Just freaking incredible.
Okay, now that is about right, not so bad.
Say what? Welcome to that strange place that Twilight Zone never found.
Just freaking incredible.
Okay, now that is about right, not so bad.
Say what? Welcome to that strange place that Twilight Zone never found.
How about another backwards thing? For years we’ve been lectured about discrimination by the left. I’m not sure why since it shouldn’t be a partisan thing. But they seem to think it is the right’s dream or agenda to discriminate. Well, a funny thing happens when you parse it all down to politics, which is what really drives the left.
The left is all worked up about Little Sisters of the Poor, birth control, the abortion agenda, Obamacare, and now baking wedding cakes for LGBTQXYZ’s. Tuesday is the day a case is going to the Supreme Court to decide. But you know the drill, you cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake. Period! So there are activists going around trying to force bakers to make them a cake. If you refuse, they sue. It’s the new fad for the left.
Issue of the case: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
But who cares about any of those Constitutional rights?
The agency, however, dismissed that explanation as “a distinction without a difference,” and it ruled both that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated Colorado anti-discrimination laws and that Phillips had “no free speech right” to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld that ruling and told Phillips – among other things – that if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.
The problem with their discrimination complaints is that discrimination is the business model of the left. It is their M/O. They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do and they won’t take no for an answer. Discrimination is the enforcer.
Take their boycotts, for example, which are based on discrimination. That’s how they do politics. They want anyone to refuse to do business with Trump supporters or anyone who supports the Republican tax plan. They’ll use any businesses they can in their agenda.
They look for advertisers of Fox or Fox shows and then rally their activists against them, by phone calls, twitter or Facebook campaigns. They target businesses into submission to their agenda. Then the business or corporation is to take action against a particular person, show, or program host. Have a bad decision in court they don’t like? Well, organize the people and boycott the offending parties. Beat them into submission.
They like to black list or boycott anyone or thing that does not conform to their political agenda. But that is their model. They get things done by coercion, intimidation or force, by any means necessary, bullying them to cooperate. Or else you will be barred, marginalized or retaliated against just as those who disagree with them are. That is the big stick they use against you, discrimination. The Black Caucus discriminates based on ideology.
It’s the same principle that caused Senator Schumer to single out a woman in a restaurant in NY and berated her for voting for Trump. He followed her outside to continue his verbal assault on her. When Barack Obama was in office during the government shutdown he sent word out to the departments that the public, people, needed to be made to feel its effects. Obama’s IRS targeted individuals and harassed them due to their political beliefs.
In Senate nomination hearings, Senator Feinstein told nominee Amy Barrett that “dogma lives loudly” in her. The statements caused NYT and media to then take up that mantra in media and columns. So they operate as a caliphate. But a senior Catholic scholar took issue with their discriminatory track against Barrett.
Ashley McGuire said: “An accomplished professor and legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame, the qualifications and credentials of Amy Barrett are unchallenged. That the left continues to treat her Roman Catholic faith as an impediment to office is a testament to just how beholden they are to their anti-religious bigotries.”
So true; it is a validation of Democrats own bigoted, discrimination agenda.
In another infamous hearing, Chuck Schumer was so worried about “deeply held beliefs” that would disqualify the nominee. He was determined to make that the deciding factor on nominee Bill Pryor in 2003. (just in case we think this is a new phenomena)
Charles Krauthammer, at the time, took him to task for his bigoted discrimination:
Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. “His beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held,” charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) , “that it’s very hard to believe–very hard to believe–that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.”‘
An amazing litmus test: deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.
Of course, Schumer’s real concern is with the content of Pryor’s beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to “anybody who had very, very deeply held views.” Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination. — Chicago Tribune column.
So that about covers it. You see, ‘it’s the discrimination, stupid.’ Only now it is out in the open. They use words like “so far out of the mainstream” all the time. Code talk. Who gets to define “mainstream?” Of course, they or Schumer and Feinstein do. Judging by the direction the Democrats have gone in the past few years, mainstream is now in the San Francisco Bay. Don’t agree with abortion? A litmus test is discrimination.
