Seeing is not believing, St Patrick’s snipe

I’m seeing the Dems and media in a frenzy daily to find something, anything, to blame on Trump. This is proof that seeing does not always equate with believing.

The media calls itself adversarial press. That would be an understatement, and probably require redefinition as hostile.

But even St Patrick’s Day cannot pass without a chance for MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to take a swipe at Trump.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: Irish-Americans Working for Trump ‘Disgrace Their Heritage’

BY: Alex Griswold — March 17, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Irish-Americans on St. Patrick’s Day that they were betraying their heritage if they worked for President Donald Trump.

O’Donnell, who is an Irish-American, tweeted out on Friday that, “The Irish-Americans working for Trump disgrace their heritage.”

O’Donnell’s tweet links to an op-ed from the New York Times shaming the Trump administration’s Irish-Americans employees for being insufficiently empathic towards to the plight of immigrants.

“We Irish are not Know Nothings. We know something important: what it’s like to be feared, to be discriminated against, to be stereotyped,” wrote columnist Fintan O’Toole.

Among the notable Irish-Americans working for Trump are Vice President Mike Pence, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, and chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Original: http://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-irish-americans-working-for-trump-disgrace-their-heritage/

Well, Lawrence, mission accomplished. One day Rachael Maddow makes a non-bombshell tax revelation, and then along comes O’Donnell to wrap in Irish immigration.

No more shamrocks for you, Lawrence. And lay off the caffeine Maddow, it won’t pump up your ratings.

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary Clinton: the pro-choice candidate

Are you ready for Hillary Choice 10.0?

Hillary and her campaign knows how to talk to “white, college-educated suburbanites” under 30 from middle income families… or any other ssubset of voters they want to target.

But they just can’t figure out how to talk to Louisianans who lost everything, who come from almost every demographic. That’s a heartless, calculated political hack.

But she knows how to talk to people in Martha’s Vineyard, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Hollywood, or with the Rothschilds to raise money. She has that language and message down pat. Choosing between 100K dollar a plate fundraiser and visiting Louisiana…. that is a no-brainer for Hillary.

So that is the kind of person Liberals and Democrats want in the White House picking winners and losers in the economy? (what Democrats/progressives do)

Hillary’s choice is failed

See, it all comes down to choices and priorities. Hillary shows us all the time which are more important. She chose lying over the truth on Benghazi. She chose a private server she could control over the government archive system. She chose to call the Benghazi victims’ families liars.

After lying about Benghazi, she said “What difference at this point does it make?”

She chose to coordinate “pay for play” with the Clinton Fundation for official US business. She chose deleting records and emails. She chose aligning with BLM over fallen cops and threats to police. She chooses open borders and sanctuary cities over national security. She chose censorship over free speech.

She chose her Wall Street connections and hedge fund owners over the people, She chose Huma Abedin and her Saudi connections over America’s interests. She chose not labeling Boko Haram‎‎ a terrorist group. She chose the bad Iranian deal. She chose to support Muslim Brotherhood as an ally. She chooses gun control over self defense. Hillary chose putting companies and miners out of business.

Hillary chooses lying over the truth almost every time she has a choice. She chose standing up a consulate in Benghazi. She chose ignoring security requests. She chose the side of a rapist over the brutalized rape victim. She chose laughing and demonizing a 12 yr old rape victim. She chose the baby-killing agenda and defending Planned Parenthood at any cost. She chooses teachers’ unions over parents’ choice for schools and education. She chose taking and charging hundreds of thousands for speeches, even from a charitable organization that helps youth.

She chose to attack victims of Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions.” She chose breaking rules and ethics at the State Dep. She chooses elite fundraisers over flood victims in Louisiana. Now she chooses to label the entire right, anyone opposing her, as racists. Hillary is just a walking, talking, choosing machine.

Hillary is the definition of the wrong choice.

RightRing | Bullright

McCain in ‘his agents of intolerance’ mode

So McCain is worried about his next election. Ah, that’s too bad. Time for blame.

McCain on tape: Trump damages my reelection hopes

‘If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket,’ … ‘this may be the race of my life.’

By Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim | 05/05/16 | Politico

Publicly, John McCain insists Donald Trump will have a negligible effect on his campaign for reelection. But behind closed doors at a fundraiser in Arizona last month, the Republican senator and two-time presidential hopeful offered a far more dire assessment to his supporters.

“If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life,” McCain said, according to a recording of the event obtained by POLITICO. […/]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-latinos-mccain-222810

From his speech at a private fundraiser:

“People are angry. they’re upset, they feel that there’s this disconnect. All of that and, frankly, there’s an element of nativism in it as well, as you know.”

People are justifiably angry and, Senator McCain, you are one of the chief causes. Ouch, “nativism” in there too? That nasty nationalism, we can’t have that. (Video)

But people didn’t forget what John McCain and his McAmnesty did to our Party, and our country. How we were all undermined and attacked because of you, John. So it’s the election of your life? Maybe it is about time.

But hey, “race of his life” probably makes for great fundraiser fodder though.
This election was another referendum on all that plus Obama’s executive amnesty.

Movement politics

Much is made that these are extraordinary times and politics these days. I would agree with an exception. The thing is if we are just comparing it to what was ordinary in the last 20 years or so, then, yes, they are. Pretty much that is a good thing.

It is about time that we finally focused on both the ugliness and the importance of politics. I don’t need to tell anyone how divisive it all is. But maybe it’s time America has told them, the ruling class elites.

Things have evolved into what I call movement politics. That is separate from the classism and identity politics that have been standard fare of Democrats for decades. I doubt that these identity merchants, tacticians and strategists ever thought we would move past these time-tested mechanisms. Though we may be seeing just that.

