Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave

Obama and Biden were responsible for the most egregious abuse of power in US history. Just start there. What a way to be memorialized in history for future generations.

I think we have been looking at this sort of backwards. We think of all the henchmen, or who carried what out, as the bad guys for what they did. But they were only the facilitators. Sure, they were all in on it though the henchmen are the ones who did it. But the orders as well as hatched plans had come from the top.

Obama and Biden did what they did and conducted a spying operation against Trump because they didn’t like who got elected president. But that doesn’t go back far enough because it started while Trump was running for president.

So to unfold this you go to where what Hillary did meshed with what Obama did. That intersection would be the crucial point. But Obama was heavily involved in Hillary’s campaign, as if it were his own re-election campaign.

Hillary is the one who set the law firm in place between her and Fusion GPS to create the dossier, which got back fed into the FBI and intelligence. But it appears that the FBI already had a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign. Both sides appeared to have been working against Trump, but the dossier certainly combined the two if they were not already aligned. I don’t think there was any doubt that Obama/Biden and Hillary were working together all along.

When people try to keep an open mind is when they get into all kinds of trouble. They try to decouple what the parties were doing when it was in concert. By accident? Hardly, the facts keep bringing it back to a unified effort. And if they were not operating cohesively at first, they certainly wanted to be. FBI sealed that.

Team Hillary was desperately waving a flag saying: ‘look here, investigate this.’ And then they went to lengths to create official links within the FBI to Hillary’s campaign. Maybe there is a question on exactly what date they were formally working together, but they functioned as one from the beginning. Both parties working toward the same goals. You could say parallel tracks.

Ah, the Obama – Biden administration wanted to use and offload the problem with Russia meddling right into Trump’s lap. He was a patsy to scapegoat the Russian problem on.

Remember that Russian meddling had been a problem since 2014, long before Trump. Any sitting president would have been aware of it, as Obama was. What to do? He stalled on any action. Then Trump became a convenient purpose to use the Russian problem for. Hence, create the narrative.

But then Hillary was onboard with the same mission. Was that by coincidence? Didn’t they share those same concerns and ideas? One would expect they must have.

Oh but then there was the flowering FBI investigation over Hillary that would wilt away, in July, at FBI’s behest. Not that they were really seriously investigating her/it anyway. The purpose of that case was to go through the motions to clear her of wrong doing. So she could use it to show she was given a clean bill of health.

Past was intertwined with the future. There was Obama’s legacy and Hillary’s future presidency that would cover all of the dirty, dark areas of his tenure. While she would go on to use government for her own personal political gain, in keeping with the pattern.

Trump was an inconvenient interruption in more ways than he could even imagine. And the people could surely not be given the truth about any of what went on. That would be seen as failure from all sides of the cabal. Hillary’s legacy would be to cover his and hers. Both wanted nothing but glowing adoration for generations to come, even while turning the system inside out. (but it would all be for a good purpose – theirs)

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Cancelled Then Or Now?

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

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

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

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

Price or cost of that anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Nazi ordered returned to Germany

Former Nazi concentration camp guard living in Tennessee sent back to Germany for decades-old human rights violations

By Vandana Rambaran | Fox News

A Tennessee man who was a former Nazi concentration camp guard during World War II will be sent back to Germany for decades-old human rights violations, a Memphis immigration judge ruled Thursday.

Friedrich Karl Berger worked at the Neuengamme sub-camp near Meppen, Germany, where Nazis imprisoned Jews, Poles, Russians, Danes, Latvians, Italians, and the Dutch and French as well as other political opponents, according to a ruling by U.S. Immigration Judge Rebecca Holt.

Meppen prisoners were held during the winter of 1945 in “atrocious” conditions and were exploited for outdoor forced labor, working “to the point of exhaustion and death.”

Berger admitted to the court during his two-day trial that, as part of his role, he guarded prisoners to prevent them from escaping during their dawn-to-dusk workday and escorted them to and from their worksites.

The Nazis abandoned Meppen in March 1945 after British and Canadian forces advanced on the region. The judge found that Berger helped guard the prisoners during their forcible evacuation to the Neuengamme main camp – a nearly two-week trip under inhumane conditions where nearly 70 prisoners died.

