Crazy Town

Well, now that was easy.

It is Now Legal to Defecate and Urinate on Denver Sidewalks! What???

Joe the Plumber

Denver just decriminalized public defecation in order to make life easier for immigrants and the homeless.

After decriminalizing defecating on sidewalks, the Chamber of Commerce will probably rename Denver as the “Mile High Pile City.”

No Board of Health? That’s how diseases spread. Now every time I think of Denver I will see visions of poop and other body fluids on the sidewalk. People are required to dispose of dog poop and Denver is letting humans defecate any where they please.

More: https://joeforamerica.com/2017/12/now-legal-defecate-urinate-denver-sidewalks/

No commentary here could suffice. I’ll settle for WTF?

Oh maybe one….sanctuary shit.

Liberal complaints in 4, 3, 2, 1….Never.

Advertisements

The Culture of Investment

I went on a thought journey to explore what it meant to be the person I am and noticed some things that tie in politically these days. You may have discovered the same things.

The first thing noticeable today is those who support Trump are given a dichotomy. On one hand you see yourself being targeted and villainized by a concerted effort of institutions, media, Deep State interests; while on the other we are actually winning. We are changing an old guard and its way of thinking. They do not like that, hence a resistance.

But as this back and forth continues, we are actually winning because we are having the battle at all. The battle itself is evidence of victory. A taboo and forbidden battle.

Well, media or pundits keep asking the same tired questions of Trump supporters, “at what point will you abandon Trump, when will you denounce him? Does this do it?”

The problem of course is that you can denounce something he did or said or how he reacted, while at the same time not denounce what he has actually done. Get it? That is clear to me. But what media or elites want is a total and absolute condemnation.

If something is critical enough to criticize, it still does not erase what he has done. It does not cancel due credit he deserves. In that respect, does it really matter that one does not like a statement or two or his tweeting habits — which are only communications?

Investments

What does that have to do with investments? Put it this way, if I was to write a full defense of why I supported Trump and think he is the right man in the right job, I would have to cover the last 15 -20 years to make a substantive case. That would be a monumental task. So short of that let me just say I am sufficiently invested, heavily, in Donald Trump. By no monetary means or connections but in a philosophical and political way.

I feel invested in that the way anyone invests in what they feel is important, such as education, a career, family, where they live, financial investments. All of those help to shape who we are. Trump also represents a part of who I am, not the total sum.

Not like I just bought something on a whim thinking “I can always take it back.”

We may differ on certain things but there are commonalities that surpass those. Listing all those wouldn’t even make the case. But since I do, in a way I can see and live vicariously through his presidency. There is a personal investment. And I believe that is what has been missing in the last 4 presidents – a personal connection.

People may have thought they had that with George W Bush for a short time but it wasn’t real and did not last. We saw the differences with his priorities to ours and a few hallmarks of those were in nominating Harriet Miers and in the amnesty immigration scheme. There were certain other red flares that he was not really one of you. At any rate, even at the beginning I was not personally invested the way I am with Trump.

That was what was missing. Barack Obama had support, yes, but were people personally invested in him the way people are in Trump? I’d say not. Though Democrats were invested in him. And it was just like most of what the left does — it was deception, lies and an illusion. There was a huge illusion constructed around Bill Clinton. And that illusion carried over to Hillary both times she ran. They were not real. Sure Democrats believed them but they were lies like everything else the Left does.

Here we have Trump, with all his flaws, and there is a realness that was never present in any of the others. Campaign promises were not just campaign promises. He did not have years in the government sewer to provide an air of legitimacy. In fact, it was his detachment from government that gave him credibility.

