Ticking Virus Problem

In the last few weeks, we watched as self-isolation became a thing, the stock market sank to a bear market, stores and businesses shut down, streets were emptied. All of which were based on a pandemic from China killing people and wrecking the economy.

Now media runs to remote microphones to sensationalize every symptom created by it and to forecast gloom and doom jobless claims and recession. The good old fear-mongering left has lots of ammunition. From bailouts to healthcare, to hoarding on main street.

But what would you expect? You shut down most of the economy and there will be problems. I compare it to turning off a light switch and then complaining it is dark.

We cannot compare it to a regular recession or typical unemployment woes. Yet the media is all over it as if they were one and the same. They are trying hard to fit this crisis into that same box. Statistics cry for context.

Never mind that when you turn the light switch back on it will not be darkness anymore. The problem with the left and this crisis is that they cannot plug in their usual talking points and factoids to color the situation. But that doesn’t stop them from trying. When you turn off part of the economy, there are consequences. We know that.

Beneath it all it is still a biological problem. You know how liberals deal with biological problems; they abort them.

But this one needs to run its course and be defeated, not celebrated as a political weapon to attack Trump. Think of the consequences avoided by taking the actions we did.

Even the root problem in all this is not really COVID –19, it is Democrats still grieving over their loss in 2016. And the cure to that problem is to defeat them again. It must be done for survival sake.

Right Ring | Bullright

Never Let A Pandemic Crisis Go To Waste

Imagine if someone came along and just slapped a shutdown order on your storefront or business for 2 weeks — or until further notice. Then said, at the end of 15 days we can talk about future operations. “We’ll let you know. Stay tuned.”

That is effectively what government has done here. Now granted there is an emergency and medical reasons but that makes the whole idea seem only slightly more palatable.

Sure in the end, businesses and people did it for the good of people and the country. They did it for moral purposes. And they didn’t even complain that much. It was deemed a social necessity to limit the spread of a vicious disease, a real pandemic.

Americans did what they usually do, made the best of it.

Businesses accepted and complied with their social responsibility without pointing fingers or blame. Schools were shuttered. Further, people were inconvenienced and forced into social isolation under threat of offense if they did not comply. But they didn’t need threats; Americans complied.

Now if all that were not bad enough, they now see shaping up a bill to address those economic damages which piles an entire agenda of other non-related, political issues onto their sufferings. They watch their own legislators piling on political wishes to their damages like ornaments.

I don’t think words can describe the outrageous fury of people over those circumstances.

ABC News reports:

Prior to the vote, Republicans complained Democrats have turned negotiations into a “leftwing episode of Supermarket Sweep.”

“Why are Democrats filibustering the bipartisan bill they helped write?” McConnell wondered, ticking through a “Democratic wish list” that he said was preventing an agreement, including tax credits for solar energy and wind energy provisions to force employers to give “special new treatment for big labor,” and new emissions standards for airlines.

Let me get this straight: the government comes along and wrecks businesses at a moments notice then tells them to get in line behind their pet political concerns? There must be a hot fiery place for that – extremely hot.

Words cannot express the people’s rage for that treatment. They broke the model but have problems about fixing it? Democrats are playing a very dangerous and sinister game here. But it is just politics as usual to them. That’s a shame.

Americans didn’t cause this. They didn’t ask for this. In fact, the only thing they ever ask is that government protect the country. Actually, the government and Democrats in particular were too busy with their political agenda, and trying to impeach the president that they could not protect the country. They didn’t care.

But now they want to use this economic crisis they created to feather their own political nests, to play election politics with your livelihood. Disgraceful.

Americans did their part, now government does not want to do their jobs or be responsible. And what accountability? Democrats’ political agenda is job #1.

To make matters even worse, when they go took the floor arguing for their self-serving political agenda, they called the bill a “bailout” for businesses. Relief for damages through no fault of their own, they call it bailouts? Are you kidding me?

They owe it to Americans and people deserve better than this extortion plot. But we the people are supposed to suffer and pay for their own malfeasance.

Right Ring | Bullright

Extortion of Process

Let me explain just one part of how the Democrats plan to use the impeachment process to serve their political ends. You know the masters of scamming the process.

It goes like this, as described by one Democrat Senator to CNN: first the Democrats put on their case. Then president’s team puts on the president’s defense.

But unlike in a regular trial, there is no opportunity for the House Managers’ rebuttal to Trump’s defense. What to do? Then the questions period closes out the process.