“Berger was part of the SS machinery of oppression that kept concentration camp prisoners in atrocious conditions of confinement,” Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s criminal division Brian Benczkowski said in a statement. “This ruling shows the Department’s continued commitment to obtaining a measure of justice, however late, for the victims of wartime Nazi persecution.”

https://www.foxnews.com/us/tennessee-man-who-served-as-concentration-camp-guard-during-wwii-ordered-removed-to-germany

Back In The Day

This post should not need an introduction but maybe for people that have not seen anything non-political here. But there is more, or less, dependending on your view.

Yes, I write lots of other stuff. However, normally only political or humor makes it onto the blog. Here’s an exception, unless philosophy and metaphors are even more than I thought.

Back In The Day

I had a strange thought while looking out my window one day. More of a vision actually. When I walked by the window, the corner of my eye thought I saw a silhouette. There really was none.

But when I turned to look, I imagined what I thought I saw there in that place. A small child maybe; meandering along with a simple stem of a weed in his/her hand under the sunshine, smiling.

A gentle breeze was blowing the hair. A curious happiness was in the air. Youth exuded in a soft glow tainting everything surrounding that image in the background.

Oh, what I thought must it have been like, many years ago, when a child may have been playing in that exact area under the afternoon sun? Sure, there were children in that spot from time to time, I’ve known it for years. In the late 60’s or thereabouts was a house close to that spot. A family lived there. Other children were nearby.

Life was different then. It was a different age too. There were things ahead they could not know. Yet optimism abounded. There were even things in the past about which they were aware. A promising future lay ahead – both for adults and kids. A different time, indeed. A pickup truck brought daily mail down the dirt road.

But their present was only a snapshot in time, for them. One to embrace with every breath, taking in its beauty. Nothing could interfere and nothing seemed to threaten it. That was a sovereign moment between the past and the future.

Though times do change, memories are etched by the present. They stay with us devoid of tense. But context, they say, is everything. So it was with this scene playing out in my mind.

I wondered a moment or so what it was like back then? Was it really as I imagined? It could have been just that way. It was the same way for many others in that era. Concerns were closely held to the local area. They cared about the space in time they were given. Nothing, it seemed, would interfere with the task at hand. They were not going to allow that.

But in reality, I thought, what I envisioned was still a combination of the present with the past. If only the two could be joined that easily, as a simple vision? Well, it doesn’t seem to work that way.

The past is the past and the future will be the present one day, and today will be its past. So enjoy this present for all it is, a point in time. It is not quite as fragile as one thinks, but it is more flexible than one may like. For it is the combination, the meeting place, between the past and future. And there is no other like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Shades of Impeachment Politics

When Nancy Pelosi took their spin-filled deceitful vote over the impeachment process, there were two standout Democrats who disagreed and voted against it.

(CNN) “Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota both voted “nay” on the historic resolution.”

Post Schiff Show, one Democrat came out to say she does not support impeachment. It was Michigan Rep Brenda Lawrence. She would prefer a censure of some kind.

Fox News reports:

“”We are so close to an election,” Lawrence said Sunday on a Michigan radio program, noting that Trump stands little chance of being convicted by the GOP-controlled Senate. “I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office. But I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable. It’s in violation of the oath of office of a president of the United States, and we have to be clear that you cannot use your power of the presidency to withhold funds to get a foreign country to investigate an American citizen for your own personal gain. There’s no way around that.”

Lawrence continued: “I want him censured. I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it. … I am a Democrat, but I am an independent United States of America citizen.””

But that is just it, isn’t it? That demonstrates what is wrong with this whole process. If Democrats in the House majority found something objectionable, there are many ways to handle that disagreement. Censure is one. I don’t agree with it, yet it’s a possibility.

They could have done a basic resolution condemning what he did. Face it, they don’t like so much of what he does. A vote and resolution would still be on the record. They couldn’t do that or anything else. No. They had to reach for the ultimate: to impeach Trump.

They were set on doing that before he took office. They were determined to impeach him, or try, since he came into office. They were obsessed by it.

If Pelosi really cared about her legacy then she has to realize it goes up in flames with such a divisive move as impeachment. Especially when her majority did nothing else in the year. Nothing for the people, just impeach their president. And on the eve of an election.

Then send articles of impeachment, which they were determined to do, over to the Senate and airdrop the highly partisan maneuver right into the middle of a presidential election.

