Hillary does UK the wrong way

If you thought you had heard everything before, this will make you question that. Hillary said a lot of things that were wrong. Now she compares herself to Winston Churchill.

Yes, this will remain about her worst attempt at relevancy. Whopper Alert!

Clinton on being a polarizing figure: ‘I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars’

By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.

“I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn’t they?” she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee then immediately claimed she wasn’t actually comparing herself to Churchill, before going on to elaborate on the analogy.

Churchill went into the political wilderness between the two World Wars and during that time was a key voice criticizing then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward Adolf Hitler. He would go on to become prime minister himself and help lead the Allies to victory in World War II.

The Guardian report notes that Clinton made the Churchill reference “a fraction too quickly for the line to sound spontaneous.”

Clinton continued: “I mean, I’m not comparing myself, but I’m just saying people said that, but he was right about Hitler, and a lot of people in England were wrong. And Churchill was a pain. He kept popping up all the time.”

Clinton indeed has remained a polarizing figure, with her popularity falling since the election, as she has stayed in the public eye with her book tour and media interviews.
She told the Guardian she is not going to “call it a day” anytime soon.

“It feels like a duty. It feels like patriotism, and it feels necessary. I’m not going anywhere,” she said.

Clinton also used the Guardian interview to comment on the separation of families at the border in the wake of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” that ordered that all illegal border crossers be prosecuted. Trump has ordered the separations to be stopped, but critics are still fighting the prosecutions and other detentions.

Clinton said that she is worried that some of the minors may never be reunited, saying that that question is “keeping me up at night.”

“Absolutely I worry about that. I’m worried that some children will not be reunited,” she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/clinton-on-being-polarizing-figure-im-sure-said-that-about-churchill-between-wars.html

 

There are some things you can do; some things you can barely get away with passing off. And some things you ought never to have a logical reason for even thinking about trying to pull off. She’s strong on the 3rd one.

Then there are times when you should be laughed off the stage in a straight jacket, never to be heard from again. Why is that not happening, you may ask?

Secondly, she is a like Madonna. Remember her protest bombshell?

The problem is the amount of forethought she gave that comment. They questioned the spontaneity, You know she plotted out the comparison, practiced it, and tried it out on her staff. They said “that’s good”.

Just how she did the Deplorables comment, then bounced it off people in the Hamptons. Maybe what happens in the Hamptons should stay the hell in the Hamptons. Or at least get buried in the darkest crevices of one’s last fleeting brain cell. This is one.

Let me paraphrase and sum up Hillary’s message: ‘I’m not done pissing off the last person, even people who voted for me, yet. I will not be stopped because there is an unlimited potential for hatred of me out there.’ Face it, now that she cannot demand huge amounts of money for influence anymore, that is her only motivation left.

The only thing that keeps Hillary up at night, after all that Chardonnay, is thinking up a new crazy excuse or comparison for her loss to tell people. Even if there is no market. What she is really worried about being reunited is her candidacy. Relevancy is not her friend.

Advertisements

Dems in their own words: GOP ad

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

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

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

 

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

The #WalkAway Movement is on the rise.

Dem Dumpster Fire: Radicals vs. SCOTUS

Today is June 27th, 2018, henceforth to be known as the first day of the Democrat Dumpster Fire, and the hysterical meltdown that ensued to November.

This is what happens, the Democrats become unglued when they don’t get their way.

More at Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/politics/liberals-decry-kennedys-retirement/

Here come the tears…

Working Nazi, death camps and Kennedy into the same tweet.
But we are still working on the names for those death camps… creativity in mind.

The “democracy” is collapsing around them, to hear progs tell it. And the way I see it is the republic has been given a 2nd chance, fortunately, from an 8-year death spiral and we are making good use of it.

Now they demand we wait for 2018 elections to nominate a SCOTUS pick.

Meanwhile, we just had a primary election yesterday and Dems, or should I say Democrat Socialists, are telling you what they are about — loudly. The commies have officially cannibalized the Democrat Party. So when they lecture about ‘moderates,’ you can laugh right in their face.

This shows the other thing Democrats do, they lie and then twist everything into a Gordian Knot. They think we can only nominate a Supreme Court Justice every 2 years.

