Pendulum Politics

Much has been discussed and written about our condition of politics today, by some very good and bright people. Most of it in some ways will talk about the gains we seem to make only to fall backward, seemingly pushed into the corner, and forced to fight our way out of it once again.

This give and take, mostly take, could drive one dizzy. It has me a few times. And by design, it is supposed to do just that. It is supposed to make you take your eye off the goal and lose focus. Sometimes that is the direct result. See we are supposed to see it as a moving pendulum that just goes back and forth, as a natural ebb and flow process.

But that pendulum has not been falling in the happy medium for some time. We can look around and see all that has changed in the last five years. Does that seem like the middle to you? It sure doesn’t to me. Part of this illusion construct we hear is that we are gaining or winning over time. This has not been the case, whether that is culturally or politically.

The score cannot be measured by winning elections either. They are not the be all end all. The ground gained is the true measure like in warfare. Our gains seem short lived.

If we are winning elections but still no real ground has been gained then there is something wrong. Nor do elections signify winning by themselves. They are the mere vehicle to the results. Sort of like a successful drive on the football field, you need to keep getting first downs or you won’t have the ball much longer. You also need to make turnovers when you are on defense. Why do we often act as if just playing the game is enough?

If we aren’t focused on those incremental, strategic goals then we aren’t getting too far. We have our share of hot dogs on our side, whether they are Republicans or conservatives, who are only really thinking of their own interests or their agendas. Just a few of them and the whole team is compromised. They are going out on their own doing all kinds of stuff on their agenda while the team suffers. They have other ideas.

Now I realize no one can force everyone to focus on the greater game. But they should all care and want to do that themselves. If we have three or four subagendas going on that everyone is fighting for, we are loosing on the main agenda. I don’t expect people to abandon self or their own people, I just do not want them abandoning our bigger agenda. If we take care of that the smaller ones will fall into place. But some want their things first, it is exactly backwards. We must build the whole structure or the smaller ones are less significant or even meaningless — at least in the whole picture.

I’m making the point that we need to have a point. We cannot go around rudderless. When the storm comes, and they will, how do we then all line up on the same page? That does not seem probable. Freestyling is great but we need team success to build on too.

And the wall should have been one such big unifier. It should have brought people together instead of tearing them apart. But it hasn’t been. People have their own ideas. If they all stick to one greater agenda, we all win. Don’t count on the pendulum to even the score.

It reminds me of that distinct duo

Right Ring | Bullright

The Moral Of The Story

Let me start this personal rant by saying if anyone thought I was one of them there tongue-tied Christians when it came to the flock, you can count me out on that strategy,.

In fact, there is an awful lot to criticize among Christians today but I usually refrain. Such is the exception on this occasion. Allow me to get my rant hat on.

First a little background on this particular one. There’s a guy that floats mostly on the margins now but is quite full of himself. No, not Jim Wallis or one of the other infamous leftist preachers, take your pick. They aren’t quite in his league.

This one is proud to say he rose in ranks with Jerry Falwell (Sr) back in the day with the Moral Majority. Chuck Baldwin thought of himself as Jerry’s right hand man that would one day probably take over the movement, if anything happened to Falwell.

However he did it, he became pretty full of himself to the red hot narcissist, radical level. He’s now moved on to sort of a solo hologram movement, within smaller Christian circles, in the style of any of many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones out there. He’s a former, still recovering in my view, Democrat liberal who doesn’t know or want to admit it.

As for me, I used to think at least on rare occasion he would get a nut or two. But these days it’s clear where the nuts have all gone. I just can’t tolerate his rhetoric any more, which got even worse than it was. He’s a self-styled critic of everyone else, which conveniently leaves him on top of his own hill, with a small loyal following still. Diehards.

This guy did run for president though when he formed a rout against much better known, former Ambassador, Alan Keyes when he was running for president. See, he used his muscle in the Constitution Party ranks to oust Keyes. Well any moral authority Chuck Baldwin still had went out went out the window about then. What little he had anyway.

Baldwin fancies himself as the speaker for the Christian political movement though he isn’t. He dreams big, if only they would listen to him. His shtick is attacking fellow Christians on the right, a common target today. But he specializes in attacking them and the Republicans the way McCain did. Meaning he doesn’t reserve much animus for liberals or Democrats.

No, he’s an inside player who mocks Rush Limbaugh or any other big talkers on the right. He’s the guy you would want on your team only if you were plotting a coup from within.

Back to preaching. He did start up and build a good sized church in Florida. Then several years ago announced he’d be moving to Montana to settle. Big change, well, maybe what he thought. He already had a radio show and the necessary political capital. He could always draw from Christian networks with his tough talk and rhetoric.

Oh and he also feels that churches shouldn’t take 501 status so they can be free to speak out on politics and abortion and so on. Those who don’t are enslaved or just ignorant.

Since then he has gotten even more vocal on his political positions. Maybe he’s planning another run, I don’t know. But he keeps up his forte for attacking Christians from within. That is any but the big liberal leaders. You don’t find him railing against those or Dems much these days. I guess he thinks we are the ones who really deserve his ire. And he has plenty of that to give them.

