If not Trump

From the barge of media opinion comes one for Trump. Anyone keeping score? It comes from NY Post. Give the man a cigar.

We’re still better off with Trump than Clinton

By Michael Goodwin — NY Post — January 6, 2017 (excerpt)

The economic boom is the most obvious difference voters got by electing him. The tax law he campaigned on, fought for and signed promises to add new dimensions to the boom and should fuel growth and new opportunities for millions of people.

Generations of families will lead better lives as a result, while a Clinton presidency would have been an orgy of regulations aimed at strangling capitalism’s last animal spirits. How many thousands of points lower would the Dow be?

But the Trump effect is not limited to the economy. Think of the difference between Neil Gorsuch and a Supreme Court justice Clinton would have picked; now multiply that difference throughout the judicial food chain. …/

https://nypost.com/2018/01/06/were-still-better-off-with-trump-than-clinton/

Low and behold someone with a level-headed view, not much of that in the media. All the ugliness would be traded for phony gloating, and the dumbstruck media could continue their way of the dinosaur without passing go. They could go to sleep for another…8 years. (it pains me to say that) They would run interference for both messiahs of misery, with academia in tow. And we wouldn’t be doing anything that we’re doing now. SCOTUS would be on a glide path to doom. It would be the far left even Bill could not be, with no regrets.

Advertisements

Dershowitz: it’s costing me dinner dates

Alan Dershowitz on defending Trump: ‘My liberal friends don’t invite me to dinner anymore’

By Caitlin Yilek | Dec 27, 2017,

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz says he’s feeling the heat from family and friends over his defense of President Trump amid special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

“It’s caused me to lose seven pounds,” Dershowitz told Politico. “My liberal friends don’t invite me to dinner anymore.”

Dershowitz often appears on Fox News to argue against Mueller bringing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, saying it would send the country into a constitutional crisis. He has also defended Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

“My really, really close friends say, ‘You’re 100 percent right in your analysis, but can’t you just shut the f—k up and not talk at all,’” he said. “They tell me, ‘This is a time for selective silence.’ My nephew thinks I’m helping keep in office one of the greatest dangers in American history. I tell him I’m just standing up for principle. He tells me that I don’t have to stand up so loud.”

Dershowitz added that his family is no longer proud to be associated with him.

“I was a source of pride to my kids, my grandkids,” he said. “Now it’s ‘Oy, he’s related to Alan Dershowitz.’ That hurts me a little bit.”

Yet Dershowitz said he’s “happy with the role I’m playing.”

“I think I’ve changed the debate on the subject of obstruction of justice,” he said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-on-defending-trump-my-liberal-friends-dont-invite-me-to-dinner-anymore/article/2644432

Maybe that message should be telling him something. But Dershowitz gets no credit for his defense of Hillary? You know, where no one should be going after their opponents by weaponizing things like email processes. Maybe that is not his words but that we shouldn’t be investigating political opponents. Even though it is Hillary and her people who were investigating Trump. That seems to be okay for Democrats.

Still Alan is loosing friends. Isn’t the irony rich in what kind of friends these are? But Dems never would have an issue with blanket defense…denial about Hillary. In fact, he would gain friends. Even though what Hillary and Comey did was actually obstruction of justice. She clocked about five years doing it. That was really obstruction of justice.

Pelosi goes off along with the obnoxious left

WATCH: Unhinged Pelosi Claims Tax Bill ‘Does Violence’ To Vision Of Founding Fathers

“… it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

Daily Signal

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spewed utter nonsense on the House floor on Tuesday, hysterically claiming that the Republican’s tax plan “does violence to the vision of our Founders.”

Pelosi railed against Republican lawmakers in her speech, decrying the bill as a morally obscene “scam” designed to “install a permanent plutocracy.”

“This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it,” Pelosi said. “The GOP tax scam is not a vote for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation. They’ll be cheering that later. It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. It demands, it morally demands a no vote from every member of this house of the people.”

Earlier in her remarks, the pro-abortion Democrat pulled out the tried-and-true “think of the children” tactic and managed to connect it to Christmas.

“In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God,” Pelosi began. “We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them. We remember our duty to live justly. And for those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God’s children.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24888/watch-unhinged-pelosi-claims-tax-bill-does-ryan-saavedra

Fred Barnes writes, of the resistance, in the Weekly Standard: “Feeble Resistance”

Still, we’ve learned a bit from the resistance. Their policy views haven’t changed much. “Democrats are for jobs, but they’re against business,” Moore says. “They’re no longer a growth party, they’re a redistribution party.”

I don’t know if I’d even say they are for jobs. But they are certainly against business. Really, they are for politics and elections in particular. That’s what they care about. A tax cut? Not so much. Nothing personal but nothing gets in the way of their obsession with politics, not even an international terrorist-crime syndicate like Hezbollah can do that.

The fact that Pelosi has to call tax cuts violent tells us something. Calling it a tax scam, or trying to make their resistance as poisonous as possible, is their gig for successful politics. Start the fundraisers against tax cuts and for impeachment. That is their entire mid-term campaign.

But rest assured, there is always that bastion of world stability called the UN. (achem) Well, they vote to condemn our decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. So Nikki Haley gives them an ultimatum that we are watching and will remember. So for that, John Brennan rushes out on social media to condemn her message. Now having a memory is considered a “threat.”

Only to an Obama radical, remembering the damage done is a bad thing. We all could need full-frontal lobotomies to accomplish that. How can they write and glorify Obama’s legacy like a gift from on high while we are looking at the effects?

The real problem is not just Trump, to them, but all the people who voted for him. It was Nancy’s last part that took it right over the top, making resistance into a religious doctrine. ‘Save the people by opposing Trump on everything,’ is the message. She lost her credibility card by being in bed with Planned Parenthood. Now she lectures us on taking care of the children? A bit much even for my stomach.

So their rhetoric is high but their ethics and responsibility are not. They can oppose the American people who want to fix the problems, not create more of them. People wanted a wall, border enforcement and to grow America, instead of destroying and dividing it by every conceivable group. Dems want the latter.

Now if any of that seems or is offensive to you, well, you are probably right on the mark. It offends because it is meant to. All the left’s agenda drives the message of protest as the means — when elections and courts don’t yield the desired effects. From blocking roadways, to shutting down businesses, to tearing down statues, all are means to offend people. That is the point of it. They tell us that we must be made to feel uncomfortable, made to feel their ridicule. That, they say, is the motive for change.

