Tomorrow’s Leaders

One of the things that always intrigued me was the idea of tomorrow’s leaders. I remained on the optimistic side until the early 2000’s. Then the pessimism began to outweigh the positive thoughts. You can read any reasons into that you like.

At least I tried to be optimistic that our future would be in decent hands. I don’t know that I can say that too much anymore. It’s sad. That’s not to say our leaders have been all that great or wonderful. But my hope was tomorrow’s leaders would reach new goals and highs, much like science and technology advances. (realizing not all advances are good)

One can hope future leaders improve and learn from past errors. Even void of history.

Of course those lessons are harder when no one talks about or acknowledges those past errors. Or if they refuse to admit there were errors. Without that, it seems to me, we cannot learn to not repeat them. Another way to look at it is: if we learn that those errors were positive and we need to do more of it not less, then we seem doomed to failure. But that could make some people happy.

Nowadays I have to apologize for not generally being positive. There just seem to be so many negatives staring me in the face. That is being realistic about it. I still feel the hope for the country and all, far as that is possible. But the leadership, to me, is very much in question. I suppose there can be no guarantees. Maybe I would like to see more signs of positivity for the long run?

It seemed like a big dose of positive for the future just getting Trump into office. He more than accomplished my basic desires. I can’t list them but a huge one was to break the monopoly and shake up the system enough to change status quo. That was a help. With that, as I assumed, we got all the attacks we should have expected. But it got much worse than I expected. Okay, so that is only confirmation of how badly it needed it. I get that.

Then came the official, organized resistance and all the rest. Again, predictable. Though at some point you evaluate if we have made headway in the long run. It is hard to see it. Then what happens if and when we let up even for a second? You know. That is also why I am convinced in seeing it as evil. And it spreads.

I sure would like to feel more optimistic for the future in good hands. But I’m seeing that glass as half empty and that is not enough to repel the enemy within. Is it a matter of training? I don’t know. Maybe I am looking at it only from my small perspective.

In the end, I do have faith that God is in charge and He will see us through. But that does not prevent bad things from happening to us. We can cause problems. Technology improvements themselves can cause problems, too. It is not all good.

When it comes to leaders though, I sigh and ask ‘will these new ones have to learn things all over again?’ Does the whole sequence have to repeat itself? Can’t we build on what we know and not on what we don’t know? I ask those questions in confidence because I don’t always like the answers I get. What about cynicism, is that fashionable now?

That is just touching the surface and I could litter this with examples. But at this point, I don’t think they are necessary. One more question for the road. Maybe we never really took on the communist threat the way we should have – or seriously enough?

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Cancelled Then Or Now?

One pf the most famous post-founding speeches, delivered on a battlefield by Abraham Lincoln, declared the world will not long remember “what we say here,” but it “can never forget what they did here.”

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”Gettysburg Address, 1863.

Wait a minute there, are you telling me that was all a big lie and, at least until recently contested by Black Lives Mater anyway, is still a lie?

Again, I ask, I just wonder when and at what cause would the Left be proud of America? It’s a really simple question. What would it take, since they are not currently proud of America?

Price or cost of that anyone?

Lincoln went on to highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

A new birth of freedom? But Leftists have criticized even the motivation for our country. Why would they believe Lincoln? That’s just more rhetoric propaganda to them.

How much different that speech would have been if it were a concession speech on a Confederate victory: “Sorry, boys, it was all in vain but I can assure you we tried.” But no, Lincoln referred to the birth of the country and this “new birth” – as a further consecration of that original dedication and purpose.

Now then, about this current state of our cultural affairs
.

Oh, Lincoln waited for Black Lives Matter to come along to call him out by correcting it all. He knew they would. Of course Lincoln was wrong and just did not do it the right way. The poor soldiers who fought the war, then, were highly misguided of the entire purpose.

So what do we have some 150 years later? The BLM movement. It has attracted a crowd of attention. People have allied with it and their perception. Just call them “the minders”.

Now what I see on the streets is a whole lot of people who signed on to BLM and have made a choice for which there is no recovery. Without hesitation, they’ve all gone lockstep with something that many probably don’t even understand. Mob rule is not pretty. They would rather have that than even democracy.

They have lent themselves to a revolution to rip this country apart. And they are about to reap the fruits of it. On one hand, the BLM dismisses what was done in the Civil War, while calling forth their own counter-revolution to undo the first revolution. Without giving much thought to the consequences of their action. On the other hand, they misinterpret the original conception of the country.

But Lincoln should have clarified that, to anyone hearing or reading it, both the intent of this nation and the civil war itself. One would think.

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.”

What he admitted there is that this was a test for the survival of that consecration. It was bloody. Now 150 years later, Leftists and the BLM are ripping away at it, asking if we can endure their mobocracy of disdain for it? Or will it too be cancelled in the end?

But then I think Lincoln knew something about the Cancel Culture.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

The Trial On American Culture

Some people might find this fascinating while others might think it is old news. Though I promise it is interesting how it all comes together in the present, in a unique way that might make more sense than what is happening daily in front of our faces .

It’s no secret I’ve been in religious battles from way back. I’m not writing a book here so I will be brief on details. I’m not lecturing anyone either. Those issues and battles may turn some people off. I hear that. But there is sort of the point: it does turn people off.

Allow me to explain about others like me who were engaged in those religious liberty issues by working all sides of the Constitution and our God-given rights with passion.

What is most interesting here is the opposition to our views — I mean the left or hard Left. They had a venom that defies description. All things were on the table. They used everything they could muster to try to knock down any Christian arguments or concepts.

They claimed to be big on freedom like that phrase “freedom from religion”. Within their perspective contained all the rights and freedoms they could find to oppose you. In fact they claimed to be real freedom zealots who just did not want anyone shoving Christianity, or its views, down their throats. Never take Leftists at their word.

So they were supposedly advocates for virtually any freedom, from thought to reason, to first and even acknowledging some second amendment rights. They were not against your freedom, but it had to be hospitable to their freedom and use of it. I won’t bore you.

The wider message was the more freedom the better. However, when it came to Christianity – since it is the only religion they were worried about — they were out to smear it any way possible. If they had to make things up, distort, lie, rip out of context; it didn’t matter what it took. They were out to destroy it as far as the public view anyway. There could be nothing left standing untouched, or unscathed. Scorched earth.

Now you should start to see where I am going with this. So any credible source or hero of Christianity was tarred and feathered. No credibility was to be left to them, whether it was a founder,a great Christian philosopher or writer. The Christian view was to be decimated in such a way no one would have any confidence, or very little. It was really meant to shake our faith. They didn’t want us to believe in it. Thus, question everything.

Sure they used lots of straw men. They fear-mongered about theocracy and projected that we were pushing it on everyone else. Of course it was the exact opposite; they were strategically pushing their hard-line theology on everyone else. It’s sneaky and deceitful.

They wanted nothing left but their view. Tear it all down. I say this because it was a perfect forerunner to what leftists are doing now. Remember: first they came for the Jews, but I didn’t care…. Then they came for the Christians, but I didn’t care. And a lot of people didn’t care about those arguments at the time. Who is going to care?

Liberals, as I called them, said they were all about enlightenment or exercising all liberties freely, but take your faith back into the prayer closet. It should be kept from the public square. Certainly people are familiar with those perspectives.

What I am saying is it was the exact same methodology used then as is applied to everything today. Oh, one would have thought they were the biggest zealots for liberty then. Some real Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine fans. Right!

Flash forward, now leftists are smearing everything and everyone in history. America just has bad roots. It is stained with blood, etc. Well, you can hear it all everywhere.

Everything is rotten in America. Thou shall have no pride in it. A pox on traditions, too.

But that was the same thing they did to Christians, especially strong ones. Leftists wanted to knock it down at least until no longer functionally influential. And preferably until you were beaten enough to stop fighting. So roll over and let them define, redefine everything in culture and America.

Now we see that was only a rehearsal for what they are doing on a larger scale today, It is the entire country they take issue with. There is no doubt about it. And they don’t want anything good to be left unscathed by their wrath for the country or its history.

In doing so, everything great and good about America is to be defamed or destroyed. No heroes or good history. Everything was bad since its inception. In fact, it was founded on lies and evil. Now you see the similarities, almost verbatim as if planned. But if you heard their rhetoric then, or 20 years ago, it feels like déjà vu mixed with voodoo now.

Destroy Christianity and its moral underpinnings, first. But if you cannot destroy it, then at least destroy people’s faith in it. Leave them no comfort.

Next, do the same thing to the entire fabric of the country. Create distortions, divisions and disagreements. Make everything seem questionable. Throw basic reason under the bus. Then destroy people’s confidence in it all and our foundation. After all, nothing can be salvaged or remain above the watermark. Only their useful bureaucracy.

Does it start to make sense, with all the statues being torn down? Every founder or notable person has tar on them. Every one. Bring out only the bad side of everything in America. This works on people how? Well, it tears down what you thought you held in high regard. Turns out that nothing can be held in esteem. All of it was a lie, or so their mantra goes.

Coincidence, I don’t think so. Now everything is so politicized, meaning nothing is left un-politicized., Well, because all is subservient to their radical ideology. And it is an anti-American, anti-Christian ideology. (commie is more like it)

Now they even get reinforcement aid from some left-wing Christians who are fully on board with this social justice war-gaming, which is only an extension of this ideology. (Liberation theology) Driven more by what it doesn’t like than what it likes because it respects almost nothing except power – political power to propel its evolution.

That is the shortest summary I’m able to give and still get the point across of the sinister nature to it. But I think knowing that makes a much clearer picture about what is taking place. Rather than just being blindsided as to what is going on or why.

The next time Democrats or the Left lectures us about “this is not who we are,” this past is who they still are. So remember we know exactly who they are – or what they are not.

[originally titled trial run on American culture but I’ll stick to trial on American culture]

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

The Bottom Of The Empty Barrel

There is a point you will never here on lamestream media. It’s actually profound but I am not going to give it away in a few words. Please read the whole context rationale for it. Pity a thousand words were necessary but could easily have been three.

We know the George Floyd case and I don’t need to repeat all the details. Yes, again, horrible and shouldn’t have happened. I’m outraged.

And that supposedly set the latest sequence of events in motion. You know the arguments, police brutality, structural and systemic racism. They’ve assembled endless marches. It would be interesting to know who is doing all the organizing and funding. But never mind that. We have a bigger issue at hand.

Now we are told that practically everything we do is racist, or race-based. They say we have to deal with that; so they get people apologizing for something they didn’t even do to try to appease race hustlers. However, I hate to tell the kneeling do-gooders, it isn’t going to help you or them. That will not solve anything in the end, if they don’t want it solved.

It is just placating them.

Here is example one: if someone who is white has a child today, no matter how you raise him/her, in 18 years or so they will be considered privileged and blamed for being part of the systemic white racism prevalent in this country from its inception.

How’s that for a charge? And nothing you can do will change what he/she is: a white, privileged part of the long problem. I mean how do you explain or prove you are not? That’s the point, it doesn’t matter. And you can be branded as racist even if you do nothing racist. Okay, put that aside now. Though it’s probably an inevitability on this course.

Now we look at reforms they claim are needed. There is naturally police reforms since that seems to be their biggest priority. Blame cops and change all these procedures. You know those, I am not going to list them here. They are not crucial to the point.

The Left and the protestors already told us the problem is systemic racism, so pervasive that it is oozing out of every institution or economic sector in this country – everywhere. And a police reform is going to fix all that? No. But then they will tell you all the other changes we need to make to correct it, starting with us getting on our knees to apologize.

I get a little upset how all the onus and phony questions are always aimed at us. It’s a gotcha game that, even if you participate, you are designed to lose every time. If you play it their way by their rules, that is. They don’t tell you that even if you make all these changes and reforms that guess what? It will still be called systemic racism and you will still be a witting or unwitting participant in it. Because that is the only possible outcome.

Maybe that is a little bit hard and they may give you credit for all these changes while you made them. But it will not be enough in the end because the game doesn’t stop there. Nice try but we will have more work to do. (not that we aren’t now making strides) That’s why kids born today or tomorrow will be blamed in 20 years for being accomplices to all past and present problems and grievances. Yes, there will be another generation of leftists around to make sure that generation are held responsible for it, too. It is perpetual.

Leftists’ love for country is inherently contingent on them getting what they want.

Notice all along it is they who run the show and narrative on all this? No coincidence. You cannot have anything to say because there is nothing you can say. The whole thing continues on and never goes away. I don’t have to explain that. And they will be sure to keep it all alive. But the why is important though.

Example number 2: suppose I buy a house that needs a lot of repairs. The question is why would I go to all the trouble of making extensive plans for it, if I already decided I am gong to level it and build something else in its place? I wouldn’t, it would seem pointless if that were my real plan and I already decided.

What I am saying is that these people, predominately the leftists and Democrats with the go-along dupes, have already decided what they want. These reforms or changes aren’t it. They really want a brand new system, new country and Constitution. The old one is not in the cards, in fact, it isn’t in the game at all.

So we are only appeasing them on the highway to utopia, in their minds, while privately debating over a new foundation layout. But they will never be happy because they want a whole new system. Actually, they want this one to be so flawed they have to change it. That is at the heart of most problems. They tell us.

The other thing they want, in the meantime, is to use the perceived flaws and problems for political gain to increase power. Election fodder. Crises are “opportunities,” they all tell us. Pelosi boasted that she only sees all these crises as opportunities. So that is what all this is about in the end – political power.

Now that we established those basics, there is just one thing left. No wonder they aren’t happy and will not be satisfied? Since they are always posing gotcha questions to us, I have a very important one to ask the Democrat Left. It is the holy grail of questions.

What will it take for them to be proud of America? Would there be any reforms possible to make them proud of America? Oh sure, they are capable of some short-term pride when they are in the White House or control everything. Even that is temporal and condition based. The Left only have pride in an agenda.

Actually the only thing they have pride in are politics. That political pride remains. Quite literally it puts politics above the country. They aren’t capable of being proud of the country – systemic racism or not. They have no attachment, emotional or otherwise, to it. They dropped that long ago. Their agenda is a new country, a new society. The whole idea is not to have any pride in this one.

So there is the bottom line question to it all: Will they ever be proud of America…. and what would that take, if even possible? No reforms can spawn that.

This is the question for the Democrats, socialist left and all the rest. I’m sticking to it.

As much as they’ll always pledge to get to the bottom of it, we must never and can never get to the bottom of an empty barrel.

You’ve probably heard that pride usually comes before the fall. But in this case, it is a lack of pride that spells the cause for the country’s fall.

[previous post – “Open Letter to the Resistance” – 12/16/17]

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

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