Balloon Backfire: narrative rules supreme

After weeks since the Chinese spy balloon was shot down, Biden’s administration is twisting and turning in the wind over it. Not to clear the problem.

The idea was that they waited till it got clear across the continent to shoot it down. But now they want all the credit for having shot it down.

Unwrap this and all you find is politics. The political narrative is always more important than national security. That is just a fact with Biden.

Now we have Kamala commenting on it saying the balloon was not helpful. It needed to be shot down and we shot it down.

That last piece is probably more revealing than anything we heard from the administration. It needed to be shot down. Yep, that is what political expedience would have suggested. It needed to go bye-bye.

So why wait for a week across the country, that is if it needed to be shot down? The political narrative was driving the balloon from the beginning. And political narrative drove it to the beach in S. Carolina.

First it wasn’t necessary to do anything because we didn’t know.Then it was spotted and identified which was politically inconvenient. That would demand it be shot down. Plug that dynamic into it.

So why not shoot it at the boarder when it first arrived in Montana?

Just reverse the order. They only shot id down when it became the politically right thing to do for the narrative, when the first political narrative of denial failed. They tried telling us it was no threat.

See, when the people demanded an action, he could not just say no which would have been a dereliction of his duty. And no one believes Biden reflexively said “shoot” it down at the beginning. That would go against his character and his entire record.

That means between Montana and its detoured trip to South Carolina, they could not find one suitable place to shoot it down? No way. It was a plan to let it get to the ocean. And they managed that plan successfully.

But the narrative was supposed to remain that they did — albeit eventually — shoot it down, which was “the right thing to do.” But it only became the right thing when we found out, so the narrative had to change. Yet he locked in his stubbornness until it got there.

After that China balloon, the new narrative became: take immediate action and shoot anything down. Show them Top Gun Biden. That was to cover for their narrative being wrong in the first place.

When the narrative changes or they manage to change it, the politics changes with it. National security was never the first or even second priority. It was only narrative, narrative, narrative.

When the first narrative fails, plug in another narrative more suitable. But do not deny the objective in the first narrative. Even go back to the original one to spin and explain it away. Because sooner or later, you want to go back to the first narrative. See how it works?

Just like the battle over the cops. defund and work to limit the cops. Then deny doing so. But then go back to the original plan when it is convenient to do. By then people have accepted it and you can move on with your original plan. Only pretend to be shifting your position and narrative in the meantime. Lie lie lie.

The original plan was made clear and spelled out in Biden’s campaign to end drilling and fossil fuels . He denied it soon after he said it. But that is what he did anyway. Now he simply denies what his real objective is — because it never changed, only narrative changes.

This is why Biden makes an attractive traitor. He’s willing to tell us anything he needs to but nothing ever changes the traitorous plan. It is only a matter of narrative and getting that down. As if anyone could actually explain away treasonous acts. It’s all narrative all the time.

Narrative is just the political tool to get where they want to go. Well, because if they were honest people would oppose it. They know that.

Way back after Obama came to office, someone asked David Plouffe how they managed such a successful campaign? He told them it was all about controlling the narrative. They knew as long as they controlled the narrative, they would win. So, narrative is everything; it is their god.

Right Ring | Bullright | 2023

The Putin Price Hike

I refuse to sit this one out. I can’t “resist” it. Mama didn’t raise no fools. It’s like fried chicken, it’s just so good.

On Tuesday, Biden and Jen Psaki did what we expected after Joe made his announcement to ban Russian oil. They spun it like tops.

Psaki said it was a Putin price hike. Biden said blame Putin for the prices. Tennessee “fried chicken” propagandist, Steve Cohen went out to tell people that every time they fill their tank in sticker shock, they should think of sticking it to Putin – as if redirecting the blame will help assuage it.

In other words, people should proudly feel the pinch knowing they are getting even with Putin. Right, they’ll show him while running up the old credit card to gas up. “Take that, Puty!” (what a feel good moment it is)

 

So I’ll take them up on that. Okay, I will blame him:

Putin has raised the price tag of electing Joe Biden President significantly.

He raised the real cost exponentially, which will be felt by every American up and down the economic ladder. I hope they are happy.

And now we have Joe Biden blaming Vladimir Putin for one of his own biggest problems, since gas lighting us evidently did not work.

More fossil fuels not fossil fools. And more chicken, please!

**One for the tank: “70% Favor Increased U.S. Oil and Gas Production” – Rasmussen

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Back To The Russia Hoax And Dupes

A few people are being indicted in the Durham investigation. They are not government agents and are being generically charged for lying to feds. So that must mean they are just going after the liars not the feds who handled the hoax. That’s the running narrative.