So Speaker Pelosi and 2020 will go down in the books as the year Democrats bet their entire legacy, and a presidential election, on impeachment. The two shall forever be joined – though both are about the same thing. It is pure election politics and about overturning the results of the last one. Democrats never looked so petty or radical as now.

And that shall be Democrats’ legacy, and Pelosi’s legacy as speaker.

Now Democrats are resolved even in their blue strongholds, knowing if Trump is not removed from office, to carry out their impeachment distraction anyway. They don’t care.

Happy Thanksgiving, America, enjoy that turkey… they are impeaching your president.

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary: Romancing The Stars

Hillary is aiming for the stars, as evidenced by her fascination with women astronauts.

Now she’s trying to live vicariously through female astronauts. What won’t she do?

Hillary, you didn’t happen to save that letter from NASA, did you? I bet not.

But instead of pursing that career, Hillary ended up growing up and going to war with reality… being unable to even accept results of an election. Sort of the same thing!

Proving when you are detached from reality and principles, the sky is the limit.

However, she has continued to dabble in cyberspace and the physics of destroying evidence. She also earned a PhD in election rigging. No glass ceilings there.

Right Ring | Bullright

Losing Our Posterity

Some percentage of people may have had an idealistic childhood and memories of it. There are others today who might think many people are romancing their childhoods too much. There is plenty of nostalgia around to lend credibility to the “golden days of yesteryear” concept. There’s also reason to think some people resent that.

As this debate goes back and forth, some also worry what the future will bring for our posterity? If you witnessed a decline to those good bygone days, you are not alone.

But liberals or progressives generally do not like us having a rose-colored view of the past. No, they lecture us about “moving forward.” In fact, they go out of their way to paint the past as the bad old days. Ripping out statues or old traditions are symptoms of their disdain. Now we even have politicians saying America was never that great.

So why bother stating all this? Because of the current debacle in Washington. We are very concerned about the security of our border, and illegal migration in particular. There sure is a split in left vs right over this. We hear anecdotes from the left romancing “historical immigration” as a sacred altar. Odd for people that look at America as mostly bad in the past to sing praises on immigration. That’s another matter.

The theories and skepticism about the impacts of this “illegal immigration” – invasion — continues on both sides. Why does it seem one side is in favor of it, embracing open borders, while the other side sees plenty of harm in the policies? That is another good question. I’d like to stay with their positions for a moment.

The progressive left wants this flow of undocumented people to continue. They don’t seem too concerned about the ballooning numbers either, or chain migration policies. None of those negatives seem to matter. Wearing blinders, they only want to see positives.

We know elections and politics are a big factor in their borderless rationale. And that brings us to the census question of citizenship the Left has itself in knots about. If illegals can’t vote in federal elections, legally, yet, then why are Leftinistas so adamant about not counting their non-citizen status? The higher the population in an area, the more representatives it can get. There’s one goal of the left laid bare.

But I suggest illegal immigration in huge numbers is a destabilizing force. Who would want that? Again, in my opinion, I’d say the left realizes that too. However, one of their goals could be to destabilize the country. Could the left want to destabilize the South especially? That would be in keeping with their vendetta of animosity against the South. It would be payback for a lot of reasons. But it also works politically to destabilize the South, by dividing people. Ever think about that?

Slowly they are trying to destroy any “myth” — as they call it — of the good old days. This destabilization and population change puts distance between that past and today onward. Thus, why they are not concerned about the huge numbers in the invasion. They like the consequences. That in turn would effect our posterity going forward. It also helps kill off any legacy of the South. I’ll take my theory over the law of unintended consequences.

Right Ring | Bullright

Secret Records: goose chase = goose egg

I saw this article that gave me an immediate visceral reaction. But take note of the date, in 2017. Maybe context only tells half the story though. That secrecy endures.

Obama admin spent $36M on lawsuits to keep info secret

March 14, 2017

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files that were requested.

And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees. [more….]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-administration-spent-36m-on-records-lawsuits-last-year/

CBS of all media reported that. But then it was just rubbing our noses in it after the fact. So maybe it’s not reporting a negative if Obama is proud of his success at it.

