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/

Hillary’s Deep State Of Denial Surfaces Again

On September 17, 2018, Hillary went out to complain about her favorite topic.

“Our Democracy Is In Crisis”

“…republican Party, whose “increasing radicalism and irresponsibility” got the country to where it is and put Trump in the White House.”

“Trump and his cronies do so many despicable things that it can be hard to keep track,” Clinton writes. “I think that may be the point — to confound us, so it’s harder to keep our eye on the ball. The ball, of course, is protecting American democracy. As citizens, that’s our most important charge. And right now, our democracy is in crisis.”

Do try to keep up. We give it our best effort, despite her smokescreens. This is Hillary’s and Democrats’ resistance war on democracy, refusing to accept legitimate election results. Yet she complains about democracy in crisis? She wants to protect democracy?

She has done everything possible in the last 3 1/2 years to destroy democracy.

Now, after the Mueller Report, she couldn’t wait to jump in as Hypocrite of The US — HOTUS –- and self-anointed flame thrower of the Left.

Beginning not the end — media event.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is only the beginning of a reckoning on election meddling, not the end, and “raises some serious questions,” Hillary Clinton said Tuesday.

If elected officials believe that he did [commit high crimes and misdemeanors] “then I think it is the obligation of Congress to put forward the articles of impeachment,” Clinton said at a … NYC Time 100 Summit, where she called for the full, unredacted report to be released.

Clinton also said the Department of Justice’s stance that a sitting president can’t be indicted benefited Trump.

I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” she said.

I think everything points to you, Hillary. How can you deny that? She is guilty of everything they were trying to hang and frame on Trump, and more.

Then she penned a WaPo op-ed of advice on how to respond.

“But it [Mueller Report] is a road map. It’s up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation’s interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.”

She seems to think revenge is best served hot. There’s the “road map” thing again. Honk if you saw that one coming. It sure is getting a lot of mileage with Democrats. That’s the yellow brick road to impeachment, or whatever you want to see it as. Fair?

“Second, Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now.”

So keep building your Tower of Babel. Keep ripping and tearing at anything you can.

“Third, Congress can’t forget that the issue today is not just the president’s possible obstruction of justice — it’s also our national security. After 9/11, Congress established an independent, bipartisan commission to recommend steps that would help guard against future attacks. We need a similar commission today to help protect our elections. This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger.

It was just reported that Trump’s recently departed secretary of homeland security tried to prioritize election security because of concerns about continued interference in 2020 and was told by the acting White House chief of staff not to bring it up in front of the president. This is the latest example of an administration that refuses to take even the most minimal, common-sense steps to prevent future attacks and counter ongoing threats to our nation.” …/

”It’s critical to remind the American people that Democrats are in the solutions business and can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

We need to protect our elections from you. Your five-alarm fire no one heard.

Does she have some nerve? Lecturing Trump on failures to keep the country safe when Obama was AWOL on all of it. She dithered in the wings. Obama was the president when all this Russia meddling , and Russianeering, went on. Solutions, don’t make me laugh.

Oh, she was a part of it. She and Obama thought they could tie their Russia problem around Trump’s neck and that would be that. Now she wants another commission? How about instead of that, we look into what Hillary, her campaign and the maestro of dark arts, Barry, did about the Russia meddling problem as it happened?

Then look at what his administration officials did to assail the problem. Of course then we will see what Obama’s administration did against Trump – and didn’t do against Russia. Something never done before, aiming the entire intelligence apparatus on Trump.

“We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn’t just a reckoning about our recent history; it’s also a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America’s future. And, unless he’s held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office.

Beaming from her mount hypocrisy. Get it right, when they made all but certain people, including media, had gotten it all wrong until now? Get the injustice right?

A reckoning but she doesn’t want the real truth out. She wants a complete cover up of what she and Obama did to try to undermine our election. Russia couldn’t do what Hillary did. Maybe they should have worried about the Russians instead of trying to use them as hand towels for their plot? Urgent, it is urgent now? Partners in crime.

Right, no one but Americans should decide our elections. And we did! But you couldn’t accept the results. Your plan fell short. So then came the sedition of you and your Deep State allies afterward. You had to keep all the pressure on Trump as a diversion.

Holding Trump “accountable,” for what, winning an election? He didn’t do that. And Americans decided the election not Russia or Putin. But nice try.

Disregard for the laws of the land? You can show no more disrespect or disregard for the law of the land than not accepting the election results. Let’s not even discuss your other careless disregard for laws of the land, your effort to circumvent them, and your egregious obstruction of justice. That is when justice officially died. It was already on its deathbed, but you gave it the last push.

Then you acted as if you were the victim all along, rather than chief offender of lady justice. Your husband on a tarmac meeting Loretta Lynch was yet another sinister highlight on your trail to guarantee that the injustice occurred.

Finally she lectures on:

“A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it.”

Trump committed no crime here. You did. And that system our founders designed is the electoral college, which you want to abolish. (because you lost an election) Does that make sense? But thanks for reminding us all how fortunate we are you lost the election, even especially with all the Deep State and Obama administration’s help. Oh, and thanks for the helpful impeachment primer. I guess that makes you the expert.

Democracy is under siege, but guess by whom? Do the letters HRC ring a bell?

Hillary slipped into the Deep State of Denial somewhere in 2016 and never returned, only briefly surfacing at opportune times to target her enemies. But her operation secure.

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

Night And Day Politics: good vs. evil

I figure it this way: there are some percentage in the country who are not pulling for America but instead actively working or hoping against the country in some way. Now I conservatively peg this number at between 21-30% of the people. This probably fluctuates according to external circumstances at a given time. For example, it might be particularly higher during something like Vietnam protests, or other contentious events, while being at a lower tide at say the 9/11 attacks. I see an ebb and flow to it.

I’d say it is flexible.which would mean that the more stirring the times are the more that number is on the upper side or increases. The more settled the times the better.

But I don’t see the same dramatic results from positive circumstances. I don’t see that those help to unify as much as those negative circumstances tend to increase the American angst. It could also be a little like the swing-voter effect, from one side to the other.