If you don’t follow them into the Bay, or at least to the shoreline, then you too will feel the wrath of their discrimination. It’s only a matter of when and how. Discrimination is alive.
Though the left will be the first to raise discrimination objections as a defense. Rep Conyers is rolling out a whole discrimination defense. The radical left made discrimination the basis of an anti-travel ban campaign. They discriminate against conservatives on campuses, or Trump voters in the heartland, while accusing them of discrimination.
Saul Alinsky was probably their top cleric of discrimination. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s the way, uh huh-uh huh, we like it.
Right Ring | Bullright
Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.
You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:
(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”
“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.
Back to the M/O
But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.
It has had some success I won’t bother to list.
So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.
Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.
First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.
You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.
However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.
Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.
Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.
Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.
Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.
Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.
Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.
Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.
Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.
Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.
By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.
But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.
“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.
The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.
From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?
That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.
Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.
My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?
I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.
Right Ring | Bullright
A letter from a North Carolina resident illustrates Obamacare nightmare.
Note the last line “to make sure you have the coverage you want.”
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
As the world turns, money also moves from place to place. Well, I mean wealth. There was an interesting report a year ago showing the statistics of wealth moving about the world.
While not completely detailed with cause and effect and all, it is a 30 thousand foot view anyway of the movement among wealthy people of different categories. And a report about the supper rich and billionaires. This was for 2016, so I wonder what it is this year?
There were some surprises. Interesting trends.
Among countries losing millionaires(in their definition) by migration between 2015-2016 are: France, China, Brazil, India, and Turkey. In that order of loss.
The countries gaining millionaires by migration are: Australia, US, Canada, UAE, and New Zealand. Australia in the lead and the US second.
A total 41,000 leaving those countries, and a total of 38,000 moving to the gain countries.
The wealthiest places in the world ranked as having the most millionaires by region: Asia-Pacific 5.1, all North America 4.8, Europe 4.2, Middle East 0.6, Latin America 0.5, Africa 0.2.(the place with the diamonds?)
Existing wealth of billionaires by region: Asia-Pacific had 590 billionaires, US had 540 billionaires, Europe had 489 billionaires, according to Forbes in 2016.
Key Ref: https://www.worldwealthreport.com/
In theory, a universal basic income (UBI) would be great. Under such a system, all citizens of a country are entitled to an unconditional amount of money on top of income they already generate through other means. It could spur productivity, improve health, alleviate poverty, reduce crime, raise education, and improve quality of life. It’s also especially relevant, given the reality of automation taking over more and more jobs.
Many people claim 2017 is the year UBI sweeps across nations. But when even Bill Gates cautions that it may bot be ready for prime time — or we for it — well, that is not an encouraging sign for them.
I guess the left are busy pushing the 15-dollar minimum wage now anyway.
And why not just give everyone a portfolio of stocks too — a basket of their choosing within a fixed dollar amount? I mean while they’re at it.
Under the radar and from south of the border comes this gem of a statement.
Seems Trump is not the only one tweeting
We haven’t forgotten that gift that keeps on taking, NAFTA, That did wonders for the USA, workers…and businesses, didn’t it?
The NAFTA disaster.
Whoomp there it is! Tavis Smiley made this stunningly honest revelation on Democrats and their coveted black vote, on ABC while sitting next to Bill Kristol.
Let me call this one “the burnout of the turnout.”
There’s a front-page story, George, as you know, in “The New York Times” today. They talk about the black vote is what the Democratic Party is relying upon now to save the Senate. News flash: if you’re relying on the black vote, in a midterm election — and I’m not suggesting that black voters don’t care about this — but if you’re relying on that vote, then I think it’s uninspired because we have double- and triple-digit unemployment in the African American community.
SMILEY: But if you’re black or brown, let’s be frank about this. If you’re black or brown, other than helping to save the Democrats’ hide, give me three good reasons [that] you turn out the vote this time.
Now I’ll catch hell for saying that…
So you smell what he’s cooking? It’s too much truth for prime time news or NYT though.