So — this is the great part — according to the Senator, Democrat Senators will use their super nifty questions period that follows to do that partisan rebuttal work against Trump. What part of this process is not politicized, hedged and schemed by Democrats?

And you know what that will look like. All the activist Democrats, House Managers and Senators, will operate at peak collective strength, using their corrupted and highly partisan process for maximum political benefit. All hands on the coup deck.

Yet all the while they chant the words “Trump is cheating in the next election.” You cannot even trust the results of the 2020 election with Trump in it. Wow, now they’re already undermining the next election 9 months ahead of it. Only to save quid-pro-quo Joe.

Our elections are very frail if just the inclusion of Donald Trump can destroy them.

After all they don’t care about the amount of damage they do to the country. not at all. The only thing that matters is their political objectives. Come hell or high water….and it will.

Right Ring | Bullright

Intelligence Flip Flops

Trump was blamed for 3 years for not listening to intelligence. Now he responds to a real threat based on actionable intelligence and the Left goes berserk. In fact CNN’s byline now is question our intelligence first. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a Reaper Drone strike.

Indeed, all Democrats say they want to see the evidence and intelligence the president used in making the decision. They also dismissed killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

It turns out that there are suddenly a lot of arguments that can be made for not following our intelligence. Shall we say for NOT acting in real time to take out a major terrorist actor in the midst of rolling out attacks against the US.

Who thought that was possible?

It turns out there is so much to question about intelligence, much less what to do with it. I only wish everyone had the same interest in protecting US interests and in our national security. Wouldn’t that be nice? But they don’t; and let’s not deceive ourselves.

Our basic argument against Obama on Benghazi is that he didn’t do anything. In fact he did the opposite. He stood down any response to the attack. He should have had to explain it but he never did. Actually the whole thing was a cover up and lies by Susan Rice.

Incidentally, in the aftermath of the Qassem Soleimani strike, who was the top analyst CNN brought on to talk about it? Susan Rice. In a rational world of media coverage that would be irrational. And it would have no credibility.

Whom did CNN bring on next to talk about retaliation threats from Iran against the US? That would be FBI’s discredited former General Counsel, James Baker and Dep Director Andrew McCabe. Later, James Clapper rounded out their coverage of the experts.

Democrats are blinded by politics and their hatred for Trump. Those same people who never answered for the failures in Benghazi. Never mind that attacking our embassy is an act of war. They can ignore that.

How long till the left throws intelligence under the bus? But what a shame that Benghazi didn’t even merit a whisper campaign. That denial went on for years — same people.

Right Ring | Bullright

Thanks: What’s Yours?

As 2019 winds down, some thanks are in order. Just a few prominent mentions.

On the last day before New Year’s Eve, I’d like to thank the cops for all they do — in some of the toughest parts of the country — along with fireman, EMTs and first responders.

I also want to thank those in the military for serving with honor, and their families who sacrifice to make it all possible.

I’d like to call out the lamestream media and fake news. You know who you are and what you do. You are the disgusting stain and obstruction to what makes a free society function. There are no excuses for what you do, but a sincere apology once in a while wouldn’t hurt.

I know I am leaving out many others and volunteers who donate their time. I can’t leave out my disgust for many on the left who have not accepted reality since the last presidential election. Time to move on. Here’s a message from 2016 that still stands.

To malcontents at odds with reality, a reminder is obviously necessary: Donald Trump is still President and he is not going anywhere. His support has not been cancelled either.

Right Ring | Bullright

Slipshod Impeachment Phraseology

Phrases for slipshod impeachment echo through congress after weeks of impeachment inquiry. Then get repeated with stunning frequency

Democrats bandied about catch phrases in weeks of impeachment inquiry. Some are just cute and others even stupid. Here are a few of the classic gems or their paraphrases:

“We must save our democracy.”
“We must impeach the president to protect the 2020 election.”
“It’s about interference in our elections”
“We are defending the Constitution.”
“No one is above the law.” (what law?)
“This is not a rush to judgment, it is a rush to justice.”
“We must protect our national security and preserve our democracy.”
(a little late on that one)
We must impeach him for what he might do. We cannot take that chance.

But the cakemaker of them all is this one. First, adorn it with sober, somber, solemn, prayerful mood music. Then, self-righteously, they claim:

None of us came here to impeach the president.
“None of us came to Congress just to impeach this president.”

Wrong. Yes they did.

They all came there to impeach the president and that is what they are doing. Whatever reasons they thought or said they came to Congress for are in the past. Memo to Dems:

You are there now to impeach the president. So while you can claim that wasn’t your original intent, (even if it was true) you were hijacked once there into that agenda.