At any rate, with that premise it doesn’t take much to consider all the ways a hostile foreign power might want to take advantage of these trends or tides of opposition. Indeed they are always looking for ways to extort the present situation for sinister gains.

It also occurs to me that this extortion should be used by our own government to capitalize on those unifying good things to boost pro-American sentiments. This is something Trump seems to be tapping into, whether it is due to this strategic theory or not. He seems to try to extort good circumstances for positive gains to the country.

But on the left, they do almost the polar opposite. They use negative events, situations, animosities, circumstances or anxieties for their political gains. (against the country)

Considering the way this left operates in their tactics, it reminds me so much of the exact way our arch enemies operate. For instance, Putin is an opportunist who finds a way to extort any negative situation — even some positives — to us for his personal gain.

So I am seeing the same formula between Putin and how Democrats operate. Of course I don’t think it is by coincidence. They both use similar political tactics. Anything bad for America is to be converted into political gain for them. They are so much alike.

Naturally, I think the conservatives and Republicans have to do a much better job using positive things, wherever we can find them, as positive influences for America. And convert negative things or events into positive results. We must start politically operating more like opportunists. This does not come easy for people used to relying on basic truth to sort things out, who are much more reserved about ‘using’ circumstances for political gain.

But why should we be timid about doing that? It is for a good cause. It is to better the country, right? Not that progressives want to really benefit the country. Tearing it down and apart has been their trademark. That is not their objective, but it is ours. And we should not run away from that motive.

Why should we be restrained in the face of an outright assault on our Republic? Why be hands off in the face of foreign invasions; whether orchestrated from hostile states or powers, or by hoards of people amassing against our borders — whatever the motives.

Right Ring | Bullright

Democrat Dream Candidates

Identity politics has had a head-on collision with reality. It’s too early to know the full outcome yet. It seems the investigation is still underway. Results will take time.

Democrats have long played the identity politics game and 2016 was a perfect case. But a strange twist is happening they probably had not anticipated. And it might just affect the 2020 election and not in a positive way.

You know the rules and the way it works. Democrats only see identity when they pander to voters. Elections are the whole purpose, The group rules, individuals are just fuel.

So it has all worked in their political strategy the way they wanted it to. But the campaign is already heating up to decide which person. (at least I think they are all people) They have two old guys in the top slots for starters. That is Bernie an Biden leading the pack.

But both these guys are old and white, right? Well that doesn’t play well. There is no identity gimmick to that. The voices of dissent are already rising from their mob. They say it does not represent a preferred identity. They see room for one of the other identities.

S0 it got me thinking. Democrats also have that other identity game going. Actually, it represents more of a problem. They pandered to LGBTQs, gays or any of the others.

However, the trans community has also been playing identity politics. They developed a new thing I will call sexual choice. According to theory a person has the right to claim how he/she identifies, as a personal preference, which must be respected by everyone. Example: Bob decides he identifies as a woman and his new name is now Judy. It is all biology irrelevant so no matter what he claims is his/her accepted identity.

And how one identifies decides everything. No questions.

Now you have these two old white guys — not to forget Warren and Gillibrand. What could two old white guys need to do to spice up their identities? Maybe they could try the new identifies game. I mean it is all about preference, right?

Well, maybe Bernie could identify as a young male rapper? How about a young biracial male rapper? He does have a hand gesture going for him. Why not? What is preventing Joe from identifying as a Latino? Whatever they are comfortable with goes. (for as long as they are) And no one should be able to question their choice of identity, right? Joe might go with the female version to align it with restroom preference.

And that is the way this whole race could go now, using the left’s preference rules. Actually, under that standard they could even change identities again if they wanted. It is whatever works for them. Who could argue? Maybe the first gender-neutral candidate?

See how opportunistic this all can be? Why can we see a problem there but Democrat dumbos cannot, or will not admit to it anyway? That is where we are headed.

Looks like liberals have taken the 60’s sexual, counterculture revolution and kicked it up a few notches. Now everyone must play according to their preferences. It’s identity limbo.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dear Meghan McCain

“Hush, little one don’t you cry”…….as the song goes. Oh, never mind. Grudge much?

Apparently you now feel you have to pick up the battle of bitter John McCain against Trump. One comment Trump made regarding John McCain is all this whole thing is about since it is the only thing he did to McCain, your father, besides getting elected.

Meghan McCain said in eulogizing her father:

“The America of John McCain is generous and welcoming and bold. She is resourceful and confident and secure. She meets her responsibilities, She speaks quietly because she is strong. America does not boast because she has no need to. The America of John McCain has no need to be great again because America was always great.”

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege.”

“We live in an era where we knock down old American heroes for all their imperfections, when no leader wants to admit to fault. You were an exception, and you gave us an ideal to strive for. Look, I know you can see this gathering here in this cathedral. The nation is here to remember you.”

I understand you want to mourn your father, but why do you have to attack Trump to do it — because you think it is popular? Would you attack Obama for “change you can believe in?” Any wonder some people interpret it as a eulogy for the Republican Party?

Well, if you want to count the comments of blaming him for his vote to save Obamacare, not lost on the Democrat left, then there is that too. But McCain did vote that way, after running and promising that he would lead the charge to abolishing Obamacare. Which brings us to an interesting point in this dustup. (End first person)

Was he really promising to get rid of Obamacare, or was he promising instead just to lead the charge in the Senate? See, that matters if he was not really planning on ending Obamacare but only wanted to lead the effort. In that case, he would run and lead it which would also mean killing the effort when push came to shove. Thereby making himself mister popularity with the left, is that what he had in mind? Do you see what I mean?

And then there were all those efforts toward getting answers and information about MIA’s and POW’s Remember those, where John McCain rushed in to sort of lead the parade and then the effort ended up dying? Was he ever interested in settling the matter or just burying the efforts by leading it? Questions many of us have about McCain’s agenda.

However, this telling sign from Megyn McCain sort of unravels it. So much animus. So much bitterness. The same type of bitterness and lack of concern he seemed to have for those aggrieved family members of Vietnam Vets. Answers they don’t have, questions that remain. John was no real help for them. But those efforts died off after he got involved. Better not to know? What did he actually care about? Is criticism of McCain taboo?