He boasts of flattery he received from icon Howard Phillips – another organizer on the right. He got the right endorsements from leaders of movements, enough to prod him on. One wonders if they were feathers in his hat or only stepping stones to give him street cred with conservatives. I haven’t decided. His so-called hard line positions seemed to have morphed into deep-seeded biases. The object of which are firmly directed at the Christian right and what he terms Republican enablers. Fed up with both Democrats and Republicans who he calls worse and more dangerous than the former. The usual anti-fare plays well in the CP and with disgruntled conservative Republicans.

Chuck Baldwin’s objective is less clear.

His stands, if you could sum them up, come off a lot like disenchanted liberals. He pushes the freedom thing, styling himself a Constitutionalist and bill of rights expert along with a historian. Sure there is enough to attack Christians on today. Though he takes a glee in doing it where I reserve mine for the right occasions without taking great pride in it. But he just never has much fire in the belly left for progressives and liberals now, as if they don’t exist and Republicans are the only culpable targets of opportunity.

His conservative positions are drenched in popular liberal antiwar and foreign policy notions the way Ron Paul’s was, with extra passion and a bitterness that exudes.

Then comes his latest column. Usually it includes his standard screed with a few current issues thrown in to season the pot. Exactly as he did in this piece. What are his favorite taunts? Well, there is always conspiracy stuff and always a rant against Israel into the anti-war rants. His angle is on attacking media as Jew controlled rather than the MSM. He has a particular distaste for Trump and basically echoes any of the left-wing talking points about him. A common dead giveaway. Like you know where he takes his news cues from. The Jews control Hollywood too, in case you didn’t know that.

But his favorite line of attack script in this piece was Christians don’t get it. They just think they do. And if you don’t agree with his stands on issues then you are one of his chosen targets. Doubly so for supporting Trump. I never heard this fervor about Obama. He sometimes mocked our anger at Obama and failure to concentrate on the Christian Republican side of the isle. Like we needed circular firing squads under Obama. Christians were the real problem. That is where we are, apparently we don’t get it – if we ever did.

The implications here are strong. He knows much better.

Therefore, we are the problem not the solution. He being the much wiser and studied on the matter does get it. He does not have the flaws in understanding that we do. And his loyal following is attuned as well. But they share no blame in any of this. He is the only one who does get it, in the end.

In that arrogant reasoning, this column fit him like a well worn glove because it touched all the highlights from Jewish controlled media to attacking our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia with the murder of Khashoggi. Mostly they are your typical liberal fare wrapped in a warm blanket of Christians are too stupid to know. Somehow I cannott picture Paul going on a lecture tear like that saying you people just don’t get it about the Roman thing.

I hear the same tired mantra directed at Christians from the Left. Obama at the Prayer Breakfasts come to mind. Amazing that the world is still spinning on its axis with all the culpable blame of Christian conservatives. It seems to be reversed. I hear little practical advice coming from this (or these) critics of current political culture. Do they get it?

Tell me the difference between this snipe agenda and the Left’s popular Resistance?

Right Ring | Bullright

A Word From Alternate Reality

In an alternate reality, there is room for this story.

It is so ridiculously Orwellian. Why the whole thing seems like a mindless projection.

So the tagline for this fiction is that somehow Democrats are not “ruthless” enough. Therefore, they lack something of a serious radical strategy. Can you imagine?

People that continually engage in behavior that threatens to shut down the very government they love to control, are not ruthless enough.

Politico has the scoop. (consensus according to the leftbots)

“They [Republicans] are more ruthless,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who over a quarter-century has served as a top aide to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. “And I don’t want to be like them. … The answer can’t be for Democrats to be just as cynical.”

Finally, it did admit that: “Whatever factors fueled Kavanaugh’s victory, it was hardly that Democrats were too nice to attack him personally.” — Surely not the problem!

But never mind all that. It contends Republicans just stick together better.

Begala said part of the explanation for this divide lies in Democratic psychology, citing Bill Clinton’s saying that, “Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

Really? Anyone buy that blather? Then they launch into the popular vote in presidential elections should be the gold standard mantra. Where do they think we are, Disney Land?

I’m not going to blame Politico because it is the message Dems desperately want to send. But it is nonsensical how anyone could take it seriously…..i.e. the Alinsky-ite Dems just aren’t tough enough. The radical party of Lockstep Is Us, whatever the issue.

And the second part that Repubs are the stronger with staying in line and fighting. Beam me up. Projection. Well, until now Republicans hadn’t even shown a unified spine. Democrats have institutionalized the word fight into every campaign and message.

I now return you to the gravitational planet, where physics still applies anyway.

The Stocking was hung, with a new spine intact

…in hopes that the GOP could make good use of it.

The formerly spineless Republican Party rebounds

By Bobby Eberle – – Monday, October 8, 2018 | Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
If there is one word — one defining, all-encompassing word — that has summed up the state of the Republican Party for years (if not decades), it’s “spineless.” Whether the issue has been illegal immigration, the budget, standing up to Planned Parenthood, or even the wildly unpopular and disastrous Obamacare, Republican “leaders” have tucked their collective tails between their legs rather than stand up and fight. But something remarkable seems to be in the air, and there’s no doubt that the change in resolve has been brought about by Donald J. Trump.

Remember all the rhetoric concerning Obamacare? Analysts said it would fail. Obama officials even admitted they lied about terms. No, you can’t keep your own doctor. No, you can’t keep your own plan. No, prices will not be lower. Republican legislators said they would repeal it. They voted to repeal it. Oh, but wait. Barack Obama was still president, and the Republican votes were simply a side show next to Mr. Obama’s veto. When Donald Trump first came on the scene, he said he would sign legislation repealing Obamacare, but the GOP couldn’t get it done. They showed their complete lack of fortitude and rolled over.

That’s just one example of many, many other issues. …/

More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/trump-delivers-the-gop-an-early-christmas-present-/

Times…they are a changing.

Lesson to Republicans now seems to be:

You see how you are treated when Republicans do fight back. So tell me again why you would ever want to appease and capitulate to these dishonest radicals?

Any questions?

Dear Meghan McCain

“Hush, little one don’t you cry”…….as the song goes. Oh, never mind. Grudge much?

Apparently you now feel you have to pick up the battle of bitter John McCain against Trump. One comment Trump made regarding John McCain is all this whole thing is about since it is the only thing he did to McCain, your father, besides getting elected.

Meghan McCain said in eulogizing her father:

“The America of John McCain is generous and welcoming and bold. She is resourceful and confident and secure. She meets her responsibilities, She speaks quietly because she is strong. America does not boast because she has no need to. The America of John McCain has no need to be great again because America was always great.”

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege.”

“We live in an era where we knock down old American heroes for all their imperfections, when no leader wants to admit to fault. You were an exception, and you gave us an ideal to strive for. Look, I know you can see this gathering here in this cathedral. The nation is here to remember you.”

I understand you want to mourn your father, but why do you have to attack Trump to do it — because you think it is popular? Would you attack Obama for “change you can believe in?” Any wonder some people interpret it as a eulogy for the Republican Party?

Well, if you want to count the comments of blaming him for his vote to save Obamacare, not lost on the Democrat left, then there is that too. But McCain did vote that way, after running and promising that he would lead the charge to abolishing Obamacare. Which brings us to an interesting point in this dustup. (End first person)

Was he really promising to get rid of Obamacare, or was he promising instead just to lead the charge in the Senate? See, that matters if he was not really planning on ending Obamacare but only wanted to lead the effort. In that case, he would run and lead it which would also mean killing the effort when push came to shove. Thereby making himself mister popularity with the left, is that what he had in mind? Do you see what I mean?

And then there were all those efforts toward getting answers and information about MIA’s and POW’s Remember those, where John McCain rushed in to sort of lead the parade and then the effort ended up dying? Was he ever interested in settling the matter or just burying the efforts by leading it? Questions many of us have about McCain’s agenda.

However, this telling sign from Megyn McCain sort of unravels it. So much animus. So much bitterness. The same type of bitterness and lack of concern he seemed to have for those aggrieved family members of Vietnam Vets. Answers they don’t have, questions that remain. John was no real help for them. But those efforts died off after he got involved. Better not to know? What did he actually care about? Is criticism of McCain taboo?

Now Meghan lashes out at the funeral as if it were Trump’s fault McCain died. Blame Trump for what: starting a movement, trying to get answers; trying to change the way the Washington Swamp worked; trying to fight corruption? Blame Trump for using a slogan that even Bill Clinton used. Blame Trump for speaking up for so many Americans, who went to the polls to elect him president. So blame voters. Was that the problem, he was elected? Or was it that he was sticking up for the forgotten, working man who was disenchanted and disenfranchised?

There were plenty of people that felt their voice was not heard. In her rant attack on Trump, to cheers of applause, she was lashing out at the voters who elected him, too. Blame the masses. Don’t blame McCain for anything though he has been in office for over 35 years. Almost as a metaphor to forgotten voters: he was elected and then diagnosed not long after his election yet would not cede his seat, but instead hoarded it to his bitter end so they could not go to the polls to elect a new Senator in November.

In the beginning of May he made a statement that he may well not be around in the spring, of 2019, when the end of May was the deadline to have his seat included in the election. He could have continued his Senate career, as the people had their election campaign. (like he did) He would still have his funeral plans made the same way. He would still have the marketing of his book. And he still would not have voted in major issues for months. In fact, as we see, he would have died while that was all taking place, before the election ever came. It would have been no skin off of McCain or his legacy.

But it was skin off the voters. Did he care? No, it seems not. He had his own plans and concerns, which did not involve the people who went and voted for him yet again in 2016. Was he even honest with the voters in that election?