He was responding to a NYT piece: (discussing Clinton’s ad appealing to blacks)
Urging Blacks to Vote for Clinton for Obama’s Sake, and Their Own
THE AD The actor Morgan Freeman’s unmistakable voice poses a simple question: “What does showing up when it’s time to vote actually mean?” Images of President Obama — at his 2008 election-night rally, and leading thousands of people commemorating the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma — answer the question. “You care about protecting his legacy, and our progress.”
Get that handoff? You only “care” if you go support Hillary Clinton. So if you don’t vote, you don’t care and you are not preserving Obama’s legacy. The question is, or should be, why should blacks be interested in preserving the legacy of someone who didn’t care about them, and did nothing really for them?
You got that right… to protect Obama’s legacy not theirs. Then trust and hand off that support — and legacy — to Hillary. There are a lot of specious connections there.
The message: black voters need to propel Hillary to victory. But why?
For one thing, Hillary and her gal pal, AFT union president, Randi Weingartner, will do nothing for schools and education choice. And Clinton will do nothing for jobs or the economy either since the only one Hillary is concerned about is the pay to play, Washington-beltway economy.
But then does Obama — or blacks for that matter — actually believe Hillary is all that concerned with preserving and protecting his legacy? Believing a Clinton?
Pennsylvania has suffered from the Clinton-Obama policies that sent our jobs and factories to Mexico and China.
Over the last 25 years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have championed one-way deals like 1993’s NAFTA, China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization, and the 2012 South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. These poorly negotiated deals benefit the elite corporate interests that finance the Washington politicians even as they impoverish our heartland and destroy the livelihoods and lives of working Americans.
DENVER, Colorado — Tens of thousands of people are expected to come out to see Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, over the course of two events just added to his campaign schedule on Monday in the all-important battleground state of Colorado.
Compared with Hillary Clinton, his rival and the Democratic nominee for president who has all but abandoned the state as Trump takes the lead in polling, that’s a significant amount. Clinton had trouble filling a small venue the last time she was in Colorado in early August.
No matter how much pot one smokes, Hillary still doesn’t look good.
2016 was claimed ‘the year of Change.’ So why is it that they — Hillary media et al — trot out all the old, tired political operatives that are part of the Washington establishment culture as examples of why to oppose Trump? Estabos become political talking points.
Like Duh, what would you expect? Media repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more valid. In fact, it should be a glaring positive that they are not happy about it. That’s a compliment. They have been groaning for months, it’s nothing new. “National security officials?”…..how about national establishment officials?
Yet media keeps repeating their establishment disagreement to scare us. We are in this position because of establishment hacks and career politicians serving their own interests. Let’s be very afraid of their loud opposition. Hayden, Ridge, Negroponte etc, shocked!
Those people are not exactly change agents and never have been. So let them bet against America. Let them vote their establishment ties. It’s the year of change not Status Quo establishment rule. Using these people to try and impress or convince people otherwise is useless. It won’t work. So they can either be part of the wave of change or be out.
Related — Never Trump schemes continue:
BREAKING: THREE Republicans Ready To Enter Presidential Race, Challenge Trump For President!?
RightRing | Bullright
Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.
But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?
“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.
Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)
Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.
Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.
Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.
Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.
Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^
Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?
It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.
RightRing | Bullright
Hillary Clinton will put Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy” turns into a twofer.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is beginning to hint at what role her husband, former President Bill Clinton, could have in her administration if elected president.
At a campaign stop in Fort Mitchell, Ky., Clinton said her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”
“My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, ’cause you know he knows how to do it,” Clinton told the crowd at an outdoor organizing rally. “And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”
So Lady Estrogen wants to put Bill in charge of the economy? Well, Bill’s experience with/in the private sector is almost as absent as hers. She’s running on his record and accomplishments? Many people don’t think he deserves a feather in his hat there.
It all sort of depends on the definition of “economy,” doesn’t it?
I’m sorry, did I forget about her earning millions for speeches to Goldman and Wall Street? Or Bill earning loads of cash for speeches and running a fraud charity? That experience could come in handy. Selling influence takes loads of practice… to do it right.
Hillary made around 20 million in speeches just since 2013. Hillary’s net worth is about 31 million and Bill’s is about 80 million. Just the middle-class paupers people think they are.
When Hillary talks about economic woes and 2009 with the recession, it is interesting that her income was not hindered in any way in 2009. Hill and Bill did quite fine. Then much better when she left office — after lighting up and burning down the Middle East.
In 2009, Bill and Hill earned $10,084,843, Hillary earned $227,195. She made 52.7k in book sales in 2009. Then after leaving office. she cashed in on speaking fees. “In 2013 Hillary Clinton’s per year earnings from speeches was $9.7 million. In 2014 Mrs. Clinton earned $10.5 million in income from speaking fees.” (MoneyNation) Hill’s net worth peaked in 2009 at about 30 million. A sudden unexplained drop between 2010-2011 has people wondering where a big chunk of money went or if she transferred it, perhaps to Bill? No market forces appear to have caused the significant drop. She’s out of touch.
So Hillary now decided it a great campaigning point to bring in Bill on the economy, an area she knows nothing about. And Bill, with the Clinton Foundation, doesn’t impress anyone as the gold standard of economic virtue. Haiti voodoo-economics? They speciously prosper as America disintegrates around them. Not to omit their NAFTA and trade policies.
After cornering the market on speaking fees — influence peddling — Hill and Bill are just what we need to put the car back on the economic road. (achem) Wasn’t it Bill who built “the Bridge to the 21st Century?” The Onion satirized it this way back then.
Hillary’s philosophy is drink up, America, “what difference at this point does it make?”
Of course, it does make one wonder what the market value of bullshit is these days?
Let me recap their design theme: The Bridge to the 21st Century will intersect with the Hillary Highway to Hell at 1600 Penna. Ave., Washington, DC. — Plan accordingly.
Just when you think you have seen everything, and government invading or intruding on any private sector act, along come these new rules to take it to a whole new level. Basically, it infringes on employers’ being able to use outside legal council or seek advise on unionization. An attempt to restrict and limit employers seeking union advice.
By Eric Boehm / March 24, 2016 | Watchdog.org
Employers will have the federal government looking over their shoulder if they discuss unionization issues with outside legal counsel under a final rule released Wednesday by the Department of Labor.
Unions are vocal supporters of the new regulations, which give them a leg-up in organizational activities, but some lawyers worry that the new regulations violate employers’ First Amendment rights and privileged communication between attorneys and clients.
The so-called “Persuader Rule” has been a contentious issue since it was first proposed more than four years ago. The final version requires businesses to disclose whether they sought outside consultation or legal assistance as part of any effort to oppose their workers’ unionization.
The Department of Labor is greatly limiting businesses’ ability to obtain labor relations advice from attorneys, consultants and trade associations, said Kristen Swearingen, vice president of political affairs for the national branch of Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group of open shops.
Since most small businesses don’t have in-house legal teams, the rule piles new mandates on small businesses, ABC warned.
“No employer should have to wade through the final rule’s 446 pages to figure out whether they can safely get advice on what they can say to their employees,” said Swearingen. “The final rule is clearly an attempt by DOL to restrict employers from communicating the potential pros and cons of unionization.”
The National Association of Manufacturers says the new rules violate employers’ First Amendment rights and promised to challenge them in court. […/]
“It’s a matter of basic fairness,” Perez [Sec of Labor] said. “This new rule will allow workers to know whether the messages they’re hearing are coming directly from their employer or from a paid, third-party consultant.”
Basic fairness? Only government can do something overtly unfair and biased then call it “fairness.” So pry into management’s office and board rooms. Once again, issued as a rule. No legislation, just instituted as a rule. It also puts a target on any lawyers giving advice. They can be subject to retaliation. So it limits businesses and inhibits attorneys.
Much is made that these are extraordinary times and politics these days. I would agree with an exception. The thing is if we are just comparing it to what was ordinary in the last 20 years or so, then, yes, they are. Pretty much that is a good thing.
It is about time that we finally focused on both the ugliness and the importance of politics. I don’t need to tell anyone how divisive it all is. But maybe it’s time America has told them, the ruling class elites.
Things have evolved into what I call movement politics. That is separate from the classism and identity politics that have been standard fare of Democrats for decades. I doubt that these identity merchants, tacticians and strategists ever thought we would move past these time-tested mechanisms. Though we may be seeing just that.
I know that the identity memes have been the flavor of the day, even now. Though the people are rising up with ideas of their own, and they aren’t all about identity anymore. More than that they are concerned about the identity of the country. They are concerned about the condition of the US and losing our identity with freedom, prosperity and our posterity. Sure there are still identity merchants as there are grievance merchants.But they are being surrounded and outnumbered by others.
The only math the old-school establishment politicians know is the numbers of identities and the way they can pander to them. Estabos other math is the calculation of special interest dollars in their campaign coffers. That is the equivalent of their common core math. And not much else matters.
However, something interesting happened with the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left. It undermined Hillary’s base and consolidated the Left wing of America much the way Move On and George Soros did since the Clintons. Its ranks swelled and cut across cultural and identity lines, much to the aghast fears of the political elites and the identity merchants.
Probably one of the pivotal moments was when Sanders’ rally was nearly shutdown by the BLM movement. It revealed the clash therein. But the strange thing is that the Bern came back around to encompass and co-opt the Black Lives Matter crowd.
Then Hillary has proved the other thing about politics. On the Left, they gravitate and rally to the furthermost Left in the spotlight. Elizabeth Warren demonstrated it and Obama proved it. Bernie extorted that theory. Of course on the Right it has been almost the opposite. They sanitize the politics until it becomes invalid. Mediocrity is now King. This is just as a matter of comparison. So what you have is more marginalization happening on the Right and less to none on the Left.(even on the fringes) On the Left, they won’t cast off fringes; they embrace them and devour them. Hillary must swim against the current and, wherever she can, graft on the hard left’s dogma and carry their banner.
On the Right
Enter Trump on the Republican side. Sure there are all those quibbles over what he is, or what he is not. But what he has done on the right is to mobilize and rally people from across demographics — usual stereotypical onse. Some thought Trump supporters were just a marginal group of identities on the right. Yet identity pigeonholes have been disproved throughout primaries. He increased turnouts and interest in the whole process.
While Cruz, if anything, has stuck himself into a margin. He played heavy on the Evangelicals. The theory being if he could just activate them, he could overcome all comers with a lock on that bloc. A funny thing happened in South Carolina, crossing the lines.
[Politico]“It was amazing how similar Texans and South Carolinians are. I’d never thought of that until seeing the bus. They’re Southerners, they’re evangelicals, they’re military veterans, they’re gun owners. There’s just a feeling that is similar. They feel like Texans.” — Cruz said of S Carolina.
Indeed, Evangelicals also turned out for Trump. Even a few Evangelical leaders endorsed Trump. That was pooh-poohed and they were wackos that don’t know what they are doing. Yet even while everyone is demonized for supporting or endorsing Trump, it didn’t kill off his support. They had said he could not break 30%, then they said he couldn’t get 40%. And it is still actually early as to final tallies but if the primaries are any indication, he’s bringing in higher numbers.
Politicians and the establishment have long criticized the people for being disconnected from events, or being behind the times, or failing to understand political reality. Except now it is a different story. The establishment is at a loss to
understand comprehend the new political reality. At first they dismiss it, then they ridicule it, then they go tot war with it. Remember that just five years ago we saw almost the exact opposite. Town hall meetings were the target of voters looking to hold politicians accountable for their failures. All that was done without much concrete leadership, certainly not a single leader in charge. That may have been the first indications of an actual movement afoot.
Summarizing Trumpism and the movement politics on the Right
Now all the talk is that Trump is bringing in old political hands and Washington insiders, hence hurting his freestyle, outsider brand. Well, you cannot change the DNA of a movement like that. It must co-opt the establishment. And Donald understands it, correctly, as a movement not a political campaign. He may be running a campaign but his base is a movement.The question is will it be embraced as the base in the RNC as well?
RightRing | Bullright
Trump blasts Ford over plans for new Mexico plant
Brent Snavely, Detroit Free Press | April 5, 2016 | USA Today
Ford Motor (F) said Tuesday it will invest $1.6 billion to build a new plant in San Luis Potosí, Mexico to build small cars, making it the latest automaker to expand its presence there.
Ford’s investment in Mexico will create more than 2,800 jobs by 2020, delivering a blow to the UAW, which pushed for higher wages in its contract talks with the automaker last year. The announcement also comes amid a presidential election where the the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has publicly pressured Ford to drop its plans to expand in Mexico.
Ford said Tuesday it remains committed to investing in the U.S. and adding jobs in America even as it expands its presence in Mexico.
Ford is building plants in Mexico and the US is building a future in denial.
So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.
Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)
Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?
But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’
Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.
And watch Hillary distance herself from NAFTA.
No, not a bad April Fools’ joke
My position has been distilling for some time. The more we see the more reason to question current circumstances.
Our policies have been a hodgepodge of standard and all too predictable positions. A left over from all the so-called experts and interests that gave birth to it. ‘That’s just the way it is,’ rings the answer to any questions raised. The current policies have not been working.
Obama has taken an ideologue approach, on top of it, That really has no parallel. Both at home and abroad, he’s had a witch’s brew of tonics for whatever the ailment. Snake oil.
Now this will break even English rules… Because we have been in this holding pattern for so long — cruizing between bad medicine and bad results — isn’t it about time to land the plane and actually do something to make a difference in our situation? But those actions could ruffle some feathers abroad with friends, allies and enemies. So be it. Those actions may also ruffle some feathers here at home. Well, that’s okay too.
For too long our policies have been driven by all kinds of motives. It’s time we get past that. If this brings in an era of unpredictability, then that is not such a bad thing. If some want to accuse us or question our motives and actions, so be it. They already do now.
Foreign policy cannot be our only consideration, nor at this point can domestic policy be our only consideration. They are not mutually exclusive either. It may not be a zero sum game, but there are collateral effects on each. However, there are some common denominators to domestic and foreign policies. One is economics.
In a lengthy interview with NYT, Trump said:
“I’m a person that – you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money.”
Finally, the E-word is dropped. Sure we could ignore economic effects, but that doesn’t mean there are none. It is time to give economic concerns some weight and attention.
This is going to have to be a parted out subject
RightRing | Bullright
On Friday, Obama touted the jobs report as great news. As if we just don’t know how good the economy is. He took the opportunity to remind us because we dummies don’t understand too good. He has to explain it, over and over, until we get the message.
He told us how the unemployment, now below 5%, is excellent news. He talked up the economy, while at the same time the stock market was going south. It’s all good.
“The United States of America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. I know that’s still inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody,” Obama said.
The unemployment rate supposedly dropped below 5%, but 51% of people still see economic conditions as poor. Must be a tough sell, not just to Republicans.
When you fill in the voids and blanks in Obama’s rhetoric you come to some strange conclusions. We know that when people’s unemployment runs out or they can’t find work and come off the roles, they don’t count.
From the Heritage’s Daily Signal:
The “real” unemployment rate in January remained unchanged from December at 9.9 percent. Almost six million Americans worked part-time in January but would have accepted full-time jobs if they could have found them, according to the bureau.
So is Obama saying that when their unemployment runs out, and they still can’t find work, that it’s a good thing? Yes. He boasts about the decline in numbers when more people are not counted. Way to go, Obama.
It’s no surprise, Obama can ignore the undercurrent in America that is not happy with his job performance or the effects his policies have on America. Now he whistles past the unemployed and underemployed people in a similar fashion. Then he calls it good news.
RightRing | Bullright