights Out” book on a cyber attack and grid concerns. Yet his lights already seem to be out on news channels and media.

(**correction: Koppel interviewed Hannity at length, and chopped it to about 2 minutes)

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

Jefferson’s wisdom

“Whenever the words of a law will bear two meanings, one of which will give effect to the law, and the other will defeat it, the former must be supposed to have been intended by the Legislature, because they could not intend that meaning, which would defeat their intention, in passing that law; and in a statute, as in a will, the intention of the party is to be sought after.”

1–Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:110

“When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.”

2–Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

3–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

Source: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1020.htm

Shadow government up and running

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

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

American Patriot Daily News

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

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

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

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

The New York Times reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero Hedge reports on his remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

Was this coup ultimately enabled by Loretta Lynch?

At least one expert is saying “yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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