In fact, it is now your only objective. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have determined the most important priority for this congress and before next election is to impeach the president.

So those pitiful words “I didn’t come here to impeach the president” ring so hollow after we’ve all seen the impeachment road show. Rides available daily.

Even one congressman, Hank Johnson, said representatives should be willing to impeach the president even if it means losing their elections. Sacrifice themselves. He said he would gladly impeach the president if it cost him his seat, and so should everyone else.

Impeachment fever, once they have it they can never turn back.

(*Prof. Jonathan Turley referred to it as slipshod impeachment in his testimony.)

Right Ring | Bullright

Pre-rebuttal of the IG Report

Leaks, lies, coups and liars’ legacies = just some procedural Bullshit?

Incidentally, if you don’t like the word bullshit then you may elect to skip this piece.

When is enough enough? Let me start by writing backwards, the way government usually does things. (in reverse) Starting with a premise and working backward to origination.

Synopsis: media has broken their cone of silence to actually talk about the upcoming IG Horowitz. Until now that has been a forbidden topic of conversation. Now, armed with numerous leaks, I presume they’re trying to manipulate our expectations for the report.

At first it seemed like they were just trying to get out ahead of it for damage control, to spin the outcome and temper our expectations. But now it looks like there may be something to what they are saying. (even if they’ve been in denial for 3 years.)

Then this report only becomes part of the cover-up.

Cut the bullshit:: This is a government report justifying what government did.

We should be clear on that. It’s what government does. And when government covers up for itself, it is doing what government does. When regular people do that, it is called a cover-up – considered worse than the crime in many cases.

All definitions from here on go into the trashcan – other than for bullshit. They, government, can alter or rewrite definitions as they go. The word ™*They in this form shall stand for government… or big, Deep State government.

Let me say this is not about the why *They did what *They did — other than the original investigation — but about what *They did. I think the motives are self-evident. *They, as in government, includes the head of the administration apparatus at the time, Obama.

Leaks of the document are flowing out daily.

They come from somewhere. You have to assume from within the *They apparatus. Reporters and MSM are only to happy to put them out there. (apparently sanctioned) Something about toning down or lowering expectations, I presume.

The conclusions of the report leaked out basically say the Trump investigation was justified from the onset. That the Carter Page probe was justified. But that there were some departmental problems, which he is going to point out, including how the “lower level” lawyer under James Baker altered FISA documents. Nevertheless, it did not change the outcome of this justifiable investigation, or its merits. Chew that slowly.

Yet there is no underlying problem with the integrity of the investigation itself, only some processes of it. Gee, and downhill from there on it goes. This starts to sound like every other “report” that has come out prior. But look at the accusations flying about everything Trump does. Put common sense aside.

In other words, what they are saying – if the report verifies it — is that the report is basically inconsequential as to the outcome of this Hoax. It is only relevant so far as procedural errors it quibbles with. But if it validates that the cooked up investigation and subsequent deep state coup was justified, then it becomes a part of the substantiation of the whole thing. See how this works? This IG look-see validates what *They did.

So unofficially, this IG Report could be called the cleanup detail of DOJ. One of the major problems it has is being released smack in the middle of an impeachment process. Whatever you think of the latter… and what a long winding road that has been: filled with innuendo, lies, dirt-digging politics and conspiracy theories etc. (dirt digging on Trump)

Maybe all we have witnessed to now is a natural byproduct of the “fundamental change” Obama promised. It certainly appears that way.

Now that they know *They can operate this way and have sweeping influence, it sets a precedent for future coups or phony investigations. Proof that it all works and can be very effective – even using CIA sources. Do you really think it is only Trump who would be subject to this radical insurrection of an interconnected cabal? Think again.

Imagine the extreme irony of Democrats doing a major investigation and impeachment process over digging dirt on a political opponent… while what they have done for 4 years was a political dirt-digging operation on a candidate and then a president.

This whole thing combined is nothing more than an effort to bring down the President, and all it has ever been for three years. Now they bring in the IG of itself, to justify itself, by posing as an independent critic of itself. And all predicated on grade-A BS.

Of, by, and for Deep State

Our government was weaponized against a political opponent. Obama politicized it entirely and then it naturally became weaponized. The problem for Democrats is that it was not politicized or weaponized by Trump. We know the beginning, the means, and the desired outcome — none of which aligns with Trump’s objectives.

Isn’t it extremely odd that no one would pay any attention to Ukraine before? You could not force media/coverage to talk about Ukraine. Why? The many tentacles DNC and Democrats had working in Ukraine. To even mention Ukraine was labeled a conspiracy theory. Ukraine itself was branded as a conspiracy. Now Ukraine is elevated to the most important place at the intersection of corruption and politics, at the most critical time in national politics. But Trump didn’t do all that.

Isn’t it also funny that after the Trump rally in Florida, the media is squealing like stuffed pigs about the president’s use of the word Bullshit? Yet it is the one word in our language that could possibly encompass all *They and their media allies have done to him and our last election. That word cuts through the smoke and mirrors.

And still the only thing that matters to these people is the next election, and defeating Trump. That government is still politicized and weaponized, ready and available. Media is still *Its biggest ally. Democrats are still engaged in election politics against their political opponent – and wiling to use any means at their disposal against it. (that opponent has also become the people, as it always does!)

Then came the IG report that media spins as an expected barn-burner that isn’t. Apparently they got their way. The report they refused to acknowledge as necessary or meaningful before, suddenly now becomes a central asset to knock down any “conspiracies” about what really took place in the 2016 election. (the truth)

According to these media reports: the Counterintelligence investigation on Trump was properly predicated and properly launched. So the rest is justified history.

That means it is 4-500 pages of meaningless procedural minutia that did not generally affect the overall investigation. Thus, the investigation was credible while there are outstanding procedural, process problems. That concept needs some explaining.

Message: nothing to see here. Move along. Government was justified in its overreaching investigation which turned into a full-blown bloodless coup. More CYA for the cover-up.

Even the Bullshit is getting old — calling a spade what it is, and an IG Report what it is.

Right Ring | Bullright

List Of Lies

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

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

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

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

Remember these old lines in their greatest hits:

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

There’s a whole lot of shaking going on

Syria: Kurds, PKK, Asaad, Turkey, Isis, Russia. Put then all together and what do you have? A whole lot of shaking.

Washington: Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Rand Paul, Republicans, Democrats. Put them all together and what do you have? A mess. Did I forget media?

All these, of course, represent factions. We have factions in the USA. Certainly, then, you cannot expect people to be all on the same page. They all have their own interests, and their own ideologies. Now I’m not one for letting ideology, unadulterated, run all policy.

Sure I succumb to an ideology like everyone. But this idea that ideology is the be all end all would mean all one has to do is plug in their ideology to any given situation and voila, you have the solution. But it doesn’t work that way.

That would not require politicians or leaders but only an ideology everyone must adhere to. That sounds more like a communist China or other regime, sans the dictator who enforces it all. So the Communist Party rules in China, the Democrat Party rules here.

Some things you have to make the case for, some things you have to fight for. Indeed, some things may be impossible — that is outside the dictator to implement and force it. In the US, we typically wrestle with such things. Other regimes don’t have those “problems.”

Case in point, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer go to the White House to talk to Trump about problems in Syria. What do you think happens? Dems run out with their hair on fire, to the media, and say “the President had a meltdown”. Is any of all that predictable? Rather than just deal with an uncomfortable seat in the theater, Democrats would rather scream fire and run out. No, it isn’t proper but that is their predictable reaction.

But of course the only thing that Pelosi wants to deal with is her own caucus. She will immediately run out to fundraise off of it. Impeachment is actually the only thing on her caucus-craven mind. And how to guide that to a successful conclusion.

Damn the will of the people, damn 2016 elections, damn all immediate pressing problems, damn the volatile situation anywhere; full speed ahead on the impeachment train. Election 2020 is now the next destination. Ideology rules the sandbox.

Right Ring | Bullright

Breitbart Exclusive: Stephen Miller

Presidential adviser Stephen Miller was interviewed by Breitbart on Sunday.
Here is one snippet.

“The last point I’ll make about this is the why,” Miller said. “Why? Because this president dared to disrupt two-party betrayal of the American people over many decades: betrayal on trade, betrayal on China, betrayal on foreign policy, betrayal on our southern border, betrayal on our economy, decade after decade, year after year, administration after administration. This president dared to stand up to defy that betrayal — was elected to end that betrayal — but the people who profited like parasites off of that betrayal are now the ones trying to prevent him from executing the agenda that the American people installed him to execute. That’s the situation we find ourselves in today.”

Read at: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/06/exclusive-stephen-miller-exposes-the-deep-state-a-collection-of-permanent-bureaucrats-enmeshed-inside-the-federal-government/#

Rules of Engagement for Politics

Suppose an alien from Mars landed and asked you to describe the rules in our presidential American election process. What would you tell him/her/it? How could you explain it?

First, there is the constitutional process. There are a bunch of regulations and election laws. There are regulations regarding the basic process of “running for president.”

Then there are the default rules of the road, which can change. The latest iteration contains the double standard rules, like ‘what applies to thee does not apply to me’ and so on.

Those rules are distinguished by who you are and what Party you are in. Not everyone lives under the same rules. Some people can ignore the rules while others are harassed by every rule, even as they are made up to suite present circumstances.

A republican candidate or successful president has the strictest rules. You cannot look into an opponent’s record or past experience in government. That is a no-no. Candidates cannot call for investigating an opponent, ex-opponent, or the person who held the job before. Even if there is the off chance a person may be running against you, it is forbidden.

Democrats have a saying: “in this country, we do not investigate our political opponents.” Actually, the accurate translation is we don’t investigate Democrat opponents.

The Democrat candidates are exempt from being scrutinized for their past experiences or record in office. Democrats shall not be investigated. They are exempt from accountability, particularly for their time in office. The past is considered irrelevant to a present race.

Democrats time in office is public service and Republicans’ time is mobster activity.

However, any Democrats running can demand the investigations of Republicans. But it is frowned on to call for investigating other Democrats. In fact, it is taboo for a Democrat to criticize fellow Democrats. But inter-party criticism is encouraged for Republicans.

Republicans shall have no privileges of any kind. But Democrats shall enjoy limitless special privileges Those will be made up as fast as needed. Republicans must adhere to very strict guidelines on everything, including what you can say. If you are a Democrat, you can say or do almost anything and not be held accountable. If you are a Republican you must be held accountable for every possible thing, even for what someone else did.

If you are a Democrat, you are accountable for nothing, zero, But you can claim to be accountable and responsible for everything — if you choose. It really means nothing.

Now along with these rules and particulars, there is a reality of precedent to consider. A Republican is always under the burden of inquisition, for anything at any time. For instance what you did in high school and, for that matter, anything you or your family ever did. (remember those arguments, family disputes or sealed court papers…) Another rule is all records are relevant for Republicans, records can be expunged or sealed for Democrats.

So in real practice, Democrats can open an investigation on a Republican candidate before primaries and keep it going through his term in office. It is called an “insurance policy.” That investigation can use the entire apparatus of federal government and intelligence agencies. It can enlist help from foreign governments, agents of foreign governments, be run through the DNC and coordinate with the Democrat’s campaign. It can use the Department of Justice to conceal and orchestrate the entire inquisition. Such investigation can then be rolled into a Special Counsel investigation to further investigate. A Special Counsel can be enacted by a call from a bureaucrat or official in the government. Congress itself can also take up similar investigations on a Republican.

Naturally, the scenario above would be against all rules and ethics to apply it to Democrat candidates. (that rule was enacted after the pretend Hillary probe of nothingness) Republicans trying to resist these rules or complaining about them is severely frowned on. Basically, a Democrat is exempt from those extraneous rules. Democrats are entitled to any protections or privileges from such investigation(s).

As I explained to my Martian friend, it is nice to know what the rules are anyway.

(This column may be revised later – as rules evolve further.)

Right Ring | Bullright

Biden’s Night Out

Looks like Biden was going out for the prom. So he got himself all spiffed up, after a nude swim in front of secret service, shined up the Benz, then combed his plugs for a take off.

But he forgot to check the air in the tires, which all seem to have slow leaks. He’s about to have a very bad night even before getting to the florist.

It’s not looking good for ol’ Joe, and the clock is ticking. Plus Cinderella has strict orders.

He’s going to have to fake it to make it now. The sendoff wasn’t so golden after all.

PJ Media — By Tyler O’Neil | March 2018

In 2013 and 2014, China embarked on an aggressive air and island campaign to dominate the South China Sea, much to the dismay of Japan and other countries in the region. When Vice President Joe Biden visited the country in 2013, he emphasized trade between the U.S. and China and did not focus on the South China Sea. Secretary of State John Kerry did the same in 2014.

Meanwhile, Biden’s son Hunter and Kerry’s stepson Chris Heinz carried out massive business deals with Chinese officials and the state-owned Bank of China. Worse, Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz even invested in a Chinese nuclear company under FBI investigation.

“During a critical eighteen-month period of diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Beijing, the Biden and Kerry families and friends pocketed major cash from companies connected to the Chinese government,” Peter Schweizer writes in his new book “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.”

Schweizer’s book delves into the ways in which “American Princelings” profit at home and abroad from the economic and diplomatic policies of high-ranking U.S. officials. With former Vice President Biden rumored to be considering a 2020 presidential run, the scandals surrounding how his diplomatic efforts enriched his son take on renewed importance. His role in abetting China’s aggression for family gain seems particularly damning.

When Biden became the vice president in 2009, his son Hunter Biden “became a social fixture in Washington,” Schweizer explains. In the summer of 2009, the VP’s son joined forces with Chris Heinz, a wealthy heir to the late Senator John Heinz, whose wife Teresa married Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). The two formed Rosemont Capital, an alternative investment firm “positioned to strike profitable deals overseas with foreign governments and officials with whom the U.S. government was negotiating.”

Devon Archer, Chris Heinz’s roommate at Yale and star fundraiser for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run, joined the American Princelings at Rosemont. Federal agents would later arrest Archer in May 2016 for defrauding a Native American tribe in an effort to enrich a branch of Rosemont Capital, Rosemont Seneca Bohai.

The American Princelings set up Rosemont Capital as an alternative investment fund of the Heinz Family Office, and attached several branches to it, including Rosemont Seneca Partners and Rosemont Realty.

When Vice President Biden went to China in December 2013 amid the South China Sea aggression, his son Hunter went with him. Hunter Biden was negotiating a major deal between Rosemont Seneca and the state-owned Bank of China. As the vice president discussed China’s trade with the United States, his son was putting these economic ties into practice, and the U.S. effectively caved in the conflict over the South China Sea.

Ten days after the Bidens visited China, the Bank of China — which is embedded in a complex network involving state ministries, security forces, and the Communist Party, and which provides capital for China’s economic statecraft — created an investment fund with Rosemont Seneca called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). “In short, the Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers,” Schweizer explains.

Rosemont Seneca received a benefit no other Western firm had in China — “a private equity cross-border investment fund formed in the Chinese government’s Shanghai Free-Trade Zone.” With this privilege, Rosemont Seneca could take Chinese government funds and invest them in China or outside the country, even in the U.S. …../

MORE: https://pjmedia.com/trending/as-biden-and-kerry-went-soft-on-china-sons-made-nuclear-military-business-deals-with-chinese-govt/

So John Kerry appears to have some questions to answer, too. Funny how the privileged princelings sucked up the cash like vacuums.

Seems like Biden is about to endure some severe vetting. Poor guy never was exposed to it in all those years before; it wasn’t in the program. You know that only happens to the other guys. While he is supposed to be the big player on the team who always gets the girl in the end and everything else.

Joe, Joe, they got a saying where I come from: “you dance all night, someone has to pay the fiddler.” But it’s going to take more than a lot of cash this time, Joe. You might be feeling a headache coming on about now, Joe. And Cinderella doesn’t look like she’s going to make her curfew. What a drag.

In retrospect, it sure looks funny seeing Biden pleading for all that campaign cash now while the princelings lined their pockets real good. It’s a tough ask… and a tough sell.

Right Ring | Bullright

Give Me A Break

Give me a freaking break is one of my favorite lines I repeat to myself lately. No one hears me. It just flows out of my mouth more frequently than any other phrase. There are hosts of reasons for it.

The main one is outrage, mostly at Democrat talking points or narratives. It seems almost every time you turn on the TV news or read something, there is that reaction in there. Someone is trying to con someone or twists something completely wrong. Show me any subject and I’ll have a “give me a break” moment somewhere about it.

Why is partly the way politics has become. And in part because of how low down the ladder we have gotten, or in many cases how backwards everything now is.

Judging by what I see on Twitter and media, I’d say a lot of people probably think the same thing and feel the same way. I also think most people see what is going on and understand it. They wouldn’t need anyone to explain it to them because they know what this movie is about and where it is going. In short, they are not dummies.

Now the media might think people are dumb, that they can spoon feed people along to believe what they want about issues. Whoa, do they underestimate the knowledge of regular informed people? Maybe at one time, years ago, they could get away with that but not today. I see it in focus groups and in conversations on social media. They’re in no mood to be bullied around on politics either. They know too much and have too much experience to be duped. All that said, those are not everyone.

Now I say this because these are the parameters for my conclusions. Others, like media, have different parameters that lead them to believe people are impressionable and pliable on their central basic opinions, based on information and narratives they selectively curate to give them. The media may be right about some percentage of voters on the Left. But I know that theory does not hold up on the conservative right. Here on the right people have preformed opinions for a reason.

 

Another idea I have given lots of thought to is conspiracy theories in general and people that hold them. I have concluded some people prefer to dabble in them. And we have had a lot of reason these days to give rise to conspiracies. Maybe they’re trendy and cool? The JFK thing, while decades old, is still a viable high water mark.

But for the last several years, there is another big one on the horizon. The moon landing. I might have been surprised at hearing that one many years ago. But it has a following. Of course there is now the 911 conspiracies, too. So there are many of them and they range from environment to government. But I have noticed a trend that for some people, if they carry one conspiracy they likely have several.

Now we saw the media for 2 and a half years promote the Russia Trump collusion conspiracy with little to base it on. And that there was no push back on it, even from some media, was astounding. But these are the same media people who lectured us about anything we said about Obama for the previous eight years that we were crazy. Actually, the truth was much crazier than fiction. Now it turns out some of those conspiracies were not so crazy after all. They have now been validated by the facts.

Suffice it to say that if you traveled off of the central narratives the media was carrying in the Obama years, you were labeled a conspiracy nut. It was their enforcement mechanism to try to coral people on their main narrative — constructed also in tandem with the White House and West Wing. They, the media, didn’t mind doing it either. They were as heavily invested in creating the narrative as the Obama administration was. But anyone who ventured outside that narrative was the enemy, and they usually let you know it, using all the tools of the mainstream media.

You were mocked, ridiculed, ostracized and marginalized, attacked, humiliated, ruined, and robbed of your good reputation and character. In other words, you were destroyed if you were not on their bandwagon of misinformation. To call that a conspiracy theory was, well, Orwellian. It was 1984-ish. To think in terms of questioning Obama or their carefully crafted narrative was sedition and treasonous. It was as if we completely lost the press. And we did, though it was right from the beginning.

I don’t know if conspiracies represent a threat, given the amount of people that buy into them? But the moon one sort of stunned me. It sneaked up over the last 20 years. If it is cool or whatever that still puzzles me. Though now the left has demonstrated the real danger of a conspiracy with the Russia thing. They’ve shown how you can push a narrative whether it is believable or not. And they showed what mainstreaming conspiracy theories looks like.

You know, it is normally those on the margins who buy into a conspiracy. Now I am back to thinking about what the real point of them is. This Russia one was a matter of convenience and extreme importance, cooked up for convenience and served to masses as established fact. (Intelligence agencies like CIA know how to do that) If it is possible to push a fake narrative until it is mainstream, then what about skeptics who don’t believe in it?. Those who require proof or evidence… or doesn’t that even matter anymore?

Can a conspiracy theory be totally false, yet who cares that it is not true? And what would it take to rupture that huge conspiracy? It went on for over 2 and half years and still goes on. We are in a whole new realm. The Moon landing might have been an achievement for conspiracies but we have gone way past the dark side of the moon now.

Maybe the only point that matters is who believes in it and who doesn’t? To say nothing about the scenario of media and government teaming up on a conspiracy theory.

You can now call me conspiratorial but that is where we are at now. Who exactly believes in it? You would have been considered a wacko-bird for saying Obama was not born in America. But if you want to think the President is a Russian agent, then you would be welcomed by mainstream media and elites alike. It might help your career.

Strange how this conspiracy thing really works, isn’t it? In fact, lets go out of our way to avoid all the evidence to the contrary. And let’s go way out to block real facts and truth as it comes out. No need for that! Which one will write history? I think I know.

Right Ring | Bullright

A Helping Hand to Democrat Candidates

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

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

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

They are going to:

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

 

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Warren Goes Tactical Stupid

Some people thought Elizabeth Warren was more rationale? She nuked that myth.

The Hill
“Warren, Bullock spar over ‘no first use’ nuclear policy”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) sparred Tuesday night over her proposed “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons during the Democratic debate.

In defending the proposed policy, Warren argued for diplomatic and economic solutions to conflict, saying “we should not be asking our military to take on jobs that do not have a military solution.”

But Bullock opposed that proposal, saying, “I don’t want to turn around and say, ‘Well, Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that.’”

Warren is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of a bill that would make it U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first.

It has long been the policy of the United States that the country reserves the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Former President Obama reportedly weighed changing the policy before leaving office, but ultimately did not after advisers argued doing so could embolden adversaries.

What morons. Naturally Obama thought about it — read: really wanted to but was stopped by advisors. So no speed bumps for Elizabeth Warren though. She wants to grant a ‘privilege of first strike‘ to our enemies and enshrine it into national policy.

Gee, I wonder what we get in return? Dare I ask.

Know Your Enemies

It’s absolutely necessary to know the enemy of US and freedom itself. Ignorance is no alibi. The left doesn’t care. In fact they are in bed with them, pushing the same agenda.

Documentary Details of Muslim Brotherhood Effort to Dominate America

IPT News
by John Rossomando |July 8, 2019

Editor’s Note: Muslim Brotherhood activist Nidal Mohamed Sakr’s presence in the United States was first discovered by Joe Kaufman in a 2018 Front Page Magazine article. Kaufman uncovered Sakr’s work in the Muslim Brotherhood, his relationship with Osama bin Laden and Sakr’s 2017 social media post threatening President Trump. Kaufman created the image showing Sakr in a suit and at what appears to be a rally that is shown in Horowitz’s video.

A new short documentary by filmmaker Ami Horowitz gives an inside glimpse of what Muslim Brotherhood members really think. Horowitz traveled to Beirut, Istanbul, Cairo and California to speak with activists, as well as members on the streets in Egypt.

Horowitz expected Brotherhood members to be cagey, since the organization generally is secretive. But he told the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) they were candid. Muslim Brotherhood members generally do not admit they belong to the group, even in the Middle East.

“What I found when I sat down with them, and I’ve spoken with dozens of them, is that they’re very open about what their plans are and what they want to do,” Horowitz said.

Brotherhood operatives like to say they are part of different organizations from country to country. However, Horowitz found that many of them knew each other and had similar goals despite coming from different countries. The Brotherhood’s ultimate goal is a global Islamic state.

“They were all from disparate parts of the world, and they all knew one another,” Horowitz told the IPT. “They all went to certain meetings that they all kind of attended … I found that when you scratch the surface and get behind the veneer that the connection between them is less murky.”

Horowitz has made videos and movies for the past 12 years. This film was privately financed and is available for viewing at no charge. …/

See IPT https://www.investigativeproject.org/7979/documentary-details-muslim-brotherhood-effort-to

From video:

“A revolution is coming. It’s not going to be green. It’s not going to be peaceful like Arab Spring, I guarantee you that.”

It almost sounds like Bernie Sanders, sans the non-green talk.

According to Mo Bro activists: It’s not terrorism it is heroism.

Watch this close-up mini-documentary. Who knows how long it will be up there?
Just couple that sentiment with three or four congressional radicals.

Mo Bro is the common denominator. Better know your enemies; they know you.

Defense In Motion

Over a week ago, I was prepared to say I had given up on even the remotest idea of Hillary ever being held accountable. It seemed the one thing we can count on today beside taxes is Hillary walking away. Not much public confidence in justice out there.

Then came word that Durham’s office was staffing up and already conducting interviews. Then came DOJ’s announcement that Barr was doing a broad investigation. (I do like the term broad in there) And he said he was examining CIA. All right then.

So now I see a little hope in an otherwise bleak tunnel. What is there to base that hope on? I have no answer, just asking. I guess we have to hang on for the long ride, again.

Along comes the duck and cover media. George Stephanhoopla does an interview with Trump. He asks the only thing they care about — the whole reason for the interview. Suppose someone from a foreign government offers you information , would you (A)take it or (B)call FBI? So only two choices? Well, Trump said maybe you do both. Immediately the buzzers declare “wrong answer.”

Media also claims that type of information pedaling can influence elections and “undermines our democracy.” Then can we have any country left after what Hillary did? We know the details of what she did, no need to dredge through all that.

I’ll be darned, a whole interview to get that plus a new AF-1 design? But that’s all the press needed. It happens to be the same time Donald Trump Jr is speaking to the Senate, again, on that very subject. That’s not the only coincidence for George’s question of the year.

We can see a foundation forming for the defense of Hillary “the rotten” Clinton. That question is the critical predicate of it. Have everyone agree taking information is bad, calling FBI is the only answer. Then they will say that is what Hillary’s campaign did.

That defense is almost laughable after everything she did. But it is supposed to get her off the treasonous hook. (taking foreign information is treason) It is more than a defense for Hillary; it’s one for intelligence and everyone else too. So when they get nailed, they can claim to be working or cooperating with FBI, intelligence and the investigation. Media will then call them all heroes not traitors. Yep, that’s their defense coming down the pike.

Actually, George Stephanopoulos’ interview could be labeled opposition research. Though at what point in all this does press’s information pedaling become treasonous?

Right Ring | Bullright

Losing Our Posterity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So many questions.

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

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

Do you smell the deflection and diversion?

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

A naïve person may wonder why such a barrier exists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Some People

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

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

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

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

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

Victim card revoked.

“Something”…..like an act of war.

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