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy is pushing this reasoning saying don’t get your hopes up because he is only targeting liars. It doesn’t mean crimes or government officials are complicit. Well this narrative has some flaws. Not that I have a much confidence in Durham’s positive outcome. McCarthy calls it “infuriating but not criminal.” Whether he is just playing down the propects on Durham’s investigation or not, it raises questions.

So then the narrative goes that the feds were duped. It wasn’t really their fault. They didn’t create it. They were fooled. Some say it was just “dirty campaign tricks” but not like there are criminal statutes for that and criminal conduct is another matter. Just walk through it with me.

Let’s remember this innocuous, “dirty campaign trick” (scheme) was rolled into a Special Counsel investigation at over 32 million tax dollars. Feds got duped? How does that happen organically without complicit willful intent? It also eventually got by that Special Counsel, too? Plus it wrecked dozens of lives and careers en route. How’s that just happen?

Now some clever Leftist may come along — not here — to suggest all the investigating and Special Counsel actions by itself demonstrates cause and reason it needed to happen. Justified on that alone.

The investigation justifies itself.

There you have it, the ludicrous defense of the investigation hoax in a nutshell. Use the fact they concocted an elaborate, corrupt investigation (scheme) to justify the Russian Hoax investigation. Use the investigation to substantiate itself. We did it; therefore it must have had to be done.

But the idea doesn’t stop there, because it can’t and was not the objective.

So we are to somehow believe Feds can discern lies from any Joe America — a serious offense for any citizen — but just cannot discern a lie when it comes to campaign hacks or nefarious foreign sources or intelligence operatives with glaringly obvious motives? (even if it was a counter-intelligence investigation.) And it is done in a national presidential election?

Just swallow all that. A counter-intell investigation requires sign off.

So then they (government/intelligence apparatus) enthusiastically uses those lies as a basis for a counter-intelligence investigation, and get dubious warrants, to ambitiously bring in a Special Counsel investigation (h/t to James Comey) of a then sitting president and National Security advisor of the United States.

Yeah, what are the odds on that happening without any willful intent to harpoon the new/incoming administration? Vegas anyone? Without the feds, government and their malicious conduct none of this happens. Now what are the odds this happens organically on the level?

But wait for it. Then they use — in press and media to defend their activities — the investigation itself to justify their investigation. Long shot?

But one more thing, we now know Dir. Brennan notified Justice Dep and even briefed Obama in August 2016 that Hillary’s campaign was running a dirty operation to accuse Trump of working with Russians. (a frame job)

Now if they are going to charge a few for lying and call it a day, it does not stand any test of basic credibility. So we cannot say laws were broken and crimes were committed in all of that? What of election law?

If that doesn’t rise to the level of some major, indictable crimes then get ready for the next viscous election. It’ll be a doozy! (I promise)

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

As It Was 9/11

In view of the upcoming 20^th anniversary of 9/11, I thought it would be good to it a little different than normal.

By that I mean in a lot of ways, differently. Not the same. This day has taken on a format and semblance on every anniversary. One of the most critical has always been simply remembering events. For some people it means remembering events of that day they experienced and how the attack on 9/11 intersected with those.

Well, the central 9/11 events then become the driving force but the secondary, personal events become the effects or collateral symptoms. I get it. That matters a lot.

It’s how we remember in associations.

This has always been done in various ways. For me, it has always been kind of sacred and I have not widely shared my personal story about the day. Everyone has one. And everyone’s story is important, at least to them, and no one story is more important than another one. That’s my view.  They are all important – both individually and collectively.

So my story is not the issue. I dwell more on the larger picture while keeping the personal sacred. However, there is a lot of common ground in the 9/11events, beyond remembering what you were doing.

It started off the most common of days, as normal as can be. This is the strange thing about it that it was so darn normal. Well, why wouldn’t it be? But almost too normal.

And that normal was breached by an evil that broke through our security bubble we had all taken for granted, which also was normal. The picture perfect day could not have been more normal along with our plans. A normalcy that was disturbed enough to question if we would ever have normal again? It made us long for the normal, rather than getting bored by it. We seemed unsure if normal could return?

Our sense of security, as we knew it, was popped in moments by the events themselves, unfolding in canons of news coverage hour by hour. Our personal world was invaded by outside events. It didn’t matter what you were doing, it had a personal effect on you.

