Anti-Semitic NYT and CNN editors

The Wrap

“Tom Wright-Piersanti, a senior editor at the New York Times, said Thursday that he is “deeply” sorry for some past tweets and that they have been deleted.

“I have deleted tweets from a decade ago that are offensive. I am deeply sorry,” he wrote.

Tweets cited by Breitbart no longer appear on Wright-Piersanti’s page and include a January 2010 message saying, “I was going to say ‘Crappy Jew Year,’ but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic. So… HAPPY Jew Year. You Jews.”

Another seemingly deleted tweet reported by Breitbart references the “Jew-police.”

 

“CNN Photo Editor Resigns After Old Anti-Semitic Tweets About ‘Jewish Pigs’ Resurface”

The Wrap | Lindsey Ellefson | July 26, 2019

Mohammed Elshamy’s Twitter account contained a number of derogatory statements about Jewish people posted in 2011

Stop The Instinctive Naivete

Joan Rivers used to say, “can we talk?” America, can we talk? I have about had it with our conservative or Republican brethren, while meaning well, putting on pretenses about what the left says. It really is sickening and naïve.

This is an instinctive reaction for some people. Just stop it! That is ignorant.

One of Hannity’s favorite talking points about the 2016 election is how media fell for the Russia hoax story. Can we dispense with that bullshit now? Mark Levin called Hannity on that one night. He told Sean no, MSM were in on it all along and were part of it. But they never just “fell for it.”

After his 2020 campaign kickoff, Trump did an interview with Hannity. Sure enough, Hannity reflexively used his talking point that media “fell for” that charade all the way. But immediately Trump disagreed and corrected him. He said MSM knew and were in on it, but they didn’t “fall for” anything. Why does our side do this so often?

AOC just made statements that, in fact, we have concentration camps on our border. A particularly nasty comment. So Fox talks about it and Laura says she is dumb or those comments aren’t right. She is shocked at how media are defending it. But the MSM and Democrats feel compelled. Let them defend it, or try.

Let’s get this straight, she said exactly what she meant to say. Don’t attribute it to some misstatement. And don’t expect her to apologize. It was entirely intentional. The reaction was predictable because she intended it. The comment was inflammatory by design. Being provocative is in their DNA as radicals. It is what they do. Who can attribute it to error? They get the desired benefits. Again, it is their M/O; it’s what they do.

That would be giving the media or AOC way too much benefit of the doubt. They are part of the radical strategy. Language is nasty because they mean it to be nasty. It is a form of sandbagging to misattribute their vile intent. It makes their sandbagging more effective.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Great Divorce

This could be a long piece but it doesn’t need to be. Democrats and the left cannot attack Trump on his actions as president. So they attack him for his words.

They want to impeach him for his words and what he says. That would require separating Trump’s words from his deeds, which will take what I call the Great Divorce. The left looks petty playing this word police game. And what hypocrisy that is.

Right Ring | Bullright

Fear mongering meets comedy in news

You know CNN has gone downhill. But do you want to know how far down they’ve gone? They hired someone to mock them. That’s right, in case they hadn’t realized it.

In desperation for viewers, they brought on Comedy Central comedian, Colin Quinn. He told Anderson Cooper in an interview that it was a political and cultural humor that took no sides. He said all he wanted from the program is for people to just laugh.

Okay, on the face. But let me understand this: all week long CNN tells us what dangerous times we are in, on the verge if not in Constitutional crisis, the likes of which we have never experienced before. Be very afraid for what calamity our country is now in because of Trump in the White House. From scholars to the street, fear is very real and justified.

Now they bring on a guy to make you laugh at it all. Yes, laugh at the polarization, the division, the incessant identity politics and the ridiculous nature or state of our political system. It’s over, he says, we’re done. But we are supposed to laugh ourselves into a frenzy over it. Right. The country is lost and we are on the cusp of civil war.

So tell CNN that all their hogwash, fear mongering is for naught because we are now going to laugh our asses off at it all. Yep, that’s just what I was thinking. Laugh your asses off at the catastrophic crisis that CNN makes of it all. But will liberals think it is funny?

I wonder if this is going to be a regular thing as they claim? It sure does set the tone for their “news” coverage though. On a side note, he is funny and makes some points but then drifts right into the anti-Trump rants. Though that is probably why they hired him. Ironic how it makes much of CNN’s apocalyptic scare tactics look so petty by comparison.