Shocking, as I promise I am wearing my best Casablanca face. Of course it was reported after Obama’s presidency was over. And this was only one year. It didn’t take into account even all the other personal records Obama concealed, sealed, or obfuscated. Or all the times those who sued for records were smacked down by judges for not having standing or some such excuse. These were government FOIA requests for the year. Our money.

It almost appears Obama was shutting down any access to information. Hiding something. Why it seems non-transparent, but that can’t be because he told us he was transparent in everything. Then you contrast that with what they do to Trump. Basically they act as if every record related to Trump must be accessible to them, by default, and there can be no denials. It’s the worst double standard I can think of.

Then there was this, again some time back, from Tom Fitton about Hillary Clinton.

Now that is a nice stand on privacy protections, isn’t it? Wile Trump is not afforded any privacy protection. In fact, they can demand anything from Trump and apparently he has to provide it — as fuel for their witch-hunt. Isn’t that the way it works for Trump?

In the video (from above) Fitton talks about Hillary belonging to the protected class.

Now that Mueller’s Report is out, I can’t feel any relief

Trips down memory lane are not always positive or don’t always end that way.

Now that the report is out, I can’t feel any relief. It should be relief that it is over but it isn’t because it goes on and on. It is meant to continue ad nauseam.

Why did they do an exhaustive investigation on Russia’s election meddling without talking about what Obama did? But they can talk about every detail of what Trump did?

Weeks ago, Comey the persistent talked about “so many questions.After the Report, he says “so many answers.” I think he has it exactly backwards. We knew so much before the report came out. Now that it is published it poses so many questions. The jig is up.

Why haven’t those who committed offenses been brought to justice? Like Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Glenn Simpson, Steele, Comey, McCabe? And don’t think we forgot about it; what was all the unmasking by Obama officials doing for it all? Where was Loretta Lynch when all this was going on? What about meetings between DOJ officials and Obama in the Oval Office, like on January 5th 2017?

But if you follow mainstream media’s lead now, this report information is all so important. It is alarming. All this should bother you and me. This influence of Russia is so severe that Blumenthal now says our democracy is under siege, still is, and that it is an act of war. And then prizewinner congresswoman Jackie Speier says that it shows we would actually not have Trump as President but for Russia’s actions. Talk about a dramatic stretch.

So in my hypothetical mind, I’m trying to figure out if Russia was that influential and the deciding factor in 2016, then I have a few questions. It represents Russia as winning. Doesn’t it make our democracy fragile? Haven’t you given Russia way too much credit? And if Speier thinks that Russia succeeded, then whom did they beat? Wasn’t the guy who was in the Oval Office responsible for what they did? So why is the blame coming down on an outsider, incoming president?

Now Comey has another seismic revelation about “so many answers.” What are they? How does Trump being pissed off about appointing a Special Counsel answer any questions? Sure he would be mad that they would do that to him. He was only in office for months. What the hell is there really to investigate in the White House if this is about Russia?

When I was much younger, I remember people would wait for the next new phrase or word to be coined so that they could run out and start using it. Well, it seemed like they were just waiting for the next one. You know them all, slang and urban lingo. Using the lingo made one seem popular or cool.

One of the things some of those trendier people would do is travel to another area and use their newly slung slang to others there to see if it was popular, and so it could hopefully be picked up as cool. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. Sometimes people looked at them and said “what did you say?” Language is like a joke, if you have to explain it then it’s a dud and falls flat.

Comey is like one of those guys trying to set a trend. Get everyone to repeat something, whether they know the meaning of it or not. This would prove him hip and popular. He is desperate. He wants to be right even when he’s wrong – a thinker and an artisan.

Seems to me mainstream media is a lot like that too. Just get everyone repeat a bunch of nonsense so it can seem like a popular thought or idea. And that does work many times. Minions repeat the talking points of the Left with amazing clarity and regularity, right to the phraseology. Well, it is almost a dialect.

But then eventually one learns that the language is not really the thing to control, the dialogue is. Whoever controls that wins the game.

When Comey was pondering “so many questions,” he insinuated that there were so many questions to be asked. But not any we didn’t already know the answers to. The only relevant questions left were “why aren’t people in jail and why are these corrupt people still in their top tier jobs?” We wanted to know who was doing this witch hunt “investigation” and why? The who is almost easier than the why.

So many questions.