Notice what the term “norms” really means to Leftists. They get their power and way… or revolution. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing it always meant to them for the last 50 years. Just that they now openly admit it. And now some of our naive Repub brethren cannot deny it.

But it is the same thing “mainstream” means to Democrats. Sheila Jackson Lee does a post-primary interview to repeat that’s who we are as Democrats, “we are a big tent party.” No, they consolidated into the commie mainstream. Who is the Dumpster Fire?

Finally, Democrats always complain that Donald Trump is just a reality TV star.
But he completely exposed the ‘reality‘ of who Democrats and the commie Left are.

Russian Election Meddling

Democrats want us to know that Russians tried to and meddled in our 2016 election. Gasp, “Holy Cow, Batman!” … feigned outrage wearing my best Casablanca face, “Shocked!”

This report article is excellent reading and a good resource.

Russia Meddled and Almost Nobody Cared, Until . .

By Steven J. Allen | June 23rd, 2018

Political leaders and journalists are deeply concerned about Russian meddling in U.S. elections. Took ’em long enough.

The Russians have been meddling in U.S. elections for at least 70 years. see

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/23/russia-meddled-and-almost-nobody-cared-until/

Serving up a heaping helping of care for anyone interested. And the Dems have been in on, colluding in, the meddling about as long. Their cohorts in the media have been right there with them as long.

Which is why Ted Kennedy could have promised the US media’s help to Andropov, leader of the Communist Party, so they could speak directly to the American people in hopes of undermining Reagan. They demurred. But accepted Obama’s flexibility pledge.

That’s another thing that is not new with the left: the traitorous schemes of their commie roots. Now they are outraged? The Left suffers from a severe case of exposure.

In November, what will we remember?

The strategy for Republicans to win in November amounts to one thing at the top of everything. National issues win. On the fly in less than 800 words.

What the public cares most about are the national issues, which is why Trump won the way he did. That didn’t change. The big picture is now optimistic but needs more clarity.

National issues simply means broad popular issues. The same as 2016. This is not to say that local issues are irrelevant, but the same national issues do affect people locally. It is like a template: budgets, tax cuts, strong military, security, illegal immigration, border enforcement, the wall, jobs and a cadre of others as part of the local mix. Add to that the rise of Sanctuary Cities, pols who support them, and Leftists’ attempts to usurp power.

But face it, local school budgets and zoning ordinances are not the stuff of a national election. Though notice how Democrats try to nationalize them? No, voters go to polls to vote on their congressional reps and, yes, now senators. (17th amend did that) See, Democrats try to nationalize everything to suit their agenda.

We, on the other hand, as conservatives and Republicans, have a great basket of issues people care about, including the blue collar workforce. The fact that unions haven’t caught on should not effect it. There is no one else standing up for people. And those people are still fed up, and now at all the Democrats’ obstruction.

And Democrats are flush with cultural and divisive issues which are not the people’s agenda. Of course, their identity politics requires they play that game. But it is a huge turnoff to voters. Why favor a segment of people when you can appeal to all people?

When people look at their finances, of course they are concerned about jobs, growth, the GDP and spending. Promising someone a free college education doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. Appealing to black lives matter rhetoric doesn’t help anyone. They are identity issues. Screaming racism solves what? Notice how Democrats, to their credit, try to identify with what are now Trump voters. They can’t, yet want to sound Trumpian. But that is the guy they want to impeach as soon as they get their chance.

Republicans cannot be naval gazing, just fighting with themselves, handing Democrats ammunition. Bob Corker went off his little rocker, again, to attack any Trump supporters. He called them “cult-like.” I have a real cult to introduce Corker to. The mirror.

Recently, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote a column explaining the threat this election poses to Republicans and Trump. Impeachment was a big part of it. Understanding that, and impeachment itself, should be a part of this election process. He said much the same thing about national issues. A clarion warning, it offers some inspiration.

Here is the only conclusion I come to: just take all those big, important issues people care about and put them up against the only major issue to Democrats, impeachment.

After all, what would Democrats say, if they were honestly nuanced: (for a sampler)

1) We are going to make you less safe.
2)We’ll make the border less secure — open it up to everyone!
3)We’re going to raise your taxes and explode the budget, at the same time.
4)We are going to tar and feather Trump, first, then Impeach him.
5)We want to roll back your tax cuts and the last election.
6)We want to make America sorry for electing Trump — revenge, payback.
7)We want more sanctuary cities, more ‘sanctuary dances’ like the Philly Mayor’s.
8)We want your guns too, what good is a majority if we can’t take people’s freedoms?
9)We want to stop investigating DOJ, and cover up the Deep State agenda.
10)We will take the abuse of power and obstruction to a whole new level.
11)We will ram our Obamacare back onto the front burner for the 11th year.
12)We would like to turn California into about 5 new Liberal states too — like the way we gerrymander districts. Eric Holder probably has a plan for that.

 Yet that is only for starters. We will just be rehearsing and warming up for phase two, our 2020 takeover. I think we’ve proven our electioneering prowess and capabilities.

 

Not much of a choice when you look at it that way.
We need to finish what we started. Let the Red Tide roll.

Right Ring | Bullright

After Action Report: Russia

One issue of a blog is you can tend to repeat things. But there are times and things that need repeated, maybe often. Such is the case with motives for the Russia, Trump investigation. Subversives have been very, very busy.

I said it before but the profound factor that sticks in my craw is the cause of the Trump investigation. To call it a Russia investigation is really pathetic. They talk about obstruction of justice. That ain’t a Russia issue. In my younger days, one of my most important lessons was it was not enough to know the how but you have to know the why, too.

In this Russia and Trump thing, we are hearing more and more about the how. I think we know most of it. But I notice they stay pretty silent on the why. We have seen the deep dark ways Obamafiles went about things, with dirty hands, and yet the media stays away from discussing why. Well, they speculated on every other related thing. How come they can’t come to grips to question that? At least Joe DiGenova has reminded us that they framed Trump in this entire thing in retaliation for the election. They try to diminish his integrity by calling it conspiracy theory. Oh, but it was a conspiracy, after all.

Obama had a Russia problem, which he could no longer cover up or just ignore. Even his underlings were prodding him to do something. Ala, along came Trump. He made the perfect scapegoat. Use the Russia problem as the reason to investigate Trump. And use it they did. That is the thing, the big lie, that hangs over this whole smoke cloud. The problem was the genesis for investigating Trump. It makes no sense to most people. That didn’t seem to matter. Push a narrative hard enough and it becomes a fact.

But it served the purpose. It got Obama out of the huge hole he had — an action deficit — to do something about Russia. It appeared like the Obama administration was doing something about Russia when its motives were clearly on Trump. It would bury the truth that he failed to respond, some say was complicit, in the Russia problem. It would alter his historical legacy by substituting Trump for the Russia problem. And it would be the perfect cover for investigating Trump and his entire campaign. Bad enough that it was not a last minute thought. It had been built over months. But the time came when he could formerly merge the two, supposedly seamlessly, so you couldn’t see where one ended and the other started — or where his complicit incompetence started or ended. Or where his malfeasance started because it never ended.

Now what we have is the Deep State running things, in the absence of Obama officials. And the Deep State has surfaced at their pinnacle of power in the DOJ. Sure they have ties throughout but where would their power be at its zenith? Of course when in control in the DOJ. Which is all why now Holder is calling on DOJ employees to defy the Trump administration as well as refuse to cooperate with Congress. As Holder explained in a telegraphed statement tailored directly to them, there have to be times when you just “say no” — to requests from outside the department. This of course would render the DOJ a sovereign power answerable and accountable to no one.

This does make it the most powerful department of the government. It will solidify the control of the Deep State and prevent it from being contested or routed out. But that is precisely why it is so important to challenge the DOJ, even if it is not desirable or popular. It was made to order to cover a multitude of sins of Obama’s. And it didn’t take much for the public to follow their (Obama’s and his lieutenants’) lead. People had been led by the string of mainstream media for years. And Media would do Deep State’s dirty work for them. Media had built up suspicion of Trump from the beginning. It was simply a matter of bringing all sides together: the media’s disdain for Trump, the left’s dissatisfaction and grief over the election, FBI and intelligence’s campaign of investigation and a plot against him, with a good old time-honored strategy or plot against their political opponents. It wouldn’t take much to unite them all in a choreographed coup even once Trump took power.

At the point Trump won the election, all efforts had to be shifted to resistance. Russia looked like even a better cover for that purpose. But the real point was that once the dubious Trump investigation began, right on through with their best efforts of broadening it into a huge counterintelligence investigation, along with Obama’s intentional urging, all was set firmly in place to take on a mind of its own. Especially with the absence of Obama officials after inauguration. Obama knew it would go on and on like they always do. The best part is Trump would be enshrined in one of Obama’s greatest failures — to respond to Russia with any substantial credibility. They wanted to saddle then bury Trump with Obama’s treasonous incompetence.

A solution to the Russia problem. It would no longer be his failure but a problem hung around Trump’s neck. It was also a political solution, the kind Obama liked. Better still it would continue on long after he left office. People would no longer complain or point to Obama as a weak link in one of the biggest elections and greatest upsets in history. They would blame Trump. This is how sinister these people are. The Deep State would cooperate without urging, because they would protect their radical czar.

In the process, Obama destroyed the credibility of the DOJ and FBI in his swamp of subversion. But who cares? Which is more valuable, saving Obama’s legacy or the FBI’s? We know which wins and it isn’t even close. Besides. the DOJ and FBI have their advocates to defend their reputations, at all costs, and they will. Mueller and Rosenstein will creatively defend the assault on the country and election by DOJ and intelligence. They can be counted on for that purpose. As usual, if successful, Obama would get away with offloading the entire blame for his treason and sedition onto Trump.

Obama and his vast number of cohorts throughout government suffered no accountability, at least so far. Can history ignore this choreographed corruption? How do you delete this treason, and now sedition, from the record?

Right Ring | Bullright

Langley, we have a problem

The London-to-Langley Spy Ring

The roots of Obamagate become clearer.

George Neumayr– The American SpectatorMay 25, 2018,

Even before the first Republican primary, a London-to-Langley spy ring had begun to form against Donald Trump. British spies sent to CIA director John Brennan in late 2015 alleged intelligence on contacts between Trumpworld and the Russians, according to the Guardian.

Here’s the crucial paragraph in the story:

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Notice it doesn’t say the “Trump campaign” but “figures connected to Trump.” One of those figures was Michael Flynn, who didn’t join the campaign until February 2016. But Brennan and British intelligence had already started spying on him, drawing upon sham intelligence from Stefan Halper, a long-in-the-tooth CIA asset teaching at Cambridge University whom Brennan and Jim Comey would later send to infiltrate the Trump campaign’s ranks.

It appears that Halper had won Brennan’s confidence with a false report about Flynn in 2014 — a reported sighting of Flynn at Cambridge University talking too cozily with a Russian historian. Halper had passed this absurdly simpleminded tattle to a British spy who in turn gave it to Brennan, as one can deduce from this euphemistic account in the New York Times about Halper as the “informant” …./:

More: https://spectator.org/the-london-to-langley-spy-ring/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

 

 

The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence and security organisation responsible for providing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom.[3] Based in “The Doughnut” in the suburbs of Cheltenham, GCHQ is the responsibility of the country’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but it is not a part of the Foreign Office and its director ranks as a Permanent Secretary.

Oh, and let me guess again, Obama, Jarrett, Rhodes, Rice etc. didn’t know anything about what was going on?

Another wicked excuse for Hillary

One more excuse to Hillary’s bottomless bucket list of denials, now from Politico.

Hannity.com

Politico published an article Sunday titled, “Trump thrives in areas that lack traditional news outlets,” suggesting the President was able to “Swamp Clinton” in areas that had low subscription rates to local newspapers.

The data suggests those voters relied on national news outlets and social media for information instead of more traditional media outlets such as newspapers and local television reports.

Notice how in this one they get to take a shot at ill-informed people, popular anti-MSM sentiment, and pat themselves on the back while attacking social media and online news. If only people would have listened to them. The hubris.

Next, they’ll be blaming MSM’s lack of credibility and downfall on Trump, like NYT. So then why are the left and their MSM minions dumber than rocks? So dumb to believe all of Hillary’s excuses? So stupid they never saw that big Trump truck coming?

Sicko Soros Election Meddling

Calling all election meddling cops.
Breitbart

Hungary: George Soros Interferes in Election Campaign Through NGOs, Media

“Hungary’s government spokesman Zoltán Kovács has warned that open-borders financier George Soros is interfering in the country’s upcoming election through pressure groups and media outlets.

Speaking on Kossuth Radio on Sunday, Dr. Kovács referenced a recording obtained by The Jerusalem Post which revealed the head of the Soros-funded Civil Liberties Union for Europe admitting to lobbying Germany against Hungary.

The government spokesman said that the audio recording proves that “forces arranged into an international network” are attempting to pressure Hungary into abandoning its NGO transparency law and anti-mass migration policy.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/04/hungary-george-soros-interferes-election-ngos-media/

Wait for public outcry, and demand for investigations. Waiting……

Old theories on Dems validated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s train wreck of excuses

Once again, Hillary’s ship of lies sailed abroad to promote her, well, stolen victory.

Townhall

“And his whole campaign — ‘Make America Great Again’ — was looking backward. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are — you know, whatever your problem is, I’m gonna solve it.”

Hillary muses that many white women were prepared to do the “right” thing until that dastardly James Comey intervened:

‘What happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until former director of the FBI Jim Comey dropped that very ill-advised letter on Oct. the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their work places were being told, “She’s going to jail, you don’t want to vote for her. It’s going to be terrible you can’t vote for that.” It stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough. Because I was ahead and I was winning and I thought I had fought my way back,’ she concluded.

Okay, this needs a translation so allow me. What she meant is this:

‘I had a full-blown revolution going on among women bullied by men and others, long intimidated to vote otherwise. (I should be commended for that accomplishment)  This was real progress for the weaker women who were iberated to vote for me. That is until Jim Comey put the kibosh on that by dropping the investigation hammer on me. That hammer was to be used on Trump. How dare he?

Well, my vast lead, and these liberated vaginas, were halted in their tracks. I tried to almost fight my way back from that, unsuccessfully of course. It totally overcame those newly liberated women with weak knees. They believed this fraudulent bunk about me. After their years of abuse and victimization from powerful men and interests, they succumbed to the plot. My lead evaporated. We tried to correct the record.

It didn’t work, there wasn’t enough time.

But that distrust should have all gone on Trump. I spent a lot of money, as did the DNC, to make sure the voters got the message. They blew it. I mean those incompetent boobs who were paid to arrange this whole investigation into Donald Trump, the dossier and all, with the intelligence community and Obama’s fledglings, were supposed to stop him earlier. They clearly were not up to the challenge he presented. The kicker is Obama used the same vendors in 2012. I even paid them more money. What’s that tell you?

So I did not fail. The village failed to deliver for me. And well, those foolish women who succumbed to bullying tactics should have known better. But I did everything I could do. That torpedo on the 28th came out of nowhere. Now here I am. I didn’t lose, I was prevented from victory. I was well on my way to winning. They stole it from me.

Everyone with a brain knows that. I even had a huge excess of voters in California who still did their duty to elect the first woman. Those backwards areas listening to Trump double crossed me in the end. They kowtowed under the pressure. The bullies — who were always after me and Bill — screwed me over, in a race that mattered for women’s liberation. Those vast right-wing bastards. And I won’t stop talking about it.’

There’s her whole unfiltered story.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media are World’s Apart

The dogs of war are now the media, mainstream media, and they are foaming at the mouth. They don’t even want to wait till the midterms this year, they are functioning like the activated base. On one side are a couple conservative media channels with a handful of conservative news outlets. On the other is mainstream media’s bullhorn bleating out their script, daily. (feign shock, outrage, mention unfit & impeachment & craziness a lot)

Let me back up a little. We’ve now evolved away from the election cycle. We have gone into the permanent presidential cycle. Far from the way it was with Obama. The next campaign started the day after Trump was elected — more like it just continued. We see it unfolding before our eyes. It is now a perpetual campaign. To deny that would be naive.

I think Trump knows that but how much the rest of the GOP does, I don’t know. The Democrats certainly know it. That’s what they want. And there are not really any Congressional campaigns, everything is based on and a referendum of the presidential election. Reps are only cogs in that wheel. I sort of regret we didn’t make it that way with Obama. None of the Republicans wanted to hear that. Now that we can all see how bad Obama really was, why didn’t they do more to run against and stop him?

However, today it is different. There is no end to election cycles. Perpetual politics is campaigning everyday, 24/7 and it never stops. We are in a world where you can win an election but the race never stops. This year, again, the black caucus is lining up to protest (boycott) the State of the Union Address. For the first time, maybe we won’t see Sheila Jackson Lee jockeying for her prestigious isle spot for the camera.

And of course Dems will be instructed not to applaud or stand, or show any agreement, during the speech. So if they aren’t actively campaigning in this never-ending (2016) election, then they are in protest or boycott mode. All Democrats are radicals now or, as I said, reps are Pelosi-bots, Senators are the clerics.

But back to the media. It follows the Dems lead. They do the same thing in MSM every day: beat the drum and keep the narrative alive. No other news matters, the only thing to talk about is Trump. Any congressional races will be weighted the same way. Conservative media covers that and all the rest. On the good side, Trump owns the media air, even if it is focused against him. But the people can only tolerate crap for so long. It’s already been a year since election. The left has a habit of wearing out their narrative. It is now 24/7 overreach and overkill, with no other message. The two media sides have never been farther apart than now. No separation of media and campaign politics, but big separation between both types of media’s messages.

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s Hallucination On Power

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

Real Clear Politics

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

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

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

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

Such blatantly arrogant hypocrisy but you aren’t done.

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

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

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

Explicit National Threat

Well, Hillary just issued a clear threat to the future of America and generation unborn. From California, where else?

“There is too much at stake not to speak out about the things that matter most,” Clinton said Monday night at the University of California-Davis.

“Some of those people online and elsewhere who were saying like ‘You know, we kind of wish she’d just wouldn’t say anything anymore’ and ‘we kinda just hope she disappears’ have not been following me for the last 40 years, I can tell you that much. I am not going anywhere other than right into the middle of the debate about the future.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-i-am-not-going-anywhere-other-than-right-into-the-middle-of-the-debate-about-the-future/article/2637000

Ah oh, that just sent shivers down spines of people and babies still in the womb.

Except that the debate about the future should in no way include any Clintons.

Haven’t they slimmed our past enough already? So old Clintons never slither away, as long as there’s still money to vacuum up on the way. That was a threat!

For someone who couldn’t be found for days on end in the campaign, and went many months without a press conference, she is suddenly everywhere in interviews, TV, appearances, talk shows, book stores, auditoriums, universities, fundraisers, Hollywood block parties. Now airdropping into future America. Fetuses should be petrified.

It’s nothing new. That is what she and her Planned Parenthood allies have been doing for decades: robbing America’s future and posterity. Grim Reapers.

Russia Probe Non-Statement: Swamp Update

In probably a desperate act of relevancy, the Senate Intelligence committee announced Wednesday it would hold a press conference on the Russian inquiry into the 2016 election.


‘No evidence, but we’re still looking, looking, looking. We’ve got lots of doors — ones not closed or locked by Special counsel anyway — and we continue to search.’ But they cannot give up the ghost of the 2016 election witch hunt. ‘But we’re “expanding” it’.

There was no new information and virtually no answers. Why they even had to hold it, I don’t know? On the day and time Trump went to Las Vegas to visit victims, they had to hold a press conference. I once had a little respect for Sen Burr, but that is long gone. What a putz he turned out to be.

So they made news for not making any news, except to verify that they allow the Mueller witch hunt investigation to hold our government hostage. I’d like to know where in the Constitution that a special counsel is to control Congress?

The only big question answered was whether they would release questionable Russia Facebook ads? The answer was: “we don’t release documents provided to our committee.” They could have just issued a statement. Maybe they could remind leftville media that the electorate determines election results, not ads. Media doesn’t know.

All I know is that this is not the government we elected. We’d like that government returned to us ASAP.

They should have called this as a Swamp Update or an “Update from the Swamp.”

Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation

Mueller Scorches the Earth

by Andrew C. McCarthy September 23, 2017 | National Review

His pre-dawn raid was meant to intimidate Manafort, not just to collect evidence. Robert Mueller’s sprawling special-counsel investigation is playing hardball. It was not enough to get a search warrant to ransack the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, even as the former Trump campaign chairman was cooperating with congressional investigators. Mueller’s bad-asses persuaded a judge to give them permission to pick the door lock. That way, they could break into the premises in the wee hours, while Manafort and his wife were in bed sleeping. They proceeded to secure the premises — of a man they are reportedly investigating for tax and financial crimes, not gang murders and Mafia hits — by drawing their guns on the stunned couple, apparently to check their pajamas for weapons.

Mueller’s probe more resembles an empire, with 17 prosecutors retained on the public dime. So . . . what exactly is the crime of the century that requires five times the number of lawyers the Justice Department customarily assigns to crimes of the century? No one can say. The growing firm is clearly scorching the earth, scrutinizing over a decade of Manafort’s shady business dealings, determined to pluck out some white-collar felony or another that they can use to squeeze him. You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump’s Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it’s supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor — make that: 17 hyper-aggressive prosecutors — and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find. …/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451649/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-manafort

 
So it is an investigation in search of a crime. More, it is an investigation seeking to justify itself — job #1. See justification of itself and its conduct is the central mission. The rest is collateral. And to do that by or using any means necessary.  Whatever it takes.

Interestingly enough, someone else has also described Mueller’s operation as building another DOJ. That gives me pause, it sure seems that way. Just what we need, another department of justice, or injustice as the case may be.

Now if it were up to me to try to explain this investigation(no one is better than McCarthy), this would only be my starting point. The how and why is another matter.

In the meantime, just imagine if they tried this on Clinton. Oops, no they never would even think of it. But there would be no major Special Counsel “investigation” anyway.

(next)

Hillary finds the worm in the election apple

Last week, I heard Hillary say that big Russia influence operation turned women against her. This weekend she told us that men cost her votes with women.

I figure that now proves Putin and Moscow and men had greater influence with women than she did. It seems Hillary doesn’t speak for women as much as she thought she did.

That piece is from Glamour magazine:
Hillary recounted:

“Sheryl [Sandberg] ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure—and I’m talking principally about white women—they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl,'” she said. “And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me; as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.” [read]

That is Hillary using what Sandberg told her as validation for why women voted against her the way they did. Hillary must have missed all those nasty, vile attacks against women who supported Trump. Attacks on Trump were justified. What a one way Diva in Denial.

See in Hillary’s world, women may get to vote themselves but Hillary gets to explain why they voted the way they did. If it were Trump or anyone else, there would be demands for proof. Not for Hillary, her blanket assertions are more than enough evidence.

Note to Hillary

So Hillary, here’s an exercise for you. Sit down with a glass of your imported wine and contemplate out of all those votes you lost by… how many of those votes did you lose because of Trump? I’m pretty sure it was the overwhelming number. In reality, he cost you the election. You lost votes to Trump. I think you need to let that sink in.

Come to think of it: Putin, Trump, and now men cost you votes with women. What’s that say about your influence with women? Then why don’t you just blame those women, too, for costing you the election? Go ahead. You already blamed the people that had influence over them. Don’t let women get away with it. Hold their feet to the fire, Hillary.

Of course after her servergate, deleted emails and Benghazi, anyone who buys Hillary’s explanation on anything should have their head examined.

Or maybe you just had one of those delayed “bimbo eruptions” of your own, Hillary.

We Aren’t Open, Hillary

Clinton won’t rule out questioning legitimacy of election

By Jordan Fabian – 09/18/17 | The Hill

Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election if Russian interference turned out to be deeper than previously thought.

“No, I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said in an interview with NPR published Monday.

The defeated Democratic nominee stressed, however, that she does not believe there is a means to officially challenge the election’s outcome.

“I don’t know if there’s any legal, constitutional way to do that,” Clinton said. “I think you can raise questions.”

Clinton has repeatedly blamed Russia’s efforts to intervene in last year’s election for her loss to Donald Trump, but her latest comments reflect the depth of her frustration with the Kremlin’s efforts.

More: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351189-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-election

 

Is there any reality she won’t question? I can see, it is never going to be over with Hillary. Hey Hill, remember when you also told us that one about not questioning the legitimate results of the election? A year later and still going. We voted. I know you don’t like how we voted but stick a fork in it. You are now recorded in history as the loser. One and done.

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