So now they are trying comic relief on their audience? Kids do not try that at home.

The right has been laughing a while. There comes a point beyond jokes. Is it funny?

But maybe it is a metaphor? CNN and Comedy Central have just switched places now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Coming to a head of Deep State collusion

So this is what our partners in British press are up to?

No holds Barred: Trump and his troops push for imperial presidency

With his compliant attorney general, the man in the White House is taking aim at the constitutional balance of powers. — [I think they misspelled ‘competent’ AG.]

/….

Congressman Jared Huffman of California said: “It’s a smokescreen, obviously an attempt to change the subject like everything else he does. I almost don’t want to dignify it because it’s so preposterous that any time someone investigates Donald Trump or disagrees with Donald Trump they are being treasonous or they need to be locked up.

“This is a slippery slope to a banana republic if this is where we’re heading. And I think most Americans get that. You just don’t call for your political enemies to be investigated and jailed in the United States,” Huffman said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/19/william-barr-donald-trump-robert-mueller-congress

Imperial what? It doesn’t seem too imperial to me. An Imperial Congress, maybe.

Yet that is exactly what Democrats and the left are doing, and have been doing since even before the election — having their political enemies investigated. Just that we were not to know the depths of this incestuous cabal. Odd to hear British press complaining after allies there were also involved. Pointing the finger back at Trump has gotten a bit old.

And if that were not enough crazy talk for you, consider Nancy Pelosi’s broad smear attack (wrap-up smear) on Trump, saying he “is engaged in a coverup.” She followed that projection by claiming Trump is crying out for his impeachment. If impeachment can swing by the seats of their pants, they even plan to blame Trump for their impeachment scheme.

So, right on cue they are outraged Trump pulled the trigger to declassify documents and have AG Barr, with investigators, look into the real charade and coverup that started the whole cabal. And guess what? It wasn’t Trump that did that!

Last but not least, a congresswoman also said that “we cannot do our job in congress unless we can hold the president accountable.” Accountable for what, their plot and coup?

Now refusing to do their own job in the House, they want to blame that on Trump too.

Right Ring | Bullright

The MSM Glare

Did you ever notice how many of the regular mainstream media people have this look? It’s like a look when a child is caught doing something, like a guilty look they can’t cover up.

There’s also a feigned innocence look. They want to convey they have no agenda and that they are clueless about their real intentions. “Whatever could those be?”

Well, that’s what I see a lot of when I watch them. It always makes me wonder, so do they know how bad they sound? Do they know they are just lying through their teeth or trying to deceive us? And usually I say, sure they do! As that’s the point of it all.

But, the real question is do they have a conscience or a speck of guilt about it? Is that what I see in that look? Anyway, I wonder. You might also wonder how they sleep at night or how they live with themselves? Those are a few of my questions about them.

A pity though that I have no optimistic conclusions about it. Just observations.

Right Ring | Bullright

Demonizing Trump Doesn’t Work

Monica Crowley lays out the law of diminishing returns regarding Trump.

The one lesson Trump’s enemies just can’t understand

By Monica Crowley – – Wednesday, April 24, 2019 | Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

There is one lesson from President Nixon that applies not to President Trump, but to his adversaries on the left and in the media. “Always remember,” Nixon said during his 1974 farewell address, “others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”

Mr. Trump enjoys toying with their hatred, particularly as it’s destroying them instead of destroying him.

In economic theory, the law of diminishing returns refers to the point at which profits or benefits of an endeavor begin to decrease as the resources put into it stay constant or increase.

We are long past that point with regard to the relentless assault on Mr. Trump. The pile-on began the moment he announced his candidacy and continues to this day, resulting not in his ruination but in his success. The more they hit him, the more resilient he becomes and the more voters rally to his cause. It’s not as if the left isn’t aware of this. They witnessed the phenomenon during the campaign and were powerless to stop it.

Now, however, with the public release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, we can expect an entirely new level of attacks — and diminishing returns for his opponents.

The world can now see that Mr. Trump was telling the truth all along: Neither he nor anyone associated with him “colluded” with Russia to effect the 2016 election and he did not obstruct justice.

To the contrary, Attorney General William Barr highlighted the unprecedented level of cooperation from Mr. Trump and his team.

More: http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/24/by-hammering-trump-incessantly-the-left-ignores-th/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So many questions.

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

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

Do you smell the deflection and diversion?

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

A naïve person may wonder why such a barrier exists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

New Deal…. Old Problem

If the 2020 scrimmage warm up is teaching us anything, it is holding up a reflection of what our future really could look like with champions of doom. Not a pretty picture.

I know, some past elections were a positive time of reflection when we could look at what is ahead with enthusiasm. It re-energized people on the concept of what is possible. But that is reversed in this election. With fear and anxiety we can look at what we see roll out in enemy plans. I say enemy because it is.

Another dynamic at work is an old principle. The old mantra is divide and conquer. It has been the strategy of wars and arguments over centuries. But something else is afoot now. We see that unification can be a threat as well. How so?

Well, the left continually hones its lockstep unification. Maybe their objective is to divide us but their unity is much of the problem. This mob mentality grows its obsession to stomp over anything in its way. Unity is its holy grail. The right never operated like that. But mob rule has had its successes over years. Worse, it has had a wearing effect on the right.

Think of all the media has done in 2 years. It’s goal is to break the enthusiasm of the right. Tear at the foundations of what keeps people together. It jackhammers on the will of the people daily. Dividing opponents may be their objective, but their unity is the threat.

It is a coalition of disgruntled, grievance-riddled groups – all with their own demands – that have united under an anti-American banner of resistance, sedition and disdain for anything productive for our country. Time-honored principles are cast aside.

That has all been replaced by a negative critique of America. It is an endless criticism of the US, what it has stood for and things we held dear as a people. Then it fills the airwaves with its critique, as the prevailing mainstream thought.

This coalition despises any memory of a good America. Progress and forward are code words in its obsession to blot out and deconstruct the past. The objective is to divide us from the America we know, the real America. Does fundamental transformation, of our political and economic systems, sound exciting?

For example, Bernie Sanders did a townhall with Fox in Bethlehem PA. The location didn’t matter as much as the content. Bernie came prepared, like usual, with his supporters.

The questions were asked, how would you pay for it? Explain your healthcare plans? All the questions morphed into his critique on America. Remember too, his 2016 campaign really never ended. So he has been campaigning all along. Everything he said was just a criticism of what is America. Naturally, his socialist ideas were embedded in it. But it was a deacon’s pie of class warfare, political and economic animosity, linked with the promises of free stuff to solve all the problems. They bring their own problems and solutions.

The first problem it needs to solve is the vote. So buying votes becomes their number one priority. He looks to be gaining with young people in that department.

The prescription for their socialist wave is a never-ending criticism America. It’s a catchy habit. They don’t have to answer or be accountable for anything. Just blame it on America. Except they have no answers. Their only interest is in using the critique as a tool to break down America. Break down our will, break down our economy, break down our politics. Then they substitute their mob rule for the will of the people.

So Bernie showed us nothing new. It was all the old mantra. Every question to him was turned around and redirected at someone else. He has a book now, did you hear? Of course he does. They all do. His wealth is justified, you know, while everyone else’s is questioned. Do they really need that much money? Bernie justified capitalism while railing against it. He made it clear he would not apologize for capitalizing on a best-selling book. But others need to apologize for their offensive, greedy wealth.

This mob rule doesn’t have to be a real majority; just a very loud, demanding one. They have never been this close to consummating power as they are now. Then they will align themselves with every evil ally they can. We cannot allow this to take hold.

When the socialists and commies talk they sound so sincere. Though they are far from innocent. They sound angry most of the time. I think anger is their emphasis for justification. It is like a self-confirming tool meant to convince others they are right.

Berine has another rhetorical device. When given any question about a policy, he says he voted against this or that. That leaves him off the hook of accountability? Then he has to answer no serious questions about it. He just says he voted against it. He was against everything, but what he is for should scare the hell out of you.

He also started by saying that he bases his philosophy on his beliefs. That is interesting because that is what it all comes down to, his belief. It is so ingrained in him the word ideologue is not strong enough. At least he admits it all rests on his beliefs. The same as Marxists and commies. And he has a lot of other like-minded people believing it too. Remember how critical belief was to Obama. His whole campaign (and presidency after) was faith-based on belief. He had nothing else of experience. Their belief is the bomb.

Socialists’ picture of America is morbidly disturbing. Well, it isn’t based on the positive.

Right Ring | Bullright

Open Letter To The Mainstream Media

I write in sympathy to your current predicament. I know you have an extreme lack of credibility and standing with the public. Or maybe you are still in denial? You offend them and they offend you. I know it upsets you.

I feel your pain; but I cannot validate it.

The problem is that it is not Trump’s fault. That must be hard for you to accept, too. Yet it is the truth. Just repeat the words: “our credibility deficit is not Trump’s fault.”

It was not Trump’s fault that before the 2016 election you jumped on the Hillary bandwagon, with no reservations. You were doing her bidding well before the primaries.

When the election did come, by then you had set the perception that she was the winner by all standards and could not lose. Trump had nothing to do with your willful bias. He was not whispering in your ear to give favorable treatment to Hillary, forcing you to do her cleanup and dirty work.

He did not tell you to make things up about him and his supporters just like you all did about Tea Parties. He didn’t choose all your negative coverage of himself and positive coverage for Hillary. That was not in his power or within his influence to do.

He didn’t make you into card-carrying members of the resistance. He didn’t tell you to brand his supporters as racists, bigots, or even domestic terrorists. But you implied they were dumb, uneducated grievance hustlers who were generations out of step with the times. (talk about projection)

We came to the party only to take our part. You came to blacklist us. Sure, you couldn’t quite get the job done, but you expected it to take a toll. To some degree it did. Though you couldn’t defeat or destroy us. After all, you had been trying more subtly to do that for years. But we were not going away. In fact, we were the original resistance. So you fully embraced the banner of resistance after the election. Trump did not make you do that. He only pointed it out. You demurred any criticism because that is the kind of people you are.

We don’t matter. When you ran the daily 24/7 hate Trump media for his first two years, hyping the resistance movement and impeachment, you dug in your heels of sedition. With every leak and anonymous source you could muster, you blazed an historical trail, aligning yourselves with a coup well under way from the first day of Trump’s presidency.

Yes, I can sympathize with your pain and agony of it all. Well, I can because we have felt that prejudice against us from the public for decades. Your part in that campaign against us has not gone unrecognized. We are well aware of it and your attitude against we the people. We know how you feel about the people and flyover country.

We know how you despise the people’s mindset… and their choice.

So when Donald Trump said some members of the mainstream media – not all — were enemies of the people, he was right. We already knew that. You just confirmed it. When you were offended by that comment, it was not our fault. You did it. When you tried to spin yourselves into victims of that remark, it fell on deaf ears because we have always been the real victims of your schemes.

We get to vote, and were determined to vote regardless what you thought of us. See, you get to cast your vote everyday, as the elitists you are. You want to control dialogue and you couldn’t. The conversation went on around you, even factoring in your heavy hand at the ballot. But you could not control the discussion or the election results. So I can really identify with how you must feel. We’ve felt that way for years and you never cared.

Yes, we all know exactly what it is like to be outcast by the public as troublemakers and crazies. But we were not looking to validate our victimhood. We didn’t have to. It is prima facie in any honest assessment. Along comes media now claiming to be the righteous victims of slander, smear or character assassination to vindicate their cause. It is dishonest. It is self-serving, it is agenda driven and, finally, it is very political.

Now you have laid the record bare for all to see. Only you want your trashed credibility back on a golden platter. That’s just not how any of this works.

Worse than all that, you have also lost credibility with the Left, your handlers and allies. You promised and built up their hopes that you would assist in taking down this president.

When the Mueller report came out and didn’t declare the collusion you promised, your radical base of consumers recoiled. Their hearts and trust were broken. So you have lost on both sides, with your enemies and your allies. Hurts, doesn’t it?

That should have taught you something. But it was your stubborn choices you made every step of the way that are to blame, not Trump. We didn’t destroy your credibility. You did that yourself. We only supplied the means. Remember reporters demanding apologies from Trump? By the way, did you ever apologize for the way you treated the Tea Parties? No, it’s all part of the long record now. It lives on to prove to anyone honestly looking.

You are the victims of your own bias and hatred. Thursday will only validate what we all knew. It will expose you for the liars you were all along. But Trump didn’t do it to you.

It might be time to take some stock and dust off that first amendment to see what is really in it. There is more there than your beloved freedom. And last I checked, you weren’t.

Right Ring | Bullright

Stelter is the POS of the week

Cable is like a rolling talk show. Uh… and that’s a good thing for a 24/7 premier, worldwide news channel? All from CNN’s publicity mouthpiece. (he’s big on apples and bananas too)

Help me out Brian Stelter. From Steven Crowder, Stelter exposing the pit. Lots of ground.

“Speculation has value too.” That’s it, really sell it there, Brian.

Brian Stelter runs the P/R for the porcelain bowl at CNN.

Another segment for the daily flush. Here’s one where Stelter is owned by Ben Shapiro. Brian then has the audacity to ask why Shapiro doesn’t try to get a job on CNN or NYT so he can change it? First, Brian, you have to show us there is still some redeeming quality.

But unlike you, Stelter, Ben Shapiro actually has a functioning brain. That’s the difference.

Right Ring | Bullright

Obama Factor, Live From Berlin

Talk about misinterpretation by media, now even Fox is doing it.

Obama goes to one of his favorite places, Berlin. Ah, time to lecture the Europeans on politics. And to talk trash about American politics.

He talked about division but in a partisan way. He complained some people turn it into a circular firing squad, as the Democrat primary heats up and expands. So he warns of inter-party fighting,

Then media, like Fox, falls for the easy bait and says Obama is sounding moderate now. They jump at the chance to agree with him. What was the event? It was his Obama Foundation doing a Townhall at Brandenburg Gate. From the Foundation:

(Mission) “Obama join[s] hundreds of emerging European leaders for a town hall conversation to discuss the future of Europe and the importance of leadership in creating lasting change across the region.”

Well, nothing overtly political about that, is there? No doubt about what he is doing.

The statement he made about a circular firing squad:

“One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States and maybe it’s true here as well, is a certain kind of rigidity. Where we say “ah ha, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be” and then we start, sometimes, creating what’s called a circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies, because one is straying from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.

So I think whether you are speaking a s a citizen or as a, you know, political leader, or an organizer, whether you are in a non-profit space, a civic space, or you are in the political arena; you have to recognize that the way we’ve structured democracy requires you to take into account people that don’t agree with you. And that, by definition, means that you are not going to get 100% of what you want. But you should take some time to think in your own mind and continually refine and reflect “what are my core principles” because the danger is if you don’t know what your principles are that’s when you compromise your principles away.

So you have to know ahead of time “here’s what I am willing to compromise on and here are the things that I’m not.” You can’t set up a system in which you don’t compromise on anything, but you also can’t operate in a system where you compromise on everything – everything is up for grabs. That requires a certain amount of internal, ah, reflection and deliberation.”

The only thing is theory does not overcome reality for Obama. He never was that compromiser. He was always a rigid my way or the highway person. He told McCain, the election is over, “I won.” He did not compromise on Affordable Care Act. He repeatedly lied about what was in it. His advice is not for himself. He’s such a hypocrite and phony. They would only eat that up in Europe, where he could get away with it.

Don’t buy the crap sandwich though. Obama’s only fear is that infighting of Democrats could weaken the party. Wait, that is not moderate when you think about it.

But we’ve seen that movie before. In past primaries, Democrats made a friendly arrangement deal between candidates not to attack each other. That’s how they operate, under normal circumstances. And likely what will happen this time. Look, Obama being objective or wise is hogwash.

Actually if they can ever get a chance, they love to stoke infighting on the right. They even find candidates on the right to do it. Obama is just worrying out loud that the Democrats might hurt themselves. But hey, we saw that even Hillary and Bernie could not bring themselves to attack each other. Obama does not sound moderate, and that is not his position to moderate. He just doesn’t want any infighting to start. In other words. let the hard left run rabid. Kow-tow to it rather than buck the hard left. How about Chuck and Nancy on the wall? Their objective is not to compromise.

That is the same message he is giving them on quasi-political operations. In fact, the effect of what he says is meant to weaken the other side. He knows the loudest radical voices get the attention and action because they drown out others – by design. They don’t want any other voice heard. You don’t compromise if you are the only voice in the room. Still Obama is embarking on a global political structure, much like the Soros machine. The other thing he is really selling here is incrementalism. Start something, no matter how flawed, that your opponents cannot get out of and then just keep piling on it. (he calls it building)

It is disguised as sounding moderate. And he knows full well the dangerous momentum of the socialist left. He must be ecstatic. He knows if anyone must stop the criticism it would be moderates speaking against that far left. It’s those moderates that should be forced to bite their tongues and not make waves.

This word salad only gives the appearance of moderation, when it is the opposite. He doesn’t want Democrats to rise up against the commie left.

You only have to look at who Obama backs to see which side he is on. He loves “Beto,” Robert Francis. He’ll do nothing to get in Bernie’s way either. He’s down with all the commie crap. And look, he organized a coup against Trump, so don’t think he is not strategically aligned with the hard left. He said it there, he does not want a weakened party or movement. Now does that sound moderate?

So Fox can prance around all it wants trying to paint Obama’s remarks as a voice of moderation. But that doesn’t work. We know who he is and so does the left. They also misrepresented the intended message. Does the context not matter of who he is talking to? They are still playing down the threat Obama poses, well into the future. I thought that crazy mantra was debunked by now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Send In The Media?

Let’s talk about that accountability deficit in the country.

I fully expect that when it gets rolling, the crowds will chant from Leftville that they also believe in accountability. Then they will claim that is what media is there for, to hold the powerful accountable. “Leave it to the free press.”

Achem, not that I don’t believe they are sincere, they are. Just that their idea of accountability from MSM is the way we are already getting it. That is not accountability, it’s their Brownshirt militia enforcement agency. “Cleanup in isle #1!”

Leaving accountability up to press and media is the wet dream of liberals. That does not hold anyone accountable. It’s like telling the propaganda arm of a communist country to hold government officials accountable. Same thing.

No, real accountability, sadly lacking, comes from enforcing laws by a justice system that works. Not a justice system tied at the hip to a radical left agenda. A wet noodle

It is laughable, media holding the powerful, Deep State, corrupted government to account. They tell us that because that is what they want us to believe.

Real accountability is prosecuting their dirty crimes and frogmarching them off. Those corrupt officials undermining our government need to pay a price. A scathing press article or media is not going to do that. Even losing an election, like Hillary, is not paying the price. But that is the standard they expect, while we have to play by different rules.

Right Ring | Bullright

Let’s go with media bias for a 1,000

We don’t have to take it from conservative media. Here’s Ted Koppel actually making the good case against the MSM agenda.

Ted Koppel: New York Times, Washington Post ‘decided as organizations’ that Trump is bad for United States

By Brian Flood | Fox News

Journalism legend Ted Koppel feels that The New York Times and Washington Post have both “decided as organizations” that President Trump is bad for America.

“I’m terribly concerned that when you talk about the New York Times these days, when you talk about the Washington Post these days, we’re not talking about the New York Times of 50 years ago. We are not talking about the Washington Post of 50 years ago,” Koppel said on March 7 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a clip that was uncovered on Monday by NewsBusters.

“We’re talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States,” Koppel said. “We have things appearing on the front page of the New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago.”

Koppel explained that analysis and commentary didn’t use to appear on the front page, but times have changed since Trump entered the world of politics.

“I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and the New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of the New York Times,” he said. “I turned to my wife and I said, ‘The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.’”

Koppel said Trump’s perception that “the establishment press is out to get him” is indeed accurate.

“He’s not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts,” Koppel said. “That’s the kind of language that’s used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.”

The Times and Post did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is hardly the first time Koppel has bashed a mainstream media organization.

Last year, Koppel mocked CNN’s Brian Stelter to his face, telling the “Reliable Sources” host that “CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump” while on stage for a National Press Club panel discussion.

Stelter responded by asking, “That means what? If ratings are up, that means what?”

Koppel – who anchored ABC News’ “Nightline” for 25 years and has been a working journalist for over four decades — quickly answered.

“The ratings are up, it means you can’t do without Donald Trump. You would be lost without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as Stelter shook his head in disagreement.

“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.

“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as the audience laughed.

There is one little nut he left in there. He said “people who bleive, I suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.” Except justification is missing. Opinion is not reason alone for what they do. We never did that en masse to Obama and we had quite the case there for it. Believing he is “bad for America” is not the justification for hatred, resistance and impeachment. There must be real cause.

No, the problem they have with Trump is that he is non-conventional, and they are more than non-conventional in return. If he was conventional, they could apply all their typical radicalism and beat him down. And that would work as usual.

So Trump is somewhat radical in the way he responds. And that is partly why he got elected. It also happens to be the only effective way to react to these rabid leftists.That is the appeal of radicalism, make their own subversive actions hard to respond to.

They don’t want a debate or discussion, no matter how many times they say it. So Ted Koppel inadvertently gets himself caught in a dilemma.

Every time you hear media, politicians or people hypercritically complaining how some problem needs to be dealt with and fixed, remember one thing: they might have a superficial point that does sound good, it is ridiculous in practicality. We must have an effective response to radicalism — no matter what the problem is. Unless you have that, you will not have a real solution. A followup part II is needed for that.

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.

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