That is why the personal became so important and yet so tied to national events. The two were merged in a way we had never felt before. Small, mundane things became trivial.

So there is a lot more in that day than just what happened and the sequence of events. And all were memorialized at the time in such a way only trauma and major significance can do.

 

Yet it is sacred that our national innocence was stolen at a time we were feeling most normal was surreal irony. What followed would become the most abnormal experience imaginable. But the reality was, prior to the attacks, conditions only added insult.

So my day, personally, is irrelevant as that goes. I could tell you what I was doing since it is etched in my mind. It is as if someone placed a new blank tape real in my memory just to record those events and what I did, every move and place.

It was preserved and stored in a place to be kept unedited with all the feelings recorded as well. Over the years, I have kept it as it was, then, in that segment of time. I treasured it, respected it, consulted it, and cherished it as my individual copy of history.

No one else had it, no one duplicated it. No one had access to it. And it was as good as anyone’s. I coveted the facts speckled over it. Others would have those facts, too, but no one had my original copy. It was as valuable as other copies, priceless all. Together, they make up a national treasury

A national library of feelings, facts and fears.

And few times over the years have I experienced those same feelings and concerns as that day and weeks that followed. Maybe a glimpse here and there but not on that same level.

One day, as if it were a time capsule, it will be opened for deeper reflection but that day has not yet come. It is sacred. I like my privacy and have a healthy respect for the sacred. Well, it may ferment like wine or get musty from sitting but it will always be there. It cannot be lost or destroyed. It is safe.

 

“Some people did something…“– Rep. Ilhan Omar to CAIR on March 23, 2019.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Picture it: America 2021

Just as you thought the US had enough real, serious and pressing problems to deal with, along comes Joe Biden to litter the stage with endless crises (created at the drop of a hat) Then, after every one, he shuffles off in denial at what he’s done.

As if every box in the closet marked “super-crisis,” Joe has to drag out into the room and open up to stimulate his own curiosities and the zombified adherents. The shocked look on his face only adds to the absurd plot line and effects.

Then, after exploding our outrage, he shuffles off for a respite. The spoiler alert should have been Obama saying, “never underestimate Joe’s ability to f— things up.” But no.

OBidenistas thought he was exactly the front man for this role. And it should have been named, like some novel, “Crazy Meets Crazier: the great fall of common sense.”

I could go on but why bother? It has the feel of chasing a garbage truck, when you can’t wait to get to the shower. But someone stole it. The question is how much intention is in the  plot line? Or is it a haphazard mixture to keep the outrage meter pegged?

 

But don’t take my word for it. The empire imploding is a theme.

Chris Evans,
EDITOR — The Telegraph

The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan has prompted fundamental questions about the future of Western foreign policy, with America stepping back from its usual role on the world stage. For Allister Heath, the crisis confirms that the era of US dominance is over. Racked with self-doubt, US elites have lost their faith in once-formative values like capitalism, democracy and even the American dream itself.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

How Stupid Are They?

Is anyone still in doubt about how stupid Democrats and the Left really are?

Remember when you were a kid a great tagline was “how stupid can you get?” It was a good accusation or slam against any absurdity and stupidity. That meant something, it made a point. Wasn’t it great when things were obvious, no explanation necessary?

 

But today we are actually finding out how stupid you really can get. Democrats are determined to win any competition over it. I’m not even sure they take themselves seriously. I’m sorry; they do and that is the problem.

For Leftists, the root cause in everything always involves blaming America first. It is where they start and where they end. The issue doesn’t matter,  the problem is America. Anything that happens around the world becomes a result of something the US did.

So Democrats and Leftists, who already despise America, are looking for any way they can blame America for the world’s biggest problems. They claim everything is the result of some US policy while they create the worst policy, foreign and domestic, in history.

Then they have the audacity to blame everything on America’s policies. Actually they are incapable of making a good policy. Former Sec of Defense Robert Gates in his memoir said virtually every foreign policy decision or position Joe Biden ever made was wrong.

I know, let’s put him in charge and make Joe president then. Bright move!

I don’t think kids have to ask anymore how stupid can you get because they already know. They see it on school policy firsthand. Now the Left wants to double down on stupid school policy, if they have not done enough damage over 60 years already. If they weren’t trying to destroy education they could have fooled me.

 

How can you claim everything is the fault of US policy when you are creating the worst policy possible – against every warning given? Sound smart or like Team Dumb?

These people cannot stand putting America first, for whatever reason they hate it. But the default result of not putting America first is actively putting China and Russia first. They are willing to do it anyway making it even worse. That becomes their true-north position.

