War Hero Status: hands off McCain

Last night, again, CNN trotted out their venom for this president. Not presidents in general, just this president in particular. The subject, of course, was John McCain. The media never seems to tire of defending McCain. It was over comments Trump made.

@realDonaldTrump

Spreading the fake and totally discredited Dossier “is unfortunately a very dark stain against John McCain.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel. He had far worse “stains” than this, including thumbs down on repeal and replace after years of campaigning to repeal and replace!
4:46 PM – 16 Mar 2019

@MeghanMcCain

Meghan McCain Retweeted Donald J. Trump

“No one will ever love you the way they loved my father…. I wish I had been given more Saturday’s with him. Maybe spend yours with your family instead of on twitter obsessing over mine?”
5:28 PM – 16 Mar 2019

In this episode of this long running series, Craig Shields opined that whenever people feel compelled to mention the Nazis or slavery in a conversation, they should stop right there. Don’t do it, he said, it will not go well. (never stopped Democrats from mentioning it)

To that firmly made point, Don Lemon chimed in with a remark adding war heroes to it, meaning like McCain. Just don’t do it, Don repeated. April Ryan was sitting there nodding in agreement to Lemon, rolling her eyes a few times shrugging as to why anyone should try to criticize or talk about McCain. Got the message.

But that brings up the point. We cannot mention John McCain in less than glowing terms. He is a war hero, after all, Lemon kept saying. So he was, and that makes him supposedly off limits to any criticism of him or his record.

Shields already said he had major disagreements with McCain because of the McCain-Fiengold Bill on campaign finance reform that attacked free speech. To the suggestion of disagreement, April Ryan rolled her eyes and shook her head back and forth. Nope, apparently one cannot even disagree on policy. No place for that.

Then Don Lemon added like your mother always told you, “don’t speak ill of the dead.” Now that is two reasons you cannot criticize McCain. First, he is a war hero and second, he is now dead. Yep that definitely puts him off the table. Bite your tongue.

So that sets up the scenario, those are the rules! But think about that a minute. Are we not now a generation that is taking issue with all kinds of people for what they did, especially even if they are also war heroes? Yes, we are. We have seen a string of it, tearing down statues and taking names off buildings all because they contributed to an intolerable policy. That means their war record status as a hero is post-facto expunged now.

I thought, you don’t have to look very far. A few examples popped into my head of Robert E Lee, Andrew Jackson and Benedict Arnold. Do they have something in common? (you could pick others too) They were heroes in their own right. Even Benedict Arnold had hero status before going to West Point and then selling out to become a traitor. He’s probably the most stellar example. But we do criticize him. I mean his name is forever smeared as a traitor. Yet he was a formidable soldier who Washington commended.

The point is all these are thoroughly critiqued today as villains of some type. But they were heroes too. Any statues of them would be removed. Whatever good they may have done is now undone by what we know about their actions or tangential support for policies. It doesn’t bother these McCain defenders one bit to bash or condemn those one-time heroes. In fact, it is good to make people aware of their wrongs and associated sins.

Look, I know no one is perfect. That is not my point. Actually, we are all flawed people. We may do great things and still have bad in our lifetime. These days though it is permissible to throw the man’s whole legacy out because of a stain. They are erasing our history the same way. But they will not find anyone perfect. We had founders that owned slaves. Does that blot them out of history? Should we sanitize history with only approved people?

They take the Jefferson Davis statue down and others. All that is good to these people; they endorse more of that cleansing. Except leave John McCain alone. “Leave him alone!”

There is another thing about McCain. Sure there is lots to criticize there. Lucky he never did become president because we know how they are treated — from Nixon to Obama. What about that? They were all still presidents. Yet they are routinely criticized all the time. (especially Republicans) They say but this man, McCain, must be exempt from any criticism. Is that fair? If he would have become president, he would have had criticism from both sides picking on his legacy, much worse than this.

I am getting very sick of how every time someone criticizes McCain, out come his preening guards calling you disrespectful, to remind everyone he is a war hero – End! No one can say a negative word about him. Trump does not follow their special McCain exempt rule.

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

Our Country Rewritten

I took the liberty to rewrite the sentiments the way Leftists see things in our country.

Rewritten: the way it was, according to today’s Left:

Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth to this continent a new racist nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created unequal….

That it is government’s duty to make and keep them unequal; that equality of people was never really intended to exist in the US, or be guaranteed by its Government.

Therefore, it is now government’s foremost duty to pay for that. Though this ideal may never be accomplished, it must always strive to admit its racist founding and structuring. But that is not enough.

So groups and minorities can and must hold fast to perpetual grievances against government and others, and dutifully pass them on to the next generation.

That the grievance industry of non-whites be forever granted wide reprieve for any offenses committed against whites on account of this original, ongoing sin of structural racism.

That this white racist nation never be able to shed its blame or guilt for social injustice, inequality, bigotry, systemic and institutional racism, and its offenses to humanity.

That AmeriKa shall never be healed from, or forgiven for, its systemic racist past.
(*I’ll call that the Getty Redress)

Hence. we are the United Racist States of America, or so says the left.
 
Exhibit A: when the Marxists and leftists see the pictures of that march in Charllotesville, they see AmeriKa as the KKK clan. That is how they really see America, like a clan state.

That picture is just a metaphor for their distorted view of the whole country.

But in reality, what normal non-radicalized Americans see are angry, hate-filled leftists: streaming down the streets, stopping traffic, shouting slurs at cops, lighting police cars on fire, burning down buildings, breaking windows, rioting, in black hooded attire assaulting people, shouting down every speaker they don’t agree with, destroying statues, shutting down businesses, looting stores, shutting down bridges and highways, protesting or threatening businesses that don’t align with their political agenda; while calling opponents any names and _phobes they want, who can’t be reasoned with or confronted, and who’s actions are justifiable by government’s structural or other people’s systemic racism.

So the radical left’s metaphor is really only a graphic diversion from the correct picture of reality Americans see unfolding in front of them. Reality does not fit with the left..

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama’s historic achievement: escaping accountability

The liberal-Marxist Left told us how historical Obama’s election was. Four years later they pumped out the same BS. I have a perspective about it all. It may be early yet.

After January 23rd, we will pass the opportunity to impeach or try him for treason. And he’ll have escaped that accountability, in tact. Done. Truth is they were not going to do that, and Obama anticipated as much. It was one thing fixed in Congress they would not do no matter. They were never going to hold Obama accountable.

Given Obama’s massive malfeasance record, if it did happen, imagine what that mountain of case would have been like? And imagine the cost and the time and resources it would take? Look how long it took with Eric Holder, on the IRS commissioner, with Hillary’s emails, or with the Benghazi investigation.

Now considering Obama’s track record, I’m not going to list it all. But I have to give these Leftist radicals credit for one thing. When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They want to make sure it is beyond all repair.

Do we really need proof? They make sure they commit so many atrocities and abuses that it is hardly possible to keep up or deal with them all, by design. That is part of the insurance policy that you cannot deal with them all. If you did, it would suck up all the time and how many congresses would it take? Look at Obamacare, they lie and use whatever means trying to make it irreversible. It’s true to form of Alinsky tactics, overwhelm your opposition. Then blame them.

So to them this is a beautiful thing having all these conditions in their favor. You would not have enough time or manpower, never mind cooperation. The abuses go on daily. It is the closest thing to King George and the founders as we have seen. Just read the list of grievances in the Declaration. It screams a long train of abuses: “fatiguing” legislative bodies, and “obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws.”

The point is Obama has something to be proud of, when he passes that date, and even now, that he will not have been tried, impeached, even censured for his actions. And how long will it take to correct whatever we can? But so much damage is already done.

When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They go all the way.
Regardless, we can still be sure that nothing will be done.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama the page turner

Obama said in his 2015 SOTU that we turned the page. Yea, we turned the page and found about the same thing on that one.

Daily Caller

“Fifteen years that dawned with terror touching our shores; that unfolded with a new generation fighting two long and costly wars; that saw a vicious recession spread across our nation and the world. … Tonight, we turn the page,” Obama declared.

Turn to what? Making a deadly deal in negotiation with Iran, believing in rose-colored democracy in Cuba, labeling climate change the biggest threat in the world? The Obama page is riddled with defects but that never stopped him. The new page of dissing Israel’s security concerns. Create an illegal immigration crisis. Dictator du jour. Oh right, that new foundation he said they laid. What was wrong with the old foundation?

The Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

We will always be conceived in liberty but one must seriously question what proposition we are dedicated to now, in 2015? Obama’s proposition, whatever he decides that is. May the world not long remember what Obama says, but it can never ignore what he did here. If this was the legacy he was after then he certainly got one.

Know this: the shadow of crisis has passed.” No, he’s still president.

Then in closing Obama said he has only one agenda — the same one he had since elected, “to do what I think is best for America“. That depends on his meaning of “best” for the country, doesn’t it? If he thinks changing and rewriting our immigration law is best for the country. If lying to us about Benghazi was best for the country. If bypassing Congress is best for our country. If calling ISIS the JV team was best for the country. If immi-gate was best for the country. If green-funding-gate was best for the country. If denying even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS is best. Best for who, really?

Even more telling than his list of guests of special mention at the SOTU was who he did not choose to spotlight. Like the husband of the woman beheaded in Oklahoma, or the parents of the student slain in New Jersey as fair game, or James Foley’s family, or the parents of the kidnapped and beheaded journalist, or family members of countless other victims of non-Islamic terrorists. Or any victims of his IRS non-scandal.

It shows you where he is focused. He’d rather use a Democrat campaign operative as a human interest story. Who wants to talk about another victim of Islamic terrorism?

But may we not soon forget what he did. The shadow endures.

State of the Union is Under Siege.

RightRing | Bullright

Dry Bones

Famous words echo telling the same, familiar story.

The Crisis

December 23, 1776

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” — Thomas Paine link

 

Certainly these are the times, not unlike those of the past. A moment crying for clarity. A time of regrouping in the face of prevailing winds against us.

I was reading the passage Ezekiel provides describing his journey to the bone yard. Of course, he sees the situation for what it is. God, however, shows him something else. God instructs him and the bones are reassembled and come back to life. (see Ezekiel 37)

But even Ezekiel alone would not have expected that. He refers to them as “very many” and “very dry”. It is a message of renewal, of possibility against odds. Those were trying times and hope seemed all but lost. It was hard to encourage people at the time when they saw little in their circumstances to be encouraged by. They looked at reality and accepted it for what it was, then adjusted accordingly to accommodate it. Ezekiel’s mission was to change their perceptions and offer them a message of hope in the face of despair.

 

Paine had a view too. He called to the depths of inspiration to rally the cause. Freedom is a cause. The sunshine patriots would see and accept what they wanted. He knew that. People would adapt.

Just as the Declaration says,” and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” — resigning oneself to inevitable evils flung their way.

Today, we have people with an appetite for unlimited “patient sufferance”.

Paine wrote:

“I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils;”

Describing the battles against Howe, pointing out an error his forces committed, he said: “but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.”

Speaking of the fatigued and weary forces, he said:

“All their wishes centered in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.”

Paine goes on, in closing, to hammer the case home:

Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for ’tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

Much as he detests their stands, he reasons with them for the good of the country’s future. He knows the fierce urgency of time and that they’re just an “invitation to the enemy”. Sounds eerily similar. He also has the realistic sense he cannot convince them all. But he doesn’t stop trying. He understood the consequences of such thinking and actions.

Sunshine patriots, then and now, are as much a threat as enemies plotting against us. Let us have the reason to discern them. To add further insult today, they peddle their own false hope. It doesn’t matter that they carry a banner of “hope and change” when its a vain hope. Complacency disguised as hope – empty and shifting in the wind.

RightRing | Bullright