Perpetual deals

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

If not Trump

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

We’re still better off with Trump than Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dershowitz: it’s costing me dinner dates

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

By Caitlin Yilek | Dec 27, 2017,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party hacks invade Alabama

Leave it to liberals and Progressives (socialists) to read all kinds of wild interpretations into Alabama’s election. It means this and it means that…a point or two difference.

Same old lies and exaggerations and deceptions. Another overreach for giddy Democrats. Though they think it represents a sea change or momentum shift? And then one against Trump, and one big boost for Democrats. Really.

But during the election they said it all about the sex accusations. A referendum. Now that it’s over, that’s all out the window to claim it was a huge, broad message. What hacks. And of course this after Mitch spent 30 million against him.

The whackos are whacked

Probably one thing makes me madder than anything else lately. (well I chuckle I don’t waste too much anger) It’s one constant, old theme.

Are you ready? It’s the left and Democrats telling us some things transcend party. Then there is Jones in Alabama saying time to put state ahead of politics. I think I heard Pelosi and Franken use that line. Pretty sad. Anytime they tell you something is over or above politics, laugh at them.

It joins a familiar refrain I see on social media, like this profile: “Independent moderate. Do not cater to either party.” So you go down their list and see all the hard left stuff they post or like. But non-partisan? Nothing can be further from the truth. Why bother lying?

Moderate is the new code word for liberal and proud of it, or progressive activist. Why they all have to try to keep the lie alive, I don’t know. I mean it gets old. So someone tells you they’re a moderate. They aren’t, they are a card carrying Bernie socialist.

Therein is the game: paint all progressive hard-left policies, and the supporters, as the middle of the road “mainstream.” (another word that irritates me) Enough with the anger purge. I feel so much better.

Double hit and run hypocrite

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

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

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

And right away, Gillibrand got pushback from the Clintonistas.

Politico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Stunning, Hypocritical Statements

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, details were even worse from the government side:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need a real Department of Know Better.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Here’s some ‘news’ not

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

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

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

SO WHAT??!!

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

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

Are these people for real or what?

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

Right Ring | Bullright

I Know Nothing Defense

DNC Debbie is doing her best impersonation of Sgt Schultz about the dossier funding.

DNC, Wasserman Schultz say they were unaware of dossier payments

By Jonathan Easley – 10/25/17 | The Hill

Current and past leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) say they had no knowledge that the national party was helping to fund a dossier compiled by a British spy that contained scandalous accusations about President Trump.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paid millions to the law firm Perkins Coie, where Democratic lawyer Marc Elias worked with the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to construct the memo, which was compiled by British spy Christopher Steele.

John Podesta has a similar memory black hole.

Former Clinton, DNC aides largely silent on funding of Trump-Russia dossier

Washington Post

Hillary Clinton and top officials of her presidential campaign were largely silent Wednesday in response to the revelation that the campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for research that resulted in a dossier alleging Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Neither Clinton nor her campaign manager, Robby Mook, responded to requests for comment Wednesday. Campaign chair John Podesta declined to comment beyond referring reporters to a statement issued the previous day by the campaign’s law firm saying officials had not been aware of the arrangement.

Brian Fallon, the former campaign spokesman, said he didn’t know about the research at the time but called it “money well spent” if it provided information useful to the special counsel now investigating Russia’s involvement.

 

So 6 million dollars just flowed into the law firm and went out to fund a dirty dossier, somehow or other, but I know nothing about that. Hell, we don’t even know where all the 2 billion (plus or minus) in the campaign went. We ordered pizza a lot.

Let me get this straight: if Russians wanted to help Trump get elected so much, why were Russian operatives working with the opposition to Trump?

Dumb and dumber have agreed on a ‘too dumb to know’ defense. After all, both were working for the ‘too dumb to prosecute’ candidate.

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that sound at all familiar?

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

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That takes us to the polls.

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Cops vs. Statues

Six cops are shot while leftist snowflakes are melting over offensive statues. The media gives concrete and metal, or statements about them, more concern than dead cops — or why they are being targeted.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for the snowflakes. So now Democrats are running in 2018 against Russia, Racism and Statues.