I know that the identity memes have been the flavor of the day, even now. Though the people are rising up with ideas of their own, and they aren’t all about identity anymore. More than that they are concerned about the identity of the country. They are concerned about the condition of the US and losing our identity with freedom, prosperity and our posterity. Sure there are still identity merchants as there are grievance merchants.But they are being surrounded and outnumbered by others.

The only math the old-school establishment politicians know is the numbers of identities and the way they can pander to them. Estabos other math is the calculation of special interest dollars in their campaign coffers. That is the equivalent of their common core math. And not much else matters.

However, something interesting happened with the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left. It undermined Hillary’s base and consolidated the Left wing of America much the way Move On and George Soros did since the Clintons. Its ranks swelled and cut across cultural and identity lines, much to the aghast fears of the political elites and the identity merchants.

Probably one of the pivotal moments was when Sanders’ rally was nearly shutdown by the BLM movement. It revealed the clash therein. But the strange thing is that the Bern came back around to encompass and co-opt the Black Lives Matter crowd.

Then Hillary has proved the other thing about politics. On the Left, they gravitate and rally to the furthermost Left in the spotlight. Elizabeth Warren demonstrated it and Obama proved it. Bernie extorted that theory. Of course on the Right it has been almost the opposite. They sanitize the politics until it becomes invalid. Mediocrity is now King. This is just as a matter of comparison. So what you have is more marginalization happening on the Right and less to none on the Left.(even on the fringes) On the Left, they won’t cast off fringes; they embrace them and devour them. Hillary must swim against the current and, wherever she can, graft on the hard left’s dogma and carry their banner.

On the Right

Enter Trump on the Republican side. Sure there are all those quibbles over what he is, or what he is not. But what he has done on the right is to mobilize and rally people from across demographics — usual stereotypical onse. Some thought Trump supporters were just a marginal group of identities on the right. Yet identity pigeonholes have been disproved throughout primaries. He increased turnouts and interest in the whole process.

While Cruz, if anything, has stuck himself into a margin. He played heavy on the Evangelicals. The theory being if he could just activate them, he could overcome all comers with a lock on that bloc. A funny thing happened in South Carolina, crossing the lines.

[Politico]“It was amazing how similar Texans and South Carolinians are. I’d never thought of that until seeing the bus. They’re Southerners, they’re evangelicals, they’re military veterans, they’re gun owners. There’s just a feeling that is similar. They feel like Texans.” — Cruz said of S Carolina.

Indeed, Evangelicals also turned out for Trump. Even a few Evangelical leaders endorsed Trump. That was pooh-poohed and they were wackos that don’t know what they are doing. Yet even while everyone is demonized for supporting or endorsing Trump, it didn’t kill off his support. They had said he could not break 30%, then they said he couldn’t get 40%. And it is still actually early as to final tallies but if the primaries are any indication, he’s bringing in higher numbers.

Politicians and the establishment have long criticized the people for being disconnected from events, or being behind the times, or failing to understand political reality. Except now it is a different story. The establishment is at a loss to understand comprehend the new political reality. At first they dismiss it, then they ridicule it, then they go tot war with it. Remember that just five years ago we saw almost the exact opposite. Town hall meetings were the target of voters looking to hold politicians accountable for their failures. All that was done without much concrete leadership, certainly not a single leader in charge. That may have been the first indications of an actual movement afoot.

Summarizing Trumpism and the movement politics on the Right

Now all the talk is that Trump is bringing in old political hands and Washington insiders, hence hurting his freestyle, outsider brand. Well, you cannot change the DNA of a movement like that. It must co-opt the establishment. And Donald understands it, correctly, as a movement not a political campaign. He may be running a campaign but his base is a movement.The question is will it be embraced as the base in the RNC as well?

RightRing | Bullright

Mexico lashes out at US, Obama hears voices

Mexico does what they do best, complain — or bitch in layman’s terms. Let’s see, besides wanting a third of our country, they continually harbor inflammatory sentiments that really tick me off.

Mexico replaces top US diplomats, citing hostile climate

April 6, 2016 | AOL

(Reuters)

“We have been warning that our citizens have begun to feel a more hostile climate,” Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu told local radio after the announcement.

“This (anti-Mexican) rhetoric has made it clear that we have to act in a different way so that this tendency being generated doesn’t damage the bilateral relationship,” she added.

More: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/06/mexico-replaces-top-u-s-diplomats-citing-hostile-climate/21339608/

No wonder people champion building a wall or, gasp, enforcing the law and borders. If Mexico officials were really listening, which we have to assume they are, then you’d think they’d be willing to consider what they can do for us since we do so much for them?

But they do and say this stuff just to intentionally frustrate Americans’ efforts. Is it any wonder Americans are fed up? “Bilateral relationship”… is that a good joke?

Then Obama recently said he consistently hears complaints from people around the world about rhetoric etc. Maybe, if he were listening, he’d hear all the reasons they question us or distrust our actions. Nah, he’s busy blaming the Republicans that have not been in charge of administration policy. Call me sick and tired of this horse manure.

Is Obama listening when terrorism goes epidemic, or when refugees create a hostile atmosphere across Europe? Or when our citizens are attacked by illegal immigrants — “just here to work for a better life?” Who only knows what all the voices in Obama’s head are telling him? Maybe Obama ought to consider listening to the people in our own country fed up with abusive power, corruption, tone deafness and his third-world leadership? (not to mention running and spending this country into the ground)

Sorry for the little rant. Yeah, Mexico, stick it in your ear since you’re such a great example of integrity. This is precisely what calls for no demands a person like Trump to call a spade a spade. The more public the better, the harder the better. If Mexico is trying to convince us of the necessity of a wall, or border control and enforcement, then they are doing a great job.

Speaking of voices Obama is listening to:

Wa Post

Now the Trump critique is coming with increasing frequency and ease. Asked Tuesday whether Trump’s proposals were already damaging U.S. relations, Obama answered unequivocally: “Yes.”

“I am getting questions constantly from foreign leaders about some of the wackier suggestions that are being made,” Obama said. “They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that.”

The Democratic National Committee quickly circulated video of Obama’s remarks, arguing they illustrated how Trump “simply doesn’t have the temperament necessary to be commander in chief.”

Seems Mexico is worried about what it characterizes as attacks on Mexico when America has actually been under attack by Mexico for years.

Earlier Obama had called Trump’s plan for Mexico to pay for the wall and other proposals on border plans half-baked.

“People expect the President of the United States and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems seriously, to put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed are effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account. They don’t expect half-baked notions coming out of the White House. We can’t afford that,” Obama said in his press conference.

Since “half-baked” is the subject, I imagine all the ways that applies to Obama. How about the failed Libya policy, the ‘failed state’ result, or meddling in Egypt and alliance with Muslim Brotherhood? Or how about that red line in Syria, or calling ISIS a JV team? Or refusing to attack ISIS oil lines financing the Caliphate, or maybe refusing to call ISIS and terrorists Islamic terrorism, or the denial that they are Islamic? Or maybe the dissing of France after the terrorist attacks? No shortage on half-baked irresponsibility there.

Talk about pushing “policies…examined, analyzed [as] effective, where unintended consequences are taken into account,” really?

How about calling Climate Change the greater threat to world and national security? Going for the trifecta, pushing a video cause for the attack of terrorism in Libya. Like labeling the Fort Hood Islamic terrorism attack as “workplace violence.” Like executive amnesty in the face of an invasion. Calling the problems on our borders a perception problem. Or like saying there is not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

Half-baked assertions or… fully cooked up lies? But there is a whole bowl full of consequences — some would argue about how unintentional they really are.

How a North American Union is born

Ted Cruz – Wolf in Sheep Clothing!!!

So what all does that mean to Ted Cruz? He was a part of it. Yet what Cruz really is concerned about is some campaign donations Trump gave to Hillary, or others.

Well, Ted’s yet to address it. Remember Rick Perry pushed the NAFTA super highway, or Trans-Texas Corridor, despite the overwhelming will of Texas people. (or many others)

Under the auspices of SPP we were told shut up our disagreement, and don’t worry about it. Vincente Fox made that prediction then, and who is the big opponent to our border security, control now? Who has taken to the airwaves to filibuster talk shows to call Trump every name in the book, while castigating all Americans who entertain his ideas?

But it all has only gotten worse with every year, hasn’t it? Still no explanations from principle characters. ‘Sit down and shut up!’

Oh, Cruz did suggest Heidi’s CFR involvement was under some guise of resisting this attempt while her name is right on the report as one of the architects. She really delivered then, didn’t she? Ted should have some ‘splaining to do.

And watch Hillary distance herself from NAFTA.

No, not a bad April Fools’ joke

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

In pandering to Hispanics, Latinos and media, Hillary makes a profound declarative statement on Wednesday:

Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”

Read: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about/

Children and family members. So did she leave anyone out, like maybe friends of family members and children? Well, who does that leave? How about single people with no family or children here. How about criminals and felons who have no family or children here. It’s just ridiculous, who’s left?

When Hillary was asked about her rogue server, which has caused her all the trouble:

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”

In an old Laugh-In comedy skit, Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) used to crawl into a big rocking chair like a 5 year-old saying something like “no one told me not to … So I did.” Hillary’s point is no one told me it was not allowed (disallowed) so I naturally did it.

But at the same time her Department was sending around notices telling people not to use their private email for official business. Translation: no one told me what I was doing was wrong, so I kept doing it. Duh! You can “bet your sweet bippy.” “And that’s the truth.”

Open Letter to Pope Francis

I’m not much for these open letters, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

Open letter to Pope Francis

… and the cadre of Leftists who push these critiques on the American people.

Pope Francis, since you have taken aim at our dialogue on policies in this country, I thought it fair to ask you about your recent Mexican visit tour.

Why did you not say to the Mexican government and the people:

Why are you allowing such an exodus to happen from your country? These are good people that make great contributions to society. Why do you let them go off to improve their lives and the culture in other countries. This is a terrible loss to Mexico. Why are you not doing more to prevent this?

Francis, why are you not more concerned about the cause of this huge problem than you are with our security policies? These people could do a lot to make Mexico much better. Why not attack economic policies that cause such hopelessness in these countries?

Since your suggestion was people who want to build a wall rather than a bridge are not Christian, then the same condemnation applies to most people (many Christians) in the USA. Virtually every Republican candidate supports building the wall. So you are calling them all, and people that agree with them, not Christians?

Surely, if you cared to look, you would know that this a problem stemming all the way to the 198o’s. It is more than 3 decades old. Now that we are finally preparing to take action on it, you criticize our extremely patient and deliberative response. Why can’t you criticize the circumstances in these countries behind such mass exodus and migration to America?

In fact, you must be aware that you are putting your Papal approval on the policies in these countries that are exporting their citizens across borders. Why are you not critical of their policies? Why don’t you call that behavior Unchristian? You are de facto endorsing the mass illegal invasion of the US. As I said, this has been going on over 3 decades.

Why do you not address the gangs and the coyotes who make their living on transporting these people? Or criticize their behavior that is taking advantage of these people and exploits them like some material object? How about all those who have died or fallen victim to crime en route to America? Where is the Christian compassion for them? What about the American victims created by gangs of thugs or criminals which illegally come to this country and assault good Christians and American people?

In the context of the Biblical example of Jesus, are you calling on Mexicans and their leaders to put down their stones? Do you call them Unchristian for exporting people? Yet you can criticize us for deporting illegal aliens back to their country of origin.

Franklin Graham, in a FB post , said “My advice to the Pontiff—reach out and build a bridge to Donald Trump. Who knows where he may be this time next year!”

Why be so divisive in your words and actions rather than building bridges with Christians and other countries? You were awarded a lot of good will among Americans in your visit. You squandered that on divisive rhetoric injecting the RC Church into our politics. Unfortunately you are building walls not bridges. Now Pope John Paul II knew something about building bridges — and maintaining them.

Signed,
A sincerely disappointed American Christian

RightRing | Bullright

Speaking of Justice

With news of the refusal to prosecute Lois Lerner and anyone at IRS of that scandal, on the heels of Hillary sailing through another hearing with barely so much as a sigh, I think the prospect of real justice now in this country is bleak. I mean justice for politicians or those that abuse their government power, or even abuse of government and power itself.

The very next day I see Obama is seeking to end capital punishment in federal cases. And that the Department of [in]Justice is conducting a review, at his request of course. So the new Loretta Lynch seems to be getting quite a workout.

“There are certain crimes that are so beyond the pale that I understand society’s need to express its outrage,” Obama said. “So I have not traditionally been opposed to the death penalty in theory. But in practice it’s deeply troubling.”

He added, “All of this, I think, has led me to express some very significant reservations.”

Chances are DOJ already made a decision not to prosecute Hillary, or appoint a special prosecutor, regardless of investigation results of Hillary’s servergate, likely citing prosecutorial discretion.

Obama is also cranking up his pressure to move Gitmo detainees to mainland US and close the Guantanamo Bay facility. Talks are ongoing as well with Cuban dictators, who want Guantanamo Bay.

The central theme now, especially in view of all Obama’s scandals, is who DOJ will not prosecute? Those are the priority decisions. Funny though how they managed to prosecute General Petraeus. (they make exceptions)

This after already announcing the release of thousands of prisoners this month for non-violent crimes. He’s taken a hands off approach to illegal alien criminals or enforcing law. He’s already issued an executive order to rewrite immigration law.

On May 8th, “Loretta Lynch Confirmed a Dep of Justice Review of Baltimore Police. They had an investigation in Ferguson, and issued their edicts. But note how many of the looters or rioters have been prosecuted. How many rioter/looters have been prosecuted in Baltimore? On a plus, Feds did refuse a Baltimore bailout, so far. I guess reparations do not apply in some cases.

DOJ is not quick to jump into civil rights cases or terrorism when a white person is the inconvenient victim. They don’t seem fast to condemn or react to police shootings.

After the Oregon shooting, Obama has threatened to take gun control measures. We know how he loves his pen. Eric Holder was held in contempt for failure to cooperate with Congress. How far Lynch will go on that path we can only guess, so far.

Now this month DOJ released statements of turning up their efforts against what they call domestic terrorism threats.

New Obama czar will hunt ‘right-wing’ extremists

Americans seen as possibly more threatening than Islamic jihadists
Published: 10/15/2015 a

Just two weeks after it announced a plan to globalize local police departments through the “Strong Cities Network,” the Obama administration has added a new tool in its fight against “violent extremism.”

A new position within the Justice Department – yet to be filled – will focus on investigating lone-wolf domestic terrorists or “extremists.”

The person who heads this new effort will target extremists who plan mass shootings, hold racist, bigoted or anti-government views or see themselves as “sovereign citizens.”

The new position at the Justice Department, dubbed the “domestic terrorism counsel,” will serve as the main point of contact for U.S. attorney offices nationwide and will identify trends across cases, help shape strategy and “analyze legal gaps that need to be closed,” said Assistant Attorney General John Carlin.

It is not clear what Carlin meant by that statement.

Continue reading: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/new-obama-czar-will-hunt-right-wing-extremists/

But of course, who are the real terrorist threats in their view? Those who oppose them. The DoJ identified white supremacists as the most violent of  domestic terror groups. They worry that they are not putting enough resources or focus on that terrorism threat.

We had another cop murdered in NYC, which escaped mention or statement from Obama. Now a stunning apology statement from the judge who released him, with his lengthy record, months before the murder.

“I know. I am truly sorry,” Nuñez said sadly when a Post reporter reminded her about the 33-year-old cop’s devastated family.

Well, a little late but its another glaring example of the condition of justice under Obama. Lack of mention about cop shootings by Obama speaks volumes when he rushes to the microphone at any other convenient outrage. He’s still worried about the Crusades.

Or just take the first hand testimony of one who has experienced the selective prosecution persecution from the DOJ.

Bernard Kerik writes in a August op-ed:

“I provide this context for one very important reason: The investigation against me didn’t have anything to do with a U.S. Ambassador and three of his staff members being murdered in Libya. It had nothing to do with leaking classified material to unauthorized recipients; it didn’t involve destruction of evidence or the obstruction of transparency in government by maintaining a secret server on which classified correspondence was communicated. It was about false statements or errors and tax charges, which for anyone else would have been handled civilly.”

But if the DOJ has its sights on doing something, or not doing something, it will not be deterred. Special prosecutor statute:

“Stage Two: The “Independent Counsel” Statute (1977-19991)
As a result of Watergate, in 1977 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act (EGA) which for the first time defined procedures for the appointment of a special prosecutors. Specifically, the Act provided that upon receiving allegations relating to certain “covered persons”, the Attorney General was required to conduct a preliminary investigation. If the preliminary investigation suggested that further investigation was warranted, the AG was required to petition three judge panel established by the statute and known as the “Special Division,” to appoint an “independent counsel.” Several aspects of the Act require further explanation.”

He does have this DOJ theme going. But Obama is more concerned with lighting the White House in rainbows than with real justice. State of justice in America is contemptible.

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

Illegal surge again knocking on the door

We used to talk about a “surge” meaning troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. But we are having surges here in the US from outside our borders, from places we don’t even know.

Now here we are again, witnessing another surge of illegal aliens. It doesn’t matter where all they are from, they are coming. Heat or not.

DHS admits new surge of illegal immigrant families

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Friday, August 7, 2015

The country saw another surge of illegal immigrant families crossing the border in July, a top Homeland Security official told a federal court late Thursday as the administration begged a judge not to forbid detention of new migrant mothers and children.

Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello said the number of illegal immigrant families captured at the border rose in July, bucking a trend and worrying officials who had been expecting the number of families to drop as the heat increases in late summer, just as the number of unaccompanied minors does.

Even worse, the administration fears things may get worse if illegal immigrants hear about Judge Dolly M. Gee’s July 24 ruling all but prohibiting detention of illegal immigrant families.

Read more

So how many more of these surges can we tolerate? Then shipping begins to parts unknown, all done quietly as we debate if there is a problem, what to do. This while we are under siege from sanctuary cities.

“Point: Sanctuary Policies Mainly Protect the Predators”
By Jessica Vaughan July 2015 | Center for Immigration Studies

The Obama administration has made it clear that it will not act against sanctuary jurisdictions. Instead, the president has moved to make the whole country a sanctuary by giving work permits to illegal aliens and drastically scaling back enforcement for all but the most egregious criminal offenders. And he terminated perhaps the most effective enforcement program ever (Secure Communities) and replaced it with a new program that explicitly allows localities to obstruct ICE. (more)

Hillary, illegals to Trump to guns roadtour

Here’s Hillary’s comment to Trump

Hillary has just one word for Trump, “Basta…enough!” Coming from Hillary, that’s funny because that is exactly what we have been thinking about the Oval Office Heiress.

When we saw your actions on Benghazi and what you said. Enough comes immediately to mind.

When we saw you used a personal server for State Department business and email, we said enough.

When we saw your staged theatrics as Sec of State with Russia over a “reset button,” we said enough.

When we hear you talk about moving the country forward, we say “enough”

When we hear you say you followed all the rules and law at State, we say enough.

When we hear you testify to congress on Benghazi lecturing us: “what difference at this point does it make” we said that’s definitely enough.

When we look at your perpetual trickle-down scandals, we said that’s quite enough.

When most people in the country don’t trust you, we say enough. “Basta…

(another clip and @ 23 minutes)

“Failed, top-down policies that wrecked our country before,” Hillary told Arkansans.

“You know, Democrats are in the future business, but from the Republican candidates for president we see the opposite. They may have some fresh faces but they are the Party of the past”.

“We Democrats look at America and see limitless potential. We believe in a basic bargain, if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And we believe that the measure of our success should be how much incomes rise for hard working families, not just for CEO’s and money managers.”

Whoo-hoo! “Basta,” for sure. She doesn’t want to go to the past, well neither do we want to go back to the old Clinton years, especially after seeing BO revision 2.0

[At 23 minutes]”Yes, Donald Trump”… “but there is nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families, and now the insults he’s directed at a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.”

I seem to remember the queen of attacks going to Senate hearings claiming General Petraeus’s’ — whom Hill’s village comrades called “General Betrayus” — testimony “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”… “I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive …a view of a rather grim reality,” Sen Clinton told Gen. Petraeus in ’07 (5 yr before conducting her own Libyan adventure.)

She never condemned the viscous “General Betrayus” campaign or those mocking a hero. She’s shown contempt for our military, its leaders and efforts. But now she is concerned about comments toward John McCain, and criticism of his Senate record? What a condescending hypocrite. Talk about trying to “present a positive view on grim reality!”

The Basta Grandma in another speech blamed Trump’s remarks for the Charleston Shootings. Then railed about her other favorite theme, guns — or the real problem.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like this.

Clinton continued, “People need to stand up against it. We should not accept it. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You know you don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s about everybody. The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns.”

“You gotta build it from the bottom up and top down” she claimed. “So maybe on a local and State level we have to keep building towards a more sensible, balanced kind of policy.”

Hillary can’t even pay lip service to the policies enabling a felon deported 5 times and released to murder Kate Steinle. Policies she’d be familiar with as Secretary of State.

Isn’t it disturbing how she talks about guns as another program to hoist on us? Even with her current record of non-stop scandal, she bluntly talks about what she’ll do to the people

Lindsey Graham Cracker sounding his trumpet

Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham says Trump has hijacked debate and is a wrecking ball, saying that its time they start “pushing back” against Trump.

That is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever heard. Graham and his ilk have made a career of hijacking the Republican party. How many gangs? Their immigration and campaign finance crap was all gang mentality, liberal mentality at that.

Their biggest complaints are reserved for conservatives — i.e. “agents of intolerance”.

Now that the base and conservatives are pushing back against Graham and his RINO coalition of the stupid, he declares that Trump is the “wrecking ball.” And since when did Graham speak for the Republican Party? He and others always speak for themselves.

He told CNN: “I think [Trump’s] a demagogue and uninformed…”

“I think he’s hijacked the debate. I think he’s a wrecking ball for the future of the Republican Party with the Hispanic community and we need to push back.”

“I’m very worried about where we’re headed as a party. I don’t think this is the way to get the Latino vote. If we do not reject this way of thinking clearly, without any ambiguity, we will have lost our way.If we don’t reject it, we’ve lost the moral authority, in my view, to govern this country.”

Talk about people and voters having lost their way. And what he is calling for is just what the left does, demand that people lineup to condemn someone’s remarks. Moral authority? Pope Graham.

Speaking on his highness’s moral authority, Pontiff Graham Cracker said:

“I think it is not only incumbent upon the chairman (of RNC), but anyone in a responsible position within the Republican Party needs to say the following to the American people:

We do not agree with Donald Trump when he says that most illegal immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. We have quite the opposite view that this is a hard problem and needs to be solved. But most of these people are descent hardworking folks coming from poor countries that try to improve their lives and we need to create order out of chaos.””

Alex, I’ll take hypocrisy for a thousand, please. Stop using symptoms of government’s deliberate failure for an excuse to say “the system is broken”… blah, blah. What’s broken and morally bankrupt is your ideological jihad over election politics.

Sanctuaries for illegals, bullets and crime for citizens.

Sanctuary cities — my new term is Sanc-cities.

Byron York has an article in the Washington Examiner reporting what Obama, Clinton and Biden said in debating it in 2008.
Clinton said:

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

Read more here

Its the one thing they all had in common, each blame federal government for being derelict in its duties. According to them, this is the reason we have sanctuary cities to begin with.

Now that they are the ones running federal government, the problem is immigration is so broken. But they won’t say what exactly is wrong with the laws, or why they are broken, they just propose “immigration reform”. Why would anyone not be suspicious about what they are doing? They even claim that the sanctuary policies make the cities safer. Creating a huge magnet to attract illegals, and release them to recommit crimes makes cities safer?

Notice how progressives blame federal government, like ICE, but yet they don’t want ICE to be able to do their job. No they don’t want any cooperation between local communities and ICE. Actually, the dems would have all sanctuary cities, towns, communities. But they would still blame the federal government for being derelict in their duties — to enforce the law. It’s equivalent to a dog or cat chasing its tail endlessly. How can they get away with this since the Dems are in control of both the sanctuary cities and the federal government? (via executive branch)

The Constitution never gave cities or towns the ability to write immigration laws…or ignore them completely. They have policies like don’t ask don’t tell on immigration. They don’t want authorities to ask immigration status nor illegals to say they are undocumented.

We have a full-court blame fest going on. Sanc-cities blame feds, feds blame the cities, Obama says we need more funding for the laws they aren’t enforcing. All say that the system is completely broken that we need reform to fix the problems.

In other words, we cannot fix any problems without creating another bureaucratic expansion of federal government– and funding it the same. So they want more laws for Sanc-cites to refuse to enforce. Or until they get ones they like. Border agents blame administration for threatening them not to enforce the law.

All these oath takers cannot keep their oath of office. You might as well call it civil disobedience. But if they were really in civil disobedience, you would think they would just quit the job in protest then if they cannot do it. Instead, they defy their oath of office by not following the law despite what the consequences of that brings.

RightRing | Bullright

Racist jokes gone rogue

It seems media and the race police found someone other than Trump to pick on. They located a comedian in Vegas who uses stereotyped jokes about Hispanics. The article then suggested comedian Amy Schumer and Trump might team up to run on a ticket for 2016.

She was asked about her use of jokes and she said:

“Playing with race is a thing we are not supposed to do, which is what makes it so fun for comics,” she wrote. “You can call it a ‘blind spot for racism’ or ‘lazy’ but you are wrong. It is a joke and it is funny. I know because people laugh at it.” – more Wa Post

Oops, did she say that? Why must she be paired with Donald Trump, and he with her?

Of course some people will say that makes Trump look all the worse because she is just joking where Trump is serious. But this statement of hers deserves thought. The problem could be that people didn’t get the memo they are not allowed to laugh at those kind of jokes. So lets get after them. Anyone who would laugh at them must be a racist. Don’t think they would go that far? Just watch.

Remember not long ago when Jerry Seinfeld said he cannot do shows at colleges anymore because of all the problems with trigger warnings and political correctness. Then it becomes the same story on the strip in Vegas as the University campus, as activists make the case. (to connect them politically is a twofer) What about all the black comedians making racist jokes? I get it, no one is out to get them. It’s no joke.

NBC Pulls Trump Card

NBC plays the Trump card. Wasn’t that predictable?

In their disagreement with what Trump has said on the illegal invasion on the border, they terminated their business dealings with him. I bet the Left was applauding. I wonder what is in the contract, if there was one? They just prove they can break business ties on words they don’t like — whatever they find objectionable.

Their business deals must abolish the speech of anyone they deal with. Funny that working relationship has not affected Rev Al Sharpton’s mouth. Or maybe that is what they wanted when they hired him? Yet they refused responsibility and made a disclaimer for Williams’ words.

Change org’s petition was said:

“Please cancel Miss USA, Miss Universe and the Apprentice. You are supporting a hateful and narcissistic individual without any kind of values, both personal and business wise. Not only that, but you are supporting a growing trend of bigotry and division in this country.”

USA today says “Trump continues to deny he’s a bigot”.

But NBC should be careful of appeasing liberal left demands. What happens when it refuses to do what they or Univision wants? Well, when they find out it won’t be pretty. This was consequences for running, the statements were the excuse. It always seems free speech is a one way street with the left.

Along those terms, here’s the latest version: police crackdown on Ferguson riots violated the free speech of thugs and looters rioting. Hey, free speech must mean free stuff to the left. If that’s the case, seeing the way Obama’s been cracking down on conservatives we should be entitled to loot Fort Knox — if there is anything in it.

Introducing the Graham campaign

It seems Graham has got himself a presidential campaign off the ground. No, not Billy or Franklin. Lindsey, ever heard of him? Not Lindsay Lohan. Sure we have, but for being the notorious sidekick to John Juan McCain. A micro-blip on a radar screen.

So he wastes no time going to the same rhetoric famous by another candidate. He’s been running now for a couple weeks and, almost in search of coverage, makes odd statements. Speaking to Chuck Todd, Graham says. See full video interview here.

At 8 minutes in, he goes deftly hypothetical, as if planned, supposing to write the Constitution today. He just happens to have it all thought out, and Todd has to ply Lindsey very little to develop his SNL caliber sketch. (who cares about Hannity & Maddow?)

Todd asks “why is the country [so] polarized?” (will they ask Hillary that question?)

Graham says, “money, and….okay write the Constitution today. I think it’d be a great SNL sketch. You got Philadelphia Hall, you got satellite trucks parked outside. You know Ben Franklin comes outside… (cluckling) I got Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity jump all over… “don’t give in, Ben.” Just think how hard it is in today’s 24/7 news cycle, talk radio, cable television, and money. There is a group telling you to say no to about everything …and to get into politics, look how many pledges people ask you to sign…

Todd: will you sign any?
Graham: nope, nah.
Todd: you’ve signed pledges before…
Graham: I have

Todd: do you regret it?
Graham: Not so much I regret it that I just don’t want to do it this time. You know if you’re not financially independent, you have to get somebody to help you financially. I think a combination of constant media, 24 hours news cycle with money has made it pretty hard to find common ground.

Todd: so that means were doomed?
Graham: No, I think…its a good question…are we? I don’t know.
Todd: I don’t know if media is going to reform. I always say its a two-way street. Politicians play to the media polarization.

Graham: You’re trying to beat each other and you report things maybe too quickly. Let’s look at it this way, I think there is a market for a better way. When I talk to that young guy there, I said “You’re going to have to work a little longer pal. If I’m president, I’m going to ask you to work a little longer. What do people do between 65 and 67? They work two years longer….

I’m making a bet here that you can talk about problem solving in the Republican primary and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that you can openly embrace working with Democrats and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that in a war weary republic you can rally them to keep the fight over there before it comes here. Now, if I lose those bets it doesn’t mean America’s lost, it means that I just fell short. To a young person in politics, listen to what I am doing here, see if it makes sense to you. There is a growing desire by the public at large to stop the BS. I feel it, I sense it and I’m running on the idea if you elect me I’ll do whatever is necessary to defend the nation. I’m running not as a candidate for a single party but for a great nation.

Todd: are you thinking about going third party?
Graham: no, not at all …See at the end of the day, you’re not going to get big thigs done with moderates. There is no hall of fame for moderates. Moderates are nice people but it takes real ideologically purer people, in many ways, to solve hard problems. Did anybody doubt Tip O’Neil’s credentials as a liberal? Did anybody doubt Ronald Reagan’s credentials as a conservative?

Cut/ enough

Bet much? Besides the moderate boilerplate “let’s work together” talk, there was an admission that you cannot get great big things from moderates. You don’t say. So why demonize and attack the same people for holding fast to their principles? I get it, it’s okay when he’s standing up against the Party base. But when they don’t cooperate with him, there’s a problem.

Todd: in 2000 he (John McCain) ran against the Party a little bit harder. [really?]
Graham: Yea but I think, you know, looking back that was sort of an immature campaign. We kind of got off in the ditch a little bit. You know if you want to be the nominee of a party, there’s only so much you can do to run your party down. I love the Republican Party. I believe the conservatism…

Todd: Some conservatives are going to hear what you’re saying and say YOU are trying to run down the Party right now.
Graham: I’m not. I’m actually trying to build it up. Here’s my bet: that Hispanics, if they get over the idea that we don’t like them because we suggest that we don’t, if we could actually get immigration behind us, the Hispanic community is much more aligned with our way of doing business than our Democratic colleagues. I firmly believe that.

Todd: you believe that Hispanics are justified in thinking that the Republican Party doesn’t care about them right now?
Graham: Yes, to some extent I do because just look at the rhetoric. Don’t judge us all by what a few people say. But you have to look at the results…/end

Video

Keep developing those thoughts strategies, Lindsey. You already gave MSM ammo for weeks. None of this is nuclear science but it does show the alignment to McCain, who also is always sucking wind for face time on air. Graham knows you can only beat that party horse so far, you can’t run it into the ground. Are you hiring the same geniuses?

Let’s go back in the time warp machine.

You only have to go back to 2000 in his presidential bid for president when McCain dropped this load of manure on the Republican base calling conservatives agents of intolerance. Now his dear friend Lind-see seems to have the same campaign formula. He makes it sound like he is talking about both sides fairly, but it is directed squarely at conservatives, the intolerant ones. After all, being intolerant on the left is a compliment to them. So the comparison doesn’t work.

February 2000, McCain took to the road and the air under the guise of bashing certain politics.

I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But public — but political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are… corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. [CNN transcript]

While he sounded to be swinging at both sides, the main target of opportunity was the conservative right, particularly evangelicals. Everyone knew it then, and now everyone will again with sidekick Graham on the bandstand. They don’t care that in the process they are offending their base, they think that is smart politics. They don’t care about marginalizing voters and any influence that does not align with them.

Though it is very amusing how Lindsey Graham refers to McCain’s campaign as immature and “in the ditch”, doing almost exactly what John was doing. So Lindsey is going to start in the gutter and work out from there. Enter mainstream media.

So now we have to live through a replay of that intolerant, divide and conquer, playing the media fiddle type of campaigning. Right on cue, it’s media chow time which is the point. It’s McCain 2000 3.0. Graham must think we are really dumb to expect us to play along.

Holy Graham crackers, Batman!

RightRing | Bullright

A House Divided

It’s really disturbing when you see images, as Peppermint reminds me, of people stomping on or destroying the flag. And it’s not elsewhere, it goes on right here at home. They call that freedom of speech, protected protest. Yada yada.

18 U.S. Code § 700 – Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties

PUBLIC LAW 101-131—OCT. 28 1989

(a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.

Notes: Constitutionality

For information regarding constitutionality of this section as amended by Pub. L. 101–131, see Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Appendix 1, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States. [source]

They can call it whatever they want, but we know what it is. That is the reason they do it, because it does disturb and irritate people. If they cannot get their way they desecrate the flag, Old Glory. They know it will get attention and it does.They understand it is attached to something respectable.

It’s long been known that one of the Left’s pet peeves is nationalism. At least until now the left has been die-hard anti-nationalist. Now that they have a king on their throne it is a little different. But Obama is anti-nationalist — the common conception of it.

In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in “The American Crisis” what is true again today:

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Dare I say in these days even the sunshine patriot is a fleeting concept, at least on the left. If we cannot stand together against the enemy as one, then our days may be numbered. The left wants us to witness their anger and disdain for our founding principles — or unifying nationalism in general — but they do not want us to understand its source. They don’t want us to perceive rebellion for the sake of rebellion. They don’t want us to see that sentiments of hatred and resentment drive it.

The wisdom is a house divided cannot stand. They want to see to it we cannot stand or that we cannot stand for fundamental principles, nor unify under them. As much as they detest a nationalistic sense of patriotism, they demanded a king and got one. Never mind those two things — anti-nationalism and Obama — should be diametrically opposed to each other. They want a rebellion spirit to replace nationalism.

Mark 3:25
“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”

They want no nationalist pride and loathe it. Not every leftist, but those leading the parade are so it does matter. They are determined to break us down to factions and divide us. But they want us united over gay marriage, illegal immigration, or against a “Republic for which it stands”. Unite Blue, as they say. They want us united in bitterness toward America. The Bill Ayers types are no longer agitators in the back of the classroom; they’ve been promoted to class presidents, scholars, and experts on the matter.

In the hypocritical world of the left, they want to divide and conquer but also want unity under a banner against America, against our ancestors, against history, against God and country, against patriotism. But it must be replaced, under a similar banner, with exactly the opposite and called ‘better and more perfect’ even righteous. (in their perverted sense of righteous fervor) Just like they turned abortion rights into an altar of the Left. Just as they are now doing with gay marriage, and what they are trying to do with illegals and open borders.

It makes perfect sense, at least to the left, to preach unity to the Right while taking the most divisive stands they can. The resulting friction and dispute is what they want over the ugly nationalism they despise. Yet there are indications that they have great respect for nationalism when they see it in any other country — whether it be Chilean miners, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Cuba, or Palestinians. Put a cause with unifying nationalism in other places and they are all for it. Better still, put it under a flag to unite under.

Why do we think they are so schizophrenic about ISIS? “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Even faced with the facts they will obfuscate to make excuses for the terrorist. Blame their actions on America. It’s perfectly rational to them. So a convicted cop killer rotting in prison garners their sympathy and support. They’ll turn a blind eye to what he did calling him/her a good and compassionate person. And once locked into misplaced support, they are in it until the end.

To you and I those don’t sound like unifying things or ideas. But to the left they perform a very practical function — to attack anything that stands for God-fearing principles, or the nationalism it incorporates. Better chaos than that. Better divide and conquer than live under its rubric. And they find it therapeutically unifying to oppose that: Viva la rebellion. In the end, they want national unity of a different sort. They admire nationalism in Chile, in Cuba, in Russia, or in regimes far removed from justice.

They resented the House impeachment process of Clinton, yet demanded it for Bush. They detest the suggestion of impeachment under Obama to the point of creating an unimpeachable POTUS. They use any possibility of impeachment as a fundraiser. Congratulations, you have gotten what you wanted all along: unimpeachable injustice. A cause du jour worth fighting for.

Paine said, “I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us.” I can’t see on what grounds Obama could look to heaven for help against us.

Pt-2: place your bets

RightRing | Bullright

Are the 2016 numbers already in the bag?

At least someone thinks so and is spreading that message far and wide.
What hope is there for America, when this is set to go off in 2016?

Univision host: Hispanic vote to jump from 12 million to 16 million, will decide presidency

By Paul Bedard | May 20, 2015 | Washington Examiner

Jorge Ramos, the influential host of Univision’s Noticiero Univision, said the Latino vote will decide the 2016 presidential election and that Hispanics could see a reward for providing the margin of victory.

In an interview with Harvard University’s Institute of Politics following a speech to students, Ramos predicted that about 16 million Hispanics will go to the polls, likely to vote Democratic based on past trends.

More: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/univision-host-hispanic-vote-to-jump-from-12-million-to-16-million-will-decide-presidency/article/2564781

Of course if it occurs once then it is considered a patent rule in all future elections, too. Look what happened with the precious black identity politics. Now they are pushing the female vote. And the Hispanic vote appears to be a done deal — at least according to them, with more of their election projection.

Speaking of deals, note the arrogance of Ramos about something in return. Like they haven’t been bought and paid for already as another voter bloc on the Democrat plantation roles. Identity politics on steroids. But then who else is even in that league? What is it?

While we are talking about trends, that Jorge Ramos has a few of them working. I know I blame MSM a lot for their crap coverage, but this guy blows them away in the arrogance department. He’s a one man band, a TV news anchor, journalist, left-wing activist and a lobbyist kind of all rolled into one. Not to mention pretty much a one-note Charley on illegal immigration. Now he appears to be an election consultant/expert/adviser/ambassador/advocate/diplomat/executive. He does it all. And if you want to talk to the Hispanic community, you gotta go through him.(WSJ calls him key to the voting bloc.) And we thought our mainstream-media model was bad.