When NFL players took a knee toward the national anthem and flag, we rightly called them out on it. We said it was offensive to the rest of the country, to the military, to the country at large. And they told us good, I’m glad you are, we want you to be. That’s why we are doing it, that is the point of protest and civil disobedience to disturb and make you feel uncomfortable. Until lots of Americans are offended then nothing changes.

So in that same spirit they carry the offensive objective into the halls of Congress. Resistance. Make no mistake, when it rolls out and hits you right in the face as outrageous and offends you, because that is their whole point. They want to inflame.

Is it any wonder then that it is almost impossible to deal with or work with them? No it isn’t and also why they are in a perpetual protest mode. They operate on the same M/O as terrorists do: to force a political objective, whether it is baking cakes, changing bathrooms, or removing statues, or removing displays, or violent protests, or defending corruption.

And if some of their policies also offend you even more when they are carried out? That’s all the better, it keeps you in the perpetually offended mode, awaiting their next demand. These are not just the collateral effects and consequences of the left, these are their very intentional means. But tax cuts are a violent attack on the founders?

Right Ring | Bullright

Rice the evil spewer

In Obama’s second term, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach argued why Rice should be kept from Sec of State, but because of Rwanda.

“But what is not arguable is that she deserves to be denied the post for a different reason [than Benghazi] altogether: Rwanda. What emerges when taken together — Rice’s weak response in Benghazi, blaming the murder of four Americans on a stupid video, and her shameful lack of action in the Rwandan genocide — is a career diplomat of singular weakness, lacking the spine or muscularity to assert American moral influence in the world.

Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 refused any involvement whatsoever in the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded.”

Both events argue against any noble-good notion, when she was involved in both.

Rice now writes in a NYT op-ed article: “Susan Rice: When America No Longer Is a Global Force for Good

“President Trump’s National Security Strategy marks a dramatic departure from the plans of his Republican and Democratic predecessors, painting a dark, almost dystopian portrait of an “extraordinarily dangerous” world characterized by hostile states and lurking threats. There is scant mention of America’s unrivaled political, military, technological and economic strength, or the opportunities to expand prosperity, freedom and security through principled leadership — the foundation of American foreign policy since World War II.

In Mr. Trump’s estimation, we live in a world where America wins only at others’ expense. There is no common good, no international community, no universal values, only American values. America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy, or a “shining city on a hill,” as in President Reagan’s vision. The new strategy enshrines a zero-sum mentality: “Protecting American interests requires that we compete continuously within and across these contests, which are being played out in regions around the world.” This is the hallmark of Mr. Trump’s nationalistic, black-and-white “America First” strategy.”#

America is no longer “a global force for good,” as in President Obama’s last strategy. So she claims Obama’s strategy, or policy, was “a global force for good.” Fancy that when it was exactly the opposite in action. It consistently stood in the face of a good legacy.

The ME and their Muslim Brotherhood obsession, then the anti-Israel platform, the Benghazi debacle — with or without the gun running — botched with mistakes and denials from the beginning, the Syrian issue of mixed messages and disappearing red lines, Russian influence throughout, the bad Iranian deal at all costs to us, ignorance on N Korea, and ISIS sprouting an official Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, reactionary spiteful withdrawal from Iraq, depleting our military, politicizing military intell and rules of engagement, not enforcing laws here in this country and politicizing the DOJ and intelligence.

Add to it the radicalization of government at home, with a war on energy, and lies about current events that were impossible to ignore. (the media really tried their best) I won’t even get into the racism for lack of space.

So we’re to infer all that was part of a “global force for good. If it was, then I’d like to know what a global force of empowering evil would look like? So all the above were part of the force for good? But now she has the arrogance and audacity to call Trump basically a force for bad. Here fellow comrades like Rhodes and Pfeiffer were on social media calling for the obituaries of current leadership. I hate to rain on her parade — or march — but the last 8 years was no picnic or vacation from evil. In fact, it was awash in it and corruption. Yet hearing her call it a force for good is hilarious.

This week we confirmed that Obama’s administration was so eager to get an Iran deal at any cost that they stood down on actions against Hezbollah’s international crime and terrorism operation. Let’s forget the Uranium deal for the moment. Politicizing and weaponizing government made it a force for good?

Now that all the skeletons are falling out of the closets (there aren’t enough closets) she is pointing fingers at the Trump administration, like her comrades. That rapid, immediate withdrawal from Iraq set off a chain of events. At home, Obama was so worried about his scummy legacy that he couldn’t have events called terrorism.

But all of that was part of some “global force for good.” What’s her definition of good?

Then back up a moment. She also called Trump’s policies a zero sum game that requires everyone else lose in order for us to win. We haven’t seen anything like that. Trump hasn’t called for that. Actually, he holds that they are winning while we are winning. But contrast that with Obama where we constantly lost on the deals and the world, or others, always won. That was more the zero-sum game. We weren’t really meant to win in Obama’s view.

She then goes for “enshrining Mr. Trump’s harsh anti-immigration policies, from the border wall to ending family preferences and limiting refugee admissions.” Again, contrast that with Obama’s mixed signals about border control, catch and release, and unconstitutional DACA program, and opening us to external threats in wartime. Refugees that were at least partly created by his own policies of complicit ignorance.

The perpetual do-gooder also made a policy of ignoring Christian persecutions while favoring Muslim refugees. He could only point to one major accomplishment of getting Osama bin Laden, but allowed a caliphate to form and spread, referring to it as JV. Yet he didn’t really take on that JV squad. Instead, he simply said it was not Islamic. Imagine that, a caliphate that is not Islamic? Oh, he banned using accurate terms to describe that caliphate of terrorism.

Enough contradictions in there to show she is shoveling more bullshit? What’s worse is they know, but have a constant need to deceive, try to control the narrative and revise Obama’s entire legacy. The people didn’t see it his way either, which showed in the election. Again, argue against the results and legitimacy of the election. Now…. they are going to lecture us on being a do-gooder? How about people just do what is right, and forget this false do-good narrative? Although I used to think that doing the right thing was being a force for good!

Right Ring | Bullright

The Post Facto Coverup

I apologize for yet another rant, though I like to call them op-eds on the current state of liberaldom. And the current state is disgusting.

I have a little familiarity with language but that fails when it comes to describing what is going on. As is my usual argument about liberalism, perception is reality — being that perception is what they live in.

I am continually amazed how far they will go to either assert that perception as fact or in denying the reality around them. Such is the liberal animal though, since it is a creature of habit and habitiat, driven by its ideology. The other chief tool is projecting on opponents their own exact faults and abuses. The failures of what they do either do not exist in their minds or are just more opportunities to obfuscate the truth.

You know the saying that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” but there isn’t enough sunshine at the equator to disinfect this corruption from the left. No, I’m not buying that excuse that both sides do it and one side didn’t create all this. We see where the corruption is rolling like a river from.

And you might say, “but you are not being objectively fair.” That’s the problem with the left, I do have a bias for good reasons and don’t pretend to be an impartial tool. And most liberals don’t have an ounce of objectivity. They pride themselves on being biased. They demand objectivity from everyone else.

So we have an investigation into Trump over Russia. But a dossier with information from Russian operatives was assembled to use against him.

Here’s the line the left uses: if Mueller is removed it creates a Constitutional crisis. But the Special Counsel investigation itself created a Constitutional crisis. We don’t have to worry about an investigation getting corrupted, it was born of corruption — what else could it be?

We’re getting to the real point, the obvious mission of the investigation. First, it was started in search of a justification. But that is not the problem now. We see what the whole thing really is: the purpose of the investigation is a cover up for what went on. It is a giant cover up operation for the mass politicization and corruption of the DOJ and FBI.

Now the whole Trump campaign that evolved into the transition of President-elect Trump has been pilfered by Mueller. It is an investigation of the whole apparatus.

Let’s be clear that this is an investigation of a campaign and the election. We have the loser colluding with government against the president — as they did during the campaign. What we had even before the investigation is government targeting a president. And it continues. There is not enough sunlight to sanitize this. We know what is going on, from warrantless searches to surveillance of a candidate/campaign, however falsely they justified it.

Then we have one more interesting thing. I complained back in the campaign about the way they treated Trump. And I was outraged by their branding him with names. Remember former CIA director, Mike Morell went to media to write an op-ed attack on Trump, using his years in intelligence as his credentials for it — to add a certification of legitimacy for his charges. He called Trump an unwitting agent of a foreign government. That was akin to treason. Obama also followed that similar track.

Update, the same Mike Morell comes out to apologize for getting it wrong saying they reacted badly. Sorry, not really! It was the half-hearted dance the liberal bastards do when their heads are in a vice. See how he morphs a feigned apology into pointing the finger of blame… but on Trump: The Hill

Michael Morell, the former Acting Director of the CIA, recently confessed that maybe it was a mistake for himself, the former chief of the CIA and NSA, Gen. Michael Hayden, and the then-Director of the CIA, John Brennan, to criticize candidate Donald Trump. He admitted that he failed to understand how Trump would interpret their campaign criticism, which is pretty damning coming from someone who briefed presidents on how foreign leaders think.

Of course, Morell didn’t cop to his behavior, saying, “So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time … I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.” [more]

Wait, he does not apologize saying it was “not a mistake”. Mike just didn’t “think through the implications” — the implications of politicizing intelligence and calling someone a traitor. The problem is he knew exactly what he was doing then. But the new revelations of biases would taint what he did so he’s trying to duck and cover it.

He didn’t know how Trump would respond to that? I don’t know, how do you respond to be called a foreign agent of an enemy? How do you respond to government and intelligence conspiring against you? If Hillary would have won, that would be the end of it. Success. No need to ever mention it again. Don’t even pull the knife from the victim, just let him lay there. I have a special contempt for Morell after what he did. So the problem was how Trump interpreted it?

But what Morel took part in, and helped cause, was real damage. Even apologizing now would never undo any of that. In fact, they get to have it both ways — just like Clinton defenders — because they got to do their political attacks and benefited from them. Now they are still reaping all the benefits of the false attacks. Except they want to be excused for what they did.

That brings it back to the investigation. Never mind the faulty premises or the conflicted political biases, or the illegalities involved. Never mind spending a year beating on the results of the election with a sludge hammer. Never mind what the last administration did, or what the other candidate did in the process of “democracy.” Never mind the sheer corruption and bias involved across government.

Finally, never mind that this whole thing has been a cover up and a diversion from focusing on the real corruption that ran rampant for 8 years. They needed a scapegoat and a whipping post. Never mind what this cover up of corruption does to democracy. Yet they had the nerve to complain that Trump was somehow threatening or destroying democracy, “as democracy was under attack.” There is no undoing what they did, or turning back.

Right Ring | Bullright

Open Letter to the Resistance

I know you people are fairly disagreeable by nature but allow me to explain a few things to you. You can accept them or not, at face value, but I really don’t give a shit.

You all seem to be in an even bigger stupor than normal lately as you follow all those sensational headlines that come out, one by one. Did you ever think this could be a tactic of choreography going on? Did you ever think maybe you are the fish falling for the bait, almost every time?

Well, of course you probably didn’t because as soon as that thought entered your gushy head, you succumbed to the “want to believe” doctrine. The same doctrine that led your brain cells over the last 8 years of Obama. Even despite evidence to the contrary, you “want to believe” it all true. And with the left, the law of perception rules supreme. If you want it to be true, it is. You must deny whatever contradicts that belief of yours.

But unlike all your hopes, Donald Trump really is still president and he is not going away. And remember those people who voted for him you claimed were a minority? Well, they are still here. We aren’t going away either. We didn’t change our minds, or make a mistake. We are quite happy and do not have any empathy for your resistance — which if you think about it is actually sedition. We are happy your perverse system is being disrupted.

Worse for you, we will still be here in the coming years and that means through the midterms you are giddy about, all the way to a crescendo of momentum in 2020. You see, you bought into a failing paradigm. We are actually the real “resistance”… to your deeps-state scum that is sucking the blood from our country.

So we are still resisting and bringing correction to this corrupt DC sewer you worshiped at the altar of for at least 8 years. I know, you don’t care about the effects of what you have done, or what your Messiah Obama did. But you should be concerned that it was all destroying the foundation of this country. No. All you care for is your twisted ideology.

Of course you ignored and/or denied that — the ideological dreams of your utopia were more important. It was not a utopia or right but you didn’t want to hear that. Your social justice is really a wet blanket of socialism that doesn’t work no matter how hard you try to ram it down our throats. Again, you don’t care. Your nanny-state desires are more important than life or the preservation of this country. So you actively work to destroy it, which you don’t care about anyway, in order to get what you want.

But your nanny-state also comes with a cost of the sewer sucking the oxygen from society. And it requires fuel. It gave birth to and marinated in corruption, now that your phase of politicization reached its peak. You love the politicization because it was radicalized like you and the leftist base. That feeds the beast. It doesn’t care about the consequences, only the agenda. The fruits of which are as toxic for freedom as it is for the health of the republic itself, though that doesn’t matter to you. In fact, you are willing to cover up all the evidence of corruption or seeds of sedition against America for your own selfish interests, to propel that agenda. And it is not even your noble pipe dreams and illusions you care about.

The real objective is, and always was, power and control of the people you use in your grist mill of politics. The plantation that grows and maintains this manure field is the machine used to propel its political abuse and malfeasance in its lust for power. This plantation utopia can never be satisfied, it isn’t meant to be. Its goal is the evolutionary destruction of the republic into a socialist state. That requires a fair amount of force to accomplish.

What better way to perpetuate that objective, force, than deceptively naming it something like resistance, which is a perversion of the word? If you are actively in a state of resistance against the democratically elected government, it is a state of sedition and insurrection. To be in resistance against the democracy you claim to care about — and rule of law — is to be actively working against America and the Americans who made their choice in the election. Immediately, you went into the persistent state of denial and “resistance” against the government and the people that elected it.

Though we were in dissent with your regime and policies in the last 8 years, we suffered through it. We did not organize all the institutions and embedded radicals against it. Ours was a real resistance not sedition — by any means necessary. Imagine what the press would have looked like over that? And we didn’t try to take power by means other than democratic election. We didn’t try to undermine it or prevent it from taking power. We did not radicalize an insurgency against it. We used the mechanisms of government itself and freedom of speech, peacefully, as the means. Though this was unsuccessful. Our success was in finally stopping that train of abuse in 2016.

Now all of you claim to be under the banner of Resistance, while you are actively opposing America. The fact that you don’t care only proves your loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution, but to an ideology which craves power for its means to success.

Our only option to your craving is to be in resistance ourselves. So once again, we are the real resistance. Without power, your progressive agenda is disrupted. That causes knots in your “by any means necessary” stomach. But the cravings to feed your addiction will not be satisfied in the near future. Your withdrawals will get ugly and violent, but we will not appease your demands. We will not surrender our will or the America you are actively opposing. Your sedition will be opposed. You will not have your way.

Right Ring | Bullright

When Tucker Carlson gets it wrong

A while back I was watching Tucker’s show on something about the Clintons and Hillary. Well, he ended with a disclaimer that he hoped this was the end of the Clintons and this would be his last reporting about her. He was sick of the Clintons. That is because she should just go away…. and presumably be forgotten.

Well, I took issue with that when he said it. I said no, we need to keep her alive in news and I, for one, don’t want to forget her and the damage she did. Same with Obama. We need to remember that horror, so that history does not repeat itself.

The real danger is we do forget what they did to this country. It must be memorialized, this poison to the root of our republic. And too, how it was all maliciously mishandled.

Fast forward to his latest show where he talked to Alan Dershowitz. If people remember, Alan has defended the Clinton legacy of crime to some extent. No need to investigate it all. But Carlson agreed with him in the end that we should not criminalize certain actions like emails etc. as a means of going after her or, to be fair, the Trump things.

Well, why should Clinton’s scandal get off the hook of accountability? It is the conduct and rule of law not the position of the person that is the problem. Carlson seemed to think we should just let it go, even though it continues. Just for the sake of ridding ourselves.

There are still thousands of Hillary’s records we haven’t gotten from the State Department. Huma Abedin carried out boxes of documents from State claiming they were personal. That is a lie, no doubt about it. Communications on Muslim relations and records of gifts received and/or to the Clinton Foundation. (some of these gifts can be very valuable) Government also has strict guidelines to deal with gifts.

But once again, she interrupts any proper process. And once again it is records. Hillary doesn’t have a great record on records. She can just whisk them away. She was planning on having all that sealed when she became president. She was always fighting transparency. Does Sandy Berger ring a bell?

Now Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said that the DOJ is actually defending Hillary from transparency. What the hell is going on? Why does she need government to defend her? She and Obama seem to have enough defenders or operators in the Deep State.

So Tucker Carlson goes along with the liberals in suggesting it doesn’t matter anymore. Really? He just takes the bait.

But they can probe back years or decades with Trump in a Special Counsel investigation. And Lois Lerner also applied to have her records sealed. The whole damn cabal of characters needs investigated, along with Obama and his dep of injustice. Now is not the time to delete our memory.

I know exactly the right place for them. And it’s not just for weekend visits.
But let it go? I don’t think so. We let it go for way too long already.

Right Ring | Bullright

It’s a strange swamp, Master Jack

We have now reached the point where I have to say that hearings on oversight of the DOJ and Mueller’s rogue operation can be called triggering. On both sides.

Yes, I said it. Dems prove they are triggered just having hearings of Rosenstein. I have my own problems with it that cause frustration and raise my anger to new levels. But Democrats were triggered even before the hearings.

Then Democrats question the fact that we have lost trust in the FBI in particular and the DOJ in general. But not really. They only claim the service of thousands of agents is noble and that, I suppose, we should appreciate their service. That is not the point.

If the entire agency is saddled with this ‘corrupted’ leadership, what good is all that? Seems it is a hard time for FBI and big-government liberals who usually defend it. The problem is this rotting stench coming from the top of the agency diminishes their ‘professional’ service.

We are in strange times. What better illustration of the times than this.

Crazy is Democrats using basic anti-discrimination policy to defend blatant political discrimination and bias within a government agency. They seem to want to give a pass to the political bias that has been exposed in DOJ and the investigations of Trump and Hillary. But the bias only goes one way.

So if anti-discrimination policy can now be used for the very reason to be biased and discriminate, we are in a strange place. But they did almost the same thing with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Radicals and Deep State bureaucrats don’t just wear their biases on their sleeve for all to see, but now they want to use political bias as the justification.

Being triggered like Dems are, especially at the loss of the election and Trump’s victory, they are expected to use the full weight of their bias against the president and his administration. In short, that is what they are there for and what their bias is for. Then they use the bias for what they did as the defense for what they did. Political motives rule.

In that light, I guess hearings about such topics and agenda could be triggering. The culture of bias at the top taints all else, because it is meant to. So don’t worry about Mueller’s investigation being corrupted, it was created by and a byproduct of political corruption.

Right Ring | Bullright

God’s morality police of the left?

Jerry Brown—Who Favors Legalized Killing of Unborn—Says: ‘I Don’t Think President Trump Has a Fear of the Lord

CNSNews.com
By CNSNews.com Staff | December 9, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who favors the legalized killing of unborn children, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he does not believe President Donald Trump “has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God” based on the fact that Trump removed the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.

The “60 Minutes” episode will air tomorrow. On its website, CBS News reported this about it:

“Brown told Whitaker that President Trump is wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and misguided for calling it a bad deal for America. ‘That’s a preposterous idea, not even a shred of truth in that statement,” Brown said. “I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility… and this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.’” [……./]

More https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/cnsnewscom-staff/jerry-brown-who-favors-legalized-killing-unborn-says-i-dont-think-president

 
Well, since Jerry Brown is now a member of the Inquisition — no, he may be running it — I guess that is supposed to be the final verdict.  At least Hugo Chavez sprinkled his rhetoric with the “smell of sulfur” coming from the UN podium after Bush left it. The latest charge is God opposes Trump. Just imagine that being an official position on Obama?

Recently Alan Dershowitz called out Laurence Tribe to a debate on the Constitutionality of leftists’ obstruction of justice charge. He demurred, so far. He struggles to defend it.

But Tribe did lash out at Dershowitz for “defending” the legitimacy of the “Devil Incarnate” who is president, Donald Trump.  So Tribe has turned theologian, too. 

Yet all because Dershowitz appealed to the Constitution.  Tribe asserts that he cannot debate it now, before Mueller’s investigation is concluded. (hoping he can find something to hang his unconstitutional hat on and stretch the document into play doh)

And just days ago, Nancy Pelosi played the God card. Oh yes she did! Ah, Nancy takes the path to say that God is on the side of Democrats and their amnesty strategy for DACA and illegal aliens. Pelosi must be the chosen prosecutor for the Inquisition.

Following her lead, am I to infer that if the government does shutdown, it must be divine intervention in favor of the Democrats’ lawless positions? Well, it is the message.

Speaking of FBI and penalties

Someone touched a nerve.

Matt Drudge zings Mueller probe: ‘What is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?’

by Daniel Chaitin | Dec 2, 2017 | Washington Examiner

Matt Drudge, editor and founder of the Internet news powerhouse Drudge Report, put the special counsel probe on notice Saturday.

In a flurry of tweets, stark against an otherwise empty Twitter page (Drudge has a habit of deleting his prior tweets), the influential but reclusive conservative figure painted Robert Mueller and his Russia inquiry team as a farce.

“Mueller’s secretive grand jury made up of residen[ts] from DC, where 91% voted for Hillary…,” he began, referring to the grand jury Mueller put together to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

His tweet came a day after Mike Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to the FBI about his talks with Russian officials. In the run-up to Friday’s bombshell, prosecutors had canceled scheduled grand jury testimony related to Flynn. The grand jury in Washington already had indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former associate for crimes related to their lobbying work abroad…./

“We know what happens when one lies to the FBI,” Drudge said. “But what is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/matt-drudge-zings-mueller-probe-what-is-the-punishment-when-the-fbi-lies-to-us/article/2642391

Well, that is the trillion -dollar question, isn’t it?  But I won’t wait for any answers. IOW, “we lie when we want to or need to, and we make a habit of not being accountable for it.” Penalty? Actually, I think it is rewarded. Why else would they need to?

Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation

Lerner, Paz say they fear physical harm from enraged public, want IRS testimony sealed permanently

The Washington Times

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/

Retaliation — I think that word should be banned from her vocabulary. I’m not feeling the sympathy. What about her pension? Consequences? There’s Obama’s not a smidgen.

Career government criminals want the records permanently sealed and government protection now. She now wants to reverse the Constitution.

Our government then had to pay out 3.5 million taxpayer dollars for what she did! And it took 6 years to do it. She had her 5th amendment privileges, what do they have?

That’s a brand new kind of chutzpah. My G-A-S is busted.

Hillary’s Hallucination On Power

Hillary cries fowl at the idea of government investigating a political opponent, as an abuse of power. It would “rip at the fabric of the contract” of “trust in our justice system.”

Real Clear Politics

HILLARY CLINTON: I regret deeply that this appears to be the politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system. This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times by members of the press, by independent experts. …./

It is personally offensive that they would do this. But taking myself out of it, this is such an abuse of power, and it goes right at the rule of law. … And if they sent a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have that we can trust our justice system.

While government IS investigating her political opponent — has been for months — in let’s count how many places, along with the Dep of Justice. Interesting. Is she serious?

Politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system“… surely you are laughing after 8 years of the most politicized government and Justice Dep in our history.

Such blatantly arrogant hypocrisy but you aren’t done.

Weaponized false information” … Odd claim for a candidate who spent 9+ million dollars to author a dirty dossier on her opponent. Which caused government authorities to back feed it into our system of government. Interesting concern, isn’t it? Very interesting. Video

Seems “What Happened” is still happening. Yeah, Abuse of Power is your issue, Hillary!

Just “rips at the fabric,” doesn’t it?

Double hit and run hypocrite

Call out the guard….Clinton guard that is. Geesh, Clintons seem to be taking fire these days from the strangest places. The logic is just as strange.

Take Kirsten Gillibrand, for instance. Take her away. Miss Goody Two-Shoes threw the big Bubba and the dynastic Clinton duo right under the big yellow bus. The wheels go ’round and ’round, where they stop no one knows.

Roger Waters penned the lyrics of the Pink Floyd song:
“Have a cigar, you’re gonna go far…. We call it riding the gravy train.”

And right away, Gillibrand got pushback from the Clintonistas.

Politico

“Ken Starr spent $70 million on a consensual blowjob. Senate voted to keep POTUS WJC. But not enough for you @SenGillibrand?” Philippe Reines, an adviser to Hillary Clinton during her tenure in the Senate, at the State Department and during last year’s campaign, wrote on Twitter. “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite. Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.”

Let the hits roll, on Gillibrand. Irony of getting Clinton’s seat, taking Clinton money and then throwing Bubba under the bus. But she really can’t get away with that when, as Reines reminded her, she was one of the defenders and took money off the Clinton machine. She acts like a search light in the fog. But the fog of Gillibrand is very dense.

Before you cheer-on Gillibrand, know it’s just part of the liberals’ revision revolution.

Included in Reines’ online post was a link to the Times story, in which Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said it would have been the “appropriate response” for Bill Clinton to resign in response to revelations that he had a sexual relationship with a White House intern, Lewinsky, while he was president. Gillibrand couched her statement to the Times by saying Clinton’s scandal occurred in a different era and that it would have played out much differently had it happened today.

So there’s that different era thing, again. That’s code for liberals’ evolution theme song, “Move On.” And Dems keep moving and moving along. While moving, though, pay no attention to who has to be thrown under the bus to keep the wheels moving.

No, Gillibrand, you don’t get to do that so easy. You were wrong then on the Clintons and you’re wrong now trying to distance yourself for political gain. Different era never applies to any of the left’s old ideas. It doesn’t even apply to old, stuffy leadership in the DNC. And you, Kirsten, do not represent any new era. Only more revision. It’s the pretend game that it didn’t happen, times were different then. [ctrl+alt+del history]

Actually, the left changed the times and era with the Clintons. You changed politics. But what never changed or evolved over years since was the Clintons. You used them as your benchmark for political accomplishments. You can’t have it both ways. On one hand the left made them the standard, and on the other you now denounce your total dismissal of him. Hillary has the same problems. Yet the left always thinks it can just reinvent itself, revise history to suit. Only reality and history didn’t change. Leftists are all still liars and revisers. You are the people who argued against evidence to the contrary — it didn’t count or apply. Now you are saying that history doesn’t apply now. Times are different.

Let’s be honest, what Gillibrand is really saying is what Clinton did, and what happened then, was okay in that era. But this is a different era with a different reaction. We decide. So all they keep saying now is “times are different now.” Just forget it, Clinton was a bygone era. No, not so easy. You can’t have all the benefits, both ways.

Clintons set the marker: “its a personal indiscretion that doesn’t matter.” Forget all that. The left changed the culture, changed the standard, and lowered the bar. Now you represent the high bar? Now you climb to the top of the hill? So what is different is Kirsten. The other reason to slide Clinton under the bus is so they don’t have to defend him. It ain’t going to work this time. You can’t repeal gravity, and you can’t delete history.

Gillibrand is preparing a run in 2020, but she won’t go far running away from the Clintons.
But have a cigar for a consolation prize.

Right Ring | Bullright

Stunning, Hypocritical Statements

Over the last few days there have been a series of stunning and hypocritical statements. Even more than normal, and from high places. This was supposed to be a short one.

Start with Juanita Broaddrick who is amazed lately by high profile people that suddenly tell her they believe her now. Okay, stunner that they can even admit it. Give them credit. She saw it as kind of a validation, finally. She declared Hell has frozen over.

Erstwhile do-gooders may have their political reasons for a change of tune now. But it does not reconcile years of looking down on these Clinton victims, and making excuses for Bubba and Hillary, which allowed them to continue to corrupt and enrich themselves. They simply believe Juanita — and presumably others — all is better, no harm? Everyone is happy? All because it is politically convenient now when Hill and Bill are private citizens hiding under a fictional exemption from accountability. Leaves a bad taste, no?

 

Sleazy Senator Bob Menendez just walked on his corruption case. Well, he walks and the jury hangs. (great pun) But in his deadlocked debacle he made two remarkable statements. (there were more but who has time?)

1) “To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat, I know who you are and I won’t forget you”

Ouch, can’t help seeing that as a threat. Wonder what vengeance he has in mind? And who are they, since most of the media ignored the whole thing? The MSM was making sure no one could dig his political grave, if they don’t tell people what is going on.

There still is an Senate ethics investigation Mitch McConnell called for. So it isn’t done.

2) Menendez said another stunner. Paraphrased, he has a fear of abuse of government power. He has a new appreciation and respect now for those who suffered from the hands of abusive power. So he’s going to turn into a fierce advocate? Don’t wait for that.

Wow sort of strange for someone who lived and breathed hiding behind, enabled and enriched by, the abuse of power. Then has a hung jury at his trial.

No, I don’t think you get to say that when you were not convicted for some strange reason — after all he did. I don’t think you call that abuse of power, you call that luck of draw.

Actually, details were even worse from the government side:

[ABC] Jury member Edward Norris said 10 jurors wanted to acquit Menendez on all charges, while two held out for conviction.

“I just wish there was stronger evidence right out of the gate,” the juror said. “It was a victimless crime, I think, and it was an email trial. I just didn’t see a smoking gun.”

Menendez can take that as a compliment. It is tough not to leave a trail. Victimless?

 

Finally, there is Hillary. always making the news. Hillary said that an investigation into the Uranium One would be “such an Abuse of Power”misuse and abuse of power. It must be that, but Trump and his campaign cannot be investigated enough.

[Clinton called the proposed investigation] “a disastrous step into politicizing the Justice Department” and “such an abuse of power.”

“If they send a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, like some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have, that we can trust our justice system,”

Here we go with the talk of dictatorships and rogue, out of control regimes that… I don’t know, use IRS to attack their political enemies, or silence their opponents with threats. That sort of thing. Ones who would stand down law enforcement to let innocent people or businesses suffer anarchy; or who turn felons out on streets because there is no room in jails for them. Maybe regimes that pardon terrorists. Ones that are more concerned with politics and elections than national security. What kind of regime would use government to make deals that benefit themselves and silence anyone who opposes them?

She also said “It will be incredibly demoralizing to people who have served at the Justice Department…who know better.” Whew, they know better? Isn’t that the way we got to this point? So it would be terrible for those public officials to have to follow and enforce the law. How demoralizing? Why should a justice Department stand up for blind justice as opposed to biased injustice? Leaders meeting on a tarmac days before getting an investigation is squashed. How demoralizing when an attorney General is held in contempt by Congress for not complying with….wait for it, justice!

Yes, they know better than that. Yet we saw no whistle blowers stand up to expose Obama’s injustice. In fact, we saw officials and staffers line up to take the 5th amendment to protect those who abused power and authority. She says they know better? Yes they do. Now I know why she has such faith in the Deep State swamp microbes.

We need a real Department of Know Better.

No, she said it would be a giant “abuse of power.” Wait, what she did was an abuse of power: from first lady right on up through the Senate to the State Department. Not to mention her reign of corruption and control over the DNC. Then that whole theater investigation of her abuse revealed how deep those corrupted roots go. She and her campaign manager were pushing for a special counsel on Trump. And they already suggested he should be investigated for obstruction of justice. Abuse of Power? Enemies, political enemies, do we really need to talk about Hillary and enemies?

Let’s not forget Hillary is a walking, talking, flame-throwing obstruction of justice. (and probably everyone around her) So now Hillary and Menendez sound like twins. She is getting around to claiming to be a victim of government abuse of power, which she wants to use against Trump, her political enemy. That’s what she’ll be blaming Trump for.

Now Obstruction of justice was a year and a half of Hillary covering her backside for her illegal server. But somehow she’s concerned about power being corrupted and abused? Yes, tell us all how scary that could be. Sends shivers down my back. (and shivs in the backs of her enemies)

 

CNN for its part set up a clock asking how long it will be, after he returned, for Trump to comment on the Roy Moore situation? Apparently upset he hadn’t already.

If they hadn’t noticed, he’s been kind of busy. Well, with Trump trying to avert that inevitable WWIII, nuclear Armageddon, and with rehearsing the nuclear codes he shouldn’t be trusted to have, and having secret meetings with Putin and all. Either we’re on the precipice of Nuclear Holocaust or we are not. Make up your mind!

I can’t leave out the narrative change. We remember the last 25 years. Democrats, a little late to the parade, now act like the party of protecting and listening to women. The suddenly woke folk on women victims try to define the narrative. Dems are the good guys, after standing in the way of any moral responsibility. You guessed it, Republican are the bad guys. That is meant to deflect and erase their political history for the last 25 years.

One more laugh for the road. Orin Hatch had a moment of outburst at Sherod Brown in committee. Orin called out their class warfare garbage about Republicans are doing it “all for the rich.” I guess the Utah Senator finally had enough. It didn’t stop Ohio Senator Sherod Brown from spouting off back to him that the rich are just getting richer. Great for people who actually want to raise all our taxes, let alone block this tax cut. And they have such righteous objectives.

Right Ring | Bullright

Change of the Guard

The American media is up against a force it doesn’t understand or know how to fight. The two faces of this force are: Donald Trump and the American people.

So the mainstream media flails about because the same old strategies don’t work, which is more the problem.. Why is that?

Before, or up until now, they always had their bucketful of go-to tactics. They seem to be ineffective. That must be depressing for the left. Their media guard has met its match.

Of course there are a lot of reasons for this. But it has to start with who the two faces are that makes them such a formidable opponent for the left: Trump the outsider and the fed up people. Those two make an excellent team we have not seen before. Go down the list of things — political issues — and neither react or respond in a typical way, as the left’s victims normally do. That makes them unpredictable and a problem to the left.

That it only has taken this long for all this to become clear is another problem. Denial.

Everything the media and left say would tell you Trump is a scary person, so controversial, along with the mantra that he’s unfit for office. He doesn’t deserve an ounce of sympathy, the left will tell you. But be careful who and what we do give our sympathy to.

Here is the simplified problem with all this Trump-phobia (and they are phobic to the limit): the answers lie in our present reality and political culture.

This happens to be the turf where I live and breathe, at the intersection of culture and politics — throw religion and Christianity into the culture cocktail. So that is the terrain, my home, where a battle is raging. (though people will tell you its over and we lost) Now within this greater politics, in general, we have things labeled “controversial issues.” That does not surprise anyone. Look what the left calls controversial, as if they define what is controversial — basically anything they disagree with.

Within these issues are the politicians, many functioning as self-serving elitists. Add to that their better than thou attitudes prevalent today in politics. On so-called controversial issues they have focus-grouped, poll-tested solutions.(they call them solutions, I don’t) So they have talking points and politically correct scripts on all these issues — mostly to placate the left. Then this posturing leads them to things like “bipartisan” amnesty. The products are pushed as the gold standard. Then anyone must argue against that ‘standard,’ as if it were a real one. If anything is controversial they are. It’s a perception game.

Back to Trump as a different animal for them. What is different? Everything. You know those talking points about him that he thrives on controversy and all? Well, in business things are done differently, people must solve problems to improve. Businessmen tend to see them as challenges. They are not mere political fodder to bargain with.

Something else about Trump they say is he doesn’t have any political experience, he’s an outsider. Both of those are favorable to the people. Though he has executive business experience. (you know, something Obama did not have) He doesn’t have the experience navigating the swamp. Again, the people see that as a good thing. Yet he does have a toughness and fighting character to break through corruption norms rather than getting sucked into them. Even that is not the whole point.

One thing separates Trump from other politicians more than his resume. He built a campaign based on controversial issues. No, I’ll say that again because it is important: he made a campaign based, almost entirely, on these controversial issues. How unique?

Think of it, when other candidates are running from ‘controversial issues, he enlists them in the foundation of his campaign. Then talks about them. It’s a novel concept, unlike anything we’ve seen. Who would want to do that? No, he faces them and has positions that are not the same old status quo positions. Positions more like what people think about these things. He identifies with the American people.

Now, is it any wonder they would call him controversial? Why they’ve called us controversial if we hold these views. They’ve been marginalizing us. Unlike others, he wants to do something about them. If that makes him controversial, wanting to fix problems, then so be it. It makes us all controversial for supporting him.

Why should we be surprised at Trump being labeled as controversial? But it is not him that creates it all. Then how did it become controversial?

The problem is Trump did not run up the debt, or create the Iran deal or Nafta or trade deals. These are all controversies of Washington’s making. He didn’t create these but ran on fixing them. So why would he get the blame for all these problems? Contrast that with Obama. He came into office and left blaming George Bush for everything, even things he did. He made a career out of excuses. But he didn’t make a career of addressing them. No he mentioned them only as an exemption for himself.

There’s another favorite word of the left. It is distraction. They always point to any criticism of the left as a distraction. So, anything the left doesn’t like is labeled a distraction. Yeah, it’s an inconvenient distraction to their subverted agenda. But recently Chief of Staff Kelly gave an interview and was asked about Mueller’s investigation. He said it was a distraction from what was going on in the White House. Kelly used it in the correct sense. A distraction by design not by excuse. Liberals want it to disrupt Trump or prevent us from getting anything done. That is the point.

But in the left’s use of the term, they labeled everything that didn’t fit in their agenda “a distraction,” and controversial. Remember they also called any investigation into Obama’s administration a “manufactured scandal,” even Benghazi. Now they have manufactured an entire Russia scandal to hang on Trump. It’s laughable.

What is both controversial and a distraction is the left itself. And they see everything only in a political lens. A faulty one at that. Blame Trump for controversy?

Right Ring | Bullright

Here’s some ‘news’ not

We seem to be getting one recurring excuse surrounding the Hillary and Obama scandal palooza, or those ‘money from Moscow’ issues.

Their stock liberal non-explanation is: “do they know she is not president? And Obama is not president.[snark…he he he] They are both just private citizens. (end recording)

My response to all that “she’s not the president” BS is, hold your ears:

SO WHAT??!!

No one gives a rat’s ass if she thinks she is Mother Teresa now, or Betty Crocker or senior at the bridge club. She did what she did over years in office — as opposed to what Trump did before he was in office. First, she thought losing an election was a get out of jail free card. Now it’s: I’m just a pitiful private person powerful people are conspiring against.

We had a real conspiracy against private citizens from 2010 on, from the IRS. Obama weaponized government against ordinary citizens. And everyone knows the wrath of Clintons threatening private citizens if they don’t shut their mouths. So many graveyard stories on it. Now they use “private citizen” as an exemption card from accountability.

Are these people for real or what?

Hey libs and moonbats, So What!? Hillary is not an asset, she’s a liability. Get over it!

Right Ring | Bullright

Change… what’s in your wallet?

Who says you can’t change? If you are a discredited politician, or stained American icon, there is still hope for you. Now times have changed. Research is clear.

Trump is the new penicillin. Well, no matter what you are ailing from, no matter how bad your reputation is, Trump is the cure. Just attack Trump and you can get praise gushing from from everywhere almost instantly.

That’s right players, the Trump Card is the new exemption card. Using it whisks away any past behavior hanging over your head like a dark cloud. It is a cult-market. Look what it did for Alec Baldwin. He won an Emmy mocking Trump, as a “conduit” for Trump pain.

Right now, even traitor Bowe Bergdahl is using it. They are trying to use it on Harvey Weinstein — if anything can save his reputation. Media started using it, too, as soon as Harvey’s scandal broke. And Jane Fonda used her Trump Card a couple times.

First, in September she said “Kudos, Bravos & Love to those brave athletes speaking truth to power.” Really? A big shout out to American dissent.

Then Fonda commented on Weinstein saying she just “found out about Harvey about a year ago. I’m ashamed that I didn’t say anything right then.” Oops. She had to know, it was common knowledge. This is a woman who found her way into North Vietnam in war time. Just found out last year? But maybe there is help.

In the same interview, she whipped out the Trump Card saying:

CNN [Trump’s election] “counteracts a lot of the good that we’re doing, because a lot of men say, ‘Well, our president does it, and he got elected even after people discovered that he was an abuser, so I’m just going to go ahead and do what I want to do.’ “

Last week, Jane pulled out her Trump Card again to cover her American shame.
Now she tells the BBC:

(Question) “Are you proud of America today?”
The actress was very quick to reply with a hard “no.”

“But, I’m proud of the resistance. I’m proud of the people who are turning out in unprecedented numbers and continue over and over and over again to protest what Trump is doing. I’m very proud of them, that core.”

No, she isn’t proud of America but even that can get swilled up in that Trump Card. (or should we call it the anti-Trump card?) I can see the ad now: ‘If it works for Jane Fonda, imagine what it can do for you?’ She’s proud of resistance or dissent though.

So it doesn’t only work once, you can just keep right on using it with the same results.

Hillary has had mixed results using her card because there is so much to cover. Still, it’s been effective in mitigating her damage. But she needs the super-plutonium version.

Bob Corker threw down his Trump Card, despite election problems, and no one mentioned his inside trading scandals or the investigation. The media turned him into a saint.

Mitt Romney used his a few times with positive effects. The left even ignored its phobia of his wealth. All that melted away. Plus, having a RINO card backs him up in emergencies.

McConnell tried using his but it got temporarily rejected. So there’s one outlier.

Maxine Waters uses her Trump Card constantly. Any of her hypocrisy is ignored. She’s Auntie Maxine, most quotable for “Impeach 45.” Florida Rep Wilson is also having lots of luck playing her Trump Card constantly. She now says she’s a rock star.

Look at George Bush. He was the most despised man for 16 years. Do I have to remind you how the left and media hated him? We were coerced into defending that Republican sore. He gave an anti-Trump speech this week and voila. His card worked like a charm.

Now media and people like liberal’s historian, Douglas Brinkley, say Bush’s speech will live in infamy, as a call to arms against Trumpism. (All the isms Bush used he didn’t mention that one.) Brinkley called it a warning on nationalism. His popularity on the left sored. They are praising Bush for bravery and courage. He didn’t vote for Trump and his father endorsed Hillary. This proves the left is gullible enough, the potential is enormous.

McCain took some heat for not voting for the repeal and replace. But he was praised by liberals for being an obstructionist. Now he attacks Trump again, and again they praise him. Playing political games is despised and yet McCain is celebrated. He also has had a gold RINO Card just for everyday use. Media widely accepts the RINO card, too.

There are still tests underway on the Trump Card but, as you can see, already there are exciting results. No one knows yet how far it can go, or any application limits? But so far it has rivaled its cousin, the Race Card. It already seems just as versatile except without all the extra baggage.

And like any new invention, people are finding that it is hard to imagine life without it.

Sort of reminds me of Rod Blagojevich: “I’ve got this thing and it’s f****ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***in’ nothing.” Gee, I wonder if the Trump Card can do anything for him? Or maybe OJ can try it?

Right Ring | Bullright

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

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

Hillary Books

Rumors say Hillary is already hard at work on a followup book to her excuse exposé coming out, “What [Didn’t] Happen.”

This one will be a shorter, simpler book titled “Lose the Election: All Your Investigations Go Away.” It will be sponsored by Calgon bath products, “Take me Away.”