Hillary funding resistance

Hillary Clinton Sent $800K from Campaign Funds to Her New ‘Resistance’ Group

Group will fund other liberal ‘resistance’ groups
Wa Free Beacon

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has sent $800,000 from her campaign funds to her new political action group, Federal Election Commission filings show.

Clinton announced her intent to be “part of the resistance” in May with the formation of Onward Together, a political action group that will fund a number of established “resistance” groups that can quickly counter President Trump with direct action and protests.

The group is dedicated to “encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office” and advancing “progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” according to its mission statement.

Federal Election Commission records show that Clinton has sent hundreds of thousands from her campaign funds to her group the same month she announced its creation. …/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-sent-800k-from-campaign-funds-to-her-new-resistance-group/

Can’t find her emails but never loses sight of her money, and what she does with it. Too dumb to be a criminal but smart enough to undermine government.

Awan tries to cop a flee

And what is Imran Awan’s defense, after being arrested trying to flee for Pakistan over fraud charges, while working for Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Man does she know how to pick them, or what?

His lawyer told Politico later on Tuesday: ‘This is clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.

‘A quick glance at what the government filed in court today confirms the lack of evidence or proof they have against my client.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730382/House-aide-arrested-fraud.html#ixzz4nzEV0f00

Sure that explains it…right! That makes people do things like smash hard drives.

Schultz promptly fired him, after his arrest. Rapid response.

Once again, for a major story you have to turn to the Daily Mail just to read it. Seems there is an embargo in media on the story for some reason.

Daily Caller exclusively reported the arrest 3 days ago and no media besides Fox wants to touch it. I know, it’s radio active. Debbie is glowing in the dark.

Media can run with anonymous sources all the time, or out a CIA operative overseas, for the need to know but this is too hot to touch? Tells you something. Maybe if Awan was a transgender person it would fit the media’s narrative.

Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

Having An Emotional Fit

This would be laughable under most circumstances….except that it was the most important presidential election in decades. Well, Libs don’t disappoint in their effort to emotionalize their reactions to the election — as only they can emotionalize.

So CNN had this article, including clips of voicemails from election dissenters. Here is just one gem from a woman who complained she had to take off her Bernie bumper stickers because of fears. Afraid too, to even go back to rejoin her family. Oh the pain and humiliation of it all. She said this:

“I finally had to take the Bernie bumper sticker off my car,” Gibbens continued in her voicemail. “I almost got rear-ended at an exit coming off the freeway. I mean just harassment because I had a Bernie sticker on my car. It’s really ugly. It leaves us scared because there’s so many people who seem more emboldened to be bullies.”

Scary because so many people seem emboldened to be bullies? Could that be those bullies on the Left? No she isn’t talking about the real bullies. How about weaponized bullies?

The article goes on to apply psychoanalysis to their emotional meltdown. As I said, it would be funny, except they are serious. Of course this is just as dangerous as the psychiatrists desperately trying to diagnose Trump from their clinical armchairs. And just as fruitful.

Paula Niedenthal, a psychology professor, opined on the caller:

“There’s this anxiety about being exposed. You have a bumper sticker, it’s almost like having a Green Bay Packers sticker and being in Texas.”

Yes, it’s every bit that bad in another way. How can therapists so easily identify with these nuts? Yes they do need real psychological help, but not because of the results of the election or because Trump won and is president. But could it be because of their very deep expectations that Hillary was going to win or, indeed, that she already did win?

There was no room for doubt. Then they were crushed when their beliefs didn’t comport with actual results. ‘How could this be?’ ‘We all said she would win…what happened, what went wrong? This cannot be happening. I won’t believe it! I won’t accept it!’

You can almost hear those internal deliberations echoing in their vulnerable brain cells. Could it just be that their expectations ran so far ahead of the truth that they could not possibly handle an alternate result? Isn’t that what elections are: a verdict, a final decision from the people? How can one know in advance, or be so sure, of the election?

It seems they had so much invested in their outcome. Even Hillary was so invested, literally in the preferred outcome, along with her backers and donors that there was no room for a different outcome. The amount of money riding on it alone was huge. But of course that would be hard to accept. They did it to themselves. Republicans, on the other hand, were tasked to believe the exact opposite before the election: no way, no how was it possible to win. What with the Democrat machine, their blue wall, illegal vote and all. Now, after the fact, Republicans are supposed to be apologetic for the results. Really. The only acceptable reaction to the left is for us to apologize for winning, and to deconstruct it.