I am at the point where I am tallying my investments that I have made and ones I did not. Though this one, supporting Trump, crosses so many personal areas that it is a natural fit. It is almost uncanny how it relates to other areas. So the idea I would have some moment to say I was all wrong, or the whole thing was a wasted effort, is as close to impossible as me going to Mars. I don’t know how many other people feel that way. I’m sure some do. (probably more than anyone realizes or media cares to think)

It takes us back to those other presidents’ legacies. There was a steady prevailing vacuum. It may not have been intentional but there was a void and disconnect with the very people who elected them. Regardless what they said, their interests and priorities were not aligned with the peoples. They did not care about the same things. When George W Bush tried to ram through amnesty on illegal immigration, with all it involved, with the gangs of, despite the will of the people, it was a lighthouse moment.

When the people finally did rise up in Tea Parties, the reaction everywhere only confirmed this national insult that had gone on as long as I remember. Not only did the critics not care about American citizens or real people but they were actually lined up opposing the public. And there is no way you could compare that moment of revelation to what the Resistance is all about now. It is not the same thing. In truth, they are the anti-Resistance.

It’s a little like this analogy. Say you originally found a good investment that fit for you. It worked and made you profits. It did what it was supposed to do. Then came a time where it fluttered or stalled out, or maybe lost a few points. Would you condemn the whole thing and say you should not have have bought it in the first place? Would you say it was all a complete mistake? I doubt it. See you cannot deny that it worked and got you the effects you were looking for. Nor can you deny the profits. (unless you condemn them too)

It is the same way with other investments in life. Do you denounce the family because it is not everything you think it should be? Do you denounce you education because one day it does not seem to benefit you how you want? The same works in the faith areas of life. Do you throw out your faith because one day it was not benefiting you? That seems to be a pretty selfish and materialistic way to look at everything. I’m sure some people do apply similar formulas: today I don’t like that, yesterday I did. No, people usually accept there will be bumps and hurdles. You don’t throw out all the work, time and energy you gave it because you are not presently satisfied with something.

Regardless of what new and stunning things media or the establishment may throw out at us, it does not change what progress has been done. Just as nothing changes all the damage those critics have done. I won’t turn my back on that. And I won’t deny it.

Well, short of running through my 15 years of reasoning and experiences that brought me here, this is my attempt to explain it. I also do not throw away, dismiss or deny all that experience long before Trump came along. But they are now joined in a way I could not have predicted. It’s a personal investment. I can denounce the resistance, mostly because it is not real and only more deception. Imitation is flattery except when it is a mockery.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Moral Of The Story

Let me start this personal rant by saying if anyone thought I was one of them there tongue-tied Christians when it came to the flock, you can count me out on that strategy,.

In fact, there is an awful lot to criticize among Christians today but I usually refrain. Such is the exception on this occasion. Allow me to get my rant hat on.

First a little background on this particular one. There’s a guy that floats mostly on the margins now but is quite full of himself. No, not Jim Wallis or one of the other infamous leftist preachers, take your pick. They aren’t quite in his league.

This one is proud to say he rose in ranks with Jerry Falwell (Sr) back in the day with the Moral Majority. Chuck Baldwin thought of himself as Jerry’s right hand man that would one day probably take over the movement, if anything happened to Falwell.

However he did it, he became pretty full of himself to the red hot narcissist, radical level. He’s now moved on to sort of a solo hologram movement, within smaller Christian circles, in the style of any of many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones out there. He’s a former, still recovering in my view, Democrat liberal who doesn’t know or want to admit it.

As for me, I used to think at least on rare occasion he would get a nut or two. But these days it’s clear where the nuts have all gone. I just can’t tolerate his rhetoric any more, which got even worse than it was. He’s a self-styled critic of everyone else, which conveniently leaves him on top of his own hill, with a small loyal following still. Diehards.

This guy did run for president though when he formed a rout against much better known, former Ambassador, Alan Keyes when he was running for president. See, he used his muscle in the Constitution Party ranks to oust Keyes. Well any moral authority Chuck Baldwin still had went out went out the window about then. What little he had anyway.

Baldwin fancies himself as the speaker for the Christian political movement though he isn’t. He dreams big, if only they would listen to him. His shtick is attacking fellow Christians on the right, a common target today. But he specializes in attacking them and the Republicans the way McCain did. Meaning he doesn’t reserve much animus for liberals or Democrats.

No, he’s an inside player who mocks Rush Limbaugh or any other big talkers on the right. He’s the guy you would want on your team only if you were plotting a coup from within.

Back to preaching. He did start up and build a good sized church in Florida. Then several years ago announced he’d be moving to Montana to settle. Big change, well, maybe what he thought. He already had a radio show and the necessary political capital. He could always draw from Christian networks with his tough talk and rhetoric.

Oh and he also feels that churches shouldn’t take 501 status so they can be free to speak out on politics and abortion and so on. Those who don’t are enslaved or just ignorant.

Since then he has gotten even more vocal on his political positions. Maybe he’s planning another run, I don’t know. But he keeps up his forte for attacking Christians from within. That is any but the big liberal leaders. You don’t find him railing against those or Dems much these days. I guess he thinks we are the ones who really deserve his ire. And he has plenty of that to give them.

He boasts of flattery he received from icon Howard Phillips – another organizer on the right. He got the right endorsements from leaders of movements, enough to prod him on. One wonders if they were feathers in his hat or only stepping stones to give him street cred with conservatives. I haven’t decided. His so-called hard line positions seemed to have morphed into deep-seeded biases. The object of which are firmly directed at the Christian right and what he terms Republican enablers. Fed up with both Democrats and Republicans who he calls worse and more dangerous than the former. The usual anti-fare plays well in the CP and with disgruntled conservative Republicans.

Chuck Baldwin’s objective is less clear.

His stands, if you could sum them up, come off a lot like disenchanted liberals. He pushes the freedom thing, styling himself a Constitutionalist and bill of rights expert along with a historian. Sure there is enough to attack Christians on today. Though he takes a glee in doing it where I reserve mine for the right occasions without taking great pride in it. But he just never has much fire in the belly left for progressives and liberals now, as if they don’t exist and Republicans are the only culpable targets of opportunity.

His conservative positions are drenched in popular liberal antiwar and foreign policy notions the way Ron Paul’s was, with extra passion and a bitterness that exudes.

Then comes his latest column. Usually it includes his standard screed with a few current issues thrown in to season the pot. Exactly as he did in this piece. What are his favorite taunts? Well, there is always conspiracy stuff and always a rant against Israel into the anti-war rants. His angle is on attacking media as Jew controlled rather than the MSM. He has a particular distaste for Trump and basically echoes any of the left-wing talking points about him. A common dead giveaway. Like you know where he takes his news cues from. The Jews control Hollywood too, in case you didn't know that.

But his favorite line of attack script in this piece was Christians don't get it. They just think they do. And if you don't agree with his stands on issues then you are one of his chosen targets. Doubly so for supporting Trump. I never heard this ferver about Obama. He sometimes mocked our anger at Obama and failure to concentrate on the Christian Republican side of the isle. Like we needed circular firing squads under Obama. Christians were the real problem. That is where we are, apparently we don't get it – if we ever did.

The implications here are strong. He knows much better.

Therefore, we are the problem not the solution. He being the much wiser and studied on the matter does get it. He does not have the flaws in understanding that we do. And his loyal following is attuned as well. But they share no blame in any of this. He is the only one who does get it, in the end.

In that arrogant reasoning, this column fit him like a well worn glove because it touched all the highlights from Jewish controlled media to attacking our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia with the murder of Khashoggi. Mostly they are your typical liberal fare wrapped in a warm blanket of Christians are too stupid to know. Somehow I cannott picture Paul going on a lecture tear like that saying you people just don't get it about the Roman thing.

I hear the same tired mantra directed at Christians from the Left. Obama at the Prayer Breakfasts come to mind. Amazing that the world is still spinning on its axis with all the culpable blame of Christian conservatives. It seems to be reversed. I hear little practical advice coming from this (or these) critics of current political culture. Do they get it?

Tell me the difference between this snipe agenda and the Left’s popular Resistance?

Right Ring | Bullright

No means “no” except when it should

It would seem pretty ironic that the party of the radical left who never misses a chance to say no, in defiant “resistance,” just cannot say no to condemn violence of their left wing radical base. They can’t ever do that.

Instead, they will go to any lengths on the left not to voice any opposition to, or offer no condemnation for, the left’s violence. Whether it vandalizes a Republican building in NYC, burns police cars, or commandeers a chunk of a city in Washington, or whether leftists chase down conservatives in restaurants to create a crowd, or shout down Congressional hearings so you cannot hear. Dems will say or do anything else to avoid condemning it.

Out of those same zipped lips for condemning they call us extremists and dangerous. They have a phobia to the word no when and where it matters. But we know why.

They do condemn our use of the word Mob though, when that is how the miscreants act and who they are. But they can never condemn a possible friendly group to the Left, even if it is a rented one. They couldn’t even call MS-13 gang members animals for what they do. Instead, Nancy Pelosi said they have a spark of divinity.

The same spark of divinity that an unborn baby lacks.

They need anyone who could be a potential voter bloc for them whether legal or illegal. If they can use violence to their political ends then what won’t they use? That also fits the definition of terrorism — using violence to perpetuate their political ends. Yet we are supposed to be hostage to this political blackmail of the Mobacracy. And what does the Mobocracy want and support? A Thugocracy. Democrats call that a value of democracy.

No condemnation for cop killers, violence addicts, fascist Antifa, or those working on behalf of the Mobocracy. The only question remaining in the end is who is really in control in this Mobocracy of the left? Is it their politicians? Doesn’t seem so to me.

On the contrary, Holder said “when they go low, kick them.” Hillary said we can never have civility until they are in power. No, their hallmark is incivility, regardless.

So, I wonder why we didn’t see any civility when they were in control of all branches? What we got was “I won”….shut up and get in the backseat. We don’t need to hear from you. Incivility always rules; in power or out makes no difference. We got Obamacare lies.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Threat Within America

In their own words:

“We oftentimes had these debates and discussions about ‘out of the streets and into the suites’ — that was the term that was used to describe the swan song of the civil rights movement. … He made a decision and thought he could make a difference by being on the inside.” [emphasis added] — Socialist Workers Party member and University of Minnesota Professor August Nimtz on long time friend Keith Ellison.

See: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Ellilson_Burn_This_Book.pdf

Of course Ellison thought he could make a difference by being on the inside. We know that is what he is there for. Most radical leftists start by believing they can make a difference. Then position themselves or act accordingly to carry it out.

Radicalism is not a spectator sport.

H/T to The United West

From the foreword of “Burn This Book” by Trevor Loudon:

“On July 17, 2018, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota wrote Amazon CEO Jeffrey Bezos, demanding that his company censor books and other products by those deemed to be “hate groups” by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. He called for such materials still in Amazon warehouses to be “destroyed” over the next three months and an end to the company’s publication of similar “physical and digital materials.”

There is reason to believe that you are reading the impetus behind Keith Ellison’s call for book burning. In the course of a July 3rd interview with author Diana West on our nationally syndicated “Secure Freedom Radio” program, I mentioned that we would shortly publish a book about the Congressman’s ominous past and present ties to Marxist and Islamist groups and their agendas.

Since the hard left monitors our show assiduously, word of this publication may well have reached Mr. Ellison before the 17th. And, as the Center for Security Policy Press uses Amazon’s CreateSpace service to publish its many monographs and books, censoring such works – past, as well as future – could prevent readers from seeing this one. That is because the Center for Security Policy is one of the organizations the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has falsely characterized as a “hate group.” By pressing Amazon’s Bezos to use the SPLC as the arbiter of what content can be published or maintained in inventory, Rep. Ellison could achieve the censorship of CSP’s products without spedifying us as the target.

As this book by Trevor Loudon amply demonstrates, such stealthy subversiveness is the stock-in-trade of Keith Ellison. His associations dating back to his involvement with the Nation Islam as a student at Wayne State University and continuing to his present —and ongoing —involvement with Muslim Brotherhood fronts and his role as chairman of the radical House Progressive Caucus, Keith Ellison’s record is one of unbroken ties to extremists committed to subverting our country.“

This insight is all the more alarming in light of a dangerously mistaken, but widespread assumption: When an elected official in the United States swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, they are presumed to be truthfully saying they are able and willing to do that. Consequently, such representatives of the American people in the U.S. Congress are not subjected to the sort of background investigations aimed at confirming that assumption that is required of, for example, postal employees, securities personnel and school bus drivers.

Unfortunately, as author, filmmaker and national security expert Trevor Loudon documents exhaustively in this volume, Rep. Keith Ellison’s many and longstanding personal associations with groups openly hostile to the principles and even the existence of the U.S. Constitution, would likely make it impossible for him to to pass even the most cursory of security checks.”

Wow, I can think of nothing to add to that. Book is here in PDF form.

Also: Keith Ellison, who does NOT have a MN license to practice law, yet is running for MN Attorney General.

News, email, and this and that

Has Twitter suddenly made email obsolete? You might think so. If you think that the public form of twitter is a substitute for private email, then you don’t understand technology, culture or the dynamic of it all.

It seems the trend is on using Twitter. But until recently it was so limited by character count that it would render it worthless for serious communications. Yet that is probably what some people would like about it, being limited.

But of course it could be an excuse to eliminate email which some people do not want to bother with anymore. I’d like to add that Twitter never will be a replacement for email. And email has not gone the way of the dinosaurs, yet. Too bad if people don’t like to use it or read them. It’s so old fashioned since the social media explosion. Poof, you don’t need email.

Isn’t it interesting that the major news or media centers all prefer everyone use Twitter as a contact method? But these and other businesses are also the same ones who like to use email for news letters and updates — for your convenience of course. But if you want to get in touch with them, they want it on Twitter.

What’s up with the contradiction, Fox and all the rest?

BTW: Fox will be launching its Fox Nation project later in the year. They want you to sign up on the email list for updates. It will be a new subscription service for their viewers. Oh dandy, another avenue of access to their content from most of the same people. But it is subscription-based.

“Fox Nation reveal: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson among stars on streaming platform ….Content you love, voices that matter.”

Now if your voice mattered to them at all, why scrub the email option?

Okay, if they really have a new product, why don’t they complete that newness by having some new faces? One of the headliner newbies showcased is Tomi Lahren. How new is she and what expertise does she bring? Born in 1992, maybe that’s what they mean.

I sort of thought having a new format they should have some regular folks. I don’t know, like everyday conservatives or viewers of their content over the years. People that have an opinion and view. There are plenty out there. I see people all over the internet and social media who would add spark to an otherwise recycled format. Fresher than Lahren.

While I think of it, I also remember when Town Hall was rolling out its new model that would shake the earth to its core. It was all hype. Indeed, that was about having a forum of conservative, like minded people writing their own stuff and their collective friends it would bring, along with other news centered content.

Well, it lasted a while and morphed into what you see as Town Hall today. (some here remember those days) Why is it that it is always the everyday normal people that are the problem? No, we need mouthpieces like famous spouters of conservative opinion to tell us what really matters. Sure we do watch because there is nothing else to watch.

“Tweet me, text me, hit me on Instagram,” they say, “or find me on FaceBook.” What if I don’t want to? I just want to email you. Well, it has become a problem. Right about now I am starting to feel like Andy Rooney. Oh, few people would remember who he was.

Maybe I am finally just old or old fashioned?

Still, if you listen now, you can hear the same undercurrent of criticism about Twitter among those same on air personalities starting all over again. ‘The scourge of contacts and feedback.’ The same things you used to hear about bothersome emails.

Someone else doesn’t like or appreciate getting our emails. Congress. Funny that liberals never seem to have that problem. They shout into an elevator and voilà, instant reaction.

Right Ring | Bullright

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

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