Now Meghan lashes out at the funeral as if it were Trump’s fault McCain died. Blame Trump for what: starting a movement, trying to get answers; trying to change the way the Washington Swamp worked; trying to fight corruption? Blame Trump for using a slogan that even Bill Clinton used. Blame Trump for speaking up for so many Americans, who went to the polls to elect him president. So blame voters. Was that the problem, he was elected? Or was it that he was sticking up for the forgotten, working man who was disenchanted and disenfranchised?

There were plenty of people that felt their voice was not heard. In her rant attack on Trump, to cheers of applause, she was lashing out at the voters who elected him, too. Blame the masses. Don’t blame McCain for anything though he has been in office for over 35 years. Almost as a metaphor to forgotten voters: he was elected and then diagnosed not long after his election yet would not cede his seat, but instead hoarded it to his bitter end so they could not go to the polls to elect a new Senator in November.

In the beginning of May he made a statement that he may well not be around in the spring, of 2019, when the end of May was the deadline to have his seat included in the election. He could have continued his Senate career, as the people had their election campaign. (like he did) He would still have his funeral plans made the same way. He would still have the marketing of his book. And he still would not have voted in major issues for months. In fact, as we see, he would have died while that was all taking place, before the election ever came. It would have been no skin off of McCain or his legacy.

But it was skin off the voters. Did he care? No, it seems not. He had his own plans and concerns, which did not involve the people who went and voted for him yet again in 2016. Was he even honest with the voters in that election?

Now that we are in this situation, brought on by McCain, if anyone should have a problem it is the people. They were slighted. And the Governor of Arizona will have to pick a successor to McCain, as he wanted him to do. McCain wanted him to pick a McCain-type person. That is no secret. What is a McCain-type person? Likely someone from his inner circle. Forgive many of us for asking if that person will be his wife, Cindy McCain. Yes, I heard a few denials but I think it will be Cindy McCain? (I could be wrong) It gives someone the pathway into the office setting it up for the 2020 election though.

This all makes me ask and wonder, just how much power does a sitting US Senator have, even to pick his successor? Does he get to overrule the people who voted for him? Does he have a veto over the will of the people? All these questions could force you to conclude yes, he does, when it comes to McCain. Seems that his will is the only one that mattered.

I’m sorry for your grief, pain and bitterness, Meghan. Maybe one day you can let at least one of them go?

Seems the people should have more complaints than John McCain, or his family. Meghan said her father’s response to her asking what he wanted in a eulogy was: “Show them how tough you are.” So was the point to show people how tough she is? What is the purpose? Tough toward Trump, and the voters? Over what? But she did make the bitter point clear.

Right Ring | Bullright

Press Freedom — unchain their souls

Maybe a post script is needed to my last post on a media cabal in their defense of press hay day. (or their D-day as I’m calling it) Was it too Fake News challenged?

There were some who declined the opportunity to elaborate on the “war,” as some call it, claiming that they do it everyday. Like Seattle Times, who passed on the offer.

So maybe press is not as united as you thought? Don’t bet on it. They just don’t want to make a special national day of it, which they fear may only provide Trump with more evidence of a press conspiracy against his presidency. Surely, some of it will.

However, this sounds more like not wanting to poke Trump — or the people by extension — in the eye while he is already on a tear against the press. A successful one. Not that they are not actively engaged in an effort to undermine and question his legitimacy in every way they can. They are. Just that they do that anyway without a designated day for it.

On the other hand, some are fully engaged in this “war” but they also want to throw ‘shout outs’ to local media for tireless efforts in the press. Lean on the locals for a defense. Yes, noble as local press are, they are not the real issue or problem. That the local media still covers local news and provides a good service never was the problem at the heart of the matter. But should that case even have to be made? Then we have come a long way. So they can wax on their local accomplishments all they want.

Maybe it is a time, though, for press to do a little navel gazing of its own on what their real priorities and goals are. Maybe? But don’t bet there will be lessons learned. They seem far too arrogant for that.

Just as the Seventh Floor was corrupting the greater FBI’s institutional reputation, so is the national press and media diminishing its own credibility. Like the FBI, it was not field agents who did all that, who were the problem. It was leadership. Though the attitudes of leadership do trickle down to rank and file. So too is the case in the national press — all chasing a few stories they consider important. (damn whatever we care about)

We know the stories they want to report, and eventually we know the ones they do not. So do reporters and journalists at large. There are a few good journalists functioning in an against-the-tide way, almost battling against the national media at large. Are they wining? No. They are frowned on or mocked. (as out of line) Their efforts are diminished en masse by their fellow press piers. It’s a shame. The loudest barking dogs get the attention.

Yet with all that said, media wanted a special day to pat themselves on the back for their biases and efforts. Of course they want to broaden the problem and criticism of the press. And they want all members of it to be forced to defend press’s greater national agenda.

Why is it that Republicans always seem to have an active campaign against press, media? Is it good politics? You could turn that around as well, to “why does press always seem to be actively campaigning against Republicans?” And both would be correct. There are decades of mistrust built up on the Republican side. Best to know who your biggest opponents or critics are if you are a politician. Enemies? You’d be a fool to believe press is actively, overtly on your side or even that you will get “fair” coverage. John McCain would be Exhibit A. He wanted to believe it, which only says something about him.

For today’s defense of press day, cue the choruses of anecdotal stories about humanity, drinking water, local crime investigations, or school board decisions. All important, but they were not really the issue. And great as those stories may be — cite them all day — they still do not deal with a collective issue of bias in the news media.

When the local news reports a crime, it can intentionally not mention the race, religion of immigration status of the alleged criminal. Sometimes it matters, yet is suspiciously omitted. Sure press did report the story, but did they reveal all pertinent facts? So we are talking about the editorial positions and control of media, which more often is the problem. In other words, what we don’t see is withheld, or accounts of the story that don’t mesh with events. Citing good local stories can cover some of that but not the volumes of accounts where bias is a problem. How about when there is an error? They stick it in the reserved corrections section later But don’t mention it. Where is the honesty or integrity, or for that matter responsibility, in that?