The stupidity part is how they got here, and yet stupidity is their ace-in-the-hole solution to fixing it all. Great strategy. So you ask how stupid can you get? They’re demonstrating it everyday. The big challenge is how to treat stupidity seriously as the problem it is?

Their answer is to keep going woke till it’s all broke.

The big hypocrisy and irony for Obama was having a doctrine of “don’t do stupid shit!”

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Profiles Of Deception

We can all agree there is nothing clear about Joe Biden’s plans or his agenda. Now before any Leftists try to turn that around about Trump, it does not fit. We knew his plans because Trump told us and even campaigned on them. Joe kept all his intentions secret since announcing his run. His staff still  hides his intentions until he does something.

So we all can agree there is nothing clear about Joe’s plans. He cannot talk about them and certainly cannot articulate a case for his radical agenda. Most of which involves inciting racial divisions as a means.  But we do know everything Joe did before this was only deception to get to this influential point. He can’t even claim to be honest.

Of course, in dealing with Biden, the first thing any country would study is Joe’s profile and record. Everything in those details would only encourage not deter our enemies.

 

But if we were to compare Biden and Trump, anyone would see: Trump wanted to shake up the system while Biden wants to shakedown America. Trump believed in being proud of the country – and saw plenty of reason for it — where Biden wants to shame America into some radical transformation. Pride or shame, which do you prefer?

Then how does one negotiate with a country whose own leader wants to shame it into submission with subversion? That is pathetic and I don’t think it can win.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Impeachment Ground Zero: narratives and lies

A cartoon needs to be drawn of today’s events, and the caption should read

“This is your government on politics.”

In the media, historian Jon Meacham on MSNBC certified that Republicans are a Jonestown Cult. Pelosi has called Trump an imposter. Media are far from finished on this day of revision and government radicalized by politics – made to MSNBC’s order.

Fiona Hill, another Dem star witness, posits how it must be impossible for two nations to interfere or meddle in our elections at the same time. So the Russian hoax theme is on full display. And the people that push it are again on the world stage.

Somewhere in the near background of Moscow, is a laughing Putin that Democrats are impeaching Trump over Ukraine. He couldn’t have written a better script.

Speaking of scripts and writers, Democrats’ lousy drama is bad enough but their screenwriting is even worse.

Right Ring | Bullright

Proper Apathy: a case for it

Inevitably in every recent election, one word always seems to pop up usually close to the election. That word is apathy. There is almost an obsession.

Always mentioned as a negative and normally connotes a warning about bout being complacent. Not caring or not caring enough to vote, along with not caring who to vote for. It sets off a red flare about priorities. It is meant to shame and even inflame citizens.

So let’s take a look at the definition. According to Merriam-Webster:

1 : lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness drug abuse leading to apathy and depression

2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference
i.e. political apathy

First if all, I empathize with the passion or appropriateness of using the word. But again, it is always considered a negative. Is there a positive use for it? Maybe there should be.

For a change, I wondered about using some of that righteous apathy toward our allies and European friends. What could be wrong with that? Now just hold on there, lilly liberals.

So take the textbook definition of apathy (#2) and apply a good healthy dose of it toward them, basically the whole lot, allies included. Lack of interest or concern, indifference to them. But wait, isn’t that treatment what we already receive from them and have for a long time? I mean they do treat us that way. When was the last time they made domestic or foreign policy based on what we Americans or the US thinks, or will think of it?

Get it? It seems to work fine for them.

I see a good apathy, liberally applied. Why should it always be a negative? Why not put it to good use? It is not like we get something different than that from them. If people have practiced their apathy, then why not sharpen it a little to where it is appropriate?

I can hear the liberals screaming on both sides of the Atlantic now. Except can they give a valid reason why not? I don’t think they can. Yes, I know all the standard talking points about allies and treatment of how we want to be treated. And all that gimmichery about what’s in our interest is what is in their interest too. Sure we have common desires. But this is only a one-sided thing, you do realize. Each of those countries gives us no consideration on what actions they take. They look out for themselves.

Yes, we share some values and technology and security issues. But where is the reciprocation, as Trump calls it, from them? We’ve certainly been doing this for a long time now. When was the last time they took our advice? Oh, right, we restrain our advice. Though they freely give us unsolicited advice, don’t they?

Here’s one illustration: CNN regularly has pundits, academics or intellectuals, commenting and lobbying our policies and politics from Birmingham (UK), London and Belgium. They are some of the biggest critics of Trump and the administration. But we have enough of those critics right here. Do we tell them what they should do at home? We don’t need their pontifications. What should we care what they think, let alone provide a platform for it.

Sure we just want to show them we care. Again, what does that matter when it comes down to it? What do we get in return? Maybe it hasn’t been such a great idea to consider the impact on them in our every move. I mean they have leaders and governments to represent their interests, and they do. In most cases quite well.

Why are we always thinking about sensitivities of others? It baffles me. Was this in the founding of America? No, we had our hands full thinking for ourselves about ourselves, looking after our interests because no one else on earth will. Do we now think all these countries look out for our interests? Hell no. They expect us to do that ourselves.

What happened to “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none?” We’ve self entangled our dream with their selfish realities.

Washington instructed in his Farewell Address:

” In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
…/
“As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
…/
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.”

…“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation [as ours is]? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”

The other sweet spot factor liberals always point to is human rights. We need to influence that or this. But we don’t need to make our decisions based on our desires for them.

What I’m saying is that the reality is more stark. We have gone so far over to the international, globalist, bent over backward (and forward too) for people who generally 1) don’t appreciate it, or in some cases don’t want our help and; 2) aren’t considerate at all of us. And we don’t expect it. Shouldn’t the latter have changed if it was going to change?

What I am also saying is that it was never started out this way. Now I do hear critics of America’s every policy about a big footprint of US imperialism. I don’t agree with much of their emphasis but there is something to this one sided, lopsided, foreign policy (if that is what it is). The problem is it is not just in foreign policy but in domestic policy too, that we are influenced by their concerns.

No, I don’t buy the America is the big bully and aggressor argument. We bend over trying to make our policy based on their whims and desires, for or about us. We have to stop empowering those who never had our best interests. You know the Obama lesson on being an appeaser or slave to our enemies, empowering them and weakening ourselves.

However, we never see any signs of this consideration returned from abroad. They only have their hand out to receive not respond in kind.

This is not a case for protectionism or “isolationism”. But the affect may be protectionist.

I’m not sure what an official policy of apathy would look like or what it would do. But I dang sure know what our default doctrine has left us with. What did we get?

I wouldn’t mind being accused of it from across the globe. I might consider it a compliment. And maybe they would stop dishing out their helpful advice to us, too? Incidentally, applying some indifferent apathy to our friends and allies might also decrease the popular use of it in our election process. Apathy gets a pretty bad rap.

Whether consciously or not, we haven’t been making decisions on our own merits for our interests. They’ve been parsed down to p/c and sensitivities about what others think. Others have become proxies in our decisions. We could be a little apathetic, even rude.

Or in other words: quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!

Right Ring | Bullright

US Largest Global Crude Producer

Now here is something the left probably never wanted to be number one at.

San Antonio Business Journal

Sep 12, 2018, 2:46pm CDT Updated 2 days ago Production in the nation’s shale basins has helped the U.S. surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest crude oil producer, preliminary figures from the Energy Information Administration show.

American exploration and production companies are now producing an estimated 10.9 million barrels of crude oil per day, according to the EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook report released on Wednesday. Based on preliminary data, EIA officials believe that crude oil production in the U.S. surpassed Saudi Arabia in February and surpassed Russia twice — once in June and again in August.

The figures mark the first time that domestic crude oil production has surpassed Saudi Arabia in more than two decades. Although the EIA does not publish crude oil production forecasts for Russia and Saudi Arabia, the agency expects that U.S. crude oil production will continue to exceed that of Russia and Saudi Arabia through 2019.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2018/09/12/united-states-now-the-largest-global-crude-oil.html

Oops, the energy denier crowd is not going to like that. The second part of the oil issue is why the rise in gas prices? Now that sanctions will be back on Iran, it will be another excuse for higher oil prices. Though when they dropped Iran sanctions, the only beneficiary was Iran and a few of its trading partners. Of course on the left they would enjoy sky high gas and energy prices. At least for the time being congrats to US anyway.

Crooked Hillary and the Cabal

Well, someone is doing some writing and reporting of the accumulative events.

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

By Lee Smith, RealClearInvestigations
August 13, 2018

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking members of the Republican presidential campaign staff and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties remains the cornerstone of claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia. …/

Continue Reading the damning evidence: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

 

But Mueller could never stumble across that pertinent information. Or the fact that Fusion was working with the Kremlin to overturn sanctions — against the Magnitsky Act. It would be too damning to the Democrats and DNC. ‘Quick, we need a diversion’….. this week if possible. After all, Mueller is tied to this cabal.

