Serving News for Fools Daily

Serving up the news of the day, dishonesty is the media and journalists’ modus operandi. Dishonesty is their specialty, they work very hard at it. Increasingly fooling no one.

Remember when it was always common perception that media-journalists were just looking for the truth and want to report it, no matter on which side the axe falls? No more, their purpose is deception. It’s their objective.

See how they work in concert with progressive politicians and other allies, in unison.

And when they find someone who is a problem for them and their political narrative, or political allies, then ‘by any means’ becomes their mission theme.

In reality, the MSM don’t really value their readers much — you know, the one’s they claim they “are doing all this for?” They might do it for their diehard progressive groupies that also spread it, who don’t really care about the truth anyway. Not for us.

Two great current examples are, the story I just mentioned on Steve Emerson, the terrorism expert; the other is the Russian collusion narrative they just can’t let go. Because it is central to their mission. Regardless of their reasons to deceive the public viewers or readers, and drive their political narrative, people have not accepted it at face value.

Hard as they try to ruin Emerson’s reputation as a expert terrorism analyst people know where the real lies, bias and hate are coming from. Where they have been coming from the last eight years under Obama.

Now there is hard evidence mounting that the people also know the truth about the Russia collusion narrative. A new Gallup poll shows how the people feel about the narrative being foisted on them from MSM and the Democrat echo chamber, hour by miserable hour.

“A lot of Americans have kind of dismissed the idea that [Trump] colluded to the extent that he did something illegal,” summarized Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport during an interview with The Hill.

The numbers back him up. A poll released last week showed that a relatively small percentage of people — 29 percent — think that Trump illegally teamed up with Russia to influence the presidential election. [CT]

If inquiring minds want to know, anything, then MSM wants to force feed them what it wants people to know – or believe they know. Now deception is business as usual.

It is all clear by looking at that poll. But the jig is up, I don’t think anyone can really deny it anymore, unless they are one of the proud card carrying disinformation believers and truth deniers. Not that they just don’t want to know the truth, they just plain don’t care. The leftists believe what they want. Damn the truth or evidence to the contrary. They can’t be bothered with that, the narrative is too important to be shattered by anything.

Here’s another served up on a hotbed of lies, media reports Trump is happy about victims of Hurricane Florence. Imagine? That one is reverberating in media the way you would expect a great lie to do. They love a fictional story, especially on Trump. Who sticks around for the truth? No one reads corrections. Sensational headlines are never retracted.

For a bonus, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sick of Democrats’ grandstanding on Kavanaugh hearings, admitting the circus has gone too far. You know the saying when you’ve lost RBG, you’ve lost the country. No, I say that. LOL Dems are burning their bridges.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

What do College Students Think of Socialist Agenda?

Some views really need to be heard.

College Student Tears Apart Own Socialist Generation, Pushes Plan To Turn Them Around

Matthew Pinna — August 13th 2018 | Western Journal

Conservatives often wonder why more and more young people consider themselves democratic socialists despite overwhelming evidence against the rosy claims of that political philosophy. The truth is that unless we understand why they believe what they do, our critiques will fall upon deaf ears.

There are two ways in which generations are defined: by how the world has developed around them, and by their educational system, which influences how they understand those happenings.

From the previously unimaginable violence of World War I to the broken rubble and thick smoke of the fallen Twin Towers, Americans took away the same persevering and exceptionalistic attitude: that despite seemingly insurmountable odds, for Americans, anything is achievable.

What I and others my age experienced, however, is what has since come to be known as the Great Recession. For the youth of today, their understanding of the world is entirely contextualized through what their families and friends went through because of it and, in short, they believe that no matter how deeply they struggle, our capitalist system is always doomed to fail in the same the way they perceived it to have in 2008.

Such logic is, of course, faulty — the reason why it is called the “Great” Recession is because it truly is an exception; it is just as ridiculous to assume that capitalism will always end that way as it is to think that Alexander the “Great” was simply an ordinary general.

In previous years, our educational system would have empowered students to recognize facts like that, but for a generation of youth that has found itself forced through Obama-era “Race to the Top” Common Core testing — standards that even many Democrats found themselves rallying against — this reasoning seems foreign.

Education has been the primary means of social mobility for millions of Americans throughout our history, fostering the uniquely American optimism and entrepreneurial ability that has positively impacted both our country and the world. Schoolchildren were imbued with passion by their teachers and rightfully believed that by focus and hard work, they could live a fulfilling and promising life.

This is no longer the case.

As opposed to being taught what they need to succeed in their careers, students are taught how to best take a test. They are then funneled into a university system that feeds them theoretical, rather than practical, information, teaching them how to critique a world that they have not yet experienced — and because of their previous education, do not even know how to start experiencing.

I am not criticizing the teaching of theory to students like myself — it is extremely valuable knowledge (and I greatly enjoy it). What those who have come before us better understood, however, is that theory must be buttressed by practice. Evidence of this can be seen in our Constitution, a document that is a healthy combination between liberal French Enlightenment theory and provisions based on what our Founders had personally experienced under tyranny and oppression.

In today’s public education, where words like “democratic socialism” and “Marxism” are too often portrayed as alternatives to evil capitalism, there is another philosophy nearly as prominent and just as misunderstood: nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophy of meaninglessness, and one that is often reflected in today’s youth culture and politics.

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes and the Bernie Sanderses of the country play off of that philosophy, preaching that it is meaningless to try to succeed in the world, as systemic odds — reinforced by those better off than ourselves — will prevent us from doing so. Overtaken by the same nihilistic despair that Friedrich Nietzsche warned about when he proclaimed that “God is dead,” these politicians have gathered people under a new rallying cry: “The American Dream is dead!”

Democratic socialism is, in essence, a political justification of mediocrity and failure; because many of its supporters lack purpose in an economic system based on empowering human motivation, they instead propose one based on impossible and inhuman characteristics.

I cannot fault those who have been tempted by this siren song — I recognize that they badly want to play a part in defeating something they think has wronged them and those whom they love. They have been told that if they don’t, they lack compassion for what their friends and family have gone through. They are told to see fellow Americans as dollar signs and measure the intrinsic value of someone by his net worth; the more they have, the less human they are.

Anybody who doesn’t see the world in this narrow, defeatist way is tossed aside and — in a cruel twist of irony — “otherized” by the same people who claim to be victims of such thinking.

These insidious practices end up polarizing young adults — you have to have a strong opinion on politics, regardless of whether or not you actually care. Coerced into becoming activists, they have no actual desire to learn much about what they are protesting for beyond a few talking points; hence, the hostility.

Democratic socialism is not a movement with passion and purpose, but rather one that is lacking entirely in both regards. Schools need to return to teaching the skills that students need to actually transcend barriers, so that a sense of purpose can once again be felt by our youth, enabling them to succeed in the American Dream.

Matthew Pinna is a student at the University of Chicago studying political science and English. His writing has appeared in numerous publications, including the Chicago Tribune and American Thinker. Matt lives — depending on the time of the year — in either his hometown of Farmingdale, New York, or in Hyde Park, Chicago.

Injustice of Injustice

I could just as easily call it Injustice of Social Justice, but that might be too ironic. Though it is pretty much the same thing.

It is my rantzilla for the week. Why have we allowed the left, or anyone, to hijack the word injustice? I’m not sure but it is clear they have. They also redefine social justice.

First, I believe injustice is a problem too. As just a few examples: I think injustice is protests turning violent, destroying property or hurting people; and cop killing. They certainly are not justice. Shutting down highways is injustice; shutting down government for vengeance because you lost the election is injustice; opening a counterintelligence investigation on a political opponent because he threatens your election is injustice; voter fraud or trying to rig elections is injustice; labeling people Nazis because they don’t agree with you is an injustice; I believe taking a knee to disrespect the Anthem or the flag is injustice. I think fighting for the right to abortion on demand is injustice. Labeling abortion safe is an injustice. Finally, defending the indefensible is injustice.

I see lawlessness as injustice – not as some puritanical civil disobedience redefined as social justice. And many of those things could be called immoral too. Breaking the law is injustice. I don’t accept some of the common, trivial interpretations as injustice. Modern definitions of the Left would say anything is injustice that doesn’t agree with their agenda. Injustice, as the Left uses it, is politically charged — like everything else they touch.

If this is what they consider winning, what is losing?

On the other hand, I also believe in social justice. I think government has a moral obligation in the law. I think a deterrent is part of the motivation for a law. I don’t think social justice gives you some right to commit injustice. I don’t think sensing an injustice gives you the sovereign right to break the peace, or disrupt another innocent person because you have a grievance. I think self-governing is a form of social justice. Free markets and economics are a kind of social justice. Humanitarian activism can be a type of social justice.

Social justice, to the left, is the kind of thing that can lead a person to believe they have the right to set off bombs to kill innocent people because they think government is acting immorally. Or to gun down Republicans on a ball field because they are political enemies. That is how the left sees social justice – you define it. And if you happen to be in the way of their social justice, you are not supposed to be offended if you are injured or someone is killed in their path to social justice. That’s the breaks.

But I do feel very offended.

I am offended by an illegal alien who was deported 5 times only to come back again and kill a fellow citizen. I am offended by lawlessness. I don’t believe “social justice” should be encouraging more lawlessness. I don not believe social justice is preventing hundreds of people to see a ball game, or keeping people from a store or restaurant. I do not think publishing people’s phone numbers to harass them is an act of social justice. A case can be made it is injustice. I don’t believe breaking the law, particularly when it hurts someone or destroys their property or livelihood, can be spun as “social justice.”

But in the words of the left, their slogan is no justice no peace.” Do you notice the implication buried in that? You shall not have peace as long as I have a grievance. Because I feel a grievance, I have the right to do whatever I want including to disturb the peace – and brand it social justice. They feel they have a moral ground that whenever they claim or perceive something unjust, then they have a right to commit injustice.

I read a call to action from a Bishop. It encouraged people to ‘do something’ in view of separated children on the border. Whatever you are motivated personally to do, in the name of the children, is acceptable. That usually means good deeds. But what if someone’s idea of social justice is revenge? What if it is civil disobedience? It does not say. (I’m not saying all civil disobedience is wrong. The reason it is done is a determining factor.)

Those church clergy also want you to send money to a legal fund to help parents or children. Why, to defend them for breaking the law? But they need our help. What are we helping? If you are doing that, are you encouraging more of that behavior, more lawlessness? At what point do you become complicit in their behavior? What about the consequences of your social actions; are you responsible for the consequences?

Every time I hear no justice no peace, I cringe. Selfishness seems like their real motivation. Now there are people who feel as long as they are not content, nor should you be. In other words: you have no rights as long as I /we claim to be victims.

Is that their idea of social justice? Yes. Social justice is all about getting what one wants. But the dirty little secret is the Left can never be satisfied. That is their whole game plan, not being satisfied and always claiming to be a grieved victim.

Here is my other problem. I mentioned different ways I am offended. Those are serious things I think justifiable. But when I hear the left complain about being offended, often they are outraged by things conservatives say. That is enough to send them over the cliff. Think about the contrast.

Roseanne said something on Twitter, wham, she loses her top-rated TV show. Someone on Fox says something they don’t like, even if true, and they demand a list of his/her sponsors to get the person off the air. See how this really works? Your freedom of speech is the chief offense here. Shutting down that freedom is their chief objective. You would think freedom of speech would be a cause worth defending. Peter Fonda says something outrageous on Twitter and it is just outrageous, but no consequences. The left will defend that as freedom.

I have legitimate social concerns and they trivialize being victimized to what someone says or thinks about them. Thought crimes. Then they use the cover and camouflage of words like “injustices” and Social Justice to disguise what they are doing. Social Justice today is defined by the Left and normally means what they want it to mean.

What does Social Justice mean? According to Heritage: (see)

Abstract: For its proponents, “social justice” is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular “progressive” thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.

I know, some sticklers for definitions would quibble with my loose use of social justice. My conscience could prevent posting this but I had to. You can decide. The concept of social justice is being refashioned and redefined almost weekly to suit the Left. It is what they make it. As Liberals are wont to do, they often take something and twist or redefine it to fit their objective — their agenda. Is it any wonder it appears different from what it once was, into a political tool? It is very much about economics today. The left’s. Nazifying large swaths of political enemies becomes social justice.

As much of our current culture, social justice escalated its evolution in the 60’s, assisted by some clergy, into a Marxism meld. The influence remains. Our definition became the problem. But words like “Social Justice warrior” do not convince me of pure motivations.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dems in their own words: GOP ad

The Dems made the best campaign ad ever, for the GOP, and they weren’t even trying.

Already over 4 million views. Nothing can go viral like Vile Democrats.

The next time Dems say “that’s not who we are,” just show them this.

 

So the message is….. wouldn’t want to be like you.

The #WalkAway Movement is on the rise.

Lawless Left

Did you miss it all evolving? Maybe you could have, if you were not paying attention this week. Within a day of an unknown candidate winning a primary race in Queens, NY, over Joseph Crowley, Democrats solidified their “abolish ICE” position. Three days later they were in the streets protesting to demonstrate their newfound position. Mainsteaming it complete. Within days, NY’s junior Senator was wholeheartedly sporting the position.

But no one saw that one coming. They could be excused for a host of reasons. But no one heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before that either, the 28 year-old Bernie socialist.

It was like a meteor hitting. By Saturday, media reported 750 marches of protest across the country. It was so quick; evolution is now lightning speed with Democrats.

It normally starts with the same line.

Let’s be crystal clear, when Democrats say “this is not who we are,” what they are really saying is that we are not a country that respects the rule of law. We are not a country that should protect its borders from invasion. And finally, what they are saying is that we are a lawless people….or should be. That’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh. they like it.

Yes, I know that is a radical statement but it is not hyperbole. At least it represents the Democrats and their party to a tee. Lawlessness is key in their agenda.

But I know people disagree. Somehow I am being dishonest. Though the facts stand contrary to that argument. They only “respect” the rule of law when it fits their political agenda, and only for as long as it does.

So Democrats are lawless, like those people they “stand up” for and encourage.

Obama pipes up, as the latest push of the illegal invasion spawns media stories about children being separated from parents and families. Washington Examiner:

Obama added Americas hold the common ideal “that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve the chance to become something better.”

“That’s the legacy our parents and grandparents and generations before created for us, and it’s something we have to protect for the generations to come,” he continued. “But we have to do more than say ‘this isn’t who we are.’ We have to prove it – through our policies, our laws, our actions, and our votes.” — Obama commenting on World Refugee Day.

Here we go with the same code words again, ‘this is not who we are.’ They said it on preventing terrorists from coming to America, or getting tough on Islamists. The travel ban was the latest. But thankfully that power has remained within the president.

Look, they have no respect for law really. When in their favor, they say “that’s the law, period.” But otherwise, if you don’t like the law, or don’t believe it is right, then civil disobedience is the answer. Defy the law, and protest it. But respect it? No chance. So there is no illusion Democrats respect the law. If they don’t like it, they simply ignore it as their right. And they will go to battle against the rule of law.

Another great line for Democrats in prime time talking points.

Their other favorite words to repeat, “we are better then that.” But no, Democrats are not better than that. They only use words like a lemon meringue pie in your face. They are revealing the truth, they have no respect for the rule of law — only the politics of activism. The more radical the position the better it sells.

They want open borders and lawlessness. What is next, you might ask? They already called for abolishing local police forces. That seemed radical even for them, but maybe no more. Basically anything that stands in the way of lawlessness could be a target. Or anything that stands in the way of chaos and anarchy. (their other best friend)

It is a hard case to make that progressives want vast government control over every element in your lives, where the nanny state rules, and yet want people to be lawless. I guess that is what happens in “evolution,” sometimes it missfires. If you have people that don’t care about consistency or hypocrisy, or even decency, and grounded by nothing larger than themselves, then this is the inevitable result. A collision of forces.

Desperation can do dangerous things. The left will cling to any new – hopefully radical — idea now that might be popular with their radical, angry base. All at an alarming speed. What is the next new thing? Who could predict? But it is not pretty.

The central rule is Republicans and conservatives, their enemies, should follow and be saddled by the law but Leftists? Not so much.

Right Ring | Bullright

Stranger In My Country

How people feel outcasts in their own homeland.

Democrats, and progressives and academics of the left, love to trot out the analogous poem on the statue of liberty. In fact, they like to use the statue as an arbiter of the immigration debacle. Of course that fits with their whole imagery campaign, closely aligned with their propaganda about America. It was just a poem, after all, not a law as they suggest. Law is too much for Leftists to grasp. We know not everyone has innocent or righteous motives. People cannot afford to be that naïve. Believing that all people, even immigrants, should follow the parameters of US law is disconcerting to the Left.

The problem I have with it is the disingenuous lie of it all. “Progressives” stand on that premise that this borderless, open-door policy disguised as a statue in the harbor makes America into some ideal, altruistic society. That actually makes me sick. You know, with the rhetoric that securing the border is unAmerican,

I wonder why it is that we as civil law-abiding people, with generally good aspirations and dreams, are turned into second-class citizens in our own country right before our eyes? It does not seem fair or right. Increasingly, it is clear that their great admiration for those ideals interpreted from the Stature of Liberty do not apply to the citizens who are already here residing all across America. That would be crazy if it were not so.

Think of all the ways conservatives or apolitical people are told that their desires or opinions don’t matter. We are the problem not the solution. Our yearnings are dismissed as irrelevant. But if you are one of the swashbuckling invaders of the US, you are suddenly the intended target of the Statue’s message. You are the new chosen, even though you or I have no choice about it.

That is the idea. Progressives are turning these “immigrants,” or whatever term you want to use, into the privileged class. Then, the only question would be is if it is intentional or not? Naturally, I happen to believe it is.

But if regular American citizens want to internalize those ideals, why do those aspirations stop at waters edge – right at border’s edge? Why do noble attributes about downtrodden and huddled masses only apply to incoming, however they get here?

Maybe someone should inform any real immigrants, perhaps sometime during their naturalization studies, that those perks or aspirations end when you become a US citizen — i.e. an American. So that point at immigrating or transition (illegal status) is as good as it gets. After that you become the problem, the toxic US citizenry. Soon we may no longer be the American dream, we might be dreaming of America.,

Right Ring | Bullright

Switching To Live

You know everyone has times of curiosity and research, reexamining the past, whether it is last decade or a half century ago. People always want to catch up. And there is so much to look into, considering the left’s task of revision is never complete. That is one constant of progressives. At least there is Google. Similarly we ponder the future.

Nothing wrong with that, we need to remember and know what happened. But there are now times when it is better to suspend or forego a quest for historical perspective by just switching to live. The present offers some fascinating perspectives and historical context. It is a time to have one’s eyes wide open, to take it all in, and absorb history in the making. At least you know it is true and real. Maybe it is all too real for some people.

Thus some on the left feel a need to go back into the past to try to dredge up anything they can to spin the current events — events for which there are really no parallels.

This time offers more excitement and interest in all kinds of ways that will need to be remembered. We, as conservatives, have almost a solemn obligation to witness history and memorialize it because we would not like the way progressives are going to write it.

I do not believe a lot of people actually operate in the present. They vacillate someplace between their interests, aspirations, priorities, goals and ideals; and their past experiences and memories. Call it selfishness, but for them it is a personal perspective. Add to that the technology and PDA’s today which everyone is glued to. They have their own perception.

This brings to mind an analogy. Most people know a parent that has claimed to be living vicariously through their child or children. They see their child’s opportunities and root for them. They feel personally invested. All very natural for a variety of reasons. I look at the current President, Trump, much the same way. To that end, he has made this possible by his high visibility and transparency to us. So in that simple scenario, we feel a personal connection with Trump. And we feel a personal interest in his presidency because of it.

That is why this time is different and special at the same time. People have that personal connection to the office. We can also see ourselves through this interconnection.

This all is why it is important today for us to make a good attempt at switching to live. For months this phrase kept echoing in my mind, I didn’t know why, I thought it could be a song lyric I was thinking of. So I spent hours combing through familiar songs or lyrics on the web. Nothing struck me or rang a familiar bell. I dismissed it but it came back, again and again. What was it? It didn’t even dawn on me the message or meaning. That is until I thought of it as “just switch to live.” Then I began to understand the whole concept. I’d call that a message from somewhere, you decide from what and where.

Never has there been a time that called on people to be an advocate for the present. That is to experience it and speak of it in real time. But not to be led by some misinterpretations of it. Or not to believe a view that does not really comport or make sense, out of an effort to get along for convenience. The present is ours, if we claim it. We don’t need to wait for tomorrow’s interpretation of today to know what we are experiencing. It belongs to us.

Right Ring | Bullright

Trump’s America: down is up and right is wrong, hate is the rage

I thought it would be fun to list some of the many ways things are now reversed or running backward from the previous 8 years. Maybe it’s upside down in general.

    • The stock market goes up and causes major panic in mainstream media.
    • Any good news is now considered toxic. Bad news is good news and rewarded. Thus leaks of any spec of bad. Progress is undermining gov’t or the Trump administration.
    • Anyone who supports, compliments, or credits Trump for anything is a default target of the Left. Anyone who condemns him in the most vile terms is celebrated.
    • If MSM has to report statistical good news, unemployment, jobs, etc., they must trace it to Obama. Credit Trump with nothing and Obama for everything.
    • The Left credits Obama with teeing up the economy. Well, if teeing up means standing on the throat of the economy. He set us up for growth nicely.
    • They credit Obama for good news when he’s been out of office for a year and half. Look, he had eight years. So why wasn’t he hitting these numbers?
    • Everyone should now, collectively, disrespect the office of the President — or anyone in his administration. Any respect for the office is punished.
    • We went from how could anyone say “no” to a job in the administration to how could anyone say “yes” to taking a job?
    • Being happy about the direction of the country is suddenly a bad thing.
    • Nazi comparisons are very in vogue now. Yes, after years of being taboo, everything in the US suddenly has a Nazi parallel.
    • You get punished or blacklisted for talking well about Trump.
    • Being in the state of resistance or sedition is the only acceptable position.
    • Democrats are resisting democracy.
    • You cannot impeach Obama on any grounds. The first Unimpeachable President. But now you can impeach Trump as soon as he enters office.
    • AG’s now have to be recused from everything; as opposed to being the private partisan wingman for the president and accountable for nothing.
    • The seditious cult of Resistance says Repubs supporting Trump are cult-like.

But you cannot bullet point this:

The Left started this narrative that Trump should be on trial, for what? Special Counsel hasn’t told us. Yet Hillary Clinton was given a pass on clear criminal corruption, and her investigation was a subversion of justice. Self defense became obstruction of justice.

Now the Left’s narrative is that we cannot go after Obama, the Clintons, or any of their loyalist corruptibles because they are no longer in office. They are private citizens, immune from suspicion. But they started the Trump investigation, or inquisition, when Trump was only a private citizen, a businessman and never before held office. Then they want to impeach him for the same trumped up, pre-office reasons.

Foreign relations changed too.

Half the populations of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, and a good part of Mexico, woke up one morning and decided that they all have a guaranteed right to asylum status in America. An epidemic? All these people are hardly persecuted in their own country, with no viable options.

The Left all claims separating children from their families for their own safety, security and protection is inhumane. CPS and social service agencies across America have been doing exactly that to American citizens for decades and decades. The left called it protection.

I’m all for real solutions. So maybe the US should just annex the whole of Latin America and take over. Sound crazy? What’s crazier, having half their population showing up at our border claiming asylum or that? There is a sanctuary status for everyone in America but Americans. Americans are now second class citizens — at the bottom of the pecking order.

We would be called the evil “US empire” if we invaded Latin America and took over. They invade here and it is some guaranteed right. (which no one can quite explain) And when they do come, we have some moral and legal obligation to support, educate and employ them. So why not go down there and claim it? Might as well; they all want to come here.

Either peace out….or pissed off.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Dishonest Political Paradigm

When Trump points to media and calls them the most dishonest people, I have to disagree. The most dishonest people are the Democrats. MSM is only one of their sub groups.

You can count on one thing, whatever Democrats tell you an election is about or what they are running on, it is a lie. They can’t help themselves.

They say they are not running on impeachment. If they won, it would be the first thing on the agenda. Right above removing the tax cuts. Obstruction being the second item.

If Dems tell you that they are now about jobs and the economy, no they aren’t. They’ll claim that is their focus. But the Democrats’ agenda is a cultural cocktail of:

Open borders, pro-illegal immigration, saving sanctuary cities, sexology. turning education into their cauldron of sociology perversion, multiplying biological gender categories, tearing money away from too-rich people, building the socialist state, preserving the murder of humanity’s most innocent lives, redefining America as the Blame Capitol of the world, antisemitism, hating Israel, removing God from society, preserving the Swamp;…

Abolishing ICE, Appeasing terrorists, blaming terrorism on America, undermining and gutting our military defense, abolishing the second amendment, obstructing Trump’s agenda and nominations, stopping free speech of their opponents. protecting cop killers and criminals, using teacher unions and radicalized agendas to control schools, preserving the poor, and pushing their economy-busting regulation and global warming agenda.

Much of which opposes a thriving economy. Including their war on energy, and catering to our economic or technological competitors. Then there is their leftist assault on the Supreme Court as the fail safe defender of the progressive cultural evolution.

Right Ring | Bullright

NY AG gets a lesson in role playing

NY Attorney General issued a statement Monday, in a last ditch explanation.

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in non-consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.” — Eric Schneiderman

So the public was forced to use the safe word “resign”.
Kind of strange this role-playing thing.

Hours later he resigned.

“It’s been my great honor and privilege to serve as attorney general for the people of the State of New York. In the last several hours, serious allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me.

While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”

The left launched attacks and conspiracies surrounding the cause of the events.

A nation turns it’s lonely eye

Of course it is editorial time and there is no shortage of material or subjects. Back in the day, was a famous song by Simon and Garfunkel, “Mrs. Robinson.” Kind of folksy. It was popular and stirred emotions of the times. Times that needed little sentiment added.

The lyrics in question referred to the baseball great, “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.”

That line spawned by sentiment in an era that yearned for an all-star hero talent.
Today I’d kike to adjust the words a little and borrow the phrase:

A nation turns its lonely eyes from a jaded state to that “shinning city”- longing.

When Trump came in he talked about draining the swamp. It turns out the sludge is very thick in the old bog. But there is no nostalgia to it. No popular interest on the side of preserving the swamp, even as a useful wetland. There is no love lost for this swamp.

One of the few things I keep on my wall, which I am partial to, is a painting by a friend simply titled ‘The Swamp.’ It’s an actual place, and beautiful in its natural way. These days, it is a haunting reminder of the contrasting ugly swamp in DC, and its odor.

I suppose, like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though I have a tough time thinking anyone sees any beauty in this swamp. Well, except postured Democrats and a few Republicans. It almost screams “clean me up” rather than “leave me alone.” It is an eyesore and embarrassment. If you watch the edge on some days you can almost see it holding its own, certainly not shrinking. One thing about it, we never saw the swamp this exposed before. We have known for years how long the corruption went on, but the ugliness is only now revealed to all.

Yet still we haven’t. The Swamp remains and we keep on complaining about it. Almost any week we get another reminder it does not give up its own without a fight. Swampbusting.

In that famous song were some other lyrics:

    “Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
    Going to the candidates debate
    Laugh about it, shout about it
    When you’ve got to choose
    Every way you look at it, you lose.”

We are pretty familiar with that. Poor and bad choices abound. Surely they aren’t perfect, but often no great choices exist. Well, we are trying to change that and some people don’t want it changed. They want us to have limited choices, or options, leaving the same stanky swamp in place with the same oozing swamp gas wafting in the air.

If only we had the same concern about this environmental hazard that they have about global warming, they might be more devoted. Imagine if like earth day we had a National Drain the Swamp Day? Wishful thinking.

We could all be called on to do our part. There could be Drain the Swamp cards and emoticons. Swamp hashtags would trend and a prize would go to the person with the best idea to drain it. Time magazine would have a cover with the Bog Award of the year.

No nostalgia, just a nation turning its lonely eye to the toxic environmental problem.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dysfunctional Resistance is New Normal

Let me try to explain the current family tree of politics. The left’s hallucination now is Mitch McConnell as the divider and culprit of the chaotic, abnormal state we are in.

Yeah, right. Try as they will. It would take a whole lot of wrongjuice to believe or accept that as fact. So here we go, allow me to paraphrase it as colorful as I can:

Abby and Normal eloped in Obama’s first term. Harry Reid officiated the wedding. That is the place where right became wrong and wrong became right, up became down and down became up. Unconstitutional became the rule of law. Dissent became a crime. We became a country governed by a man and political party, instead of the rule of law.

Abby and Norm are still on an extended honeymoon. No hope for annulment and it doesn’t look like a divorce will come anytime soon. Theirs is one marriage I wish would not last. And they seem to have enough distant relatives to make a lot of mischief.

It turns out, all it takes is a radical minority of hell bent miscreants to ruin functionality of the system. They have now perfected it. From the Justice of Peace to justice of chaos.

So even people on the left ask, “when will normal process be coming back?” They ask us? The culprits who encouraged Abby and Norm to hook up now blame their marriage on anyone else. But they cannot deny Abby and Norm are hitched. That fact doesn’t bother them. They incite all the effects and do everything possible to keep them happily together. Nothing is off limits for the Abnormals. The trick is to make everything normal’s fault.

Right Ring | Bullright

Saving Sanity: a noble cause

Is a once a week rant too much to ask or expect for a blog? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The problem is not the lack of material but rather the sheer volume of it.

That also can lead to things like burnout, exhaustion, even suffocation in a sea of mud. Just saying. So silence is not golden but may at times be the only viable option.

Something has bugged me though ever since I have been doing this blog. It is the amount of humor we use and whether it is appropriate? I mean these are serious times, and does the humor contribute to the coarsening of culture? I’m not sure.

Well, blah blah. I remember a past Bible study over whether humor is bad thing or acceptable? See, there was a belief at one time that Christians should refrain from humor, certainly in Church settings. I think that might have fallen by the wayside, but was once a real issue. The point was humor diminished Christianity.

It took away the seriousness of issues. It was seen to some as an insult. We know some people, for many reasons, do not appreciate humor anyway. But on serious matters it was frowned on. It was thought a type of mockery that didn’t belong in serious debate or dialogue. Using it diminished one’s credibility.

Someone finally wrote a book explaining that humor was not wrong and listed examples of humor in the Old and New Testament. So one cannot ban humor in theory.

My issue with all this is how can you look around today and not have a sense of humor about things? That doesn’t mean you take issues less seriously….or does it? This is where rationality and sanity come in. A rational person is aware of the serious nature yet can still poke fun at the condition of society. It doesn’t diminish one’s sincerity, or an issue itself.

Sometimes humor is the only way — or one of the ways — people can cope or deal with a given situation. It can cover pain, or masque all kinds of personal emotion.

It is similar with some violence these days. You see random murders and people killed for no visible reason. One struggles with trying to understand why? As if we need to know why to make sense of it. Humor is different. Humor makes sense in a funny way. But we are struck at a murder that had no rational reason for it. That it keeps on happening adds to all those questions. We don’t know and may never know. Sometimes even the killer had no reason. This is where rational thought has a problem. We almost need to see why. And some people today are uncomfortable with just calling it evil. It bothers us and it should. We don’t want to lay a blanket excuse over it just to try to explain it. An excuse that may or not be true. And explaining evil may be excusing it.

Humor can punctuate events without tainting them — or at least intending to.

Does using humor on serious issues take away seriousness from them? Maybe it can; though attributing false explanations also takes away from them. We almost expect those. I question fairness in a lot circumstances and think of humor as a great equalizer. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Sometimes humor points out the absurdity. Sometimes nothing short of a punch line does it justice. (no matter how bad the event) I think we know that doesn’t mean the thing was funny or a joke. We don’t mean it is not serious.

Late night comics in recent years have gone to a whole different level. In fact, their humor has become the absurdity — and maybe even the thing that drives any of their jokes. And less, their jokes don’t seem to be funny anymore but their absurdity is obvious. Then for these intended jokes to be taken as fact or for mainstream political dialogue is another matter. Their absurd humor replaces political thought. It becomes mainstream opinion. This has been validated over and over since Trump took office.

Defamation of character?

They have basically turned Trump, or what he is about, into a joke. I get the joke part and we make jokes about Hillary. But that is different, no one loses sight of the seriousness of the threat she represents. We still understand all her real flaws. Still we use humor to poke fun at or take the edge off the hyper-serious nature — seriousness she imbues on herself. We don’t lose sight of the greater issue. The fears and concern so big that humor can be a coping mechanism because we cannot see or visualize the whole extent. It is beyond simple description — and breaks all past comparisons. So you see there is a difference. Their political objective is to reduce Trump to an absurd caricature

But these days the joke is the entire issue. The left turns the joke into reality, instead of vice versa. Humor is used as ridicule, and the left does ridicule as a political weapon well. In fact, the purpose of it is to bury or lose sight of the truth and reality.

See there is a proper purpose for humor as hyperbole. It is also a tool. It points out the error through exaggeration. Again, that is not to lose sight of the truth. It is not to try to turn hyperbole into literal reality. The Bible uses hyperbole for emphasis. The object is not to make hyperbole a fact. We are also supposed to know and see the difference.

But then when Trump uses hyperbole or exaggerates something, the truth slayers run out to correct any errors. Yet they have accepted their fictional character of Trump as reality. Trump, off the cuff, uses a lot of rhetorical tools. That is why the left likes it, they busy themselves pointing out any perceived inaccuracies. Funny how they don’t “factcheck” themselves or their depiction of Trump and coverage.

We are in an era when reality has no value to the left. Into that void they have put narrative, and perception has become their only reality. So when humor is applied, it is taken as perception — which it is — but then taken as fact or reality. The narrative rules and protecting that narrative becomes their chief mission. Humor is not humor, it is now reality. That narrative drives their politics, even moreso than they drive the narrative.

Right Ring | Bullright

China and the Left

I see a similarity of China and the Left here, aside from the communism ties. It is not a stretch, the political strategies align. You might say birds of the feather.

It is always about the goal with the left, as it is with China. The means are only the vehicle, to be discarded when the goal is achieved. And anything that achieves it is acceptable.

Regarding the trade deficit with China, and recent tariff announcements, Trump said that there may be some pain but in the end we will have a stronger country. That is the first time I heard a leader reference the long game of what we want. (okay maybe not first) A lot of people probably shuttered to hear that.

I bet that got the Chinese’s attention because he is referencing the long game. Something we don’t always stress. It shakes their predictability about us. In other words, that we would be willing to weather some pain to get to the benefit in the end.

See the strategy to Chinese is really as simple as the lefts’ is. Both are focused on the destination not on the means. Whatever the means matters little. The destination is king. That is the same with the Chinese. And If they really believe in their dominant end, and we know they do, then that tells the real story.

To Chinese they want to control or run the world. See if that is their goal then nothing else is important. Do you get it? If that is where they see themselves, at that point there is nothing anyone can do to them about anything — there’s nothing to negotiate. That may seem a fantasy to us, but if they believe it then it gives their strategy away. Once they are in the driver’s seat the game is over.

We, however look at this as a long term game that will continue. It won’t once they reach their destination. They will be the tyrants they want to be and it will be tough to anyone who disagrees. That is what they have in mind. Nothing like our goals or strategy. We want a working relationship, for the long term. They are just thinking as the short term until they get to their destination.They think none of this stuff will matter then.

It is the same type mindset the Left has. They look only at achieving their desired ends. Once that is done, nothing else such as rules apply. It is a king of the hill perspective. They plan on keeping the hill once they get it. That is the way their plans work. Do you see the similarity? Power is rule, and rule is permanent not temporary. At that point, all resources go to preserving and keeping that permanent rule. Sure, it is a scorched earth plan but so what? That is how they play. We are looking at it as a balancing act but they don’t want anything balanced. They want control and once you have it, you run the show. If we do not look at the end game, goals, of those like China, Russia, N Korea, or Iran, then we underestimate the game. The days of just ignoring it are dwindling.

This is why we, meaning media and talking heads, are concerned about a trade war. It’s a perpetual real war to China, and they plan on winning. So the state of a trade war does not matter to China at all. This is also why intellectual property is a major issue to us and not to them. Their end doesn’t see a problem with private intellectual property.

It is sort of the same thing as CNN or MSM worrying about so-called Russia collusion. while the rest of the country is concerned about trade. The two are not on the same wave lengths, like two different orbits. Which one matters?

Right Ring | Bullright

Leave it to left to define Roseanne

After throwing his own family under the bus, as the typical Trump -supporting, racist-type family, this NYT columnist says about Roseanne’s show and Trump-supporters:

Read here.

“The dark underbelly of the white, working-class, the intolerance that permeates so much of their lives, is completely absent, and that absence can serve a dangerous purpose: to reinforce the delusion that they’re actually supporting somebody like Donald Trump for honorable reasons.”

But this deserves commentary. It seems so easy for them to try to shove (no pound) Trump supporters into some stereotype but it doesn’t work. That’s probably what frustrates them. It is a delusion, he says, and nothing about their support is honorable.

Rather their view is some distilled elite, deceptive, liberal projection of people that no one in the world should like. Or that is the hope. ‘Who could like these despicable people?’

Maybe he should look in the mirror and face the kind of world view he and his Liberal ilk represents. It is they who are so far off the mainstream of any political alignment with reality, much less the electorate — and proudly bigoted about it.

In truth, as Sterling might say in Twilight Zone, “he seems to have turned into a caricature of himself.” And speaking of dysfunction, how functional could these Leftists be in their families or community? It is also a ruling-class elitist mindset that asserts only they know better how to fix or run your lives. If you only follow their plantation politics.

Maybe I will do a satire on the kind of people Liberals would like to see portrayed to represent their politically correct, leftist view of how a typical family should be and live.

So says the misinformed Lefty antagonist. Trumpism, whatever you term that to be, is not an ideology. You sure missed every lesson offered in 2016.

Motivegate: evil personified

It seems a lot of people are disturbed about the questions of motives, or lack of, surrounding the last 3 or so terror-styled events. I call them that because there are questions about calling them terrorism. I.e. Parkland, Las Vegas, Austin.

The second question has to be does it kelp to know the motive? I’m not sure it does. But I can see where motive matters legally when prosecuting criminals. There is still the matter of what they did, not just why.

Concentrating on motive can take our eye off of what they did. We have a need, it seems, to explain why. That can also create lots of conspiracy theories.

In Las Vegas, it leaves room for all kinds of speculation or theories. And there is a niche for conspiracies in this country. There may not be as many motive questions about Parkland since some vengeance or mental characteristics appear to apply. Austin is unique, at least so far, on motives. We don’t know yet or may not know.

But this not knowing seems unsettling to a lot of people. Again, does it change the events, or what happened? I don’t think so.

Another question is: was motive a major consideration to the perpetrator in these cases? I’m not sure, or don’t see it. And if there is no political motive, officials are reluctant to call it terrorism. Yet perps still do these things to instill fear in people by the act itself.

I am coming to the conclusion that maybe the why doesn’t matter all that much. I have to be content that we may never know for sure. Or it could be that they wanted their 15 minutes of fame. I am willing to accept not knowing, though it would be nice to know.

The conclusion though is what if — other than vain fame — there is no clear motive? What if they just did it because they could and because they wanted to? Obviously they could not talk themselves out of it. So it would have been up to someone or something else to intervene to stop it. Two of them had a suicidal pact in the end, Las Vegas and Austin. So they would not really be held accountable.

I am convinced that some people do things just because they can, or because they are fascinated by it. Or maybe it is fantasy they want to carry out? Never mind that it effects so many other lives of innocent people. They overlook that or don’t care.

In the end, I have to be comfortable with not knowing. There is another possibility the person wanted it to be a mystery that everyone is left to solve. Sort of a ha ha, figure it out. To me that can be dangerous. I don’t have to play that game. Then again, maybe these madman killers just want events to speak for themselves? Maybe that is the point.

On the other hand, people sometimes do what they do simply because they can. Maybe there is a void conscience, whatever. I can look at it that they simply had enough drive or ambition to commit the atrocities. Maybe they want to find out if they are really capable of carrying it out in some twisted plan? One possibility is as bad as the next.

Closure should not require knowing a motive. That can be a game. We know what they did.

When asked about the Austin bomber, the family said they could not believe it. “He was a nice kid.” The brother of the Las Vegas shooter said he was a caring guy, it was a total shock — that could be a motive itself. It is a symptom of terrorism. In the Parkland case, you could say it looked like a foregone conclusion that too many people ignored. Seems it is either beyond belief that the person did it or completely predictable.

What about pure evil? I think that is an explanation in itself. People who do evil acts are evil. The acts define thems. Maybe they don’t need a reason? It is self-definition.

We are left to dig through all the evidence and clues to make some theory plausible. Some people get hung up on the why as if there is, or must be, some explanation. Still the rest of us just sit disturbed and offended by the events.

However, these events do raise collateral questions about law enforcement or botched warnings, missed clues. Many more questions than there are answers.

Right Ring | Bullright

Old theories on Dems validated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

“They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.” – from The Ethics of Elfland

I should have posted this quote alone, but I could not do it. It occurs to me this is part of what is wrong today. The opposite of this quote rings too true for culture. I don’t think Chesterson is even taught in schools anymore, someone who contributed so much.

There’s a movement by the Catholic Church to sanctify him. Chesterson honored God in what he did. All the more reason he is marginalized from society.

So if they are not teaching him, you can say par for the times of ours. However, if this all continues, at some point they may not know how to teach it — being too impractical.

Conditioning

You can see it in this shooting. To take the general view that people forego principles and morality to accept culture as just the way it is, then it alters what we do. It lowers the standard. It rationalizes morality away. It becomes a state of these are the circumstances we live with now. We act accordingly and presume to be excused because of it all.

We can/do teach that in schools: these are just the conditions we are dealt. Teach that shootings are now normalcy. Just accept that is the way it is.

Chesterson was making a point to say that you don’t have to take that view, or concede your fundamental beliefs and principles. That is much the reason we got to this state.

Right Ring | Bullright

Google does “gun” control

Look how Google does gun control, like they do everything. Add it to the mix.

Google tried censoring ‘gun’ shopping searches. It backfired

Philip Wegmann | Feb 27, 2018 | Washington Examiner

In the wake of the Florida school shooting, Google decided to take a stand. The gatekeeper of the Internet decided to filter shopping searches that included the term “gun.” It didn’t go so well.

Early Tuesday morning, Internet shoppers started noticing and documenting the digital gaffes. Users received error notices when they searched for glue guns and water guns, toy guns and airsoft guns, nail guns and nerf guns. The algorithm is apparently so strict that even the color “burgundy” triggered an error because it includes “gun” in the spelling.

This set off something of a parlor game on social media. Turns out, adults don’t like it when faceless bureaucrats try enforcing arbitrary restrictions — federal, corporate, or otherwise.

Casey “Stable Genius” Smith found that Google now censors “Laguna Beach.”

Technousayt observed that the beloved Tom Cruise film about beach volleyball, “Top Gun,” also could not be found.

Read more at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-tried-censoring-gun-shopping-searches-it-backfired/article/2650230

So it got interesting in all kinds of ways. But it does show how active Google is about monitoring political debate. How many other filters are they now applying?

Follow the trail

It’s nothing new for creatively radical leftists. For instance, the media developed a new trend for pushing gun control. Fox already reported media pushing Florida teen survivors as ambassadors for gun control. Laura Ingraham asked who out there wants to take political advice from students? No one.

But that doesn’t stop MSM like CNN and MSNBC from using the teens as experts on all things guns. Great, they know so much about everything else, don’t they? So they put kids against pols as gun control advocates. It doesn’t stop there.

Another media trend: in a half hour segment on the Fla shooting, CNN put up a pundit from Brussels and then one from London to tell us what our gun laws should be. Of course they exploited the chance to tell us. CNN never said why their opinion was important.

Shame maybe? That’s it, they want to guilt us into gun control the same way media guilted the country into electing Obama — and then unable to throw him out like trash.

On a similar note, Tucker Carlson had a DACA advocate for illegal immigration who lectured about sanctuary cities and laws. Now illegals are telling us what our immigration law should be. He didn’t like Tucker saying he was not an American because he wasn’t a citizen. Yet bozo started every sentence saying “we” should… do this or that.

The arrogance knows no boundaries. We must heed the advice of non-citizens on our own country? Next they will try to lecture us on who to elect, vote for, and draft our laws. Illlegals already demand they will decide who immigrates here via chain migration.

See a trend? Have the outsiders, or those who are part of the problem, be policy experts. How about asking MS 13 gang members what we should do on gang violence? Let’s have inmates run parole boards. Ask children and minors to develop our drug laws.

Though supporting Brexit like Nigel Farage is smeared as illegitimate. So when you want your country back, you are labeled an extremist on the outside fringe — despite polls.

But we need to bring in outsiders to set our laws and policies … or get students to do it.
The new rule must be that citizens are overruled and irrelevant. The coup of America.

Right Ring | Bullright

I have a dream

I have a dream that this nightmare ends.

That is an end to this: chain immigration game, the illegal invasion, denials about criminal behavior, apologists for Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Crimes, rejection of the wall; and demands from illegal immigrants, their hostage siege and blackmail of our government, defiance of law and order, lies about numbers, amnesty and control of legal immigration by illegal immigrants. And finally, to dumbing down the electorate by the media and advocates for illegal immigration and corruption.

I have a dream that the system actually works; truth prevails; that rule of law is enforced; that corruption is penalized not promoted; that elections do matter; that commons sense is common; that creating an investigation of a president is not job security or an exemption from accountability. I have a dream that winners actually win not suffer the consequences, that losers do not determine the agenda, and that winners act like winners not losers.

Right Ring | Bullright