No, what really got their collective goats in the press were the unfavorable public opinion polls showing lack of credibility in the press. Thus, reporting the great local stories is not the real issue here. Their need to be instinctively believed is the whole issue. Their mission and goal depends on that. So press is even dishonest in framing what this is all about. But the people have known for some time what it is about, being fed a steady diet of deceptive or biased coverage that lacked the integrity or scrutiny of a real free press. Would the founders be happy with what the national, collective media has turned into?

And if those local stories are really the issue here, then let’s have them. I mean tell them instead of drowning them out and spoon-feeding us national interests — and those controlling political interests — by the mainstream collective media. We don’t call it Mainstream Media for nothing. Another term they despise. Tell them all, unedited.

Columbia Journalism Review makes the press defense with a potpourri of snippets.

Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada read half a dozen “hagiographies” of the president, finding that “some are born Trump sycophants. Some achieve Trump sycophancy. And some have Trump sycophancy thrust upon them—since he’s a star, they let him do that.”

Is that what you got? Better, is that what you really believe? And what are the stages of press degradation? Do we have to diagram that for you?

IPSOS Polls

Returning to President Trump’s views on the press, almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” including a plurality of Republicans (48%).

I don’t want to tell them what the trend is.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Meanwhile Press and Media Whine

I’m going to put up this piece from the news association, not because it deserves to be but because it needs to be called out for what it is. I am mean for picking on the press.

They are calling on all press to use their prestigious space to defend the “free press.”
A few hundred have agreed, like a solidarity thing.

RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom

August 13, 2018 | RTDNA [*emphasis mine]

The Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force are calling on our more than 1,200 members and their broadcast and digital news outlets to join the Boston Globe and more than 100 other local newspapers across the country on Aug. 16 in a coordinated editorial response to attacks from the President on the media.

“We urge our members to join the effort on Thursday, Aug. 16 by dedicating airtime, publishing an online editorial or sharing information via social media platforms that speaks to your viewers and listeners about the role we play in preserving the public’s right and need to know, in a government for and by the people,” said Dan Shelley, RTDNA’s executive director.

“The President has ratcheted up his anti-press contempt. Journalists are now the ‘disgusting fake news,’ and according to one presidential tweet, we also ‘cause Wars [sic].’ This rhetoric has contributed to many of the president’s supporters lashing out harshly against members of the White House press corps and other journalists. It must stop before more journalists are hurt or worse,” states Shelley.

Today, RTDNA, its members and the other broadcast and digital journalists it represents stand in solidarity with the dozens of American newspapers that have joined the Boston Globe campaign to publish editorials pushing back against the notion that responsible journalism is “fake news” and that journalists are the “enemy of the American people.”

Please contact RTDNA at pressfreedom@rtdna.org if your station plans to participate. For more information on how to explain the public service your news organization regularly provides, please see this list of resources for rebuilding trust with news consumers and this list of questions to consider as a newsroom.

About the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force
RTDNA formed the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force to defend against threats to the First Amendment and news media access, and to bridge the divide between responsible journalists and those who don’t like, or don’t understand, the news media. People wishing to support RTDNA’s efforts may reach out to the task force by emailing pressfreedom@rtdna.org.

About RTDNA
RTDNA is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. Founded as a grassroots organization in 1946, RTDNA works to protect the rights of electronic journalists throughout the country, promotes ethical standards in the industry, provides members with training and education and honors outstanding work in the profession through the Edward R. Murrow Awards.”

Original source

So it is a campaign defending press freedom. Oh goody, a special day for that.

Instead of what they claim, this is a dedicated day to attack Trump, feel free as if they do not already do so daily. So what is the special occasion about this day? That’s what they have done since Trump won.

But my personal issue with this goes much deeper. First of all, when press refers to the First Amendment, they liberally mean “freedom of press.” However, there are other freedoms in the first amendment. Just that to press, this freedom is the only one they really give a damn about. Secondly, it is offensive that they lay claim to the First Amendment as their own. But that is the only part they want people to care about and keep beating us over the head about.

Yes, I understand the need for a Free Press. It is absurd I have to make that disclaimer.

I will take the opportunity to mention another favorite talking point of theirs — meaning the press in general. The claim is Trump declared war on the first amendment. Again, by first amendment they are referring to press. (misleading to say the least.) Or some even say he declared war on the “free press.” What nonsense. I have never seen another president more media friendly than Trump.

This bothers me why? It is mostly this “war on or against the first amendment” mantra that gets me. As the old line goes: “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” With all that is going on, there is not a war on the press or first amendment. It is a battle within the First Amendment. But it has always been there. There has always been some friction within the 1st Amend. The press is only one of 5 freedoms contained therein: Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition of grievance, and assembly. I see press is only one fifth of that. Technically, you can say press may have some tangential influence in others.

As to the “war” as they call it within the first amendment; it is press declaring war on the people’s freedoms. Press has no ownership of or control over the First Amendment.

Despite how I really feel about this brouhaha over the press, I will give them this honored day…… to make a joke out of themselves, as they have done for over 10 years.

What an idea!

We could have had special “defense of the first amendment days” back in 2009-2010. Remember the Tea Parties? But we did not get “special day” kudos for defending free speech. We got the royal condemnation for it, and viciously attacked. For all of our organizing skill and peaceful efforts, we had the long arm of the IRS attack dogs sicked on us. It was labeled traitorous to the US Constitution in media. Talk about Orwellian.

Did we get a special assist or atta-boy from the media/press for standing up and defending the First Amendment? Just the opposite. We were attacked for “hiding behind the first amendment.” But it was press that was doing the attacking. They declared war on free speech and dissent, from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and in press and media.

So what does that tell us, other than the fact that the “press” doesn’t give a damn about the first amendment? It tells us they have chosen sides. And they chose to go to war against the American people, just for standing up for their first amendment rights.

So for this dedicated “defending press day” I offer them a peace sign minus the index finger. Of course they really don’t need me or anyone else to stand up for them, they have the power of the press. And chose to use that power against the American people. What were they “standing up” for back then? Oh, it was for big-government, for the power of the White House, the power in Congress. Remember their stories of outrage that people yelled at Congressmen, especially black members, when the Democrat caucus paraded in front of Tea Parties to fabricate fake news about us. Then press ran that narrative lie into the ground. We were also labeled racists then. Media assisted.

