List Of Lies

Remember the days when Democrats ran in the midterm elections? They claimed they had a legit agenda. They claimed it was not all about Trump.

So many of the Democrats dismissed themselves from partisan politics. They just wanted to work for the people and get things done. So they said.

McCaskill said I’m not one of those crazy Democrats. Guess what? Call her MSNBC crazy just like the rest of the triggered Dem freaks.

They were not running on an impeachment agenda, they said. Guess what? It’s their only agenda. They did not want open borders. Guess what? That’s exactly what they want.

Remember these old lines in their greatest hits:

We don’t want socialism
We don’t want to take your guns
We don’t want to raise taxes on working families
We don’t want late term or partial birth abortions.
We don’t want to force government to pay for abortions.
We don’t want to destroy the economy.
We don’t want to raise taxes on working people.
We don’t want to eliminate jobs.
We don’t want to hurt the middle class.
We don’t want to eliminate fossil fuels.
We are not socialists.
We don’t want open borders.
We don’t want single-payer. we only want to fix Obamacare.
We don’t want to cut the military.
We believe in the rule of law.
We are not trying to do a coup.
We are defending democracy
We just want to work together.
We are not running on impeachment.
We don’t want to shut down government.
Democrats don’t want to eliminate private insurance.
There is no Deep State conspiracy against Trump.
We don’t support violence.
We will call out any hateful rhetoric, no matter which side.
We accept the results of elections.

Let’s just call it like it is, virtually everything they tell us is a lie. Dems supprt:

Open borders
Impeaching Trump
Medicare for All
Eliminating private insurance
Giving free healthcare to illegal aliens
Free College for illegals
Welfare for illegals
Socialism
Abolishing ICE
Sanctuary cities.
Lawlessness
Supporting Crime
Late term and partial birth abortion
Government funding of abortion
Expanding and stacking the Supreme Court
Judicial activism and judicial tyranny
No separation of powers
Destroying the economy
Eliminating private insurance
Undermining national security and the miliatary
Raising taxes
Restorative Justice (you know what that is)
Gun control
Confiscating guns
Destroying the 1st and 2nd amendments, stomping on the 5th and 14th
Abuse of power
Politicizing the DOJ and FBI
Mobocracy
Supporting domestic terrorists
Resisting democracy — or democratic results

Right Ring | Bullright

A Helping Hand to Democrat Candidates

I apologize here but I’m beginning to feel sorry for Democrat candidates.

CNN talked to Terry McAuliffe about Trump and 2020. He said Democrat candidates, besides demagoguing the Trump agenda, should tell people what they are going to do on the issues. You know, what they are going to do to fix the mess Dems say we are in.

So, against my better judgment, I’m going to help by saying what they are going to do, if elected. Because they are so busy attacking Trump, I’ll say it for them.

They are going to:

  • Raise your taxes (repeatedly)
  • Give illegal aliens free healthcare.
  • Give everyone free healthcare – institute healthcare tax to offset costs.
  • Give illegal aliens free college tuition.
  • Give everyone free college education.
  • Restructure the Supreme Court, so it is forever stacked for liberals.
  • Abolish ICE.
  • Abolish or drastically reduce the Department of Homeland Security. Break it up at least so agencies cannot talk to and coordinate with each other.
  • Eliminate any walls on the border.
  • Hook up any illegal immigrants with our welfare system immediately.
  • Provide amnesty or citizenship to illegal aliens here now.
  • Spend much more in Latin America to fix countries so people will not want to come.
  • Re-politicize the DOJ. Construct barriers to firing anyone for due cause.
  • Eliminate charter schools because parents and children cannot have a choice.
  • Raise minimum wage to 15 dollars.
  • Convert our healthcare system into single payer Medicare for all.
  • Eliminate private health insurance.
  • Enact the ‘assault weapons’ ban
  • Expand national gun control over all guns and ammunition.
  • Remove names or statues of anyone tied to anything we deem offensive.
  • Give reparations to African Americans.
  • Pass laws against white structural racism rampant in our country.
  • Remove funding from the military to apply it toward our domestic programs.
  • Outlaw coal and oil development and target those companies in the sector.
  • Lower the national voter age to 16.
  • Remove any limitations on abortion with national laws.
  • Reenact the death tax.
  • Raise federal taxes on wealthy to 70% on an upward scale from there.
  • Repeal the entire Tax cut legislation.
  • Open immigration to all who want to come. No one is denied entry.
  • Cut police forces and any government subsidies they receive.
  • Cut border patrol.
  • Release 1/3 of all inmates from prison. Close a third of our prisons.
  • Return the right to vote to all ex-cons.
  • Let all residents of any city or town have the right to vote.
  • Reenter Paris Accord, whatever the cost, with savings from our military.
  • Enact the Green New Deal.
  • Reestablish the Iran deal. (consider penalty funds to Iran)
  • Stop all money and aid to Israel. Increase all aid to Palestine.
  • Politicize the EPA and then have them write the strictest most restrictive environmental and economic limitations known to man.

 

Well, it’s only a start since it is still early in the campaign. I know this is a pretty extensive and aggressive list, but they are up to it. And a little publicity goes a long way.

Right Ring | Bullright

Parkland student speaks

A must read. But it is making him unpopular with certain school board members.

An Investigation Into Broward County’s School Board & Superintendent

Kenneth Ray Preston — Apr 26, 2018

“Motivation

My name is Kenneth Preston. I’m a 19-year-old Broward County student who has been working trying to uncover factors and individuals who share blame in the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. Over the past month, I have learned the names and stories of all the victims. Their stories, along with the incredible strides made by the families to bring change, have compelled me to dedicate every ounce of energy and time to bring injustices to light. I’m not with an organization and I have no agenda whatsoever other than holding government officials responsible for their actions.”

Read on Medium https://medium.com/@kennethrpreston/an-investigation-into-broward-countys-school-board-superintendent-4789bbd5b2e5

The Left’s Hogg Business Model

Yes, give us a description how that anti-business model works. Inquiring minds.

The Media Matters thuggery behind the astroturfed boycott of Laura Ingraham Tolerance bullies.

Conservative Review — by Chris Pandolfo | March 30, 2018

Media Matters is once again using its tired, sleazebag astroturfing tactics to bully and intimidate those who don’t agree with its far-left agenda. This time, hiding behind a child, the despicable thugs are pushing for advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after she mocked 17-year-old Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg, for which she has since apologized.

On Wednesday, Ingraham tweeted a Daily Wire story, “Gun rights provocateur David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied,” adding “and whines about it.” Hogg responded on Twitter, asking about her “biggest advertisers” and tweeting “#BoycottIngramAdverts” [sic]. He later tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top twelve advertisers.

At 1:06 p.m. ET on Thursday, Ingraham apologized “for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” Yet after she apologized, at 2:15 p.m., Media Matters published a story on Ingraham’s “bullying” and linked to a list of her advertisers. Hogg rejected Ingraham’s apology exactly two hours after she issued it, saying “an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough” and demanding that she “denounce” Fox News’ coverage of the Parkland anti-gun activists, saying “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.” The calls for an advertiser boycott against Ingraham continue, and according to Media Matters, nine companies have pulled their ads from “The Ingraham Angle,” including TripAdvisor, Joseph A. Bank, Hulu, Expedia, and Johnson & Johnson.

So a leftist social media mob has been organized against Ingraham, and there are a few important things to note.

First, this is not a grassroots effort led by Hogg. Media Matters has a long history of organizing boycotts against conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hogg’s age and his victim status as a Parkland survivor are a shield that cowardly Media Matters is hiding behind to obscure its astroturfing. His voice is a sword the organization is taking advantage of to launch an attack on Ingraham (and other conservatives). The media is complicit in this abuse of a child.

Second, this is not a campaign against Ingraham. It’s still going on after she apologized. The real target is Fox News and anyone in conservative media. Media Matters founder David Brock has previously described the mission of his organization as “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News channel. In 2010, arch-progressive financier George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters, noting, “Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.” This group has an agenda, and it’s out to destroy those who disagree with it.

Third, it will not stop with Laura Ingraham. Media Matters has previously used its social media mob to go after several conservatives. This is far from the last time it will attempt this, especially if it succeeds in driving more advertisers away from Ingraham’s show. The Left takes pleasure in ruining the lives and livelihoods of conservatives who do not submit to their agenda. And if you do submit, if you do back down, if you do apologize, these petty tyrants will keep trying to grind you into the dust. Who will be next? Another conservative media host? A real estate agent who tweets something that upsets the Left? Will they destroy her business? Or a doctor’s? A mechanic’s? ~ ~ [see]

 
Being schooled by children? Ed-U-K-shun.

But we’re told to lighten up. Then we’re attacked for supposedly attacking or hating the kids. I know I was.  Like we just hate kids. Saying anything back to or about these kids constitutes an “attack”. What kind of nonsense have we slipped into?

Now businesses are supposed to kowtow to the whims of children, who make the rules, law and decide who you should do business with. They decide where you can advertise or, more importantly, where you can’t. That’s a business model?

The world is supposed to look at this and say it is normal? What is wrong with all those that comply? Okay, corporations, do you want to turn the reins of your company over to children who can barely drive? How responsible is that? What does that portend for the future of the country or business?

So you liked those eyeballs a few years ago when you were targeting them as your captive audience of TV viewers. But now that they are intervening in your board room and bottom line, you just have to suck it up. There is nothing you can do about it.

Who makes your decisions?

As I have said here before, is that really how much you care about your company? These kids were obsessed with Nickelodeon while you were building a brand. Now you are going to turn the integrity of that brand over to children? And you can’t do anything about it but give it to them? I guess I’m confused…and disappointed.

David Hogg lists a bunch of businesses to boycott because of tweets from Laura that some universities have rejected him. Shouldn’t he be boycotting the universities? Oops, seems he already is. I guess it is how he deals with rejection. Somehow she’s the bully.

What is it called when you bully businesses into taking actions or making decisions to suit you, on a sliding scale? And instead of these children going on a national political campaign, shouldn’t they focus on the local politics and policies that led to this avoidable shooting?

Right Ring | Bullright

The March for lives?

Since yesterday was the students March for our lives and today is Sunday, I thought a scripture might be appropriate for the occasion.

Well, other than it being just another big registration drive for Dems, you know, everyone wants to defer to the expert wisdom of these kids. Who could disagree? That’s the idea.

And just for a reminder that there is really nothing new under the sun.

Isaiah 3 (NASB)
4And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
5And the people will be oppressed,
Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor;
The youth will storm against the elder
And the inferior against the honorable.

12 O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.

 

One girl named Naomi Wadler, who led fellow students on a walkout at her school, said:

“My friends and I might still be 11 and we might still be in elementary school, but we know,” she said. “We know life isn’t equal for everyone and we know what is right and wrong.”

And of course Obama chimed in with an always relevant piece of outhouse wisdom:

 

Nothing can stand in the way. Forget that, unfortunately, nothing stood in the way of this shooter in Parkland to commit this atrocity. Nothing except a coach who tried to intervene to save some students and died.

But no law enforcement officer stood in his way, no social worker, school employee, sheriff deputy, FBI agent, or school resource officer on the scene. Nothing. But they deliberately ignore all those failures on the record. Yet nothing can stop these kids, this anti-gun movement, now.

Obama must be snickering about that. No stopping the shooter, just stop NRA and any legislators in their way.  I get shivers when I hear Obama talking about “change”.

Yet there were some counterprotestors calling to protect the Second Amendment.

“I like talking to people I disagree with so I can get a broader range of views. I’d say there’s a lot of misinformation and I came to talk to people,” Eric Ciabottonia, a 19-year-old engineering major from Penn State University.

Right Ring | Bullright

Motivegate: evil personified

It seems a lot of people are disturbed about the questions of motives, or lack of, surrounding the last 3 or so terror-styled events. I call them that because there are questions about calling them terrorism. I.e. Parkland, Las Vegas, Austin.

The second question has to be does it kelp to know the motive? I’m not sure it does. But I can see where motive matters legally when prosecuting criminals. There is still the matter of what they did, not just why.

Concentrating on motive can take our eye off of what they did. We have a need, it seems, to explain why. That can also create lots of conspiracy theories.

In Las Vegas, it leaves room for all kinds of speculation or theories. And there is a niche for conspiracies in this country. There may not be as many motive questions about Parkland since some vengeance or mental characteristics appear to apply. Austin is unique, at least so far, on motives. We don’t know yet or may not know.

But this not knowing seems unsettling to a lot of people. Again, does it change the events, or what happened? I don’t think so.

Another question is: was motive a major consideration to the perpetrator in these cases? I’m not sure, or don’t see it. And if there is no political motive, officials are reluctant to call it terrorism. Yet perps still do these things to instill fear in people by the act itself.

I am coming to the conclusion that maybe the why doesn’t matter all that much. I have to be content that we may never know for sure. Or it could be that they wanted their 15 minutes of fame. I am willing to accept not knowing, though it would be nice to know.

The conclusion though is what if — other than vain fame — there is no clear motive? What if they just did it because they could and because they wanted to? Obviously they could not talk themselves out of it. So it would have been up to someone or something else to intervene to stop it. Two of them had a suicidal pact in the end, Las Vegas and Austin. So they would not really be held accountable.

I am convinced that some people do things just because they can, or because they are fascinated by it. Or maybe it is fantasy they want to carry out? Never mind that it effects so many other lives of innocent people. They overlook that or don’t care.

In the end, I have to be comfortable with not knowing. There is another possibility the person wanted it to be a mystery that everyone is left to solve. Sort of a ha ha, figure it out. To me that can be dangerous. I don’t have to play that game. Then again, maybe these madman killers just want events to speak for themselves? Maybe that is the point.

On the other hand, people sometimes do what they do simply because they can. Maybe there is a void conscience, whatever. I can look at it that they simply had enough drive or ambition to commit the atrocities. Maybe they want to find out if they are really capable of carrying it out in some twisted plan? One possibility is as bad as the next.

Closure should not require knowing a motive. That can be a game. We know what they did.

When asked about the Austin bomber, the family said they could not believe it. “He was a nice kid.” The brother of the Las Vegas shooter said he was a caring guy, it was a total shock — that could be a motive itself. It is a symptom of terrorism. In the Parkland case, you could say it looked like a foregone conclusion that too many people ignored. Seems it is either beyond belief that the person did it or completely predictable.

What about pure evil? I think that is an explanation in itself. People who do evil acts are evil. The acts define thems. Maybe they don’t need a reason? It is self-definition.

We are left to dig through all the evidence and clues to make some theory plausible. Some people get hung up on the why as if there is, or must be, some explanation. Still the rest of us just sit disturbed and offended by the events.

However, these events do raise collateral questions about law enforcement or botched warnings, missed clues. Many more questions than there are answers.

Right Ring | Bullright

What’s a little astroturf on gun control?

Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students’ Astroturfing?

The Federalist

The Miami Herald credited their success to the school’s stellar debate program. The Wall Street Journal said it was because they were born online, and organizing was instinctive.

On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/

When Dems say grasroots they mean astroturf. Almost made to order. Hmm.

Google does “gun” control

Look how Google does gun control, like they do everything. Add it to the mix.

Google tried censoring ‘gun’ shopping searches. It backfired

Philip Wegmann | Feb 27, 2018 | Washington Examiner

In the wake of the Florida school shooting, Google decided to take a stand. The gatekeeper of the Internet decided to filter shopping searches that included the term “gun.” It didn’t go so well.

Early Tuesday morning, Internet shoppers started noticing and documenting the digital gaffes. Users received error notices when they searched for glue guns and water guns, toy guns and airsoft guns, nail guns and nerf guns. The algorithm is apparently so strict that even the color “burgundy” triggered an error because it includes “gun” in the spelling.

This set off something of a parlor game on social media. Turns out, adults don’t like it when faceless bureaucrats try enforcing arbitrary restrictions — federal, corporate, or otherwise.

Casey “Stable Genius” Smith found that Google now censors “Laguna Beach.”

Technousayt observed that the beloved Tom Cruise film about beach volleyball, “Top Gun,” also could not be found.

Read more at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-tried-censoring-gun-shopping-searches-it-backfired/article/2650230

So it got interesting in all kinds of ways. But it does show how active Google is about monitoring political debate. How many other filters are they now applying?

Follow the trail

It’s nothing new for creatively radical leftists. For instance, the media developed a new trend for pushing gun control. Fox already reported media pushing Florida teen survivors as ambassadors for gun control. Laura Ingraham asked who out there wants to take political advice from students? No one.

But that doesn’t stop MSM like CNN and MSNBC from using the teens as experts on all things guns. Great, they know so much about everything else, don’t they? So they put kids against pols as gun control advocates. It doesn’t stop there.

Another media trend: in a half hour segment on the Fla shooting, CNN put up a pundit from Brussels and then one from London to tell us what our gun laws should be. Of course they exploited the chance to tell us. CNN never said why their opinion was important.

Shame maybe? That’s it, they want to guilt us into gun control the same way media guilted the country into electing Obama — and then unable to throw him out like trash.

On a similar note, Tucker Carlson had a DACA advocate for illegal immigration who lectured about sanctuary cities and laws. Now illegals are telling us what our immigration law should be. He didn’t like Tucker saying he was not an American because he wasn’t a citizen. Yet bozo started every sentence saying “we” should… do this or that.

The arrogance knows no boundaries. We must heed the advice of non-citizens on our own country? Next they will try to lecture us on who to elect, vote for, and draft our laws. Illlegals already demand they will decide who immigrates here via chain migration.

See a trend? Have the outsiders, or those who are part of the problem, be policy experts. How about asking MS 13 gang members what we should do on gang violence? Let’s have inmates run parole boards. Ask children and minors to develop our drug laws.