Democrats are so far in denial that they have no options but to dissent from reality. Of course there is nothing acceptable to the left with what has happened since election.

It is worth looking at the piece (here) and listen to the voicemails.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

One of the strangest, and funniest, things I witnessed was Van Jones prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Never mind that 8 months later, Dems never had a real autopsy over the death of Hillary’s campaign.

He gave a speech in Chicago with just that subject on the docket.

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

“The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”

“Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”

“That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”

Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337253-van-jones-rips-clinton-campaign-they-spent-money-on-themselves

It could be the case that she spent more money than anyone in history to not get elected.

Now, despite all the money flowing into the Georgia-6th District, once again their expensive scorched earth strategy ended in ashes, with Ossoff losing by 6 points.

It is not what pundits expected and it wasn’t what Ossoff hoped. And he was beat by a woman…with a real vagina rather than a Planned Parenthoody imposter.

Elections have consequences, for sure….. they empty bank accounts. So while Republicans want to Drain the Swamp, the Democrats just want to drain bank accounts.

A Democrat message in a bottle to anyone listening

Welcome to the Left — I mean the new reality. (oops even ‘reality’ is a pun now.)

I heard interesting conversations from libs in the last few days, after the Alexandria shooting. It was “one nut,” “one crazy guy.” So you point out that it is more than one guy out there with the DNC. They scoff. Then you point to tweets and Libs’ blame of Trump for even shooting Reublicans. Nice. They deny it has anything to do with partisan politics.

They tell you how they condemn all forms of violence by anyone. “It is not a left vs right thing,” they claim, “we support peaceful action.” Why can’t we all get along, why the bitterness? We point out the Left’s problem and propensity for violence, so they claim they haven’t seen or known anyone like that. You can only play dumb for so long. (below)

Actually it looks and feels a lot like arguments about Islam and terrorists. The same tactics and strategy in both. If it is one thing I concluded over the years, it is that violence is the Left’s plan-B when it can’t get its way.

To the rescue: Pat Buchanan has ‘Exhibit-A’ chronicling the long, bitter history of the Left with hatred and the violence accompanying it. Hey, they don’t call it Hard Left for nothing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, who aspired to end his life as a mass murderer of Republican Congressmen, was a Donald Trump hater and a Bernie Sanders backer.

Like many before him, Hodgkinson was a malevolent man of the hating and hard left.

His planned atrocity failed because two Capitol Hill cops were at that Alexandria baseball field, providing security for House Whip Steve Scalise. Had those cops not been there, a massacre would have ensued with many more dead than the gunman.

More at: http://buchanan.org/blog/long-history-leftist-hatred-127223

But we have an evolving view playing out in front of us. Here is an exchange.

Excuse number one:(from a Dem strategist)

Sigh or high-five, who can be sure?

Of course it is only a sampling, there are too many to mention. It is cool to talk up their hatred insisting that somehow the Left’s violence could be justified because of Republicans’ agenda or what we did. Blame the victims as if Repubs should have expected this.

And then there is the class war argument. How long have libs been running on class warfare? Yet the idiots have that figured out too. Dems class warfare is our fault too — even though it is about all they have to run on. Their strategy is blamed on Repubs.

Have you ever witnessed a bunch of people more averse to taking any responsibility than the liberal left? Republicans and conservatives aren’t even in the same race.

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Chelsea forming swamp of support

Brought to you, again, by the corrupt Clinton’s perpetual campaign of enablers. Back, by unpopular demand, is the slobbering press now pimping Chelsea Clinton for mass public consumption. Who cares about Chelsea? Well that doesn’t matter.

How cool? Not. Power of women? Oh, they found just the perfect model… of nothing.

The corrupt Clinton machine is busy grooming her for what, as a favorite politician? A bridge way too far.

They aren’t floating her possible candidacy, They are steaming full speed ahead Titanic style toward the biggest iceberg out there. The last Clinton has not yet admitted why she lost, but here’s another… in case you couldn’t stomach the last one. Cool?