Other than that, we didn’t want to know about some setup meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian who was collaborating and working with Simpson – months before the election. We weren’t asking what Flynn was doing before or after Trump took office? Those were planted questions. We weren’t hanging on the edge of our seats wondering who spoke to a Russian and exactly what they said, word for word?

We might have long wondered that if all this was going on since 2014, then what did that last president do about it? If he did nothing, why not? What was he waiting for? What was the answer to the probing Russia problem? If all these officials had a degree of certainty what was going on, then what did they do and/or why didn’t they do something? You know, those kind of pertinent questions. And we didn’t need all the drama about the inner workings of Trump’s campaign about what they were doing.

Do you smell the deflection and diversion?

Well, only if this entire thing was a setup from the beginning, aimed at Trump, would we need to know all that. We should have wondered what Obama did to stop it, or why not? We should have wondered what did Obama know and when did we know it? See, so many things just don’t make sense like a language barrier.

A naïve person may wonder why such a barrier exists?

But most of us know, because they want to rearrange our language and thoughts about it. In other words, they want to change our perception of events. Normally that is called revision, only they were trying to do it in real time. Before we could know or understand events as they happened, they wanted to train our thoughts to see them in another way, through an alternative reality. And they wanted us to believe it and not what we were seeing or what we already knew. It does sound a lot like Benghazi too.

See, Obama was already skilled in the art of controlling the dialogue or manipulating events for his benefit. In fact, there was a certain pride in being able to do that. To this day, if you mention Benghazi or Hillary’s servergate, you get the same tired response from the left. “Oh, there were multiple investigations about that and it found nothing.” Nothing? Really? People died and yet there was no problem with it and nothing sinister. With Hillary they say “but you cannot let it go. She was investigated and cleared of any wrong doing.” Right, cleared? Remember how the video caused Benghazi, a spontaneous attack?

Notice what they did in both those cases. They immediately began to try to control the narrative, since narrative is all that matters. They substitute an alternate narrative and spread it far and wide. The saturation point is when someone mentions the event and hoards of people immediately respond with the same promoted answer.

So Comey now says, “so many answers.” Naturally that is what he sees, answers to what happened, when it really gives you none. What we got were alternative sound bites substituted for answers that tell you nothing. But yet they are not done because they tell us they are going to continue this investigation, now in Congress. They call the Mueller Report a “roadmap for Congress”. Was that how it worked for Hillary or Benghazi? Of course not. The investigation was supposed to be the definitive end.

Answers, Comey? McCabe also did his first interview, since his book, on MSNBC. He said the same thing, agreeing that Mueller’s Report was a “roadmap” for congress to use and follow. A roadmap to where? Yes, we know that too. Another answer it provided.

But the real questions still exist, just as they did while they rolled this charade out, but concentrate on their substituted answers. Because the real questions are about them and not Trump. And they are about Obama’s administration.

Well, one can conclude the whole ordeal was used as a coverup, which is still going on, for Obama and Hillary. It was a convenient use of Russia meddling to hang it around Trump and pretend he is the problem, while they wall off an entire warehouse of abuses from the public under Obama’s administration. But this placeholder is wearing very thin. In fact, it is hard to believe they could have kept this entire thing up as long and hard as they have. It is now going into the next election cycle. Of course this Report will also provide opposition material against Trump. But that is what it was all along from the beginning.

Obama found a use for another problem, Russia, to use it against his opponent, and cover up all his other problems. Meanwhile, Obama’s personal records are sealed from public while all Trump’s personal records are to be annexed, and then spread far and wide to the public. Funny how these truth-challenged people don’t care about the real answers.

Right Ring | Bullright

Some People

“Some people did something,” says Rep Ilhan Omar. Then came her victim tweet:

Some people were radical Islamist Muslims. Something was the 9/ll Attacks — killing over 3000 with over 16,000 Ground Zero responders, to date.

Resulting in the Memorial of Something, I guess. A crying shame.

And she is a victim accusing us of incitement? Condemn our remarks?

On the other hand, Cair was labeled as an unindicted co-conspirator group.

Victim card revoked.

“Something”…..like an act of war.

*Ref: https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf

War Hero Status: hands off McCain

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

@realDonaldTrump

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

@MeghanMcCain

Meghan McCain Retweeted Donald J. Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright