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

Fox Goes All Out

On the crazy side, it seems all the left has to do is get the DNC to say it will not allow Fox News to have any debates in the primaries. That causes Fox to do all sorts of pandering stunts, presumably to get on the good graces of DNC and Democrats. Fools gold.

They come out and publicly flog Judge Jeanine for “anti-Islamic” statements. Then they hire Donna Brazile as a contributor. What, Hillary wasn’t available? Doesn’t Fox learn?

So that’s all Democrats have to do to bait Fox? But peeing in the wind is usually risky.

Jihadist Review, years later

Here is an old article from 2015 as a reminder of the previous president and his administration, policies, agenda, and their talking points. It was well done though I’m sure not enough people saw it then.

But the first point is that the article would even have to be written at all and in the 6th year of Obama’s presidency, says a lot about him. The second point is that this was all so blatantly obvious to everyone but Obamafiles. Or that media would try to dispute there was a sympathetic propensity toward terrorists and Islam in particular.

Remember all the denials? How they mocked us for even mentioning his sympathies? And a mainstream media that was too stupefied to even ask the serious questions of Obama. And where were all the hearings on this serious subject of national security?

They never cared enough to discuss it.

Yet this article should have been exhibit A in a long list of grievances against the former president, who was so compromised he was incapable of representing the US or defending our sovereignty. Excuse Congress now as it feigns concern. Here is part of it.

Obama’s religious blindness aids Islamic State: Column

by James S. Robbins — Feb. 19, 2015 | USA Today

Refusing to acknowledge theological motivations will sabotage efforts to stop jihadism.

At this week’s White House summit on combating violent extremism on social media, all topics are fair game except Islamist extremism. From the administration’s point of view, it may as well not even exist, despite the fact that the first I in ISIS and ISIL stands for “Islamic”, as in Islamic State.

The White House has consistently downplayed, if not outright ignored, the religious dimension of the war on terrorism. This has much to do with President Obama’s apparent belief that any mention of Islam in the context of terrorism will reinforce negative views of the United States abroad, and supposed American prejudices against Muslims.

Even during the George W. Bush administration, officials consistently stressed that the United States is not at war with the whole of the Islamic world or with Muslim beliefs. It has been repeated thousands of times. We get it. However, avoiding the religious dimension of the struggle against violent extremism is a mistake. The White House may not like it, but for the jihadists, this conflict is all about Islam.

Attempts to avoid touching on religious dimension of the struggle has led to several recent high-profile administration gaffes. President Obama strangely tried to deflect the issue at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5 by mentioning the Crusades as an example of Christian excess. Unfortunately, that example is also a key jihadist talking point.

In an interview published days later, Obama downplayed the religious aspect of a terrorist attack on a kosher deli in Paris that specifically targeted French Jews, saying the perpetrator “randomly (shot) a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” Administration spokespeople compounded the problem by reinforcing the idea that this was not an anti-Semitic attack, before later backtracking by tweet.

The White House made a similar blunder in a statement condemning last week’s ISIL beaheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya, referring to them only as “Egyptian citizens” and stressing that ISIL attacks are “unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.” In fact, this act of slaughter was very specifically focused on faith; the title of the ISIL video showing the atrocity was, “A message signed with blood to the nation of the cross.”

The latest slip was when State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf suggested that the key root cause driving people into terrorism was “lack of opportunity for jobs.” Her recommendation that economic development programs could win the war on terrorism was reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s belief that the troubles in Vietnam could be brought to an end with a Tennessee Valley Authority-style project in the Mekong Delta. But Harf — a former Mideast analyst for the CIA — should know that there is no evidence to suggest a relationship between economic deprivation and a propensity to commit terrorist violence. A 2012 study in Pakistan found that members of the middle class were more likely to support extremists than the poor. Case studies of individual terrorists show that they are more likely to be well educated and from middle-class backgrounds, or in the case of Osama bin Laden, children of extreme wealth.

Continua reading at USA Today opinion columns.

There is one caveat needed though, there is no comparison. What George Bush did out of apparent political correctness, Obama did out of loyalties to rabid anti-American bias out of favor to his sympathies for Islam and Islamists. It does show where p/c can lead.

There was a massive, strategic political silence as team Obama tried desperately to pull the handle and flush American exceptionalism and its reputation down the toilet. But no one could utter a word about it. One would be tared and feathered for mentioning it in public.

To this day, we should have hearings as to what went on in Obama’s un-American administration and right on through the transition, even to now. Those same radicals who are now engaged in sedition against this president and his administration. If a psychiatrist would examine this schizophrenia he/she would be at a loss for words. So many people went along with it.

Dems’ Snake Oil Resolution

The Democrats and media allies are going for a 4-cushion bank shot. We saw Omar using her classic antisemitism. Democrats now claim antisemitism is criticizing George Soros or Michael Bloomberg, because they are Jewish. Even anti-globalism. That doesn’t work.

It’s a wacky attempt to gain from Democrats being antisemitic, or condoning it.

But we don’t criticize Soros for being Jewish. He doesn’t seem to have an affinity for Israel or Jews himself. He’s a puppet master of the left, funding the far left. His disdain for the USA and our sovereignty is an issue, with his obsessive globalism loyalties. It has nothing to do with being Jewish. They would love to take Soros off the table.

This idea came floating out of CNN about a week ago. They said since Omar’s statements, now conservatives will have to drop all their complaining against Soros and, before he announced he was not running, even Bloomberg. But being Jewish was never at issue with either of them. That is not the criticism — globalism resistance is not antisemitism.

However, when Obamar uses her screeds it is against Jews and Israel — or those who support it — that is at the center of her arguments. What nonsense. And for media, especially CNN, carrying this attack is ridiculous. Anyway they can minimize Democrats’ anti-Jewish platform. Then on Fox, Jessica Tarlov spewed that same talking point.

It doesn’t work and I refuse to take Soros off the table for their convenience.

Then they turn around to pass a resolution watered down to condemn all forms of hatred, including toward Muslims. What tripe. The whole purpose of this was antisemitism of the Left and their failure to say or do anything about it. What do you expect from the left?

They know it is an endemic problem of the Left. Only last December, 2018, CNN was forced to fire Marc Lamont Hill for broad slurs at the UN against Israel. Hill tried to claim he spent his life fighting against antisemitism. Then three months later here we are.

As Trump said at CPAC last week, “these people are sick!”

Right Ring | Bullright

The Dem Vote Is In

Democrats’ vote is in, at least from a CNN focus group. And guess what the results are? Indeed, AOC-Snake Charmer is Democrats’ candidate of the future. Cue the celebration.

I don’t know if this is really CNN News or a Mardi Gras hangover?

Washington (CNN)A group of Democratic voters praised Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a discussion of the New York Democrat, citing her boldness and regarding her as the future of their party.

“She is the candidate of the future. She has got this down pat. And she has also nailed it as a woman in a male-dominated field,” said Christian Tamte, one of six Democrats who spoke on a range of issues with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on “New Day” this week. [see link and video]

Tells you almost all you need to know about the future of Democrats or the DNC. I rest my case — or theirs. … Nailed, that’s kind of the way I saw it too. Yep, “badass” AOC.

All right then. Any questions?

Disaster Empire

I tried to think of common denominators between the Covington story and the Jussie Smollett story and I found one.

Media. Yeah, I know typical. But the story of fake media doing what they do is a little deeper. The MSM does it for reaction, yes, but to illicit instant reaction.

They want an immediate reaction to their coverage. I think that is their entire angle. Their whole fake news model depends on their need of an instinctive response without delay, making people nothing more than their puppets.

I don’t think they want people to think about it, just react as soon as they see it. Like Ferguson or countless others. They are the clickbators of news. We used to call it sensationalizing but it is worse, they want instant response. So they can always count on it from the left. No thinking needed; just pure emotional reaction.

Choose Words Wisely

If it is one thing that Governor Infanticide and even Kamala Harris have learned is you should choose words wisely. But neither are willing to change.

It is funny that the party that traffics in verbal assaults, or assassinations, and useful inflammatory rhetoric have now reached the intersection where apparently words still matter to the rest of us, as well as actions.

Such was the case when Northam described the infanticide process advocated by the legislature in Virginia. And it only lost by one vote. Turns out that Virginia is not just for lovers anymore. They demonstrated what their priorities really are on life issues.

What more do we need to know? Now the Left has come out in favor of late-term, partial-birth abortions and even infanticide — albeit in a slightly cagey way. But the only problem they have with it is the words and images used to describe the horrors of it.

They find those factoids and truth bombs about it offensive, not what they are doing nor their death agenda. Just the descriptors of it. That is where words come in. At least until now, Democrats have gone to extremes to assure tight, controlled messages on talking points. They all say the same thing verbatim like trained drones, repeating them over and over to saturate the airwaves. The MSM cranks up the volume.

But that gets harder on live breaking news. And it takes immediate rapid response in addressing them. So when Northam’s comments came out they ran to their corners. All the trained seals said they had not heard the comments, displaying their complete ignorance.

Then, within days of Democrats trying desperately to provide non-answer rebuttals to infanticide, the story of Northam’s college yearbook photos of blackface surfaced.

Voila, finally Democrats and their media entourage had something they could talk about and fiercely condemn. They hadn’t run out to condemn Northam’s infanticide comments. But this blackface stuff they could pounce on in lockstep, along with the media machine.

The infanticide issue seemed like dead wood to the left. The only response was that Roe V Wade is under assault and that Republicans want to take abortion rights away. Never mind this expansion of abortion blowing right on through the delivery day.

But where is the condemnation from the Left or their media partners on the infanticide? Hint: the answer here is not Donald Trump. Silence on infanticide speaks volumes.

Or was the Blackface issue Democrats’ real answer to the infanticide problem?

Right Ring | Bullright

Media Does It Again: making donuts

The lamestream media has done it once again. Synopsis: media put out an article that they thought was a damning case against Trump but instead vindicated him. But don’t tell.

This really gets to be a tiring exercise always chasing down what media says verses what it really means. Actually nothing is ever what MSM says it means or thinks it means. That alone would be an indictment on journalism, in a normal world. But is it?

Here is the problem, they know what they are doing. The reality can’t condemn their incompetence because they are not. They are just competent at getting things consistently wrong, by intention and design. It is the same proverbial question always raised about Obama. Is he really dumb, naive or just arrogantly inexperienced; or does he know exactly what he is doing? Too many people missed that distinction giving him the benefit of any doubt. (a benefit never awarded to Trump) Incidental verses calculated?

In Obama’s case, he did know. But we were not supposed to be on to him. His first duty was to keep any naivete public illusion alive. In other words, the first goal was to deceive. Hypothetically, he could have really been wistfully unaware each and every time some major scandalous thing happened, where he only read about it in the papers, but then none of the full picture about Obama would fit or make any sense. And it would have been completely wrong, which he desperately wanted and needed us to be. See similarities?

The key is you find out the answer to any questions about radicals’ conduct and motivations for it when they are confronted. You will know by how deeply they dig in to defend or explain it. Then you know how intentionally malicious and subversive it all is and how important to them. Their anger and lengths they go to only confirms their intent.

That is why it is important to keep confronting “progressives” and radicals, to keep pointing out what they are doing. I mean one could stop and say what is the point because they know and I know what they are doing? That is too easy for them. However, I am not under the illusion I am getting somewhere or proving something in pointing out the issues.

It was the same way with Obama, we knew what he was doing and he knew it but it needed to be said. Unfortunately, he was never confronted the way he should be. But enough people did raise questions and he apparently heard those questions, we now know.

I think the real point with these cold, calculated people like Obama or MSM and others is not that they are doing a job but that their real mission is a fine art in deception. They see that as their talent. Objectivity or fairness never has anything to do with it, or very little. Only that illusion matters — and they aren’t too convincing about that.

No wonder they hate the fake news label with everything they have, as it is everything.

Their whole goal is not to tell you something but make you think and believe a certain narrative. So the narrative rules, which coincides with a political agenda. See it is all up to us then, how we perceive them as to how successful they are at their mission. If we believe CNN, NYT or media to be noble and credible sources, they are halfway to their goal. Then you will likely accept what they tell you when they feed you the narrative. So it is very much about telling you what to believe, not informing you. (unless by informing they mean forcing you to believe their narrative.) The rest is downhill.

While it may seem redundant to us to keep pointing out the lies and problems with their narrative it does serve a purpose. It challenges them to explain it and also lets them know that we know. If that basic deception is the first objective their mission and narrative depend on, it puts them back to square one. See they really need people to believe them. If they can’t get people to that they cannot convince them in the (political) narrative.

Think about this, as a tribute to their success, they could convince a good part of the nation into sedition without the people even realizing exactly what they are engaging in. If they are that good to string them along on that, what else can they lead people into?

That is their formula, whether it is on Russia or any of their other favorite pet issues. The left uses the same tactics. Obama’s campaign theme was not so much on “change” but the “believe in” part that made it possible. On reelection he told people just keep believing. So, pay attention not to what you see but what we tell you to see and what you believe.

Right Ring | Bullright

Mark Zuckerberg bleats his best defense

Mark Zuckerberg has his ‘come to press’ moment just in time to ring in the new year. Out with the bad FB. But actually, he is fighting for his job as the top fascist of Facebook.

No need for my lengthy critique. Just read his words and they are enough to curdle the milk you drank yesterday morning.

I’ve learned a lot from focusing on these issues and we still have a lot of work ahead. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made in 2018 and grateful to everyone who has helped us get here — the teams inside Facebook, our partners and the independent researchers and everyone who has given us so much feedback. I’m committed to continuing to make progress on these important issues as we enter the new year.

So all the chants and demands from civil rights organizations for a new CEO are falling on his deaf ears. He’s chaining himself to the door. I can’t stand the self-congratulatory ‘tude.

Ah Oh, Real News

If you paid any attention to the ‘news media’ you would almost think real news does not exist, only Trump bashing. But it is just that they have no interest in covering it.

How about an Obama flashback?

Inspector General Discovers Obama Paid $300 Million to People That Don’t Exist

LifeInfo24.Net
December 25, 2018

Well, folks. In an interview with Sharyl Attkinson of Full Measure, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, John Sopko, it was all but confirmed that millions of US taxpayer dollars were wasted away under the Obama administration on the salaries of “ghost” or non-existent soldiers and policemen in Afghanistan

More at https://www.lifeinfo24.net/2018/12/25/inspector-general-discovers-obama-paid-300-million-to-people-that-dont-exist/

Another hot off the steamy Ignore Page is from Judicial Watch.

So there was a concerted effort within Obama’s administration to get dirty info on Trump spread by a deadline. They high five about meeting their deadline.

Judicial Watch: Documents Reveal Obama State Department Urgently Provided Classified ‘Russiagate’ Documents to Multiple Senators Immediately Ahead of Trump Inauguration

DECEMBER 14, 2018 — Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today released two sets of heavily redacted State Department documents, 38 pages and 48 pages, showing classified information was researched and disseminated to multiple U.S. Senators by the Obama administration immediately prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN).

Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a June 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department after it failed to respond to a February 2018 request seeking records of the Obama State Department’s last-minute efforts to share classified information about Russia election interference issues with Democratic Senator Ben Cardin (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv-01381)).

The documents reveal the Obama State Department urgently gathering classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Donald Trump taking office.

In a Thursday, January 5, 2017, email chain then-State Department Congressional Advisor Hera Abassi indicates that then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland’s bureau was attempting to get Russian investigation related documents to the office of Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) office as quickly as possible. (In June 2016 Nuland permitted a meeting between Steele and the FBI’s legal attaché in Rome. Nuland told CBS News that the State Department knew about the Steele dossier by July 2016.)

In the email, with the subject line “For Immediate Review – Call Sheet for S Call with Senator Warner,” Abassi writes:

“I told Cardin’s folks … that the process is long. Can we ensure that there are no holdups on our end?”

Additionally, involved in providing classified information to members of the Senate was Naz Durakoglu, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs.

In an email dated Thursday, January 19, 2017, with the subject line “Signed, sealed, delivered” Durakoglu apparently confirms that Obama State Department officials were eager to provide the classified material before Trump was sworn into office:

“We made the deadline!” Durakoglu states [Emphasis added] “Thank you everyone for what was truly a Department-wide effort!”

More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-state-department-urgently-provided-classified-russiagate-documents-to-multiple-senators-immediately-ahead-of-trump-inauguration/

Gee, from departments in government that cannot meet the simplest request or deadline for information now. It just shows me how desperate they were to first keep Trump out, but ultimately setup an investigation to prevent any investigations into what Obama’s administration did. (cover up being the priority and motive from the beginning)

Still, it has been fairly successful considering the leading stories should be about how corrupted and politicized Obama’s administration was and exactly what they were doing. Once again, Jusicial Watch can get info and proof of their conspiracy but Congress cannot. Times changed, we now have several departments of “Don’t Give A Shit.” (DGAS)

Thugs of Descent

They wonder why we call them thugs. That is racist, they tell us. But how many other of these anti-American thugs are out there creating havoc on the streets among the people in this country? Plenty. This is a guy with a triangle background.

And somehow we get criticized for what we call these commies. How they assert themselves into the conversation in the first place is another serious issue.

Yet it is all just another part of Obama’s enduring legacy of deceit. Take this guy as a prime example of a leftist activist and organizer, thug. I mean really take him.

Daily Caller – (positively must read all the details)
“Revealed: Antifa Leader Relied On Anonymity To Push Radical, Violent Communist Agenda”

Smash Racism DC organizer Jose Martin, also known as “Chepe,” is a radical communist and Antifa leader operating in the U.S. He advocates for the violent overthrow of the government and for the murder of the rich and claims to have international involvement in left-wing movements.

Smash Racism DC is the Antifa group that protested in front of Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s house and berated Sen. Ted Cruz at a restaurant until he and his wife were forced to leave. It’s only one of the Antifa leader’s radical left-wing projects.

See: https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/18/antifa-leader-violent-communist/

Note how proud he is by media not covering Antifa and ignoring it that they’ve been mainstreamed. Look at his connections from thugs and fellow commies, to members of congress in DC, to media. Yep, he touches all the bases. And the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree with his family of the same lifestyle, shared beliefs.

America, is this your future? That the left can normalize and mainstream this crapola says a lot. This is who some promote as the morality police? You’ve got to be kidding me. Nope.

Room with a view and Acosta is in it

No word yet from Babs Streisand if Tuesday was considered a win for her, or if she’ll make good on her promise to flee to Canada.

Though you can pretty much doubt anything they tell you because of the Left’s motivation for saying it in the first place.

It is the same way with media spinoids and liars. Always consider their motives. They hate Trump so much they will do or say practically anything to validate their boiling hatred.

What it is they hate so much, I don’t really know? But leave it to someone like Jim Acosta to make a total spectacle of himself in front of a national audience, as intended.

He was so hyper-obsessed by the use of the word invasion that he nearly collapsed under the sheer emotional strain. So it is the use of a term or word that really bugs him.

The same word that is used in the Constitution. (Art I, II, IV) Bad founders. It is something for our government to be concerned about. Not in Jim Acosta’s book. He’s worried about Russia and its subversive actions yet can dismiss a caravan of thousands, and hordes of people, aimed at overwhelming our border as some peace offering to us.

At what point, how many caravans, how many thousands of people, and how many repeated attempts at crossing the border does it take to get serious about it? But someone calls it an “invasion” and he goes into a frenzy.

Then Acosta also relies on their stock talking point, “we are not an enemy of the people”. How is fake news and CNN not an enemy of the people? They defend an invasion and then discount the whole idea of border security as tyranny.

Who do you want controlling the border, really? Should thugs and hordes of people from Latin America, or wherever, control our border and set immigration policy? Have we turned that power of control over to masses of lawless people outside our country?

Who really controls that border, us or them?

But it is just the word “invasion” that really bothers them and rattles their cage.

Or is illegal invasion now a pre-existing condition we have to protect?

Right Ring | Bullright

All Fired Up

Seems like folks are fired up to finish the job. No one can steal that away from us.

Does Pelosi think the people who elected Trump might not vote in this election? Funny.

If the fake news media does not want to be called “the enemy of the people,” then they should stop acting like the enemy of the people.

Sorry, Obama’s economic failures cannot be considered pre-existing conditions.

“The people are coming, the people are coning!”

Everyone should stop appropriating liberal culture because they don’t like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Most Americans Believe Media Is More Divisive

Poll: Majority of Americans Believe Media Is More Divisive than Trump

Western Journal

By Randy DeSoto
November 2, 2018

A new poll found that Americans believe the news media is more to blame for the nation’s current divisive political climate than President Donald Trump.

Sixty-four percent of respondents to the Politico/Morning Consult survey published on Thursday said the media have done more to divide the country, while 17 percent said they have done more to unite it.

By comparison, 56 percent felt Trump was more of a divider, and 30 percent thought he was more of a uniter.

The sentiments of those responding, unsurprisingly, fell along party lines.

The vast majority of Democrats, 88 percent, as well as 54 percent of independents, found Trump divisive. …/

More at https://www.westernjournal.com/poll-majority-americans-believe-media-divisive-trump/

Where were all these ‘Uniter or Divider’ polls under Obama? MIA. Then, both media and Obama were allied in dividing America along any lines they could. 8 long years of it.

Now Trump is the bad guy? He’s to blame for stuff long before he came to office.

Get you some of that media and CNN. Of course, like Obama, they are intentionally doing it. It is a central part of their national political strategy.

Did Hillary let the cat out of the bag?

In an interview Friday with Recode’s Kara Swisher, Hillary was asked if she wanted to run for president again.

Astonishingly, the answer was no, no.

But then she added that she would “like to be president”.

Well, she doesn’t want to run for president but she very much wants to be president.

Far as I know, the only way she could be president is by running for president.
So she has a problem.

I think she has a bad case of Oval Office Fever.

The Culture of Investment

I went on a thought journey to explore what it meant to be the person I am and noticed some things that tie in politically these days. You may have discovered the same things.

The first thing noticeable today is those who support Trump are given a dichotomy. On one hand you see yourself being targeted and villainized by a concerted effort of institutions, media, Deep State interests; while on the other we are actually winning. We are changing an old guard and its way of thinking. They do not like that, hence a resistance.

But as this back and forth continues, we are actually winning because we are having the battle at all. The battle itself is evidence of victory. A taboo and forbidden battle.

Well, media or pundits keep asking the same tired questions of Trump supporters, “at what point will you abandon Trump, when will you denounce him? Does this do it?”

The problem of course is that you can denounce something he did or said or how he reacted, while at the same time not denounce what he has actually done. Get it? That is clear to me. But what media or elites want is a total and absolute condemnation.

If something is critical enough to criticize, it still does not erase what he has done. It does not cancel due credit he deserves. In that respect, does it really matter that one does not like a statement or two or his tweeting habits — which are only communications?

Investments

What does that have to do with investments? Put it this way, if I was to write a full defense of why I supported Trump and think he is the right man in the right job, I would have to cover the last 15 -20 years to make a substantive case. That would be a monumental task. So short of that let me just say I am sufficiently invested, heavily, in Donald Trump. By no monetary means or connections but in a philosophical and political way.

I feel invested in that the way anyone invests in what they feel is important, such as education, a career, family, where they live, financial investments. All of those help to shape who we are. Trump also represents a part of who I am, not the total sum.

Not like I just bought something on a whim thinking “I can always take it back.”

We may differ on certain things but there are commonalities that surpass those. Listing all those wouldn’t even make the case. But since I do, in a way I can see and live vicariously through his presidency. There is a personal investment. And I believe that is what has been missing in the last 4 presidents – a personal connection.

People may have thought they had that with George W Bush for a short time but it wasn’t real and did not last. We saw the differences with his priorities to ours and a few hallmarks of those were in nominating Harriet Miers and in the amnesty immigration scheme. There were certain other red flares that he was not really one of you. At any rate, even at the beginning I was not personally invested the way I am with Trump.

That was what was missing. Barack Obama had support, yes, but were people personally invested in him the way people are in Trump? I’d say not. Though Democrats were invested in him. And it was just like most of what the left does — it was deception, lies and an illusion. There was a huge illusion constructed around Bill Clinton. And that illusion carried over to Hillary both times she ran. They were not real. Sure Democrats believed them but they were lies like everything else the Left does.

Here we have Trump, with all his flaws, and there is a realness that was never present in any of the others. Campaign promises were not just campaign promises. He did not have years in the government sewer to provide an air of legitimacy. In fact, it was his detachment from government that gave him credibility.

I am at the point where I am tallying my investments that I have made and ones I did not. Though this one, supporting Trump, crosses so many personal areas that it is a natural fit. It is almost uncanny how it relates to other areas. So the idea I would have some moment to say I was all wrong, or the whole thing was a wasted effort, is as close to impossible as me going to Mars. I don’t know how many other people feel that way. I’m sure some do. (probably more than anyone realizes or media cares to think)

It takes us back to those other presidents’ legacies. There was a steady prevailing vacuum. It may not have been intentional but there was a void and disconnect with the very people who elected them. Regardless what they said, their interests and priorities were not aligned with the peoples. They did not care about the same things. When George W Bush tried to ram through amnesty on illegal immigration, with all it involved, with the gangs of, despite the will of the people, it was a lighthouse moment.

When the people finally did rise up in Tea Parties, the reaction everywhere only confirmed this national insult that had gone on as long as I remember. Not only did the critics not care about American citizens or real people but they were actually lined up opposing the public. And there is no way you could compare that moment of revelation to what the Resistance is all about now. It is not the same thing. In truth, they are the anti-Resistance.

It’s a little like this analogy. Say you originally found a good investment that fit for you. It worked and made you profits. It did what it was supposed to do. Then came a time where it fluttered or stalled out, or maybe lost a few points. Would you condemn the whole thing and say you should not have have bought it in the first place? Would you say it was all a complete mistake? I doubt it. See you cannot deny that it worked and got you the effects you were looking for. Nor can you deny the profits. (unless you condemn them too)

It is the same way with other investments in life. Do you denounce the family because it is not everything you think it should be? Do you denounce you education because one day it does not seem to benefit you how you want? The same works in the faith areas of life. Do you throw out your faith because one day it was not benefiting you? That seems to be a pretty selfish and materialistic way to look at everything. I’m sure some people do apply similar formulas: today I don’t like that, yesterday I did. No, people usually accept there will be bumps and hurdles. You don’t throw out all the work, time and energy you gave it because you are not presently satisfied with something.

Regardless of what new and stunning things media or the establishment may throw out at us, it does not change what progress has been done. Just as nothing changes all the damage those critics have done. I won’t turn my back on that. And I won’t deny it.

Well, short of running through my 15 years of reasoning and experiences that brought me here, this is my attempt to explain it. I also do not throw away, dismiss or deny all that experience long before Trump came along. But they are now joined in a way I could not have predicted. It’s a personal investment. I can denounce the resistance, mostly because it is not real and only more deception. Imitation is flattery except when it is a mockery.

Right Ring | Bullright

A Word From Alternate Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News, email, and this and that

Has Twitter suddenly made email obsolete? You might think so. If you think that the public form of twitter is a substitute for private email, then you don’t understand technology, culture or the dynamic of it all.

It seems the trend is on using Twitter. But until recently it was so limited by character count that it would render it worthless for serious communications. Yet that is probably what some people would like about it, being limited.

But of course it could be an excuse to eliminate email which some people do not want to bother with anymore. I’d like to add that Twitter never will be a replacement for email. And email has not gone the way of the dinosaurs, yet. Too bad if people don’t like to use it or read them. It’s so old fashioned since the social media explosion. Poof, you don’t need email.

Isn’t it interesting that the major news or media centers all prefer everyone use Twitter as a contact method? But these and other businesses are also the same ones who like to use email for news letters and updates — for your convenience of course. But if you want to get in touch with them, they want it on Twitter.

What’s up with the contradiction, Fox and all the rest?

BTW: Fox will be launching its Fox Nation project later in the year. They want you to sign up on the email list for updates. It will be a new subscription service for their viewers. Oh dandy, another avenue of access to their content from most of the same people. But it is subscription-based.

“Fox Nation reveal: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson among stars on streaming platform ….Content you love, voices that matter.”

Now if your voice mattered to them at all, why scrub the email option?

Okay, if they really have a new product, why don’t they complete that newness by having some new faces? One of the headliner newbies showcased is Tomi Lahren. How new is she and what expertise does she bring? Born in 1992, maybe that’s what they mean.

I sort of thought having a new format they should have some regular folks. I don’t know, like everyday conservatives or viewers of their content over the years. People that have an opinion and view. There are plenty out there. I see people all over the internet and social media who would add spark to an otherwise recycled format. Fresher than Lahren.

While I think of it, I also remember when Town Hall was rolling out its new model that would shake the earth to its core. It was all hype. Indeed, that was about having a forum of conservative, like minded people writing their own stuff and their collective friends it would bring, along with other news centered content.

Well, it lasted a while and morphed into what you see as Town Hall today. (some here remember those days) Why is it that it is always the everyday normal people that are the problem? No, we need mouthpieces like famous spouters of conservative opinion to tell us what really matters. Sure we do watch because there is nothing else to watch.

“Tweet me, text me, hit me on Instagram,” they say, “or find me on FaceBook.” What if I don’t want to? I just want to email you. Well, it has become a problem. Right about now I am starting to feel like Andy Rooney. Oh, few people would remember who he was.

Maybe I am finally just old or old fashioned?

Still, if you listen now, you can hear the same undercurrent of criticism about Twitter among those same on air personalities starting all over again. ‘The scourge of contacts and feedback.’ The same things you used to hear about bothersome emails.

Someone else doesn’t like or appreciate getting our emails. Congress. Funny that liberals never seem to have that problem. They shout into an elevator and voilà, instant reaction.

Right Ring | Bullright

Proper Apathy: a case for it

Inevitably in every recent election, one word always seems to pop up usually close to the election. That word is apathy. There is almost an obsession.

Always mentioned as a negative and normally connotes a warning about bout being complacent. Not caring or not caring enough to vote, along with not caring who to vote for. It sets off a red flare about priorities. It is meant to shame and even inflame citizens.

So let’s take a look at the definition. According to Merriam-Webster:

1 : lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness drug abuse leading to apathy and depression

2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference
i.e. political apathy

First if all, I empathize with the passion or appropriateness of using the word. But again, it is always considered a negative. Is there a positive use for it? Maybe there should be.

For a change, I wondered about using some of that righteous apathy toward our allies and European friends. What could be wrong with that? Now just hold on there, lilly liberals.

So take the textbook definition of apathy (#2) and apply a good healthy dose of it toward them, basically the whole lot, allies included. Lack of interest or concern, indifference to them. But wait, isn’t that treatment what we already receive from them and have for a long time? I mean they do treat us that way. When was the last time they made domestic or foreign policy based on what we Americans or the US thinks, or will think of it?

Get it? It seems to work fine for them.

I see a good apathy, liberally applied. Why should it always be a negative? Why not put it to good use? It is not like we get something different than that from them. If people have practiced their apathy, then why not sharpen it a little to where it is appropriate?

I can hear the liberals screaming on both sides of the Atlantic now. Except can they give a valid reason why not? I don’t think they can. Yes, I know all the standard talking points about allies and treatment of how we want to be treated. And all that gimmichery about what’s in our interest is what is in their interest too. Sure we have common desires. But this is only a one-sided thing, you do realize. Each of those countries gives us no consideration on what actions they take. They look out for themselves.

Yes, we share some values and technology and security issues. But where is the reciprocation, as Trump calls it, from them? We’ve certainly been doing this for a long time now. When was the last time they took our advice? Oh, right, we restrain our advice. Though they freely give us unsolicited advice, don’t they?

Here’s one illustration: CNN regularly has pundits, academics or intellectuals, commenting and lobbying our policies and politics from Birmingham (UK), London and Belgium. They are some of the biggest critics of Trump and the administration. But we have enough of those critics right here. Do we tell them what they should do at home? We don’t need their pontifications. What should we care what they think, let alone provide a platform for it.

Sure we just want to show them we care. Again, what does that matter when it comes down to it? What do we get in return? Maybe it hasn’t been such a great idea to consider the impact on them in our every move. I mean they have leaders and governments to represent their interests, and they do. In most cases quite well.

Why are we always thinking about sensitivities of others? It baffles me. Was this in the founding of America? No, we had our hands full thinking for ourselves about ourselves, looking after our interests because no one else on earth will. Do we now think all these countries look out for our interests? Hell no. They expect us to do that ourselves.

What happened to “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none?” We’ve self entangled our dream with their selfish realities.

Washington instructed in his Farewell Address:

” In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
…/
“As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
…/
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.”

…“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation [as ours is]? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”

The other sweet spot factor liberals always point to is human rights. We need to influence that or this. But we don’t need to make our decisions based on our desires for them.

What I’m saying is that the reality is more stark. We have gone so far over to the international, globalist, bent over backward (and forward too) for people who generally 1) don’t appreciate it, or in some cases don’t want our help and; 2) aren’t considerate at all of us. And we don’t expect it. Shouldn’t the latter have changed if it was going to change?

What I am also saying is that it was never started out this way. Now I do hear critics of America’s every policy about a big footprint of US imperialism. I don’t agree with much of their emphasis but there is something to this one sided, lopsided, foreign policy (if that is what it is). The problem is it is not just in foreign policy but in domestic policy too, that we are influenced by their concerns.

No, I don’t buy the America is the big bully and aggressor argument. We bend over trying to make our policy based on their whims and desires, for or about us. We have to stop empowering those who never had our best interests. You know the Obama lesson on being an appeaser or slave to our enemies, empowering them and weakening ourselves.

However, we never see any signs of this consideration returned from abroad. They only have their hand out to receive not respond in kind.

This is not a case for protectionism or “isolationism”. But the affect may be protectionist.

I’m not sure what an official policy of apathy would look like or what it would do. But I dang sure know what our default doctrine has left us with. What did we get?

I wouldn’t mind being accused of it from across the globe. I might consider it a compliment. And maybe they would stop dishing out their helpful advice to us, too? Incidentally, applying some indifferent apathy to our friends and allies might also decrease the popular use of it in our election process. Apathy gets a pretty bad rap.

Whether consciously or not, we haven’t been making decisions on our own merits for our interests. They’ve been parsed down to p/c and sensitivities about what others think. Others have become proxies in our decisions. We could be a little apathetic, even rude.

Or in other words: quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!

Right Ring | Bullright

Serving News for Fools Daily

Serving up the news of the day, dishonesty is the media and journalists’ modus operandi. Dishonesty is their specialty, they work very hard at it. Increasingly fooling no one.

Remember when it was always common perception that media-journalists were just looking for the truth and want to report it, no matter on which side the axe falls? No more, their purpose is deception. It’s their objective.

See how they work in concert with progressive politicians and other allies, in unison?

And when they find someone who is a problem for them and their political narrative, or political allies, then ‘by any means’ becomes their mission theme.

In reality, the MSM don’t really value their readers much — you know, the one’s they claim they “are doing all this for?” They might do it for their diehard progressive groupies that also spread it, who don’t really care about the truth anyway. Not for us.

Two great current examples are, the story I just mentioned on Steve Emerson, the terrorism expert; the other is the Russian collusion narrative they just can’t let go. Because it is central to their mission. Regardless of their reasons to deceive the public viewers or readers, and drive their political narrative, people have not accepted it at face value.

Hard as they try to ruin Emerson’s reputation as a expert terrorism analyst people know where the real lies, bias and hate are coming from. Where they have been coming from the last eight years under Obama.

Now there is hard evidence mounting that the people also know the truth about the Russia collusion narrative. A new Gallup poll shows how the people feel about the narrative being foisted on them from MSM and the Democrat echo chamber, hour by miserable hour.

“A lot of Americans have kind of dismissed the idea that [Trump] colluded to the extent that he did something illegal,” summarized Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport during an interview with The Hill.

The numbers back him up. A poll released last week showed that a relatively small percentage of people — 29 percent — think that Trump illegally teamed up with Russia to influence the presidential election. [CT]

If inquiring minds want to know, anything, then MSM wants to force feed them what it wants people to know – or believe they know. Now deception is business as usual.

It is all clear by looking at that poll. But the jig is up, I don’t think anyone can really deny it anymore, unless they are one of the proud card carrying disinformation believers and truth deniers. Not that they just don’t want to know the truth, they just plain don’t care. The leftists believe what they want. Damn the truth or evidence to the contrary. They can’t be bothered with that, the narrative is too important to be shattered by anything.

Here’s another served up on a hotbed of lies, media reports Trump is happy about victims of Hurricane Florence. Imagine? That one is reverberating in media the way you would expect a great lie to do. They love a fictional story, especially on Trump. Who sticks around for the truth? No one reads corrections. Sensational headlines are never retracted.

For a bonus, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sick of Democrats’ grandstanding on Kavanaugh hearings, admitting the circus has gone too far. You know the saying when you’ve lost RBG, you’ve lost the country. No, I say that. LOL Dems are burning their bridges.

Right Ring | Bullright