Rights in question by definition

This is about a wide range of events, not just on the Las Vegas shootings.

I pray for all the victims, families, and all the heroes too. My heart goes out to them.

All these many issues and events are connected with a common theme. It’s pretty simple. Principles and philosophy are keys to the common denominator in all.

 

The phrase has repeatedly been proven so many times that “Democrats don’t trust people with their own money.” That always keeps coming up, and we keep saying it. Of course it doesn’t change though, it’s always the same way in the end. They don’t.

But not only don’t progressives, liberals or whatever, not trust us with our money; they don’t trust us with the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th or the 9th amendments. The same theme throughout is that you cannot be trusted with those “rights” or the freedoms, even those which are not enumerated and retained by the people.

1st: they don’t trust you with your freedom of religion, speech, or assembly. It doesn’t matter that you are secure in those rights. Either the government or others know better and so you are not capable of using your rights to your best interest. That they should have veto powers over those “rights”. Limited by any means.

2nd: You cannot be trusted with the rights to own arms, that someone needs to oversee and regulate or limit your rights. (first they tried to say your rights don’t even apply but Heller decided that. Now they are up to the less right you have, the better for society)

5th: You cannot be trusted with your own freedom of private property. Kelo decision tried to answer that. Your right stops at government’s need and greed. The Supremes freely and liberally reinterpreted what “public use” means — whatever they want it to, including economic value to the community. Secondly, likewise “just compensation” means what they say it means — for what public use they deem fit — for your property.

Hitler once corrected a reporter on how he was not opposed to ownership of private property, just that property owners should consider themselves agents of the state.

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” They believe in limiting your enumerated rights and so naturally they are suspicious on your ability to handle any of your rights not enumerated, which they can disparage, regulate or deny. Basically, they reserve their right over your rights. I cannot find their superior, sovereign power.

So is there a running theme here? I think so. But now we see that they just don’t trust us, or people in general, in their freedom. Notice they are very suspicous of our motives or use of our rights. And I’m suspicious of progressives’ sincerity about the Bill of Rights.

And of course by denying or restricting those first ten of the Bill of rights, they also infringe on the 14th amendment of due process and equal protections of the laws.

It becomes clear with any serious thought that the left, who spouts platitudes about rights, just does not trust you — or anyone opposed to their interpretation, thinking, or ideology. Thus, your rights must be subservient to their ideology, agenda and political convenience.

Liberals don’t trust you with your money, rights, freedom, or property, or believe in your ability to protect it. That government’s duty is to control our freedom, not secure it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Liberals’ Narrative of Rage

I could use a 1,000 words on the state of liberaldom and liberal media but it almost defies description in many ways. Yet there is no doubt about what they are doing. That liberaldom, and its apologists, are an institutional danger.

When media has mainstreamed propaganda to this level by well-known people, with so-called journalists, we have entered a new state. That it is yet celebrated is another symptom.

Ana Navarro of CNN said Trump “is unfit to be human.” Talk about dehumanizing. The vice-mayor of Charlottesville only calls him 45 because Trump hasn’t earned the respect or title of president. David Gergen, former presidential adviser, said Trump cannot “deal with racism in the country until he deals with the racism in his own heart.”

Just a few more for amusement. A consensus at CNN was Trump is now the ‘Supremacist In Chief.’ Michael Moore declares any white person who voted for him is a racist.

Welcome to ‘No-Reality TV’ – media.

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Media enemy of the State

What happens when the media becomes the enemy of the state? Well, we’re about to find out — if it hasn’t been getting clearer all along. It isn’t pretty.

There is no limit to how far the mainstream media zealots and agenda-driven hacks will go. They aren’t armed with the Freedom of Press but with a vendetta and an active imagination with a radical anti-American agenda. (like their messiah Obama)

Some will say, ‘but it’s good and necessary to have an adversarial press.’ Yes, but we are past that, way over that adversarial stage. We are in a new era of hate – resistance.

You can look at it this way, we now have an Independent Counsel investigation. We also have a press acting as if it were special prosecutors. That’s how they operate, with an assumption that they have all these extra powers, as lieutenants for the resistance.

So, in effect, we have the 2 major investigations in Congress. (plus the minor ones) both of them now coordinating with Mueller in the Special Counsel. Mueller feels he has de facto power, direct and indirect, over both of those bodies. And final word. Trump has O.