In case anyone is still keeping Russia collusion score: that puts intel ops, FBI, DOJ, Mueller, Clinton, GPS, Steele, DNC et al on the same side as …..the Kremlin and Putin. Collusion Party anyone? 😎 And I’ll just leave out McCain for now.

With all this known, just what would Hillary have done had she won the election? I don’t think there is much of a question about it, given her character and past.

This was never a Trump issue or scandal, but is yet another Hillary Clinton scandal that she had a whole lot of help with.

A Paradox in Singapore

So there is the “deal” that this Singapore Summit is supposed to be about — yet to be fully defined and seen, if it is in the near future. Then there is the message that even this formal meeting sends to any other country. It seems to be a paradox

On one hand the attempt is to do something good toward eliminating a nuclear threat, while on the other the unavoidable message of what brought it about. Nuclear weapons. Are there benefits to threatening the US and our allies? At first blush, maybe there are.

The good side is that this is US and North Korea talking. Well, that is it is not Russia and China or six party talks. Who would want two of NK’s biggest allies in the talk of a deal?

Dennis Rodman made a surprise appearance in Singapore. He explained his speaking to Kim Jong Un years ago, relating the story he came back with a message for then President Obama. Rodman delivered the message and Obama would “not give him the time of day.” He said he was “brushed off”. Rodman was pissed off at Obama and wore a Make America Great Again hat on CNN. He had to go in hiding from all the death threats.

Right Ring | Bullright

36 years ago, Iran hostage release

Big flash from the past….

Thirty-five years ago, 52 Americans who were held hostage in Iran touched down at Stewart Airport

By Mid-Hudson News Network | 01/25/2016

[NEW WINDSOR] >> The eyes of the world were on the Hudson Valley 35 years ago, when 52 Americans who had been held hostage in Iran for 444 days returned to U.S. soil by landing at the former Air Force base at Stewart Airport.

On Jan. 25, 1981, five days after being released from captivity, the former hostages walked down the stairs that had been rolled up to the passenger jet, kneeled on the tarmac and kissed American ground for the first time since being taken hostage on Nov. 4, 1979, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

They flew to Stewart from a U.S. Air Force base in West Germany, their first stop after leaving Iran.

More: http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20160125/thirty-five-years-ago-52-americans-who-were-held-hostage-in-iran-touched-down-at-stewart-airport

It does pay to remember.

What’s going on, SS Conspiracy?

I’m calling conspiracy and can immediately think of at least two, and one having more rationality than the other. Questions are warranted.

USS John S. McCain collides with merchant ship

From U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs

Posted August 20, 2017

SOUTH CHINA SEA – The guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) has arrived at Changi Naval Base following a collision with the merchant vessel Alnic MC while underway east of the Strait of Malacca and Singapore on Aug. 21.

The collision was reported at 6:24 a.m. Japan Standard Time. Significant damage to the hull resulted in flooding to nearby compartments, including crew berthing, machinery, and communications rooms. Damage control efforts by the crew halted further flooding.

There are currently 10 Sailors missing and five injured.

More: http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/130185

Malaysia of all places. I’m not spelling out one theory in particular here, but I do wonder what is going on with similar accidents in the region? See the list of comments on the site. I’m not alone, many people are asking the same thing.

14 Minutes from Pacific Chaos

The report is that missiles would take 14 minutes to go from North Korea to Guam. Well, hello, but how long has that 14-minute potential been possible? I don’t know.

Is the real problem the 14-minutes from chaos or that it is possible at all? I know that is provocative, but those are the quandaries — it is possible and why?

What we can know is that, according to everything N. Korea officials have said, their nuclear program is non-negotiable and not on the table. And that their nuclear status is written into their constitution, leaving little to negotiate. Some of that sounds familiar.

However, the responses I hear from media are astounding. At this point, I don’t know which is more inflammatory, media statements or Kim Jong Un’s? Both damaging.

So it is really disingenuous when you hear how media reacts to N. Korea threats.

The Left has made the philosophical choice that they are willing to live with a nuclear North Korea, just never said so. In other words, they played like they were opposing it in some real way, while already resigned to it.

Where Kim says their nuclear program was not on the table, libs adopted basically the same position. The left accepted N Korea as a nuclear power. The gig is up, let’s admit it. But the left can never be completely honest about its stands. They pretend otherwise.

Democrats say that all this is why we need to use diplomacy, have to negotiate, and need to carefully measure our words. Why are any of those justified? Because they say so. It is part of their long pattern of looking at the problem in denial.

The Hill reports:

“You can call [nuclear escalation] a failure. I accept that characterization over the last two decades,” Rice said in an interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer. “But we are where we are. And now we need to decide how to proceed.“

Now that we’re here and all…

“When the president of the United States makes statements that could be mistaken for Kim Jong Un’s, it runs a risk of a threat,” Rice said. “We have to be careful. The rhetoric and hot language is itself a challenge. On the Korean side, the North Korean side, we run the risk that they miscalculate the message from the U.S. incorrectly and act.“

Oh, our messaging is the greater issue.

“What I worry about is this discussion and preparation potentially for what the administration called preventive war or pre-emptive war, Rice said.

“Decide how to proceed?” Kim Jong Un and N Korea officials have said their right to nuclear weapons is not open to negotiations. Libs say ‘let’s negotiate with them.’ Negotiate what, a 14-minute timeline? Is this negotiating with yourself? We needed to decide how to proceed after Benghazi and you were ever so helpful — plus the media help, too.

Media, as an arm of the left, is a problem in itself. MSM searches for every opportunity to be outraged by Trump’s words. It’s a game to find some small thing in a remark to feign outrage. Always count on the left to lose sight of real enemies and victims.

Secondarily, liberals run to generously offer advice, requiring us to forget their record. The left has been enabling the Kim dynasty for years. Can anyone take their advice seriously? Of course not. Then they say Trump is too bombastic, and that his rhetoric is no different than Kims. Wow, a terrible comparison. But remember they’ve already compared Trump to every dictator, from Hitler to Mussolini to Venezuela; they see no difference.

Now when faced with a contrast between Kim and Trump, they cannot admit it. Yet they don’t seem to have any idea how propaganda works, or how real dictators function.

Even Clinton Def Sec, William Cohen, Republican: “We have a situation where we have two school yard bullies … saying ‘I’ve got a bigger gun'”

All things not being equal. If these dictators were as bad as they admit, why would they want to play up the comparison? Don’t they know the harm of their words? What about diminishing dictators? Sure they claim to be outraged by Trump’s language, but never make much fuss about Kim’s rhetoric. They are concerned with Trump’s threats not Kim’s. And he uses their critique.

A headline comes out in Guam that it would take only 14 minutes for a missile to get there. The left is outraged by another line in the article. A government warning on rules in a nuclear attack: “don’t look at the flash.” (should they have edited it out?) Alarmists ramp up “concerns” about a nuclear attack but then media attacks Trump’s words. The left really has an intelligence deficit — or challenged in using it.

One media analyst said the warning “not to look at the flash” is very scary language. Reality is scary, truth is not comforting. So even publishing a guideline for an attack is offensive to the left. Sorry, these are consequences of nuclear weapons. They call such language apocalyptic. But these are nuclear weapons. Are we to pretend neither exists, the weapons or consequences?

We are faced with another dilemma. Kim needs more time to develop his capabilities, we don’t want to allow him time. Is allowing him time enabling him? According to military experts, ‘time and distance’ have always been the two critical factors in a war with Korea. The distance being the proximity of Seol and other places, and the response time.

Once again, the element of time.(and ‘distance’- relative to capability) By doing nothing, we have willingly provided him time to develop his plans. A game N. Korea played for decades. Until we have done anything to limit or stop him, he will continue on his path. Finally, we do have more sanctions but even that does not stop him.

It’s odd how media are more concerned about Trump than N. Korea. As much as they don’t like Trump or his words that doesn’t make him wrong. In fact, he is right. That further infuriates them. Trump cannot be right. That would alter physics or knock earth off its axis. They would rather believe Kim and let criticism feed Kim’s propaganda.

So N. Korea is a glimpse of insight into how the left would react to a threat or an attack. It shows that with the left their first consideration is politics. Even our national security is subordinate to their politics. That’s the problem. The left keeps saying “this is not some reality show,” this is reality. But the left does not treat it as reality. They marginalize a monster like Kim Jong Un in favor of their political agenda.(what got us here) The left is too dumb to notice Korea using their words as propaganda. Politics is paramount over all, while 14 minutes becomes just a calculated political trade-off.

Right Ring | Bullright

All it takes is one situation

I have a little message for the Obama-sized Democrats, and their network of swampcrats, about their concerns on the Kim Jong Un – N Korea debacle. Just shut the hell up.

At least temporarily. Sigh.

Or in terms on their level: keep pulling your wagonload of marbles down the street, we aren’t interested in your colorful wares.

What incredible hubris. (but we already knew that)

Their whole calculus is such giant bullshit you can’t even spot the ground anymore.

Awan tries to cop a flee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“All In” the Obama propaganda

This is one of the biggest statements of Obama apologists to validate his “legacy” of lies that still echoes across media in America.

” Improved America’s Image Abroad

With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the Bush years.

Favorable opinion toward the United States rose during Obama’s first term in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with an average increase of 26 percent, and have stayed high ever since.” – Washington Monthly

You’d have to give that one 5 giant Pinocchios. 10 of 15 countries surveyed? Really, that’s proof positive — 2-thirds, 66% of their countries surveyed. No sense in repeating the nonsense of this basic claim. It is debunked by flat history.

Anyone watching in the last 8 years, who wasn’t in a coma, can clearly tell you that is a lie, and that world opinion of the US suffered not improved. There were a whole lot of reasons for it. That is simply Obama’s claim, nothing more.

Even if it were true, it proves what exactly? Seems the world has funny reasons for liking us, like when they are rolling us or it is to their advantage. We should celebrate that?

I would bet, like his ballyhooed approval polls, that most of it is based on a personal like of Obama. Did countries, even in Africa, appreciate Obama lecturing and trying to force gay marriage on them? Leading from behind must have turned them on.

How about the countries where he meddled in their affairs and elections: Egypt, Israel, Canada, Russia? Then lighting the Middle East on fire, they must have loved that part? Or the refugee crisis he promoted across the globe. ‘Give us more, please.’

His severe bias against Christians was definitely a winner, with the Christian persecution he ignored. Love is in the air. Seems more like an abusive relationship with ‘we the people’ to me, but they probably liked that. When the world likes you, just consider the source. Then ask why? Brace yourself for the answers. So it didn’t take long to unlike us?!

Quote from Wa Montly as just one of many sources for the commentary.

RightRing | Bullright

What’s in a meeting?

…Billed as the most significant meeting in recent times?

A lot of built up anticipations. It’s what the Left and media do. The fallout.

A simple metaphor could be appropriate to set the stage for the Russian talk: Obama cocked the gun and team Trump is now trying to disarm the weapon, particularly on Syria. Another way you could look at it is: there is a three-alarm fire and the Trump administration is the fire department.responding. No matter what it takes to get it under control and put it out, there is major damage that cannot be avoided. Coming to terms with that view is necessary.

Two items lead: 1) mentioning the Russian meddling, 2) talk on cease fire in Syria.

So Syria is on the table as a major issue. Let’s remember how Russia got there, by way of Obama and an invitation. But now that Russia is there, let’s all talk about what to do and how to fix it. (some hubris) Even Ukraine, per any mention, is much the same.

Naturally, Putin and Russia would rather deal with — realistically or not — a marginal issue like Syria. There is suddenly talk of Assad leaving, at some point, and more future discussion. Of course, Putin seems willing to discuss that. (no surprise) Now that they are in there, they will have a controlling interest in it and the region — by propping up a vulnerable dictator. See the way it works?

The question now is do we play along by accepting those premises? Again, because it is centrally important, they are there by intervention and will benefit through their current involvement, in the aftermath decisions. It’s like having the arsonist stick around to help deal with the damage from the fire. You welcome his help. What he is doing there in the first place is dismissed as unimportant. That’s the strategy.

I am a bit of an ideologue on Russia. They aren’t really ideologues but opportunists.

Russia for its part wants meeting talks to be about distant side issues — important as they might seem — rather than dealing with the central concerns on Russia. Media assists on that. As long as Putin keeps the conversation about those marginal things he’s ahead. He can debate details or denials on those matters without touching his family jewels. So they have a bargaining chip they stole along the way. Assad, Syrian crisis, ISIS, refugees?

Yet here we are; what the left wants to talk about is elections. Our crown jewels seem to be on the table, or that is the appearance. Then media wants to control the interpretation of any results. Breaking through arbitrary barriers is a central key.

BTW: I forgot to add that the 3-alarm fire was called in and confirmed on 1/20/17.

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 call 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 media and the public stage criticizing Trump, 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 looking at 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 on 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 Trump’s 2nd 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 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 sliding 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

So then why is Obama doing the meetings?

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. So everyone goes along with this persistent meddling of an unprecedented, Treasonous and historically unpresidential Obama. Then claim that he is refraining.

RightRing | Bullright