Now that we are in this situation, brought on by McCain, if anyone should have a problem it is the people. They were slighted. And the Governor of Arizona will have to pick a successor to McCain, as he wanted him to do. McCain wanted him to pick a McCain-type person. That is no secret. What is a McCain-type person? Likely someone from his inner circle. Forgive many of us for asking if that person will be his wife, Cindy McCain. Yes, I heard a few denials but I think it will be Cindy McCain? (I could be wrong) It gives someone the pathway into the office setting it up for the 2020 election though.

This all makes me ask and wonder, just how much power does a sitting US Senator have, even to pick his successor? Does he get to overrule the people who voted for him? Does he have a veto over the will of the people? All these questions could force you to conclude yes, he does, when it comes to McCain. Seems that his will is the only one that mattered.

I’m sorry for your grief, pain and bitterness, Meghan. Maybe one day you can let at least one of them go?

Seems the people should have more complaints than John McCain, or his family. Meghan said her father’s response to her asking what he wanted in a eulogy was: “Show them how tough you are.” So was the point to show people how tough she is? What is the purpose? Tough toward Trump, and the voters? Over what? But she did make the bitter point clear.

Right Ring | Bullright

Clown Express: last call to Washington elites for 2018

The increasingly irrelevant George Will may be defrocked but he is still bloviating about his political strategy — supposedly to stop Republicans.

Ed Morrow tore it up in this piece. George Will’s satchel of descriptors

George Will Willfully Wills Defeat

Consider the first paragraph of [George Wills’] recent Washington Post column, “Vote Against the GOP”:

Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans—these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively—fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

“Carnage,” “telegenic,” “temperate Republicans,” “expanding and contracting cohorts,” “fresh if redundant,” and two uses of “misrule”—all in two sentences!

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/25/george-will-willfully-wills-defeat/

Will, indeed, is laying it on thick. Not content with opposing Republicans in 2016, he is back now opposing Repubs in 2018, counseling you to do exactly that. Sure he can explain his 3-cushion (attempted) bank shot. But why would anyone take Will seriously now?

The Bush-con job

It seems to be time for a little push-push back on the Bush-Bush. Gee, I was so looking forward to doing a Dear John letter to McCain. That will have to wait.

I know, I already had a post on Dubya here but he demands a new one. Now I have to file the Bushes with Corker, Flake, Sasse, McCain, Kasich who are ongoing subjects. After all, look at the legacy they bequeathed us. And they gave us the biggest loser of 2016, Jeb — the guy with an acronym for a name.

It is time for history to respond to the Bush Hecklers. Why were they off limits for years? But that requires a tome that I’ll struggle to do in hardcover. (pre-priced at 49.99) Let’s go with highlights or low lights for starters.

So if that’s what the dynamic duo of destruction want from conservative Republicans, then they shall get it. In his recent speech, George W. declared:

“We’ve seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty,” Bush said. “At times it can seem that the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions — forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.”

Has George looked in the mirror in the last few years? He really has been under a rock. Dude, we had to defend you and your Bushisms. They ripped Republicans apart.

“We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism, forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.”

Is that what you call it,”dynamism”?

Look, if you can’t treat the people who are here, who vote, any better than this, then why should we believe anything you are selling about “immigrants” — illegal or not?.
 

The Bushes don’t seem to understand how all this works. Sure, they were attacked by the left relentlessly. But they shouldn’t mistake that for the ire of the American people they will get in spades from Republicans now. They thought we would not dare respond in kind to their bitter attacks on us. Wrong. They thought it is our job to stand up and defend all their twists and turns of political schizophrenia, the way McCain is. Wrong again. Strange how for political creatures, they just don’t get it.

That is the problem. The Bushes are the poster child for ruling-class elitists who make up the establishment, They are actually viewed with disdain by most of the people, but think they are elite overlords to rule us with an iron hand. They should make decisions, not us.

As Dubya used to say he had “political capital” and he was going to spend it. However, that bank account was drained long ago and the political capital is in the hands of the people, who don’t have much use for Bushes. We are so very fortunate, and I am personally ecstatic, that Jeb did not make it into the White House. So no matter what Bushes think of us and Trump, we are grateful their political power and capital has been cut off.

Recent statements were only an appetizer because the duo of disdain revealed their true inner views in a new book. I suppose Dubya will have to comment or promote this new book around the country, and remind us of the not-so-forgotten Bush years.

The Hill

Former President George H.W. Bush has a blunt assessment of Donald Trump: “He’s a blowhard.” And his son, former President George W. Bush, has harsh words for his Republican successor as well: “This guy doesn’t know what it means to be president.”

“I don’t like him,” George H.W. Bush says in the book. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” – “The Last Republicans” by Mark K. Updegrove.

Does 41 always despise people he doesn’t know much about and call them blowhards? Yet he and his preening son are prestigious? Tell us what it means, Dubya, oh wise one.

The response from this White House was not kind: Necn.com

“The American people voted to elect an outsider who is capable of implementing real, positive, and needed change – instead of a lifelong politician beholden to special interests.” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told NBC News. “If they were interested in continuing decades of costly mistakes, another establishment politician more concerned with putting politics over people would have won.”

While in Asia, Trump was asked about it and said:

After landing in Japan for his 11-day Asia trip, Trump refused to comment on the report, saying: “I’ll comment after we come back. I don’t need headlines. I don’t want to make their move successful.”

The White House also responded on the general party criticism:

“If one Presidential candidate can disassemble a political party, it speaks volumes about how strong a legacy its past two presidents really had”

If this is not proof: no matter what happens the Bushes can’t listen to the American people, even to the results of an election. The verdict is clear and now the Bushes are the past.

Right Ring | Bullright

Strategy is the boss

There was a reason I mentioned the rules for radicals because they are tactics. So that brings my concern to the front.

I think most of what Trump has done has been refreshing, a welcome change. But I do have one concern. I may not understand all of Trump’s tactics, he’s been doing this long enough to lose track. I like most of it.

There is this question I have though. You have strategy and you have tactics. My question is wondering if the tactics are getting ahead of the strategy? I know Trump has active plans and a strategy, but I’m starting to see more tactics than strategy.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, though it does prompt the question.

However, when tactics supplant strategy we have a problem. When tactics don’t support an overall strategy, they can’t be that effective. I wonder if we are at that point? I don’t think it is a major problem except it is far better if all the tactics coincide with the strategy. And we know that tactics alone cannot be a strategy.

But there is a danger of reversal. That is when strategy becomes subservient to tactics. In that case the strategy loses, and certainly can’t be very effective. That is my fear.

Well, at least we don’t have to worry about those two things with Congress. They have neither a strategy nor tactics. And whatever political tactics individuals do use don’t support any kind of strategy. So the body is completely incompetent, useless and ineffective. But that’s probably why we can’t collectively oppose the left, let alone follow through on plans. Probably why we are losing even when we’re winning elections.

That brings it back to Trump. Finally we have someone with an actual plan and pretty basic strategy. But then I wonder if we are losing the strategy for the tactics and maneuvers? And a strategy should not be incoherent among team members. What team? Congress is acting as if the Dems are in charge and Republicans are an opposition party. So they haven’t got the hang of winning. That might turn into a self-fulfilling philosophy.

Because if we lose a cohesive strategy then we are a lot like Congress is already, and obviously their lack of plan is not working for us at all.

Right Ring | Bullright

Kasich’s wide berth platform

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

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

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

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

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

Politics of “casual” convenience.

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

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

One flew over the Kremlin in 2016

I’m posting this as an op-ed opinion piece. – for educational and informational purposes.

So I have no personal commentary on or about it for now. Perhaps it deserves a reasoned response, perhaps it speaks for itself and the author?

(since I’ve seriously dabbled on all things Russia for years, I don’t rule it out)

You decide what to make of it.

How the GOP became the party of Putin

Hot Air [excerpt]

“How did the party of Ronald Reagan’s moral clarity morph into that of Donald Trump’s moral vacuity? Russia’s intelligence operatives are among the world’s best. I believe they made a keen study of the American political scene and realized that, during the Obama years, the conservative movement had become ripe for manipulation. Long gone was its principled opposition to the “evil empire.” What was left was an intellectually and morally desiccated carcass populated by con artists, opportunists, entertainers and grifters operating massively profitable book publishers, radio empires, websites, and a TV network whose stock-in-trade are not ideas but resentments.

If a political officer at the Russian Embassy in Washington visited the zoo that is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, they’d see a “movement” that embraces a ludicrous performance artist like Milo Yiannopoulos as some sort of intellectual heavyweight. When conservative bloggers are willing to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from Malaysia’s authoritarian government to launch a smear campaign against a democratic opposition leader they know nothing about, how much of a jump is it to line up and defend what at the very least was attempted collusion on the part of a brain-dead dauphin like Donald Trump Jr.?

Surveying this lamentable scene, why wouldn’t Russia try to “turn” the American right, whose ethical rot necessarily precedes its rank unscrupulousness?”

James Kirchick Posted at 9:00 pm on July 19, 2017

Posted at Hot Air (I’m sure there will be commentary there – from larger Politico)

Prophetic echo from days ago

Just days ago in Townhall was an eerie premonition to the Alexandria shooting.

The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed

Townhall — Derek Hunter | Posted: Jun 04, 2017

I’m old enough to remember when “violent rhetoric” was the root of all our problems, and crosshairs on a website no one ever saw was the reason for mass murder.

Of course, those were different times, times in which the president had a (D) after his name, not an evil (R). Since that important change happened, everything flipped – over-the-top rhetoric is no longer the domain of the fringe; it’s the currency of the mainstream media. Worse, it’s turned from heated political disagreement to paranoia and pure hatred, and it’s going to get someone killed.

The people on the political left didn’t just lose an election last November, they lost their minds. And their leadership has been exploiting that for power and profit ever since.

Immediately after their loss, Democrats did not turn introspective and try to discover why, after eight years of a personally popular president, voters across the country had rejected them in record numbers at every level of government. No, they turned in anger at those who beat them, and no one has had more of that anger directed at them than President Trump.

Read at https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2017/06/04/untitled-n2335936

And when someone does get hurt or killed, the Left will say what they usually say, “what difference at this point does it make anyway?” Then they will break all the laws of science and physics to blame others, us, their enemies.

Even Newsweek got right on the ball. An article implies Scalise’s close ties to Trump could have something to do with it. A sly way to blame Trump? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Tie him to Trump at the hip. I don’t know what Trump ties they could have had in mind for the Capitol police and other victims. Collateral fair game?

Who Is Steve Scalise? Republican House Whip Shot at Alexandria Baseball Game

Scalise was an early endorser of President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, although he said that Trump should make a “direct apology” after a tape emerged of the candidate making lewd comments about women in October. The 51-year-old has also supported Trump’s travel ban and voted in favor of the Republican Obamacare replacement plan.

By evening, CNN’s Randi Kaye came out with their own mini-biography basically repeating the same thing, using a speech Scalise once gave over a decade ago to a controversial supremacist group. Not like he hadn’t apologized and regretted it. No, his bio was full of all kinds of damning things, to listen to Randi Kaye.

Scalise was so closely entwined with Trump as one of the earliest supporters that he recently had Trump make a tiny video wishing his daughter happy birthday. Terrible. Well, that was a scandalous thing to do. Open the door for blaming Trump for everything: the profanity on the left, their hatred, even for their violence.

A tweet posted earlier in the day posed the apologist question about the shooting asking: ‘if the Republicans are so intent on hurting people and their Obamacare, then is taking pot shots at a bunch of Republicans just self-defense?’ One thing about the Left, not only will they accept violence from their own, but they’ll make excuses for it.

Remember the lectures about accepting the results of the election?

Then there is Bernie Sanders, the idol candidate of the mass murder wannabe. After 18 months of campaigning for a revolution, and then pledging not to back down, he comes out now to say “violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society.” That myth was busted a long time ago. Can’t you feel that hypocritical Bern?

So then Terry McAuliffe comes out at the press conference to lecture us about gun control. No, this is all about control of power and libs lack of self-control or morality. McAuliffe, now there’s a voice of moderate reason… not. But they cannot whitewash this maggot’s evil fifteen minutes of fame. Who knows who the shooter was connected to? He had been staying at the nearby YMCA and even spoke to the local mayor there numerous times, while plotting out his attack. All in a days revision…or revolution, for the left.

RightRing | Bullright

The Forgotten Man gaining allies

Sen. Mike Lee: Conservatives Must Join President Trump as Champions of ‘The Forgotten Man’

by Neil W. McCabe17 Feb 2017 | Breitbart

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee told an audience at Washington’s Heritage Foundation Wednesday that he is aligned with President Donald Trump’s populist conservatism and the president’s concern for “The Forgotten Man”–a full reversal from stances he took in the presidential campaign when he adamantly opposed Trump’s candidacy.

“Donald Trump’s tabloid and reality-TV persona may be an artifact of America’s glib celebrity culture, but his presidency represents a substantive indictment of Washington’s political and policymaking consensus, very much including the consensus within the GOP,” Lee said. “It’s an indictment I co-sign.”

Lee, who was associated with conservative holdouts, said it was time to get with the program and recognize that Trump is working on the same problems they are working on.

“Almost seven years ago, I first ran for the Senate as an anti-establishment challenger against an incumbent of my own party,” he said.

He added:

Four years ago, I first came to the Heritage Foundation and urged conservatives to reconnect with the working families and struggling communities our party had too long ignored and I spent the bulk of my first term in the Senate advocating for policy reforms to help and empower the “Forgotten Americans” that Washington’s broken status quo was leaving behind.

“President Trump’s peculiar brand of populist, nationalist politics is not what I had in mind. But nor must his election be the existential threat to conservatism, republicanism, and constitutionalism that many of his critics on the Right fear,” the senator said.

More >>

Graham – McCain: touring tag team

James Woods fires off at Graham, McCain for doubling down with Dems

December 30, 2016 | Warner Todd Huston | BizPac Review

Actor James Woods, who recently rejoined Twitter with his conservative posts, slammed Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for joining Barack Obama in his desire to punish Russia with further sanctions over unproven allegations that Russian hackers interfered in the U.S. elections.

Referring to a story by The Hill newspaper, Woods criticized GOP Senators McCain and Graham for joining Obama and a list of Democrats who want even tougher sanctions on Russia.

Why don't these two spend the next eight years hanging with the Clintons on Soros' yacht? Let the adults handle this… https://t.co/mQbs7NYlXG

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) December 30, 2016

More http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/30/james-woods-fires-off-sens-graham-mccain-doubling-dems-429946/

Coming to the Sunday circuit near you. Hasn’t their 15 minutes expired? Good idea, they could be so happy in Demland. They can never criticize the Soros crew — that is taboo. Fexibility, cold war jokes and resets out, sanctions are in. Just trying to keep up.

The shaping of the political landscape

We are being told, for whatever their reasons, that the race is really over. Get used to the idea that Hillary has won — at least that is their message. They push their perception from all corners and media. What’s wrong with that… besides everything?

Problem number one is that there are some things not lost on the Left, at least the greater Left not enthralled with Hillary. They only wish they could successfully take on their party establishment in an effective way to usher in change. (certainly the Left doesn’t agree with the right) Though they would love and tried to stage a coup against their establishment status quo. And Wall Street connections are not popular with them.

So that creates the secret sauce. There is bound to be a lot of resentment within the Left having failed to take over and buck the entrenched elite estabos. They now immortalize Bernie the same way they did the Gore election, but to what end?

When the Left sees what the Republicans have done the one thing they cannot deny is that we effectively took on the party establishment. Sure there are fights and skirmishes now, which only proves the case. Even with the contempt of the anti-Trumpers and their establishment allies doing everything in their power to resist and fend off a takeover, they were not been able to put down the movement. They could not co-opt it either.

Now this has to be on the minds of some of the Left. They gave it a shot with Bernie, and it merged right back into business as usual. It was not even a real attempt that had a chance. It was fixed from the beginning. Leaked emails show it. They even had a blowup on the eve of their convention forcing DW Schultz to resign. Democrats and media stamped it all down easily, while they played up the dissatisfaction on the right. (they still are)

Republicans have to capitalize on that, as bad as it may seem to be on the right. We still achieved something the Left could not: we got a candidate nominated, through all those hurtles and protests thrown at us. Rub it in that the Establishment Party controls the Left. And having suffered through this coup attempt this year, Democrats will make sure it does not come that close to success again. There has to be some jealousy for what Republicans have accomplished. It must be extorted for all it is worth.

An Open letter to Spkr Ryan: Jeff Lord

An Open Letter to Speaker Paul Ryan: It’s time to leave.

by Jeffrey Lord
October 11, 2016, 6:44 pm

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I like you.

We both admired and worked for Jack Kemp at different stages of his career. I agree with much of your Kemp-style agenda. So it gives me no pleasure to say what is now abundantly obvious.

It is time for you to do the honorable thing and resign as Speaker of the House.

Your views on Donald Trump — and for that matter anything else — are between you and your constituents in Wisconsin. But most certainly what you do as Speaker of the House — which is to say as the leader of the Republican Party in the House and a senior leader in the national Republican Party — is to support the Republican presidential nominee elected by the voters. Amazingly you have dragged your feet repeatedly on one of your central responsibilities as a party leader. Now, with your latest statement refusing to defend Donald Trump — the Republican nominee and the elected leader the Republican Party — you have refused outright to perform your job as a senior party leader.

With that in mind, it is time to do the right thing — and the honorable thing: Resign the Speakership immediately.

To my dismay, you have chosen to disregard the long ago wisdom of Ronald Reagan that “a political party is not a fraternal order.” Instead, you have essentially joined forces with those who view the Republican Party as just that: a club. A combination fraternity/sorority and country club whose members — self-selected Congressmen and Senators, wealthy donors, consultants, and lobbyists — see themselves in high school terms as the “in crowd” and all the rest of their fellow Republicans — not to mention conservative Democrats and Independents — not as allies and supporters but as outsiders. Outsiders for whom the “insiders” have a fundamental contempt — a view that is strikingly similar to the view of Americans held by Hillary Clinton and the American Left at large.

Indeed, it is this “fraternal order” psychology that produced first the Reagan Revolution and has now produced Donald Trump. In both instances the base of the party was fed up with Republican elites whose view of America was centered on not principle but their own careers. It is precisely this mindset that — long before Donald Trump appeared on the scene — has given millions of Republican voters the belief that the Republican elites in Washington and elsewhere are, to borrow from Sean Hannity, feckless, weak and interested not in the country but only the preservation of their own careers. As Reagan well knew this kind of belief can be fatal to a political party. […/]

Read more: http://spectator.org/dear-speaker-ryan-resign/

Redistribute this….

This has circulated the Internet but worth reading.

College Student Ashamed Her Father Is A Republican, Until He Said THIS…

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Think of that the next time you hear “fair share” or “level playing field.”

H/T Allen West and The Federalist Papers

Cruz to back Trump…stay tuned

So weeks to go and Cruz is groaning about supporting Trump?

Ted Cruz expected to throw support to Trump

By Katie Glueck and Burgess Everett | 09/23/16 | Politico

Multiple sources close to Ted Cruz say the Texas senator is expected indicate his support for Donald Trump as soon as Friday.

It is unclear whether Cruz will say only that he is voting for the Republican nominee, as other lawmakers have done, or offer a more full-throated endorsement, but the idea of throwing any support to Trump is controversial within Cruzworld.

“If he announces he endorses, it destroys his political brand,” said someone who had worked for Cruz’s campaign.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to- throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584#ixzz4L6YZXU00

 

And that is the little box that Ted Cruz put himself in. He seems unable to get out of it…. at least until now. Will he won’t he?

And http://truthfeed.com/breaking-rumors-swirling-that-ted-cruz-will-endorse-trump-on-monday/25379/

Ted Cruz now says “I intend to keep my word”.

Polls, Hillary, and Goldman Sachs

Polls are up in Trump’s favor, email problems plague Hillary, she has endless coughing fits, she’s hoarse, she leaves her campaign for extended periods, she has a record she can’t run or hide from, she can’t be trusted, she lies, she doesn’t have press conferences and she’s obsessed with Donald Trumps taxes. Which one of those does not fit in the picture?

Hillary’s real 3am phone call came in 2013. Probably a conference call with Goldman Sachs, hedgefunders and George Soros on the red line…. offering her 225 thousand dollars for a speech. She took the call, set up the speech — mission accomplished.

The call from Benghazi and Chris Stevens, not so much. Maybe that line was busy?

Newsflash: now Goldman Sachs forbids its top 1% of employees from donating “to “any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official,” which also applies to donating to Trump — or “governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket.” (those speeches must have been worth it)

But now I wonder what their policy is on paid speeches?

Aside from the politics of it all, I smell a big First Amendment case here.

The long and windy Never Trump road

I have a few thoughts for Never Trumpers. Let’s just try a little logic. It’s pretty basic and simple. It is not exhaustive but take some highlights.

There are two scenarios. One is Trump wins, which leaves Never Trumpers gasping for air. The other is that Trump loses, which makes them complicit in the loss.

On its face you may think they are betting on Trump’s loss. Well, if he loses, then NTs will be a big factor in the cause of defeat. Sure they blame Trump but the reality is Dems have been using all the statements from these people for campaign ads. Often the worst critics of Trump have been these and establishment type people. So there is that blame.

Then if he wins, Never Trumpers are his greatest foe, they have a lot invested already.

Sooner or later there will be an end to this Never Trumperism. Even the Tea Parties had a shelf life. And what when the novelty wears off? They are reallly left out in the cold either way — either for being de facto Democrat operatives or being the stuck in the mud that do not or cannot get along with anyone.

If Hillary wins and Trump loses, the NTs bought the agenda. whether they actively voted for her or not. They did not stand up to stop her. They sat there as pundits in media and on shows as if the cat had their tongues, unwilling or afraid to form the simplest defense for Trump. They were useful Hillary pawns — dupes. And stopping her after a win will be almost impossible. Then there is the big question. Will they even actively work to stop her, being they did little to stop her from getting into office? Better to just do nothing.

Where does it all lead? I can’t tell you that .. but it is going to leave a mark.

RightRing | Bullright

The Politicization of Government

Hello, class, today our 8th-grade social studies continues our series on ‘the politicization of our government.’ For review: we already discussed particular areas in past lessons from EPA to the Justice Department, to the border control, to the IRS, to enforcing the laws just to name a few topics. You can review your notes on them.

Today we will look at just how politicized this all has become. So there was a letter by 50 former Republican officials that worked in various places in administrations. They all agreed to sign this public letter condemning the Republican nominee in this election, as unsuited for the office of President. They say they will not vote for Trump. Many were from national security or homeland security. Experts in their own minds all. They have decades of combined government or bureaucracy experience applying those government credentials to their political opinions.

Before this, a few other individuals also spoke out to condemn this nominee. We can add a former CIA director, Mike Morell, taking a political stand in support of Hillary to the list. It seems fashionable at first. But when you look closer there is something more going on.

They criticized Donald Trump for not having the proper temperament. But it should be noted they have not joined forces in their criticism before with the last Presidents or nominees. So this seems to be a another step in this politicization process. You can all read their letter for homework but I’m talking about the general emphasis. They are mostly criticizing Trump’s character. So that is standard fare now, but it is on the level today we haven’t seen before.

I suppose an extra thing to note is they are very proud of it. This is personal criticism or attacks on character and psychoanalysis. It looks like a cover for various political dissent. So you could see it as partisan political difference but again, it’s more.

We’ve seen that Obama politicized almost every area of government. These national security officials have anted up and then raised him by 50 votes. So it is not just one side of the political isle. The common denominator seems to be their time and experience in government coupled with an unanchored ability to delve into politics, using their experience and recognition, to take a public political position. Finally, to lampoon a nominee as unqualified and unfit for the office. Scale it up to organized groups in opposition.

The other thing worth noting, even though they all have political disagreements with him, is Trump does not appear to be an ideologue driven by partisan politics. In fact, what seems to irritate his opposition is he has been vocal in criticizing both Republicans and Democrats — though establishment in both. What we seem to have is an insurgent candidate who represents a threat to both sides of the establishment coin. Both sides are bent out of shape. This election is flushing out establishment from the others.

And that establishment class in Washington is not happy about these winds of change. It represents a threat, in some cases, to everything they have built their career around. Now we are seeing what they do, lash out at it. In this unfolding process, I think we’ve now seen just how political these people can be. This only dovetails with regular institutional politicization of Obama down through virtually all parts of the administration to his political, ideological agenda. They are proud of it.

Class dismissed. Next time, what happens if they lose?

RightRing | Bullright