Then there is the press who thinks no rules apply to it — as if there are any in the other three. Media plays collaboratively off all three official bodies. They handle the steady leaks and anonymous sources, even creating their own news when needed to fill any gaps.

Gas Ahead photo 100_2273.jpg

Photo image cred

There are now leaks coming from the Special Counsel — which we were told would be super tight-lipped. The media worried at first they would be shut out of the info flow because Mueller does not tolerate leaks. Now he appears to be accommodating media.

It is now a full blown coup on the White House.under a unified front. So it comes from multiple directions. Don’t think we are quite there yet? Look around a little more.

Meathead Media is now covering all the voices calling for Sessions to leave. They have their sites on him. More intel leaks are said to justify him leaving. They say he can’t remain. The same voices and media talking heads are also calling for the impeachment process to begin. Many more than Auntie Maxine are chanting impeachment as if there it were as inevitable as his inauguration. Almost like it was planned.

Whether anyone is leaving yet, at this point, they are out to totally shut down this presidency. Make it so unable to function that he cannot survive. That’s the objective.

It just gets worse all the time, as the left ramps up radicalization of all assets at once. With the media being in the center of all the the activity. The harder you look the worse it is.

Here is what News Busters just reported a day ago. Press risks all for its agenda.

At the forum, CIA Director Mike Pompeo took to the stage slammed The New York Times for putting the life of an officer at risk. “We had a publication, you work for Bret, that published the name of an undercover officer at the Central Intelligence Agency. I find that unconscionable,” he angrily declared to the thunderous applause of the audience.

But get this, they seem more concerned for safety of anonymous sources that provide them information than covert operators. This is serious stuff. They are now endangering our national security and our people on the ground. But then the NYT person who was interviewing Pompeo explained it this way — or tried to.

The Times claimed one of the reasons they published the name was because it had appeared in other articles. [their own] Their second reason was that Donald Trump was the president. “[Redacted] is leading an important new administration initiative against Iran,” they said.

Wow, totally outrageous and vindictive. Saying it is justified because Trump is president… which somehow gives them the right to name the person again, with personal information. This is nothing like Valerie Plame. This is real time intel they are messing playing with. Putting lives at risk, daily. Leaks, leaks and super leaks and no one cares.

What we have here is the CIA Director calling out the press right there live, at a security forum. Oh it might not be a hearing at the Capitol but this is even bigger. Right there on stage and people applauded Pompeo for bringing the heat. They deserve public shaming, not that it will work. Is it war?

This is not press or media, these are subversives acting out like seditious cells. That’s how they feel about Trump being President. Jeopardizing the nation’s security means nothing. Disdain for Trump above everything else. Hate rules, Resistance for resistance sake.

Radicals are lose.

And it seems, more and more every day, that not only are there real inherent conflicts and bias with Mueller’s entire team but that he is clearly out to extract a pound of flesh for Comey’s firing. Will he get it? Mueller went rogue from the start. Deep State. All weapons are out in a full assault. Media is at the center driving it all. Hostile enemies within.

RightRing | Bullright

Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

Don’t give me an M-e-g-y-n

The wandering little Megyn Kelly got her debut “exclusive” interview with Putin and she coined a new standard: Premiere Failure.

The Horn News

Six months and $20 million later, Kelly debuted her much anticipated news magazine show Saturday Night with Megyn Kelly on June 4th — and critics were not impressed.

“Megyn Kelly off to rough start with NBC show’s premiere,” wrote Newsday, who called Kelly “overwhelmed” by Russian President Vladimir Putin during their one-on-one interview. Their final assessment? “Bottom line: Rough launch for Megyn Kelly, but score one for Vladimir Putin.”

First of all, she is notorious for not living up to her hype. (and by now she is the only one still hyping herself) So the Megyn ‘parade of one’ struck out on getting anything of value from a Putin interview. Or maybe it was really her debut in comedy?

The crazy part is that libs were mad at her for other reasons too. And you know how libs get when they are mad at someone. They are offended that she and NBC gave Putin a platform. “Why?” is all they keep saying. Then not to learn a thing by the exercise. She managed to tick off liberals and those on the right, in the know.

She’s in that sweet spot where everyone is hating her — and she did it without putting makeup on a mocked severed head acting like a jihadi. She really blew it. Can she recover? Well, who cares anyway?

The Premiere Failure of Megyn Kelly, does have sort of a ring to it. Scratch world leaders and dignitaries off her list. Should Kathy Griffin be her next interview? It might register more than a yawn. Besides Griffin, Megyn is the undisputed Queen of Fail for the week.
(they both need therapy — both are extreme publicity hounds)

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.

But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.

Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.

She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.

First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:

So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.

Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)

“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.

Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]

Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care

by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017

“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.

This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”

That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.

It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.

Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)

“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”

She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.

Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]

“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.

Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).

It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”

Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:

“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”

“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”

“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”

“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”

So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.

Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.

It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.

Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.

When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

Maddow on the warpath

Check this out for statements from space. Rachael Maddow on her fear about Trump:

“So it’s a weird tension. It’s a dangerous time for the first amendment and the free press in this country. At the same time, we’re oddly influential with the guy who wants to kill us.” – Rachael Maddow roadshow via Mediaite

Notice Maddow’s flippant use of the words “kill us.” The first literal way to take it is so absurd it is hard to conceive what she meant. For the sake of it, just take it that she means effectually killing the first amendment. That’s bad enough. Killing off the news media?

This is a running screed in media and the left that Trump is killing their first amendment, or certainly that is his goal. I don’t know where they come up with that.

Now if anyone had a problem with the entire 1st amendment, it was Obama. Media sycophants weren’t the least concerned over that: speech, religious freedom, assembly, (bad) press etc. He was at war with most of it, and anyone using it against him.

Enemy within: Media War on the People

Two statements made news over the weekend. And they were set off by a Trump tweet which you’d think spoke for itself. Maybe these people are not even smart enough to read a tweet and comprehend it.

McCain adds his two cents. You’d never catch him putting it in a tweet.That’s beneath him. He’d much rather run to the Mainstream media wolves to vent.

“A fundamental part of that new world order was a free press. I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you.”

“I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

“When you look at history,” McCain said, “the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”

He tried to clarify that he was not saying Trump is a dictator. Just referencing it.

Senator Graham cracker has upped the flame by declaring in Germany that 2017 will be “the year Congress kicks Russia in the ass.” (…will they go Obamacare on Russia?)

MSM had its view, from CNN to Chris Wallace on Fox, that they don’t like that talk. Oh, too bad! Get a grip on yourselves. Why is it when the people say something, it’s either disturbing or outrageous? Then when Trump says it, it is downright “dangerous.”

Just look at media, or the press. Adversarial press is the word they like to use. But they’ve gone from biased to adversarial, to opposition, to cheerleaders for obstruction. They are in protest of Trump every day.

Then there is the “I am a Muslim too” protest. Followed by the “Not My President’s day” — impeach him protest. In Britain, elected officials are in protest against Trump receiving a state visit in UK. No state visit for you, Donald! Stay away from our Queen. People in the UK are actually betting how long Trump will last as president?

So President’s Day for Trump means national protest day. Well, every day is protest day for Trump. We have sports’ and Patriots-players’ protests. Pope Francis had more criticism for our domestic and immigration policy. Francis, tear down your wall!

Now getting down to the crux of that media’s war on the people. That is basically what it comes down to. Media doesn’t like that being said or that language? Oh well. Stop acting like the enemy of the people then. Even before Trump won, the media and liberals began attacking Trump’s supporters. It’s a typical leftist tactic to blame and ostracize the supporters — as a basket of deplorables and irredeemables.

Why is media the enemy of the people? Well, this their seventh year of really proving it. Where was this adversarial press for the past eight years? Where was Media mafia on Benghazi.We still don’t know what Obama or officials were doing?

Did they ask probing questions about the Iran deal? No.Did Media care the IRS was targeting Obama’s political opponents. Did they cover Fast and Furious? Did they cry outrage when Obama’s campaign talked to Iran before getting in office? Or call for an independent consel-investigation? Did media pursue Obama’s Russia flexibility?

Did media sympathize with or cover Tea Parties? No, they attacked them relentlessly.

Media despised anyone who was not onboard with Obama; they mocked and probed them and kept reminding everyone that Obama is the president.

Adversarial press? Hardly, they were his biggest cheerleaders. Now press is just more the loyal opposition and the middle man between boycotting, dissenting politicians and the Resistance — which are all really the same thing. Rrah-rah!

They went from Obama’s sycophant press to just the unabashed enemy of the people.

RightRing | Bullright