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?

Advertisements

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

In your white face America: following the left’s narrative of racism

Par for the course on the left. They are letting this one fly to fill the the October air in The Atlantic, explaining why being white — or whiteness — is all you really need to know about Trump. That on the heels of the eight-year reign of Obama. Well, sample or check it for yourself. In keeping with liberal orthodoxy, it is lengthy.

Here are a few of the more graceful excerpts. Who says the left doesn’t dabble in conspiracies? (how many times has that been disproved?)

“Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump’s counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.”

I heard the first message a lot, but no, it was from Trump. All through his campaign. But that was not enough for the race-baiting hustlers, who wanted some type of guarantee.

“Replacing Obama is not enough—Trump has made the negation of Obama’s legacy the foundation of his own.”

Sure just pave over that whole Barack Obama projection/blame and, while at it, the diaspora-pushing meme thing.

“And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America’s first white president.”

But contrary to this alternative reality, what Obama ran on or did in office was use George Bush as a voodoo pincushion for every alleged thing wrong with America and its policies. Thus, Obama blamed Bush for all ills, including his own failures. He set any bar.

That is what happened for eight years. Not to mention running against Bush who wasn’t on the ballot. And that was all before Obama’s world-apology tour and radicalism in tow which followed. All which Americans were supposed to accept and celebrate due to white guilt.

It is interesting at times to know just how the the leftists think. (we already know what) This would be a classical type screed or rant by any measure, though it whistles by the political graveyard. What he refuses to do is apply his standard, racial critique to Obama. He may be horrified at what he finds. But that would require some honesty.

Kasich’s wide berth platform

Speaking of triggering politics, another fringe guy is back in the news. Ohio Gov John Kasich. Just remember his boycott a year ago of the GOP convention, in Ohio.

Now he is back out pimping his book and criticizing Trump where possible His lectures are numerous to the GOP — who in case he hadn’t noticed did win the election, despite his persistent resistance.

So he keeps up appearances on MSM and CNN, always happy to give him plenty of airtime. Reports now from CNN say he is in talks, collaboration, with Colorado Gov Hickenlooper .– a name he has been dropping around for a year.

(CNN) — Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper have entertained the idea of forming a unity presidential ticket to run for the White House in 2020, a source involved the discussions tells CNN.

Under this scenario, Kasich, a Republican, and Hickenlooper, a Democrat, would run as independents with Kasich at the top of the ticket, said the source, who cautioned it has only been casually talked about. /….

Politics of “casual” convenience.

Kasich repeatedly denied plans on running in 2020. But since it is his favorite pass time, do you really think he can refuse? Why don’t all these GOP resistance join the resistance on the left? Who is kidding whom? Now he is flirting with running as an independent.

Exactly what is ohe ffering Hickenlooper? Certainly he is wasting no time, 7 months into Trump’s presidency. Kasich’s never-Trump campaign never ended. How about Joe Scarborough if Hickenlooper declines?

Better hacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Having An Emotional Fit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Evil Obama clowns’ radical rabid strategy

Time for a situational evaluation. Obama is not gone, Even as his legacy is shrinking into thin air, he trots around as if he were a king. He pops up everywhere conspicuously to undermine Trump’s agenda and administration. Along with his perpetual criticism — something he has experience at, criticizing and undermining sitting presidents.

Obama’s former advisers have morphed into trolls across social media — including Fiction Ben Rhodes — to preserve Obama’s disappearing agenda, desperately trying to lay credit to anything good happening now. So the Shadow Government of Obama is now fully operational. He denies the past and the one president policy. He has no real legacy, he must steal one, or create one from thin air. Enter fiction writer Ben Rhodes to the rescue.

As Bill Clinton said about Obama’s campaign: “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” And it’s getting bigger every day. So many lies, so little time, so much to hide, so much to revise, so much to do — nipping at the heels of Trump.

The insults fly from everywhere at Trump, both personal and on his presidency. Something Obama never had. The opposition of the Resistance is in ful bloom, with the willing collaboration of media. The calls for impeachment have begun and they push the 25th amendment, something reserved for drastic circumstances. Another historic first.

But the left and Democrats’ desperation calls for drastic measures. So they attach the word unpresidential to everything Trump does: his Twitter, his speeches, his choices, his actions. Everything Trump does is called dangerous. Obama weaponized government.

However, what is truly unpresidential and unprecedented is Obama. The lying chameleon is on the loose and fully engaged in undermining the 45th president of the United States. He is unpresidential at every level, like he always was. What he is doing is unprecedented. He went straight on the road, armed with his expense account and vacation stipend, to travel the world on his campaign to undermine the current president, Trump.

What one president policy? One president at a time policy. The attacks and politics should stop at waters’ edge. Remember all that? Gone like the wind. But Obama won’t leave the stage. On Trump’s first trip, he went wheels up for the Middle East and they rolled out the attacks. Incidentally, Obama’s specialty was always going overseas to attack America and his political opponents. None of that was strange because it was normal under Obama. Yet they shunned anyone criticizing Obama, or fighting back. Press refrained from being critical anytime, especially when Obama went abroad.

But now that offshore targeting is the new normal. Yet it is now unpatriotic and unpresidential and unprecedented for Trump to say anything to defend himself or even criticize the press offshore. Obama thrived on offshore attacks. Media celebrated them.

Obama is trolling Trump around the world on the public stage. He seems to think he is still president that what he says still matters. So he talks to world leaders after meetings with Trump. He tells them his policies, which apparently Trump should be obligated to pursue, are the only option. Who exactly does he think he is? He cares nothing about America, and never did. He aids and abets our enemies, seeking to undermine the current administration any way he can. He is invested in America’s demise, as much as Putin.

At the very same time, his apologists come out to defend his operational strategy by saying he is reluctant to get politically involved in current policies. No, he is not reluctant at all; he is more anxious now than he ever was to talk about N. Korea as a threat, or other problems he left in his wake. He wants to be very involved. Who can tell him to back off? He cannot give up the podium. He refuses to let the current president do his job. Then his network of hacks are busy in the media and public stage criticizing him, as if they care anything about America or Americans.

Maybe he has too much time on his hands simply because there are no current investigations or special counsels in place for what he did, at every level? What we need is some form of accountability for it all. We really don’t need hearings, though, we need prosecutions. We need grand juries and indictments. We need hearings about stripping him of his privileges. We need these rat bastards to testify for what they’ve done.

 

Finally, we need to enforce the One President at a time Policy. Obama doesn’t seem to get it on his own. He always had problems about rules applying to himself. He always had to push the envelope of what he couldn’t do. So where is Congress to tell him?

Now on his second trip abroad, to the G-20 summit, they stage one great question about, what else, Russia and the elections. So Trump is attacked for responding to the question. Media later conflated world “diplomacy” with the way he answered the hostile press. They are two separate things. He goes to the G-20 Summit and all press cares about is Russia and the last election. He gives an excellent speech in Polland, mentioning Russia, but all they care about is Russia and the last election — “attack on our democracy.”

The press is attacking our democracy every day, denying the results of the people’s will, stomping down and mocking the people’s freedom of speech. Then they totally ignore the huge mess that Obama left us. No honeymoon… they want to steal the election victory from Republicans. Just act as if it didn’t happen. Then they want to impeach him.

But that’s okay, because Obama is still busy flirting around having personal meetings with world leaders, present and former: Trudeau, Merkel, Moon, Macron, David Cameron, and Matteo Renzi in Milan before slidinng into home-turf in Indonesia. Even NYT, libs paper of record, comfortably acknowledged, “One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Obama was trolling President Trump.” Why be forgiven for thinking it, that is what he is doing? Then they quickly added too that:

Mr. Obama has generally tried to stay above the political fray in his nascent post-presidency. But in these charged times, just breaking bread with a world leader can take on a political subtext. It is a tension his advisers recognize, and say they try to mitigate by holding get-togethers at Mr. Obama’s hotel and avoiding the trappings of leader-to-leader meetings.”

He’s really trying not to have these be platforms to weigh in on the issues of the day.” – NYT

No, he is not refraining from leader to leader meetings. He is making a point to go talk to them. For Pete’s sake, he is obviously and intentionally trying desperately to undermine Trump’s presidency. He is the first Presidential Troll.

Just last year, Obama had a completely different view. Obama wasted no time after election, on 11/14, saying ““there is one president at a time.” Then in December, at Christmas, the White House chief liar and adviser, Ben Rhodes, reiterated:

“On the president-elect, the first thing I’d just say is that there’s one president at a time. President Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, and we are taking this action, of course, as U.S. policy.” — Rhodes on Israel policy — Washington Examiner

I guess Obama now thinks having a foundation gives him license to operate with some presidential status he only wishes he had. But if they can pretend, certainly Obama can too. They’ll go along with Unprecedented, Treasonous and historic Unpresidential Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Clinton comes clean…. I mean dirty

If you are Hillary Clinton, then this makes an excellent opener for any conversation about the 2016 election.

Enter the ‘Responsibility Ruse’: a lesson in how not to take responsibility (set @ 8 min)

“I take full responsibility for every decision I made … but that is not why I lost.” – {of course it isn’t… you ignorant people, it wasn’t my falut…get it?]

So I think it’s important that we learn the real lessons of this last campaign. Because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections and our politics, they’re going after our economy, they’re going after our unity as a nation. …

Host: So you weren’t going to lie, good for you.
Hillary: right, well…yeah (gestures with hands in air).
Host: “Well”… I see you are rethinking that.

Hillary: Well, I’m not rethinking it, but everybody else better rethink it because we have to figure out how to combat this. [hint, hint…. people get the message]

Host: But that’s my point. My impression is that the Left, the Democrats, the liberals… whatever you want to call them, including Bernie Sanders folks, everybody on the Democratic side… which at one time maybe 12-15 years ago was ahead of Republicans on tech as it existed then is way behind now. And there’s a way to weaponize tech that doesn’t involve lying, or having Russians help you, just that its a political weapon, it’s a fact of life now . How do you.. how do we do it going forward?

Hillary: let me just do a comparison for you. So, I set up my campaign and we have our own data operation, I get the nomination, so I’m now the nominee of the Democratic party: I inherit nothing from the Democratic party.

Host: what do you mean, “nothing”?

Hillary: I mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong…. I had to inject money into it to keep it going.

I’m Hillary, I can strain the hell out of a gnat, but take responsibility? That’s not my bag!
But I do like saying the word though, it makes me feel so, you know, responsible and all.