Though supporting Brexit like Nigel Farage is smeared as illegitimate. So when you want your country back, you are labeled an extremist on the outside fringe — despite polls.

But we need to bring in outsiders to set our laws and policies … or get students to do it.
The new rule must be that citizens are overruled and irrelevant. The coup of America.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Sanctuary Argument Problem

I have just the argument for the Sacnctuary Moonbats. But I promise they won’t like it.

You know their ever-loving, illegal alien argument for Sanctuary Cities. They claim it makes us safer. We all need to follow their lead, they say.

So the mantra goes that the Sanctuary policies — lawlessness — makes the city safer. That’s why they do it and need it. See, the illegals won’t be afraid to call the police or report crime, or will not commit crimes, so they say. Thus, crime rates go down. This is the latest airtight argument for Sanctuary Cities. (plus they are supposedly a shinning example) Illegal aliens are afraid of their illegal status. Let’s just humor them and play along.

Then I have the perfect but real argument they cannot reject. Gun owners and second amendment advocates respect the rule of law as law abiding citizens because they don’t want to jeopardize their rights or carry permits. More legal gun owners makes us safer. Non-gun owners have nothing at stake. So the more legitimate gun owners we can have, the better and the more safer we all will be. That’s a win.

Here is the difference and contrast. Notice how Sanctuary advocates always blur the line. They morph legal and illegal immigration. They will only use the word “immigration.”

Gun owners don’t advocate for law-breaking gun owners, like criminals and gangsters. They don’t have any problem condemning the criminals and their use of guns. They don’t stand for lawbreakers. That would make them look bad. We don’t lump them all together in one, gang members and black market guns with upstanding gun owners.

However, the illegal activists and advocates cannot distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Doing so would ruin their cause. Actually, it is a real insult to immigrants who follow law and become legal citizens to equate the two. It is offensive to legal immigration. Yet they do it all the time, asserting no difference from one to the other. They only say that we must change laws so that illegals can become legals. That is amnesty.

You won’t hear the second amendment activists and voters saying that we need to legalize all illegal gun owners. They certainly do not unify behind that idea of lawlessness either.

Right Ring | Bullright

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

Stop the Tragedy: Rein in Disaster… before It’s too late

See something say something. Be vigilant, don’t let our guard down.

Words, just words? ..(satire…)

I decided to take a stand. Something has to be done. We have a serious problem in this country and it is only getting worse. If I’m accused of politicizing tragedy, I don’t care. Too soon? Too bad! It is urgent. We can’t wait. This isn’t about gun control, it’s about survival.

Can we now see that when anti-American, racist hacks become armed with unilateral executive power and a pen that really bad things can and DO happen? It’s almost a given and we see ugly results of it unfold time and again. It is a recipe for disaster.

I’m tired of going from one horrific, tragic abuse of power to the next and people asking “couldn’t anything be done to stop it? Shouldn’t we have seen it coming?” Something needs to be done to stop this cycle of abuse. We need to do much more to prevent this from happening over and over. We can do better.

This notion I hear all the time that somehow allowing more of these irresponsible, reckless race pimps, ideologues and hacks more access to that weaponry of power, instead of less, is dumb. It is a phony talking point… and it’s dangerous. We all should agree on that!

I have to admit I, too, once turned a blind eye to this risk. I rationalized that these things probably wouldn’t happen and they would not effect me or my community. Well, those hopes have been shattered along with the hopes of so many others. We believed we were safe. But we bought into the lies.

We have to decide, at some point, if this is the kind of country we want to live in. The background checks have not worked nor been able to prevent this access to the weaponry of power, tragically. It’s time we ask if this dangerous executive power should be accessible? Who needs that kind of power anyway?

It might be time to finally consider removing that powerful weaponry from the hands of those not suited to have it in the first place. And maybe it is time to confiscate this dangerous weaponry before it is further abused or falls into the wrong hands. Some things are far too dangerous for anyone to own or have at their fingertips. We just cannot afford to take that chance anymore. We’ve seen the damage this weaponry of power can do.

That’s right, I’m not afraid to use the “C” word, it’s time for confiscation. We’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked. We cannot trust anyone with the means to wreak so much damage on so many people, especially race hacks with sinister intentions. We must remove that weaponry from those who would do us harm.

These legislative loopholes have allowed this abuse to continue and less regulation is not the answer either. These policies are setting us back decades. In fact, we used to have tighter restraints on this weaponry of power, but we have these big organizations out there with lots of money, pushing their own agenda to Congress. Make no mistake, they are powerful and their agenda is dangerous to every man, woman and child in this country.

We must decide if this is the kind of country we want to live in, where these acts — or the threat of them — are “daily fare”? I do not want my family or grandchildren to live in that kind of country, under that threat. They don’t deserve that, nor do we.

We must be stronger than these threats and interests.I don’t want to examine another case in the rear view mirror and say “could have, would have.”

RightRing | Bullright

Radical Islamic agenda and gun control

Eric Bolling filled in on the O’Reilly Factor. A former Obama advisor, Nayyera Haq, argued for more gun control laws. Eric laid out the Islamist problem spreading like wild fire. Well, it’s hard to deny, hard as libs try.

The terrorist was “a homophobic who clearly had mental health issues”.

She claimed we are making progress on ISIS, but that as we make gains in the ME, ISIS gets desperate calling for lone wolf attacks. “As you beat back ISIS on the ground in Syria and Iraq, they spread to Europe and US. So that’s a separate problem,” she said.

Then came the revelations of CIA Director Brennan. He tells us the are coming here and scheming to exploit the refugee program and immigration. Nayyera Haq said:

“I think a big part of the answer is: now that it’s coming to America homeland, let’s not make it easy for people to get weapons like AR-15s or any other weapons… now, absolutely.”

Did she make that loud and clear? We have to sacrifice our rights and guns because the terrorists are coming here. That might have been a Freudian slip, but it’s the ugly truth. They must crack down on our rights because of Radical Islamic Terrorists and jihadis — which they can’t even mention — are obsessed with killing. Target guns not terrorists.

Let me flush that out further. Immigrants, real immigrants, typically come here to assimilate into America. Islamic radicals come here to assimilate America to them, Islam. They don’t want any part of assimilation and if we have to sacrifice or lose things because of them coming here, all the better. That is not immigration, that’s an invasion, a hostile takeover. But Islamists already declared war on us, so it’s no surprise.

Incidentally, the Radicals and Muslims are some of the most vocal supporters of gun control, why is that? I’ve read articles by so-called moderate, liberal Muslims for gun control. Stop looking at their Islam faith, blame our gun laws, they say. Absurd.

So now for a message to our Commander and Denier:

Mr. Obama, if you really want Americans to resent Muslims, then take our rights away and demand we sacrifice our guns because the Radical Islamists’ political agenda cannot be controlled or defeated. That will make Americans respect Muslims more, won’t it?

That is not a wise trade off: making new rights and protections for Muslims while you take away our Constitutional rights. Then again, Obama will not enforce the laws there now, and scrubbed regulations for offensive words. What these radicals and terrorists are doing is treason, something like what you’ve been doing. But here is the king of deception himself.

“The reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism,” Obama lectured us after Orlando.

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam. It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.”

“It wouldn’t make us more safe, it would make us less safe, fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims.” – NOLA

Even within that rebuttal he could only call it extremism. Obama is an extremist obfuscater of the first degree. Our greatest threat is still sitting in the Oval Office.

RightRing | Bullright

Rev Graham disputes Obama’s gun control agenda

See: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/

Dir. Brennan:

“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

“We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks,” he said. “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”

“They’re taking advantage of the liberties that we’ve fought so hard to defend,” he said.

But Comander-Divert-and-Deny is worried about guns. Never mind immigration, border or refugee crises. Priorities. He has already disrupted our law enforcement process and supplanted political correctness throughout. He ignores the central, overwhelming threat. The one he shall not name, RIT. I smell another Obama lecture coming to Americans .

Message — target guns not Islamist terrorists.

Prof of gun rant goes to Washington, as Obama’s guest

Check out this university professor in Nebraska who apparently is in love with the “F” bomb but hates guns with a similar passion. In case you wonder English is her subject.

Amanda-Gailey-Rant-Edited

The woman, Amanda Gailey, an English professor, is also the director of a group known as Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, according to her Facebook profile.

Source: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/14/fk-police-officers-fk-laws-professor-gets-personal-invite-to-meet-obama-after-this-rant-294264?hvid=2ZZYR4

This is why we need a license and background check on the first amendment. Yet this gets a personal invitation to the WH.

Major WH announcement coming

(satire)
This is news you won’t read anywhere else. If you do, don’t believe it. Obama prepares to make his final SOTUS while set to make another announcement.

The day after the State of the Union, he will make a statement about the 2016 election. Obama is expected to announce that, because Hillary is now such a failed candidate, he has decided to run in 2016. Since gun control is such a top issue, and no one else can take it on, he wants to keep guns out of the hands of Americans, er bad people.

The decision is final, according to anonymous advisers. He will officially run as Barry Soetoro. He plans on putting Bernie Sanders on the ticket. Democrat insiders are thrilled.

RightRing | Bullright

O’s slow drip lies bad for what ails you

Obama’s favorite whipping-post enemy is the NRA and its lobby power. And Planned Parenthood’s #1-rated political ally in Washington is Barrack Obama.

So it’s a geological thing that 2nd amendment. You know that’s what I like about the entire first amendment, it’s so regional. No use wasting it where it isn’t needed necessary. Obama told the old story about Michelle in Iowa(’07) saying if she lived in a farmhouse there, a good distance from the sheriffs’ office, she would want to own a shotgun or rifle. I didn’t know the first amendment was limited to location, too. “Location location!”

The town hall gun-control show was on.

What the gun dealers should have told Obama was:

“Mr President, only one of us in this room has trafficked and lost over 2,000 guns that were then used in murders in both Mexico and the US. And it wasn’t me. Yet no one was held accountable. In fact, we the people could not even get the information about it. Actually your AG was held in contempt and that still didn’t resolve it. And was anyone prosecuted in that case? So tell me about loose guns and loopholes.”

Rather than calling it gun reform, can’t Obama call it 2nd amendment reform. And that 1st amendment so needs an overhaul, big time — I mean it is out of control.

In the last few days Obama called the NRA liars. He branded them about the most powerful lobby in Washington that breeds fear in people. But Planned Parenthood is probably the most powerful player in Washington, certainly on the Left, fear mongering in every election. No need to restrain PP from the Capitol, White House, or Obama’s office.

Now you install a litmus test that you won’t support any candidate who doesn’t support the gun control agenda. The NRA lies…. how about the lies last year from Planned Parenthood, defending even criminal acts marketing human tissue of babies. Yet investigate and prosecute it? Your administration did call to investigate and prosecute the videographers. But Planned Parenthood is not only a mega-lobbyist, it is subsidized by Washington to the tune of 450+ millions every year — with 41% of its revenue from government.

Which one has a real death agenda? Welcome inside Obama’s slow-cooker of lies.

Obama went on to mock any idea of anti-gun agenda or confiscation as a “conspiracy” theory. He said it sure is a conspiracy [theory]. Then he explains his own conspiracy theory how we use gun grabbing and anti-gun rhetoric, incorporated by Republicans and NRA, to stir up distrust for him on guns. Sounds like vast-right-wing conspiracy. But he laughs at the idea of the government working and scheming against people’s rights, as a “conspiracy.” So it is not a conspiracy that he abused his power already. It’s not a conspiracy when he demands a litmus test for Democrats, last I remember he is the head of the Democrat Party. He claims his side’s positions are consistently mischaracterized by the NRA. (Victim point) While he mischaracterizes reforming the 2nd amendment.

Referring to teenagers and suicides, he said “imagine if you have access to firearms what bad decisions you might make.” So access to firearms causes suicide?

There he goes, the man who mocks conspiracies about himself says “NRA is holding Congress hostage.” The man who holds America hostage to his pen and the DOJ.

Here was a typical liberal reply on that thread to a person over gun rights.

Okay, so now we have, regional, geographic rights, and finally an outdated Constitution. Obama reminded us he respects the 2nd amendment — more at farmhouses. He is not making a stink on sanctuary cities, like San Fran where a previously deported, convicted illegal alien shoots a woman on the pier. But carve up the 2nd amendment like a turkey. Nor is he fired up “mad” over Islamic terrorism. Obama paints his own conspiracy.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

Step right up – rewrites R us

Always be suspicious when a Democrat or progressive tells you that “most Americans want” this or that. I would say run but we can’t afford to and cede that soundbite to them. It is never true when they declare to speak for most people. If most people really knew exactly what these social salesmen were all about then most people would not have anything to do with it all. But Dems have this perception illusion going on.

The latest of these tactics is playing out in the age-old push for gun control. They are always going to be looking to take guns from law abiding people and nothing is going to stop them. Not even the will of the people when it speaks loudly and clearly. It didn’t stop them on Obamacare or a myriad of other things. But when a majority of people disagree with Democrats, it doesn’t matter anyway, even when you point it out. Then, like Obama tells us, people are too stupid or don’t understand.

The Dems’ conversation always starts with “what most Americans want’. That’s the first clue you’re about to be scammed. If you walked down the street and people screamed to you that most people are buying a certain item, would you go buy it? No, but somehow we are supposed to buy their schemes that way. (they are not plans) The only problem is when the people don’t go along with their plans – when they don’t want what Dems are selling. Then what Americans want is irrelevant.

What Americans want doesn’t matter when Americans overwhelmingly don’t want Syrian refugees. Most Americans want accountability in government, especially from the administration, but let’s scratch that off their list. Most Americans wanted accountability on Benghazi but that didn’t matter. Americans by far really want something done about our VA system and people to be held accountable, but that is not at the top of the to-do list for the administration. Most Americans do not want a sniveling, weak-kneed Obama traveling around the world throwing America under the bus, apologizing apparently on their behalf. No, they resent that but it still doesn’t stop Obama from delivering it.

Now they tell us most Americans want gun control. They even say that NRA members want to close this or that “loophole”. Two things are on the rise: gun ownership and purchases; and membership in the NRA. Do we think that both of these are because people want tighter gun control? But that’s what they’d have us believe. Any time Democrats really want something, you can count on them saying it is what “most Americans want.”

In fact Obama has taken a string of unilateral actions because people do not want them. So he does it anyway. Amnesty was very unpopular. Yet Obama comes out and tells us about what most Americans want as if he were reading our subconscious. And you can count on their favorite key word being used, loopholes. I have said before that the second amendment is not a loophole, but that is what Leftists would have you believe.

CBS reports:

After months of legal review, the White House is expected to unveil executive measures aimed at reducing gun violence, as soon as early next week, according to those briefed on the executive branch’s plans.

In early October, shortly after the mass shooting at an Oregon community college, President Obama assigned White House and Department of Justice lawyers to comb the law in search of any unused administrative authority available to him.

What Obama didn’t or couldn’t get for Christmas, he is now looking to indulge himself with by executive actions. President-Selfie has an appetite for gun control and he doesn’t care what is on the House menu. So he will gorge himself on drunken executive power by writing executive orders. He plans a meeting with Loretta Lynch on Monday to pave the way for his smorgasbord feast.

If you think I may be over dramatizing Obama’s actions, then you only have to look at what he is really doing. First thing off Christmas va-K, in the new year, he goes right for gun control even before his final State of the Union Speech. That drops a big clue about what will be in the dictate which is typically a laundry list for executive power — and appetite thereof.

If it is one major accomplishment for Obama, when he leaves office to return from whatever spawned him, it will be to never have found the limits of the Presidential Constitutional authority. Apparently something he never believed existed. So he wanted to be sure to slay any myth to the contrary. The only limitation he accepted was the two-term one, but even to that said if he ran again he would win. He had a backhanded comment for that inconvenience.

People gave up writing his epitaph long ago because they could see reality unfolding. Here he is on the verge of re-writing the second amendment. His record of civil war byproducts wherever he goes, in tow. He’ll avail himself of the power to change Constitutional rights.

http://twitchy.com/2015/12/31/cbs-presidents-proposed-executive-actions-wont-eliminate-gun-show-loophole/
Read about the loophole scam.
2nd Amendment Fight — “there is no online gun-store loophole”
Washington Times — “the gun-show loophole myth”

RightRing | Bullright

When reality catches hell

So we have a man in the Oval Office who believes winning is everything in politics and elections, but sees victory in a war against evil as a meaningless pursuit.

The proverbial question always comes to: is Obama stupid and incompetent, or is he intentionally undermining the country? After much thought I came to the conclusion that yes he’s dumb in many ways, but what he’s doing is very intentional, despite the disastrous results and effects of it all. That could be a good definition of ideologue.

But it is even worse than that. Along with his ideology that permeates everything, which alone would make it hard to defend our country, I believe he is incapable of defending the country. He is not mentally and physically capable, meaning it could come to refusal if someone tried to coerce him into it. So he flat out doesn’t have the will and is incapable, whatever the cost, of doing what is necessary and securing this country. I don’t think we ever saw that with any other President or Commander-in-Chief.

Contrary to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly calling Obama incompetent at every turn, which by now that is almost a laughable insult. The man is incapable of defending this country.

Another thing creeps into the media narrative. The pundits say these policies are political correctness run amok. I almost wish it were that simple. The actions from the justice department — executive amnesty, workplace violence, detainees, enemy swapping, Islam apologetics, anti-police policies, anti-whistle blowers, batched IRS investigations, sanctuary city policy, refugees, lack of accountability, biased civil rights investigations, gun control — are far more sinister than just political correctness run amok. There is a subversive agenda, they only use political correctness as the justification. They’ would like us to think political correctness was the cause of their policies when it is just the means.

Incompetence and political correctness became insults, cheep excuses. I only wish it were.

RightRing | Bullright