Excuse me for not having any outrage that the press is victimized. Give me a break. Again, press made huge choices long ago and declared war within the first amendment, against the people. You didn’t just stand idly by, you were the enforcers. Even Ben Rhodes admitted the Obama administration had media, press eating out of their hand. Because, at that point, free press sycophants, you were no longer a “free press.”

Is it time for a ‘voice of free speech task force’? — at least I’m being honest.
See what they did there: “Voice of the First Amendment Task Force”?

 

Related Ref:
Boston Globe: “200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials”

[Globe]- The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s opinion page, told the AP last week.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

What do College Students Think of Socialist Agenda?

Some views really need to be heard.

College Student Tears Apart Own Socialist Generation, Pushes Plan To Turn Them Around

Matthew Pinna — August 13th 2018 | Western Journal

Conservatives often wonder why more and more young people consider themselves democratic socialists despite overwhelming evidence against the rosy claims of that political philosophy. The truth is that unless we understand why they believe what they do, our critiques will fall upon deaf ears.

There are two ways in which generations are defined: by how the world has developed around them, and by their educational system, which influences how they understand those happenings.

From the previously unimaginable violence of World War I to the broken rubble and thick smoke of the fallen Twin Towers, Americans took away the same persevering and exceptionalistic attitude: that despite seemingly insurmountable odds, for Americans, anything is achievable.

What I and others my age experienced, however, is what has since come to be known as the Great Recession. For the youth of today, their understanding of the world is entirely contextualized through what their families and friends went through because of it and, in short, they believe that no matter how deeply they struggle, our capitalist system is always doomed to fail in the same the way they perceived it to have in 2008.

Such logic is, of course, faulty — the reason why it is called the “Great” Recession is because it truly is an exception; it is just as ridiculous to assume that capitalism will always end that way as it is to think that Alexander the “Great” was simply an ordinary general.

In previous years, our educational system would have empowered students to recognize facts like that, but for a generation of youth that has found itself forced through Obama-era “Race to the Top” Common Core testing — standards that even many Democrats found themselves rallying against — this reasoning seems foreign.

Education has been the primary means of social mobility for millions of Americans throughout our history, fostering the uniquely American optimism and entrepreneurial ability that has positively impacted both our country and the world. Schoolchildren were imbued with passion by their teachers and rightfully believed that by focus and hard work, they could live a fulfilling and promising life.

This is no longer the case.

As opposed to being taught what they need to succeed in their careers, students are taught how to best take a test. They are then funneled into a university system that feeds them theoretical, rather than practical, information, teaching them how to critique a world that they have not yet experienced — and because of their previous education, do not even know how to start experiencing.

I am not criticizing the teaching of theory to students like myself — it is extremely valuable knowledge (and I greatly enjoy it). What those who have come before us better understood, however, is that theory must be buttressed by practice. Evidence of this can be seen in our Constitution, a document that is a healthy combination between liberal French Enlightenment theory and provisions based on what our Founders had personally experienced under tyranny and oppression.

In today’s public education, where words like “democratic socialism” and “Marxism” are too often portrayed as alternatives to evil capitalism, there is another philosophy nearly as prominent and just as misunderstood: nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophy of meaninglessness, and one that is often reflected in today’s youth culture and politics.

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes and the Bernie Sanderses of the country play off of that philosophy, preaching that it is meaningless to try to succeed in the world, as systemic odds — reinforced by those better off than ourselves — will prevent us from doing so. Overtaken by the same nihilistic despair that Friedrich Nietzsche warned about when he proclaimed that “God is dead,” these politicians have gathered people under a new rallying cry: “The American Dream is dead!”

Democratic socialism is, in essence, a political justification of mediocrity and failure; because many of its supporters lack purpose in an economic system based on empowering human motivation, they instead propose one based on impossible and inhuman characteristics.

I cannot fault those who have been tempted by this siren song — I recognize that they badly want to play a part in defeating something they think has wronged them and those whom they love. They have been told that if they don’t, they lack compassion for what their friends and family have gone through. They are told to see fellow Americans as dollar signs and measure the intrinsic value of someone by his net worth; the more they have, the less human they are.

Anybody who doesn’t see the world in this narrow, defeatist way is tossed aside and — in a cruel twist of irony — “otherized” by the same people who claim to be victims of such thinking.

These insidious practices end up polarizing young adults — you have to have a strong opinion on politics, regardless of whether or not you actually care. Coerced into becoming activists, they have no actual desire to learn much about what they are protesting for beyond a few talking points; hence, the hostility.

Democratic socialism is not a movement with passion and purpose, but rather one that is lacking entirely in both regards. Schools need to return to teaching the skills that students need to actually transcend barriers, so that a sense of purpose can once again be felt by our youth, enabling them to succeed in the American Dream.

Matthew Pinna is a student at the University of Chicago studying political science and English. His writing has appeared in numerous publications, including the Chicago Tribune and American Thinker. Matt lives — depending on the time of the year — in either his hometown of Farmingdale, New York, or in Hyde Park, Chicago.

Switching To Live

You know everyone has times of curiosity and research, reexamining the past, whether it is last decade or a half century ago. People always want to catch up. And there is so much to look into, considering the left’s task of revision is never complete. That is one constant of progressives. At least there is Google. Similarly we ponder the future.

Nothing wrong with that, we need to remember and know what happened. But there are now times when it is better to suspend or forego a quest for historical perspective by just switching to live. The present offers some fascinating perspectives and historical context. It is a time to have one’s eyes wide open, to take it all in, and absorb history in the making. At least you know it is true and real. Maybe it is all too real for some people.

Thus some on the left feel a need to go back into the past to try to dredge up anything they can to spin the current events — events for which there are really no parallels.

This time offers more excitement and interest in all kinds of ways that will need to be remembered. We, as conservatives, have almost a solemn obligation to witness history and memorialize it because we would not like the way progressives are going to write it.

I do not believe a lot of people actually operate in the present. They vacillate someplace between their interests, aspirations, priorities, goals and ideals; and their past experiences and memories. Call it selfishness, but for them it is a personal perspective. Add to that the technology and PDA’s today which everyone is glued to. They have their own perception.

This brings to mind an analogy. Most people know a parent that has claimed to be living vicariously through their child or children. They see their child’s opportunities and root for them. They feel personally invested. All very natural for a variety of reasons. I look at the current President, Trump, much the same way. To that end, he has made this possible by his high visibility and transparency to us. So in that simple scenario, we feel a personal connection with Trump. And we feel a personal interest in his presidency because of it.

That is why this time is different and special at the same time. People have that personal connection to the office. We can also see ourselves through this interconnection.

This all is why it is important today for us to make a good attempt at switching to live. For months this phrase kept echoing in my mind, I didn’t know why, I thought it could be a song lyric I was thinking of. So I spent hours combing through familiar songs or lyrics on the web. Nothing struck me or rang a familiar bell. I dismissed it but it came back, again and again. What was it? It didn’t even dawn on me the message or meaning. That is until I thought of it as “just switch to live.” Then I began to understand the whole concept. I’d call that a message from somewhere, you decide from what and where.

Never has there been a time that called on people to be an advocate for the present. That is to experience it and speak of it in real time. But not to be led by some misinterpretations of it. Or not to believe a view that does not really comport or make sense, out of an effort to get along for convenience. The present is ours, if we claim it. We don’t need to wait for tomorrow’s interpretation of today to know what we are experiencing. It belongs to us.

Right Ring | Bullright

Saving Sanity: a noble cause

Is a once a week rant too much to ask or expect for a blog? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The problem is not the lack of material but rather the sheer volume of it.

That also can lead to things like burnout, exhaustion, even suffocation in a sea of mud. Just saying. So silence is not golden but may at times be the only viable option.

Something has bugged me though ever since I have been doing this blog. It is the amount of humor we use and whether it is appropriate? I mean these are serious times, and does the humor contribute to the coarsening of culture? I’m not sure.

Well, blah blah. I remember a past Bible study over whether humor is bad thing or acceptable? See, there was a belief at one time that Christians should refrain from humor, certainly in Church settings. I think that might have fallen by the wayside, but was once a real issue. The point was humor diminished Christianity.

It took away the seriousness of issues. It was seen to some as an insult. We know some people, for many reasons, do not appreciate humor anyway. But on serious matters it was frowned on. It was thought a type of mockery that didn’t belong in serious debate or dialogue. Using it diminished one’s credibility.

Someone finally wrote a book explaining that humor was not wrong and listed examples of humor in the Old and New Testament. So one cannot ban humor in theory.

My issue with all this is how can you look around today and not have a sense of humor about things? That doesn’t mean you take issues less seriously….or does it? This is where rationality and sanity come in. A rational person is aware of the serious nature yet can still poke fun at the condition of society. It doesn’t diminish one’s sincerity, or an issue itself.

Sometimes humor is the only way — or one of the ways — people can cope or deal with a given situation. It can cover pain, or masque all kinds of personal emotion.

It is similar with some violence these days. You see random murders and people killed for no visible reason. One struggles with trying to understand why? As if we need to know why to make sense of it. Humor is different. Humor makes sense in a funny way. But we are struck at a murder that had no rational reason for it. That it keeps on happening adds to all those questions. We don’t know and may never know. Sometimes even the killer had no reason. This is where rational thought has a problem. We almost need to see why. And some people today are uncomfortable with just calling it evil. It bothers us and it should. We don’t want to lay a blanket excuse over it just to try to explain it. An excuse that may or not be true. And explaining evil may be excusing it.

Humor can punctuate events without tainting them — or at least intending to.

Does using humor on serious issues take away seriousness from them? Maybe it can; though attributing false explanations also takes away from them. We almost expect those. I question fairness in a lot circumstances and think of humor as a great equalizer. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Sometimes humor points out the absurdity. Sometimes nothing short of a punch line does it justice. (no matter how bad the event) I think we know that doesn’t mean the thing was funny or a joke. We don’t mean it is not serious.

Late night comics in recent years have gone to a whole different level. In fact, their humor has become the absurdity — and maybe even the thing that drives any of their jokes. And less, their jokes don’t seem to be funny anymore but their absurdity is obvious. Then for these intended jokes to be taken as fact or for mainstream political dialogue is another matter. Their absurd humor replaces political thought. It becomes mainstream opinion. This has been validated over and over since Trump took office.

Defamation of character?

They have basically turned Trump, or what he is about, into a joke. I get the joke part and we make jokes about Hillary. But that is different, no one loses sight of the seriousness of the threat she represents. We still understand all her real flaws. Still we use humor to poke fun at or take the edge off the hyper-serious nature — seriousness she imbues on herself. We don’t lose sight of the greater issue. The fears and concern so big that humor can be a coping mechanism because we cannot see or visualize the whole extent. It is beyond simple description — and breaks all past comparisons. So you see there is a difference. Their political objective is to reduce Trump to an absurd caricature

But these days the joke is the entire issue. The left turns the joke into reality, instead of vice versa. Humor is used as ridicule, and the left does ridicule as a political weapon well. In fact, the purpose of it is to bury or lose sight of the truth and reality.

See there is a proper purpose for humor as hyperbole. It is also a tool. It points out the error through exaggeration. Again, that is not to lose sight of the truth. It is not to try to turn hyperbole into literal reality. The Bible uses hyperbole for emphasis. The object is not to make hyperbole a fact. We are also supposed to know and see the difference.

But then when Trump uses hyperbole or exaggerates something, the truth slayers run out to correct any errors. Yet they have accepted their fictional character of Trump as reality. Trump, off the cuff, uses a lot of rhetorical tools. That is why the left likes it, they busy themselves pointing out any perceived inaccuracies. Funny how they don’t “factcheck” themselves or their depiction of Trump and coverage.

We are in an era when reality has no value to the left. Into that void they have put narrative, and perception has become their only reality. So when humor is applied, it is taken as perception — which it is — but then taken as fact or reality. The narrative rules and protecting that narrative becomes their chief mission. Humor is not humor, it is now reality. That narrative drives their politics, even moreso than they drive the narrative.

Right Ring | Bullright

Leave it to left to define Roseanne

After throwing his own family under the bus, as the typical Trump -supporting, racist-type family, this NYT columnist says about Roseanne’s show and Trump-supporters:

Read here.

“The dark underbelly of the white, working-class, the intolerance that permeates so much of their lives, is completely absent, and that absence can serve a dangerous purpose: to reinforce the delusion that they’re actually supporting somebody like Donald Trump for honorable reasons.”

But this deserves commentary. It seems so easy for them to try to shove (no pound) Trump supporters into some stereotype but it doesn’t work. That’s probably what frustrates them. It is a delusion, he says, and nothing about their support is honorable.

Rather their view is some distilled elite, deceptive, liberal projection of people that no one in the world should like. Or that is the hope. ‘Who could like these despicable people?’

Maybe he should look in the mirror and face the kind of world view he and his Liberal ilk represents. It is they who are so far off the mainstream of any political alignment with reality, much less the electorate — and proudly bigoted about it.

In truth, as Sterling might say in Twilight Zone, “he seems to have turned into a caricature of himself.” And speaking of dysfunction, how functional could these Leftists be in their families or community? It is also a ruling-class elitist mindset that asserts only they know better how to fix or run your lives. If you only follow their plantation politics.

Maybe I will do a satire on the kind of people Liberals would like to see portrayed to represent their politically correct, leftist view of how a typical family should be and live.

So says the misinformed Lefty antagonist. Trumpism, whatever you term that to be, is not an ideology. You sure missed every lesson offered in 2016.

McCabe muddies the swamp water

McCabe pens an editorial in the Washington Post. This man is sick like his mentor.

Just as disgusting as the leadership and things he was party to is this excuse of a self-defense, using the entire FBI to make it.

In totally political hubris, he broadens the case against him as one against the entire FBI. Not so. He leans heavily on the rest of the FBI to bolster him as a great leader. Not so.

“I was drawn to the FBI by nothing more complicated than a desire to do good. In 1994, I submitted a special-agent application, dreaming about what life as a criminal investigator would be like. I devoured every book I could find, and binged on news coverage of FBI investigations.”

Spare us the self-flattering noble intentions. Anyway, it is entirely possible to have noble intentions, 21 years ago, and end up as a dirty cop. That is the matter we should deal with: what happens when that person, you insist you were, turns into the one who deserved to be fired? That is the lesson or example recruits and FBI agents should heed.

“True to form, our agents, analysts and professional staff reacted as FBI people always do. They continued to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution despite the political winds — and the unprecedented attacks on us by the president and other partisans — that buffeted us.”

They continued, despite yours and Comey’s misguided malfeasance and leadership, to do their jobs. Interesting though not unexpected. That is of course what respectable people do. A government agency has to be much larger than its lone leader(s).

So then he launches into a recruitment theme on how we need good young people. Again, nothing to do with the subject of his own conduct or malfeasance.

“…to protect and defend them, honestly, justly and fairly. There is no greater responsibility, but there is no greater reward. We cannot afford for young people to be dissuaded from lives of public service by the divisive politics and partisan attacks that now so characterize our national discourse and that, I believe, played a major role in the end of my FBI career.

Apparently you are just as much of a narcissist as Comey. It is not all about you. They won’t all make their decisions based on you or Comey. But possibly in spite of you.

“Divisive politics and partisan attacks?” You and Comey dragged politics and dvissive attacks into the FBI. And then you attempt to use the cover of honor, integrity and leadership to justify it. Those qualities don’t justify what you did, they contradict it.

Ah oh… it seems it was your own corrupted political influences and motives which caused your downfall — not the political motives of others for your firing.

“There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day from your retirement.”

Maybe you should have appreciated and then respected the organization more than your personal objectives or desires. Your actions were disrespectful to the organization you led and now claim to defend. In truth, you are really only defending yourself by using the integrity of the agency — not representing it.

And guess what, Andrew-lack of candor-McCabe, you aren’t the victim here. We are.

Right Ring | Bullright

Talking vs. listening to God: who you going to believe?

This is a post I wanted to write and didn’t want to write. Wanted to because I think it is important, but didn’t want to because I know people roll their eyes or get turned off talking about faith or Christianity. Still here goes.

A few weeks ago Joy Beyhar made a comment on the View attacking Pence for his Christian beliefs. Then she was forced to apologize by Disney. But Pence, in his kind way, accepted it and urged her to make a public apology to the millions of Christians she offended. Finally, she did make a public apology on TV.

Yes, regardless of the apology, it is still worthy of discussion. IOW, that is not the end of it.

What she said was the subject of the matter.

“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Never mind the grammatical faux pas, she referred to it as mental illness. Great job offending ignorant Christians who just don’t know better. Her apology did not make it go away. She was just voicing a common misconception about Christians.

Apology — “I was raised to respect everyone’s religious faith and I fell short of that,” the comedian said. “I sincerely apologize for what I said.”

The crux of the matter is listening to God. That is the big offense here. Apparently talking to God is fine but listening to God is not. That, in a nutshell, is a common liberal opinion out there. In othe words, it would take a Christian to be offended at that because most other people would not be. No wonder we are where we are in society.

Listening to God, can it be possible that is a chief offense? Is it really the stuff of loony tunes and crazies? Nonsense, but it makes for a good sound bite.

However, it is completely backwards or reversed from Christian tradition. We talk an awful lot to God. Some people pray regularly. Funny that listening would be the problem. We do have an awesome God who not only hears but knows our hearts and intentions. You don’t fool God. Yes, we are not above error. Much of the problem is not listening.

One of the things we are taught, or learn, is the patience and discipline to listen to God. Call it waiting on Him. Remember He has the ability to speak any way He wants, whether by events or natural means or through people. But God’s message will come through if He wants it to. So then it becomes a matter of us being receptive or listening for it.

Discerning

I would actually say that the easier part is for us to talk, the harder part is to listen. If it were only us talking, it is a one way conversation. You talk to your friends, but you don’t do all the talking.(or you might not have the friend for long) And we don’t have all the answers, which is often why we turn to God. We are seeking something from Him.

God desires a personal relationship with his people. How do you have a relationship without doing some listening? In 2 Chronicles 7:14, it tells us “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

That also means we are heard. It says “seek my face.” Well, seeking is also listening, and following. Through the scriptures, prayer talking to others, we seek. Often we are seeking answers, or solutions. Shouldn’t we be open to answers, even expect them? James 1:22 — “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

Or we could try acting like one of the pundits on TV who talks over the other person blocking out their voice. How can they be listening when they shout down the other person? They ignore other people’s answers. Liberals like that method.

So talking to God is fine, but listening is not.

Just imagine how you would teach your kids then. Tell them “we want you to talk to God, pray. Just don’t ever listen to Him. See, that’s where you get into trouble.” Just like if you told your kids: “if you need help, come and talk to me. Just never listen to me or follow me. So, kids, no listening now….don’t embarrass me.” It is the same message.

This is what we get from society. Joy got a lot of laughs, seemed the crowd was with her. That’s what I expect from the secularists today. Sure they preach their religion, but when it comes to Christians? Well, just laugh at them. Okay, so I forgive her. That is the mentality though and she is not alone. They just have it exactly backwards.

Our bodies are gifts as well as our limbs. It is how we use them that matters. Reasoning is a gift and so is our conscience. It’s another way God talks to us. If we don’t listen to our conscience it would cause a problem. You would never tell someone to stop listening to their conscience. But the world and society might. Maybe peer pressure tells kids to ignore their conscience. Do we tell kids to do that? And the world thinks we’re crazy?

 

Flashback of another famous ‘comedian’: (Christmas day)

Right Ring | Bullright

Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

Orwellian Antifa in perspective

An op-ed describes the proper perspective of Antifa terrorists running rampant across America. From American Majority. Orwellian.

Op-Ed: The real threat to our republic is the Orwellian Antifa

August 30, 2017 — By Ned Ryun — in The Hill

Over the past few months, we have finally entered the fully realized historical revisionism promised in George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the motto, “Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future,” was central to shaping the book’s dystopian world. In the book, history was continually being rewritten and re-promulgated to meet the political necessities of the moment. There was no history to be remembered, let alone lessons to be learned.

For all the talk of Trumpian bluster or exaggeration, there is only one group that seeks to systematically and violently achieve its goals here in the United States on a broad scale: the so-called “anti-fascist” movement, now commonly called “Antifa.” And the goal? It’s not “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist” as they attempt to portray themselves. It’s the systematic elimination of free speech, free assembly, and free thought via any means necessary, including violent protest, the media and Orwellian revisionism.

It is the imposition of a perverse type of intolerance based on Marxist and Chinese communist values that, it turns out, is far more welcome and pervasive within the Democrat Party of Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) than neo-Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists are in the Republican Party. The gunman, James Hodgkinson, who shot Rep. Steve Scalise and four others in Alexandria was a habitual Antifa website visitor and advocate and Sanders volunteer. Even Democrat vice presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) son has been identified as an Antifa activist.

Yet, the media would have us believe that it is the white supremacist movement that is the real threat to our republic. Consider that most media estimates put the Antifa movement, largely built out of the “Occupy” movement of 2008-2010, at more than 200,000 members. The Southern Poverty Law Center, on the other hand, puts the number of Klu Klux Klan members at about 6,000 KKK …in a country of almost 330 million. But actions speak volumes compared to mere numbers.

The vandalized statue of Christopher Columbus? Antifa. The statue torn down in Durham, N.C.? Antifa. The violence in Charlottesville? Antifa. The violence in Seattle? Antifa. Not excusing the vile nature of the white supremacist protest, but it was a licensed march that remained comparatively nonviolent, albeit troubling, until, as one eyewitness described it, “It started raining balloons filled with urine, feces, paint, burning chemicals & boards with nails driven into them.” …/

Read the entire op-ed: The Hill

Source: American Majority https://americanmajority.org/blog-2/op-ed-the-real-threat-to-our-republic-is-the-orwellian-antifa/

Charlie Daniels getting it right again

Charlie Daniels

By Charlie Daniels | August 7, 2017 — CNS News

 

Politics is no longer public service. It is a jaded, high stakes game, played by power drunk career politicians who have only two priorities in their lives, and the prosperity and security of the United States is not one of them. Reelection and power have taken the place of patriotism and honor in an atmosphere where betrayal is acceptable and common sense is as scarce as unicorns.

Why did members of Congress try to make their voters believe that they felt the pain caused by Obamacare? Why did they lead us to believe it was “We’re all in this together,” knowing full well that 70 percent of their cost was subsidized, so they could buy the very best coverage with the lowest deductibles at a fraction of the cost that an ordinary citizen would pay for a high deductible, low coverage plan?

Folks, the reason is simple, those folks, with very few exceptions, don’t give a d— about us or the country. All they care about is winning, and they’d sell your whole generation down the drain if it meant they could keep their ivory towers for another season.

In fact, they’ve already done it. /…….

Continue at: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/charlie-daniels-politics-no-longer-public-service/

Despite all the talk from the critters in the swamp — breathing swamp gas — the last thing on earth they ever want is “a level playing field” with the people. Nope, they need the deck staked in every way against us: from campaign financing to legislating over not by the people. As Ted Poe of Texas always says, “and that’s just the way it is.”

The problem is not only that self-serving estabos of Swampland declared war on the people; but the greater problem is that, until Trump, no one was really fighting back. We weren’t getting anywhere in the battle. It always came up with the gains to them. Funny.

Now they are mad that we went a different way in 2016, against their severe protests and everything they could throw in our way. They’re expert obstructionists of the Swamp.

After the latest Senate failure, Mitch McConnell informs voters it is only our perception things are moving too slowly and aren’t getting done. We don’t understand the ebb and flow in the swamp ecosystem. Then he blames it on Trump’s inexperience. Where is his experience and what’s it worth? What happened to his “one-term” goal in ’09?

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

RightRing | Bullright

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright