War Hero Status: hands off McCain

Last night, again, CNN trotted out their venom for this president. Not presidents in general, just this president in particular. The subject, of course, was John McCain. The media never seems to tire of defending McCain. It was over comments Trump made.

@realDonaldTrump

Spreading the fake and totally discredited Dossier “is unfortunately a very dark stain against John McCain.” Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel. He had far worse “stains” than this, including thumbs down on repeal and replace after years of campaigning to repeal and replace!
4:46 PM – 16 Mar 2019

@MeghanMcCain

Meghan McCain Retweeted Donald J. Trump

“No one will ever love you the way they loved my father…. I wish I had been given more Saturday’s with him. Maybe spend yours with your family instead of on twitter obsessing over mine?”
5:28 PM – 16 Mar 2019

In this episode of this long running series, Craig Shields opined that whenever people feel compelled to mention the Nazis or slavery in a conversation, they should stop right there. Don’t do it, he said, it will not go well. (never stopped Democrats from mentioning it)

To that firmly made point, Don Lemon chimed in with a remark adding war heroes to it, meaning like McCain. Just don’t do it, Don repeated. April Ryan was sitting there nodding in agreement to Lemon, rolling her eyes a few times shrugging as to why anyone should try to criticize or talk about McCain. Got the message.

But that brings up the point. We cannot mention John McCain in less than glowing terms. He is a war hero, after all, Lemon kept saying. So he was, and that makes him supposedly off limits to any criticism of him or his record.

Shields already said he had major disagreements with McCain because of the McCain-Fiengold Bill on campaign finance reform that attacked free speech. To the suggestion of disagreement, April Ryan rolled her eyes and shook her head back and forth. Nope, apparently one cannot even disagree on policy. No place for that.

Then Don Lemon added like your mother always told you, “don’t speak ill of the dead.” Now that is two reasons you cannot criticize McCain. First, he is a war hero and second, he is now dead. Yep that definitely puts him off the table. Bite your tongue.

So that sets up the scenario, those are the rules! But think about that a minute. Are we not now a generation that is taking issue with all kinds of people for what they did, especially even if they are also war heroes? Yes, we are. We have seen a string of it, tearing down statues and taking names off buildings all because they contributed to an intolerable policy. That means their war record status as a hero is post-facto expunged now.

I thought, you don’t have to look very far. A few examples popped into my head of Robert E Lee, Andrew Jackson and Benedict Arnold. Do they have something in common? (you could pick others too) They were heroes in their own right. Even Benedict Arnold had hero status before going to West Point and then selling out to become a traitor. He’s probably the most stellar example. But we do criticize him. I mean his name is forever smeared as a traitor. Yet he was a formidable soldier who Washington commended.

The point is all these are thoroughly critiqued today as villains of some type. But they were heroes too. Any statues of them would be removed. Whatever good they may have done is now undone by what we know about their actions or tangential support for policies. It doesn’t bother these McCain defenders one bit to bash or condemn those one-time heroes. In fact, it is good to make people aware of their wrongs and associated sins.

Look, I know no one is perfect. That is not my point. Actually, we are all flawed people. We may do great things and still have bad in our lifetime. These days though it is permissible to throw the man’s whole legacy out because of a stain. They are erasing our history the same way. But they will not find anyone perfect. We had founders that owned slaves. Does that blot them out of history? Should we sanitize history with only approved people?

They take the Jefferson Davis statue down and others. All that is good to these people; they endorse more of that cleansing. Except leave John McCain alone. “Leave him alone!”

There is another thing about McCain. Sure there is lots to criticize there. Lucky he never did become president because we know how they are treated — from Nixon to Obama. What about that? They were all still presidents. Yet they are routinely criticized all the time. (especially Republicans) They say but this man, McCain, must be exempt from any criticism. Is that fair? If he would have become president, he would have had criticism from both sides picking on his legacy, much worse than this.

I am getting very sick of how every time someone criticizes McCain, out come his preening guards calling you disrespectful, to remind everyone he is a war hero – End! No one can say a negative word about him. Trump does not follow their special McCain exempt rule.

Right Ring | Bullright

Food guy goes sweet and sour in Chinese comment

P/C police found another atrocity to chase, this time in the food isle. Suit up, pilgrims.

Background: renowned food show guy Andrew Zimern is opening an upscale Chinese restaurant in Minnesota, but he sort of trash talked Chinese fast food restaurants. A grievous offense by calling them “horseshit restaurants.” (He has since apologized)

Okay food critiques or political swordsmiths, take your shot. The question here is: is the guy right or wrong in what he said and what he is doing?

Does he sink or swim on those comments? Should he? Should he be run off and boycotted — if not burned at the stake? (I have a feeling neither one is a good solution)

See the video interview(@ 8 min) in the piece if you want the full context. He sure is taking heat for it. Some compare it to cultural appropriation. Some say let the market decide.

Andrew Zimmern Sparks Outrage With Chinese Restaurant Comments

by Bruce Haring | Deadline –December 29, 2018 — Interview by Fast Company

The man who eats strange foods for a living now has to eat some humble pie.

Bizarre Foods host and celebrity chef Andrew Zimmern has caused a firestorm in the Asian-American and foodie communities over his comments that Chinese food in the Midwest is served in “horseshit restaurants.” Zimmern made the comments to promote his own Midwest Chinese restaurant chain, Lucky Cricket, in an interview with Fast Company. The first outlet for Lucky Cricket just opened in a Minneapolis suburb mall.

“I think I’m saving the souls of all the people from having to dine at these horses - - t restaurants masquerading as Chinese food that are in the Midwest,” said Zimmern.

More: https://deadline.com/2018/12/andrew-zimmern-sparks-outrage-with-chinese-restaurant-comments-1202527169/

 

Call me old fashioned or not, I don’t think his identity should dictate whether or not he can cook Chinese food. But here is some other food for thought, I notice Walmart now has General Tso’s chicken at its hot foods counter. I’m pretty sure they didn’t hire a Chinese guy to come in to make it. He does have a point about their cookie cutter menu.

But I see other large supermarket chains that delegated space at the deli to sell local Chinese food by Asians. I don’t know where Walmart gets its General Tso’s chicken.

Is it off limits for a white guy to open say a soul food place? How about a northern city person cooking Southern food; a non-Latino cooking Latin food? Or does the fact that he is doing it commercially for a profit business have something to do with it? But is he right?

I’ve already seen liberals drop the cleaver on him and promise to boycott it — presumably until he starts cooking something culturally aligned with his identity as a white guy.

You decide if the guy and his restaurant chain should survive, or be nipped in the bud.

If it was so offensive, then why did the (obvious liberal) interviewer not stand up, say “that’s it,” shove the table to the side and walk away? Isn’t that what the identity and word police would demand he do? Or was publicly skewering him the main dish?

I say “pass the duck sauce and give him a break.” But that’s just white guy me.

A publicity stunt or now stunted publicity?

Of course my other conspiracy theory is still that there are only 5 Chinese guys who make all that food for all Chinese American restaurants. But that’s another issue.

Right Ring | Bullright

How To Be More Politically Correct

Due to all the sensitivities these days, I thought I would do my part.

Well, I finally vowed to start being more politically correct now.

I am going to remind everyone that people need to stop appropriating liberals’ culture… because they don’t like it. And definitely not to do it around or in the voting booth.

I even feel better now.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Culture of Investment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Injustice of Injustice

I could just as easily call it Injustice of Social Justice, but that might be too ironic. Though it is pretty much the same thing.

It is my rantzilla for the week. Why have we allowed the left, or anyone, to hijack the word injustice? I’m not sure but it is clear they have. They also redefine social justice.

First, I believe injustice is a problem too. As just a few examples: I think injustice is protests turning violent, destroying property or hurting people; and cop killing. They certainly are not justice. Shutting down highways is injustice; shutting down government for vengeance because you lost the election is injustice; opening a counterintelligence investigation on a political opponent because he threatens your election is injustice; voter fraud or trying to rig elections is injustice; labeling people Nazis because they don’t agree with you is an injustice; I believe taking a knee to disrespect the Anthem or the flag is injustice. I think fighting for the right to abortion on demand is injustice. Labeling abortion safe is an injustice. Finally, defending the indefensible is injustice.

I see lawlessness as injustice – not as some puritanical civil disobedience redefined as social justice. And many of those things could be called immoral too. Breaking the law is injustice. I don’t accept some of the common, trivial interpretations as injustice. Modern definitions of the Left would say anything is injustice that doesn’t agree with their agenda. Injustice, as the Left uses it, is politically charged — like everything else they touch.

If this is what they consider winning, what is losing?

On the other hand, I also believe in social justice. I think government has a moral obligation in the law. I think a deterrent is part of the motivation for a law. I don’t think social justice gives you some right to commit injustice. I don’t think sensing an injustice gives you the sovereign right to break the peace, or disrupt another innocent person because you have a grievance. I think self-governing is a form of social justice. Free markets and economics are a kind of social justice. Humanitarian activism can be a type of social justice.

Social justice, to the left, is the kind of thing that can lead a person to believe they have the right to set off bombs to kill innocent people because they think government is acting immorally. Or to gun down Republicans on a ball field because they are political enemies. That is how the left sees social justice – you define it. And if you happen to be in the way of their social justice, you are not supposed to be offended if you are injured or someone is killed in their path to social justice. That’s the breaks.

But I do feel very offended.

I am offended by an illegal alien who was deported 5 times only to come back again and kill a fellow citizen. I am offended by lawlessness. I don’t believe “social justice” should be encouraging more lawlessness. I don not believe social justice is preventing hundreds of people to see a ball game, or keeping people from a store or restaurant. I do not think publishing people’s phone numbers to harass them is an act of social justice. A case can be made it is injustice. I don’t believe breaking the law, particularly when it hurts someone or destroys their property or livelihood, can be spun as “social justice.”

But in the words of the left, their slogan is no justice no peace.” Do you notice the implication buried in that? You shall not have peace as long as I have a grievance. Because I feel a grievance, I have the right to do whatever I want including to disturb the peace – and brand it social justice. They feel they have a moral ground that whenever they claim or perceive something unjust, then they have a right to commit injustice.

I read a call to action from a Bishop. It encouraged people to ‘do something’ in view of separated children on the border. Whatever you are motivated personally to do, in the name of the children, is acceptable. That usually means good deeds. But what if someone’s idea of social justice is revenge? What if it is civil disobedience? It does not say. (I’m not saying all civil disobedience is wrong. The reason it is done is a determining factor.)

Those church clergy also want you to send money to a legal fund to help parents or children. Why, to defend them for breaking the law? But they need our help. What are we helping? If you are doing that, are you encouraging more of that behavior, more lawlessness? At what point do you become complicit in their behavior? What about the consequences of your social actions; are you responsible for the consequences?

Every time I hear no justice no peace, I cringe. Selfishness seems like their real motivation. Now there are people who feel as long as they are not content, nor should you be. In other words: you have no rights as long as I /we claim to be victims.

Is that their idea of social justice? Yes. Social justice is all about getting what one wants. But the dirty little secret is the Left can never be satisfied. That is their whole game plan, not being satisfied and always claiming to be a grieved victim.

Here is my other problem. I mentioned different ways I am offended. Those are serious things I think justifiable. But when I hear the left complain about being offended, often they are outraged by things conservatives say. That is enough to send them over the cliff. Think about the contrast.

Roseanne said something on Twitter, wham, she loses her top-rated TV show. Someone on Fox says something they don’t like, even if true, and they demand a list of his/her sponsors to get the person off the air. See how this really works? Your freedom of speech is the chief offense here. Shutting down that freedom is their chief objective. You would think freedom of speech would be a cause worth defending. Peter Fonda says something outrageous on Twitter and it is just outrageous, but no consequences. The left will defend that as freedom.

I have legitimate social concerns and they trivialize being victimized to what someone says or thinks about them. Thought crimes. Then they use the cover and camouflage of words like “injustices” and Social Justice to disguise what they are doing. Social Justice today is defined by the Left and normally means what they want it to mean.

What does Social Justice mean? According to Heritage: (see)

Abstract: For its proponents, “social justice” is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular “progressive” thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.

I know, some sticklers for definitions would quibble with my loose use of social justice. My conscience could prevent posting this but I had to. You can decide. The concept of social justice is being refashioned and redefined almost weekly to suit the Left. It is what they make it. As Liberals are wont to do, they often take something and twist or redefine it to fit their objective — their agenda. Is it any wonder it appears different from what it once was, into a political tool? It is very much about economics today. The left’s. Nazifying large swaths of political enemies becomes social justice.

As much of our current culture, social justice escalated its evolution in the 60’s, assisted by some clergy, into a Marxism meld. The influence remains. Our definition became the problem. But words like “Social Justice warrior” do not convince me of pure motivations.

Right Ring | Bullright

Swamp Economy of Politics

Many people laughed at Bill Maher wanting the economy to crash, but it does show something more sinister.

Let’s not forget that the left politicized every department of government under Obama. Let’s not forget he weaponized much of it against his political opponents. Isn’t that what the Left wants government for?

So is it such a leap then that they are wishing for economic collapse to hurt Trump or drive him out, and hurt those supporting him? Not at all.

However, it says a modicum of truth about the left today. Forget all what liberals say they are about and care about. Like everything else, they want an economy politicized and weaponized against their political opponents. That is the economy they have in mind.

The next time they lecture us that they would be better stewards of the economy, they have revealed what they mean — an economy subservient to their political agenda.

They already showed us in all their protests and boycotts how they want to use the economy, to hurt their political enemies or reward their friends and allies. Just that Maher makes it clear. That is what the social justice warriors mean. It is only another extension of their ideological core and lust for power. Goal: a fully politicized, weaponized economy.

Right Ring | Bullright

Female Mutilation takes a twist in media

Washington Post “Yeah, Buts” Female Genital Mutilation

IPT News
June 6, 2017

Recent comments by Dar al-Hijrah Imam Shaker Elsayed endorsing female genital mutilation as “the honorable thing to do” reportedly is prompting calls within the congregation for Elsayed’s ouster.

The Falls Church, Va.-based mosque is among the area’s largest, so the conflict attracted Washington Post coverage Monday evening. But reporter Abigail Hauslohner repeatedly lost focus, cramming in references to the “right wing” organization which flagged the Elsayed video and to increased hate crimes targeting Muslims.

The undoctored video showing Elsayed’s comments about female sexuality was posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which focuses on Islamist extremist rhetoric throughout the world. MEMRI is a non-partisan organization that has been quoted by international media thousands of times and also works with governments that span the political spectrum. In the interest of disclosure, Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson served on MEMRI’s board for several years until recently resigning. Accusing MEMRI of being right wing — in a deliberate effort to discredit the widely praised international organization – tells you more about the reporter’s agenda than anything else.

The tape accurately reflects Elsayed’s comments – Dar al-Hijrah acknowledged this by issuing an apology. It vehemently rejected as offensive Elsayed’s claim that failure to clip a girl’s clitoris leads to “hyper-sexuality.”

But that wasn’t enough. After reporting about calls for Elsayed’s firing, Hauslohner again diverted a story about an extremist statement from an imam to an entirely separate issue.

Yeah, speaking as a religious community leader, he said something horrifying, the article implies. But, other people do horrible things, too!

Hauslohner invoked hate crimes statistics and last week’s murders in Portland of two men who defended a hijab-clad woman and her friend from a white supremacist lunatic. And she cherry-picked one overheated Twitter comment, noting that the writer’s avatar was a Trump-Pence campaign button.

That was relevant. Previous Elsayed statements showing a pattern of radical thought, however, were not mentioned.

In addition to his FGM advice, Elsayed dove headlong into anti-Semitism when he recently preached that peace with Jews is impossible, because they “will not deal with you fairly and squarely,” another MEMRI dispatch reports. Deception “is in the genes, it is in the blood,” he said in the video posted to the mosque’s YouTube channel Friday. Jews “have killed three prophets before, and they sent the fourth to the Romans to kill him or crucify him.”

Speaking to a student group in 2013, he said Muslims were first in line when there is a need for giving – for things like prayer, charity and community service. “But,” he added, “they are last if anything is being distributed, unless it is arms for jihad,” Elsayed said. “We are the first to rush and run to defend our community and defend ourselves. The enemies of Allah are lining up; the question for us is, ‘Are we lining, or are we afraid because, because they may call us terrorists.'”

In 2004, while serving as a top official with the Muslim American Society (MAS), Elsayed praised Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. Al-Banna, who created a movement bent on creating a global Islamic state, offered “the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life,” Elsayed said.

The article’s focus was on the Brotherhood’s secret American network. MAS, the Tribune reported, was the Brotherhood’s U.S. branch.

Two years earlier, Elsayed defended suicide bombers and the reverence they receive as “martyrs.” Speaking in Arabic at a conference MAS organized with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), he decried the label “suicide bombers” as unfair. “Nobody who is not Muslim has any right to decide for us, we the Muslims, whose is a martyr or another. We as Muslims will decide that. It is in-house business.”

When Muslim honor is violated, he added, “Jihad is a must on every man, every child and every woman. [They have to make Jihad] with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand they should fight with it. And if they don’t have a weapon in their hands, then [they will fight] unarmed.”

Shaker Elsayed is the story, or at least he should be. The Post’s “Yeah, but” approach deprived readers of significant and relevant context and hid the fact that, for 15 years, he has harbored and espoused the most radical ideology.

Original article at IPT https://www.investigativeproject.org/6234/washington-post-yeah-buts-female-genital

[The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions.]

When the left desperately try to frame even this problem as some attack on Muslims or Islam is too rich. The press will do it for them, no problem. So it’s us, the sharia and Islam resisters that are the problem — not what they are actually doing. Hard to believe that media in a free country would choose to take that route.

Susan Rice’s road to fortune

I would like to know why Susan Rice hasn’t been unmasked the same way she did others, like was done to Michael Flynn? Where was all the vetting information on Rice?

She was famous as the go to liar for hire under Obama, a job that paid political dividends but the salary wasn’t close to 7 figures. How come more attention hasn’t been on her, I mean aside from scandals she was instrumental in?

So how did she go from a nest egg of 20 million to 50 million in 5 years? Inquiring minds would like to know. Measly government and a UN diplomat salary doesn’t pay that well. Great work if you can get it, eh?

Rice only spent a couple years in middle management in the private sector. Other than that she’s been “all in” in politics and government — or public service as they like to call it.

So make 30 million in around five years? I thought only Clintons could do that.

See unmasking on Kevin Jackson’s The Black Sphere

Get ready for Terrorists Lives Matter

Terrorists Lives Matter is now cranking up the protestors against Trump’s anti-terrorism Executive Order that bans and restricts travel from certain countries. From JFK to the Statue of Liberty, to the editorial pages, leftists take to protesting.

Gee, could it be a useable voting bloc? The professors of crisis are hard at work.

And the activist news media falls right in line to advocate for terrorism. Then they start with the “but this is a recruiting tool for ISIS” hogwash. Any hope that the left will wake up and see daylight is vastly exaggerated. At least they’ve been exposed for who they are. Don’t these people know that terrorism/terrorists have been extorting our laws for decades? No, they don’t care. But the left desperately tries to super-spin it as a gift to ISIS playing right into their hands

The people who advocated for Unconstitutional Executive Orders before, now defiantly protest legal ones. Even notable law professor Johnathon Turley said precedent of law is very much in Trump’s favor for his actions. That doesn’t stop the ACLU.

Suddenly Trump’s Executive Order causes the left to bend further for terrorists’ agenda. Yet we are the bad guys? Give me a freaking break. The word “resist” is now their slogan. Wow, instead of encouraging and welcoming terrorists into the country, the president tries to halt it and they cry resist. But we’re helping terrorists?

Hints of this came in December, when the black liberation groups honored terrorists like the one on OSU campus as victims. It seems like just name any anti-life issue or event and leftists can get behind and rally to it. And they’ll find a way to justify their support. Since everything is reversed now, they will support the tyranny of anarchy over the rule of law. Terrorists or shooters become victims and police become the problem. A border wall is offensive but illegal immigration is not. Anything opposing their agenda is called racism and condemned.

A two teir system has emerged. If you are an illegal “undocumented” alien, you qualify for special protections and immunities from the law. Whole cities now stand up and say they’ll go to any lengths to secure and protect illegals from the rule of law — even if they commit crimes. See, it is completely backwards. Problem after problem and issue after issue.

An entire city has to be inconvenienced and held hostage because of their agenda to support illegals. The hell with lawful citizens, special evolving protections need to be granted for law breakers and illegal aliens. And then they blame the root cause for their unlawful situation on the rest of America. How fair and just is that?

Before their favorite line sprouts from everywhere: as I have said over and over, it is not about “who we are” — it is all about who they (terrorists and Islamists) are.

What the heck, another week under Trump and another protest. I’d call that “winning’.

RightRing | Bullright

So you want to be a liberal

I thought it might be good to have a piece that describes the nuances of how to become a liberal. Many younger people might be trying to figure out what it is. It’s not for everyone.

I will describe some of the proper ethics to today’s liberalism — not to be confused with the old classical liberals a century ago. The two aren’t compatible.

Get acquainted with ideas of modern, post sixties, liberaldom. Identity, identity, identity.

The golden rule is every identity group has their own formula to follow to be a proper, politically correct, liberal. It’s all about who you are, first. So it is very important to know who you are. Most of it, and your view, is based on who you are. Identity matters a lot.

At this point, you may want to look into the mirror and familiarize yourself with: skin color, your heritage, sexual identity, age, your religion, status in this country, the language you speak, type of education you have, the school(s) you went to, the degree you have, your career choice, your type of employment, union you belong to, organizations, how much money you make, whether you are married, single or living with someone, the children you have, their ages, their races, the kind of home you live in or neighborhood, what denomination you are, or what your other beliefs are… just for a few things to start.

You may think of more categories later. Extra credit — good trainee organizers learn to be naturally creative at finding new categories. That all matters to being a good liberal.

Get used to that group identity because it is all you’ll be seen as, in liberal circles — or cocktail parties and social rallies you will attend. Liberals learn to stay in their own lane.

Now to really be mainstream on main street, you’ll have to learn this simple formula: your identity is the key to your role and identity in liberaldom. Don’t leave home without it.

Practical applications

If you listen to liberal activists, they’ll tell you to “check your white privilege at the door.” However, as is with liberaldom, things are often different than what liberals say publicly. Some would call those lies, but you don’t have to worry about that in liberaldom. You don’t exactly check white privilege, you punctuate it. You can’t check your identity.

One of the most import things today is the race card. To use it the right way, like the tool it is, you have to know how it works. Different rules apply to different groups.

If you are black, you generally play the race card by promoting your race and culture. Then you denounce structural racism, which is everywhere. If you are white, it is the opposite. You play it by acknowledging and apologizing for being white, first. You must go through initiation. It’s like a fraternity, you take an oath to preserve black or minorities’ culture, while demonstrating guilt for your perceived white privilege.

Understand if you are white, you will never be able to live down or say anything that removes the stain of your whiteness nor its stain on society. That’s important because you must assume responsibility for anything ever done to another race or minority, on behalf of anyone who was white in the history of this country. You can never overcome that damage, and no amount of penitence will fix it. For instance, your posture is to feel guilt while blacks’ is to be proud. Then you can move on to the general denunciation structural racism.

Feel free to play the race card within those boundaries.

Now you have learned the simple pillar on which everything else in liberaldom is built. You must see everything, culturally and politically, through the lens of identities. There are other categories to also use but identity is the basic. It grows on you.

You can then broaden out to apply this identity formula toward all political opponents. Then you can add Alinsky rules and tactics toward your enemy. When attacking your target, pick apart his/her positions by singling out people by groups or categories. Use the identity of anyone or everyone to your own advantage. That is what they are for.

The Mafia has the Omerta pledge, while Libs have political correctness. P/C rules.
One final rule is to defend liberaldom at all costs. No exceptions or exemptions.

RightRing | Bullright

Muslim woman, subway ‘victim’ made it all up…surprise

Fake news alert: No assault, no victim, no news…. no phony racist attackers.

NY Daily News

She made it all up — and now she’s under arrest.

The Muslim college student who claimed she was harassed on the subway by three men who shouted “Donald Trump,” called her a terrorist and tried to rip her hijab off her head has admitted to detectives that she concocted the entire story, the Daily News has learned.

“Nothing happened — and there was no victim.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/muslim-woman-reported-trump-supporter-attack-made-story-article-1.2910944?cid=bitly

Where are the people who are worried about fake news. How about fake victims?

So her freedom of speech apparently includes filing false police reports.

Hey, fake news media, I got your “fake news” right here!

Political overload: it’s everywhere

The momentum of political speak — protests, lectures, and political correctness — has built to an all time high. Is anywhere politics free? Seems All lines have now been crossed.

If you go to a football game, chances are you could be treated to a political message of some kind. “Bend a knee if you agree” to dissent. Go to a dinner and you might find protestors lined up somewhere along the way. Go to any community event, people may complain about the state of politics or about the “nasty election” season.

Turn on TV to watch some comedy relief and you could be inundated with a political narrative — funny or not depending on the comic’s political point of view.

Now if you spend the outrageous amount to see a Broadway play, they’ll kindly lecture you about politics and diversity. “We are the stormin’ norm now.” But don’t misunderstand it for a “conversation” because there is only one side with one point of view, theirs.

Have children in school? Well, they’ve already been lectured about global warming politics and that whole agenda. But now chances are your child may be encouraged to join the march against the duly elected president-elect. There could be counselors on staff to deal with students’ trauma and grief from the election.

Go to a basketball game just to know the owner(Cuban) is immersed in politics and currently boycotting the Trump hotels. Don’t be surprised what you may hear. Or you could be treated to gestures by players about Black Lives Matter. This is an issue alone, all-star players pushing a political agenda. (where are the days of just sports?)

Go to campus and you might hear or see an anti-Trump protest. It may institutionally support anti-Israel positions of the Left. Or it could be naming itself a sanctuary campus to harbor illegal aliens.

Going to church is always safe from politics or activism, right? Maybe not. You could be lectured about corrosive politics and “can’t we all just get along?” If its a liberal denomination, he or she might preach on the socialism of Jesus.

Work is usually a safe zone, right? But an international company announced if you support Trump, or don’t like their frequent anti-Trump statements, then you ought to resign.

Many people say Thanksgiving might be trigger zones for politics — if you can avoid the subject, which sort of depends on other family members cooperation or not.

And the youth today talk about trigger warnings from conservative points of view or Republican speakers. Trigger warnings about offensive “hate speech” are everywhere. So everyone else’s free speech must be curbed.

Any major event is now a political target for terrorism as well as the left. So there is politics of protest and politics of fear. Black Friday? What are all these people lobbying us for? It is mostly offensive to me but that doesn’t matter… the point is to force it on you. If we are offended it is called ‘free speech,’ while our dissent is called ‘hate speech.’

I haven’t even mentioned something as simple as watching the news, which really is more like non-stop political messaging now. Newscasts are littered with the liberals and talking points. And that innate bias in any coverage. Look at the newspapers at the store? Talk about triggering, outrage is in. Headlines are meant to inflame.

I thought the height was Pence going to a play and getting booed on the way in, then lectured before he can leave. Then he gets protested in the street. Spending all that money on tickets doesn’t prevent them from trying to ram their politics down your throat.

Now something as simple as driving to work or going to the store could turn you into a pawn in some leftist protest, caught in their web of “civil disobedience” and held hostage. Just don’t protest an abortion clinic. That will get you trouble. The Left is in a perpetual state of protest. Never mind how much it offends you or your freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Time for a word about Deplorables

Occasionally Democrats come right out and tell you what they thinnk of people, or in this case the voters. They remove the shallow mask then they dig in.

That’s exactly what Hillary did with her “basket of deplorables” comment. She only excused herself from the term half. Well, Hillary what part is it then that you despise as deplorable?

Of course you would never hear her condemn the BDS supporters which are a big chunk of her base. That’s a real question. But she did pander to AIPAC that she disagreed with the BDS movement. Anyone really believe that? When it is a base issue of their platform, I doubt she would ever do that.

Hillary went to the deplorable level in a practiced line she thought was clever. But it shows they have no problem attacking Americans. So she is such a Basket of Desporation that her campaign lashes out to attack voters — not only her. Bill campaigned for Hillary calling people racists, particularly southerners. (interesting that they are trying to roll Georgia into Clinton’s column) Then bubbling Bubba went to Pennsylvania to attack “coal people.” Then Hillary made up a whole list of deplorables, trying to cover them all.

As Bill Clinton put it, the coal people voted for him twice, now they bash Hillary and Obama. So they deserve to be attacked and slurred. Anyone who opposes Hillary will have a name thrown at them, just as Obama did the bitter gun toting, Bible thumpers, then repeatedly bashed Christians. Why any Christians support Obamoa is beyond me.

Then we are called Birthers, and now we are grouped into the Alt-Right as their latest label if we are critical thinkers who think outside mainstream media parameters. So take your pick for names. Like Peppermint Farm said a while back, there is a list of names and phobias for us and more on the way. However, they succeeded in defining themselves.

This is the elite establishment view and nothing new. They despise the people especially when they are in their way or a threat to their power. We become names and charicatures. That’s what they think of us. We are the scourge. Obama poked fun at us that we just don’t understand — we are dummies — if we disagree with them. We are stupid, uneducated, racists and bigots since they want to define our sinister motives for opposing them.

We’ve even been called names from the right. Some Repubs play right into the Left’s script and do the work for Dems. Never Trumpers called us names, even appear as headliners in Hillary ads condemning Trump and his supporters. Now there is even a Never Trumper pac running ads against Trump.

So we’ve seen it across the board. Tea Partiers were a pejorative. Racism happens to be their favorite. Now Dems have gone beyond that to labeling people unwitting agents of the Russian Federation. We are called ignorant traitors for questioning Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy. You can’t get much lower than that. Though some Republicans have proved to be willing dupes of the Marxist left — too masny.

RightRing | Bullright

Patriotism gets bombed with red glares

Guess where?

Ashamed to be an American? Towns crack down on American pride

By Todd Starnes Published July 01, 2016 | Fox News

The Star-Spangled Banner survived the rocket’s red glare and bombs bursting in air – only to face a modern-day threat – silly town ordinances and petty bureaucrats.

I’m not sure if it’s an epidemic of anti-American nincompoopery sweeping across the fruited plain or if it’s a general lack of common sense. Maybe it’s both. I’ll let you be the judge of that.

In Lexington, South Carolina Marine veteran Bob Michaelis was told to remove a patriotic display from his mattress company.

Mr. Michaelis lined the front of his store with American flags – to honor our troops.

“We got 10 flags up,” he told television station WIS. “I thought maybe it was about time we return the patriotism in America. There’s not enough of it. It seems to be lost.”

But instead of congratulating Bob’s patriotism, the town fathers dispatched the law. He was informed that the flags violated an ordinance.

“The town of Lexington says they got to come down because there’s an ordinance in place,” he said.

The town administrator told WIS they did not issue Bob a citation nor did they tell him to take down the flags. …/

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/01/ashamed-to-be-american-towns-crack-down-on-american-pride.html?intcmp=trending

Welcome to the 4th of July under ‘new and revised’ Amerika. Not on campus at Berkeley but on main street in South Carolina. The silence from Liberals will be deafening.

No, Libs, patriotism is not an “emotional thing.” But the new and revised America is driven by Emotionalism and P/C BS. Where are the lists of “most P/C places in the US?”

So LGBT pride is in — American pride is out of fashion. Didn’t know it had a shelf life.

Right

Wrong

 

Rev Graham disputes Obama’s gun control agenda

What’s wrong with our politicians? President @BarackObama blames guns for the #Orlandoshooting. This is ridiculous https://t.co/Iz84M1pwX2

— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) June 18, 2016

See: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-isis/

Dir. Brennan:

“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”

“We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks,” he said. “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”

“They’re taking advantage of the liberties that we’ve fought so hard to defend,” he said.

But Comander-Divert-and-Deny is worried about guns. Never mind immigration, border or refugee crises. Priorities. He has already disrupted our law enforcement process and supplanted political correctness throughout. He ignores the central, overwhelming threat. The one he shall not name, RIT. I smell another Obama lecture coming to Americans .

Message — target guns not Islamist terrorists.

The Apology Canard

That’s about the nicest thing I can call it. Demanding an apology today is the new answer to everything you take issue with. It rivals the suit epidemic.

Bill Clinton to BLM

Hillary calls for apology from Bernie.

Bernie calls for apology from Hillary

Donald Trump is called to apologize, to someone or for something, nearly every week.

Mitt Romney wanted Trump to apologize.

Cruz wants Trump to apologize.

The left and many on the right lined up to blame Trump for the protests in Chicago.

We are all owed an apology by Obama for wrecking the country.

Everyone wants an apology from Trump and yet no one demands one from Hillary

Obama did an apology tour in his first year. Apparently even that was not enough for greived countries in the Mid East.

I’m still waiting for an apology from Obama because he had no right to apologize for America on my behalf. That offends me. I’m sure one will not be forthcoming.

The left has taken this to an all time high. They pounce on any Republican who says something they don’t like. They call for an apology. Then they go to every other Republican to denounce the statement, or stand guilty by default for agreeing if they refuse to condemn him.

The knee-jerk reaction these days seems to be to call for an apology whenever you feel grieved or offended. It doesn’t guarantee you will get one. But it elevates your grievance to a public level. Just move the fad up a notch, some people are shopping for an apology from anyone who offends them. Some are grievance shopping too.

There are a lot of opportunities out there. And some people or groups are perpetually offended by virtue of their existence. They are always due an apology.

What an apology epidemic we have in the country.

Now after the media contrived controversy about Trump pointing out judge Curiel’s bias and conflict, again they call for an official “apology” from Trump.

However, Ryan calls Trump a textbook racist, and within hours WH Press Sec, Josh Earnest, calls Trump a racist — as evidenced by Paul-mealymouthed-Ryan.

Referring to Trumps remarks:

“I regret those comments he made,” Ryan said. “It’s absolutely unacceptable.”

Ryan, I regret the comments you made. Besides, I think Ryan still owes all of us a big apology for 2012. I’ll be waiting for the overdue apology, Ryan.

Susan Collins says Trump should apologize. I’m waiting for her apology calling for hearings on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. That was a grievous offense.

But it’s okay to call Trump a racist, and no need to apologize for it. Actually, you get kudos for doing that. And just look what Romney said about Trump. Give me a break.

But the perpetual apology addicts won’t ever apologize.

It’s personal – note of discontent…. aka “friends”

On hurling invective, insults …and shooting the moon.

It has become personal now. Politics has become personal, very personal.

Brainy Quotes:

“When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating. You disengage yourself as quickly as possible from the situation.” — Judith Martin

That is usually good advice. However, there are times you cannot just ignore it.

Normally that is the case, but these are not normal times. Nor are the politics normal. As for the people, let’s see how “normal” they are? Who knew how abnormal it can get?

Prelude

A good friend and blogger was recently the target of a drive by that made little sense to me. At first, I chalked it up to spilling vindictive insults at someone for the sake of it. The question was why? This is not a tedious back and forth but a street level synopsis. I don’t often go into personal matters but one must make exceptions when necessary.

Though when someone uses you as an example of their perceived problem with the political climate, it warrants your attention. First, a couple things to keep in mind: what is said on a blog post and what is said in comments and conversation are different. IOW, when someone makes a person or group of people the target of their wrath in a post, singling you out, it is on a higher level. When comments include their wrath it is a lesser degree. That’s how I quantify it anyway.

I’ve said before “on this blog I don’t claim “no bias” and do not provide or guarantee a politics free or politically correct zone.” So there is no hypersensitivity about a person’s feelings, including mine. Sometimes in criticizing others it reflects on our own shortfalls.

Friends, to example….to straw men

From the piece found here at Pesky Truth.

“This is just one example of how the rift between Trump supporters and Cruz supporters has come between people who used to be friends. We all called ourselves “conservatives” and supposedly believed in the same smaller government, lower taxes, strong military and so on. But then the 2016 presidential election intruded. People chose sides. That’s normally not a big deal, but this time it’s different – very different.”

Choosing political sides is one thing choosing friends another. Choosing is the operative word. We define ourselves. Like Cruz’s lines,”Donald said” this or that and “this is who Donald is.” But who is Ted? That’s the problem. Who knew it was controversial?

What drew me to the article on a blog I occasionally read in the first place was the title. It was about “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” So there I am ignorantly reading an article when it references a good friend of mine sort of indirectly, at first. I expected from the title maybe it was a self-reflective thing. It was anything but. It was a slash and burn (IMO) about certain people he personally called into question.

People talk about “feeling the Bern,” but I was really feeling the burn.

The author was someone I even associated with as a contributor at another site. I thought I’d call him a friend, as others. That’s where it gets dicey… ‘I thought.’ I allow that rarely people agree on everything. Sometimes, as the quote above says, you just disassociate with others. So there are times when we should back away from the keyboards; and then there are times when we should take to the keyboard.

So it was to my surprise when I read the piece that skewered a friend as his “example,” along with her associates and participants, as “farm animals”. Later in one one of his comments he labeled them, presumably myself included, as flawed.

Here are some selected excerpts to his piece.

“The Trumpanzees have taken on the demeanor of Donald Trump. They lie, disparage, insult and ridicule Cruz supporters as if we were *ignorant rubes who couldn’t tie shoes without help.” – [*remember that, it returns]

Straw men have invaded the internet, everywhere, even among “friends”.

“I just happened to stop by one of the blogs that I used to think of as a “friendly” site. I thought that we were friends and I can recall commiserating with her when her husband passed away….

…but some of the miscreants that she’s gathered around her look like a Who’s Who of the Animal Farm.”

So we are called names. Trumpanzees: or anyone not digesting Cruz, as delivered. Then the farm animal reference. And we’re flawed, according to his comments. Might as well say flawed farm animals.

“Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

His piece was complete with a pasted part of her article and the date. Then he took issue with it and said

“You’ll also note that they provide no LINK to the PolitiFact site (so you can’t immediately verify the statement).”

He went on about her post without linking to it. So he put obvious links to his referred content but couldn’t bother to link or pingback the article he based an entire piece on.
Fair? I digress. This would notify the person that: one, he used their material; two that he did a subsequent attack. One set of ethics for others, another for him.

Then he took issue with what she put up.

“ the point here is that you shouldn’t use something like this unless a comparison to your candidate comes off looking good. “ / “Isn’t it only FAIR to COMPARE the two gentlemen?” / “Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

See, the thing about a blog is the author writes or includes what they want, it’s that simple. Unless he is trying to employ some “fairness doctrine.” He is citing a fairness standard?

I didn’t plan on going into the political nuance of what the author had in mind. The insult and invective was my focus here. You might note his title started with “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” What of them?

Finally, in closing he refers to the ignorance of us, and or, Trump supporters. Apparently, it is open season, who knew. I’ll have to check the regulations.

“The most satisfying thing about this is that the readers of Pesky Truth know the TRUTH, those that frequent that other blog don’t. They’re so pumped full of Trump’s lies they’re oblivious to the truth – let’s let them stay that way – after all, “ignorance is bliss,” so they’ll remain blissful in their ignorance.
Garnet92.”

Again, I am not parsing politics. I’ll do my own politics in other posts. The personal assault was the subject. So we’re flawed, weak, miscreants, farm animals, and chimpanzees crossbred with Trump supporters. So add ignorant or ignorance to the list.

BTW: the same guy did one of his lengthy trademark satires, if you are so inclined. I did wonder exactly who he had in mind in the hog farm, redneck, hillbilly saga?

Links to politi-fact sites but he can’t bother to ping his central source.

And what of the friends part? I guess not. No problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A warning blares from around the world

Some of us may have a hard time hearing the voices echoing both in an outside the country, what with all the crosstalk. However, they are there. Just because some don’t care to hear doesn’t mean they aren’t there. But we can ignore them at our own peril.

The below article comes from a blogger I’ve corresponded with from Australia, who has done his share of traveling and keeping up with the world of politics. In it he offers a stern warning we’d be wise not to ignore. He left this in a comment but, with his permission, I’m posting it as it deserves. Thanks. Are we listening?

You might find this article I wrote a while back an interesting piece.
Cheers. – Emu (*Capitals* denote emphasis)

The Freedom of Speech is being stifled, all in the cause of potentially inciting hatred, bigotry and Islamophobia.

Sadly, having watched the political games being enacted around the world, on the political stage, America seems to have lost much of its heart. America used to stand on Integrity, Truth, Honesty and Justice; these tenets are disappearing rapidly out of the American language and Government.

No longer is America seen as a World Leader, no longer does America have a President who holds the values of Truth, Honesty and Justice in his hands.

It is sad to watch a great country like America unfold from internal means, a President who lacks empathy to his Servicemen and woman, both serving and returned. A President who places the acceptance of the Islamic Ideology into his country above the security of the people of America; a President who embraces the Ideology of the United Nations New World Order above the basics of security and well being of his own people.

America has lost the direction on the world stage. America has become a puppet of the United Nations. Not only America, our feeble minded Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has done the same, sold out Australia to the United Nations. Germany’s President Merkel has also sold out Germany to the United Nations.

How has this come about, a programme pre-ordained for a New World Order by the United Nations, and signed by Western and European World leaders?

The Islamification of the world is unfolding, the first indication is the denial of Freedom of Speech, this negates Bigotry, Racism and Hatred. All because we are led to believe that Islam is the answer to world peace and unity.

It is time the Western Worlds Governments, and European Governments, recognized the fact that Islam is not a Religion but an Ideology. In support of this statement, we need to remember the point that all Muslims are born under the Sharia law — an Islamic Ideology. Muslims who stray from the Islamic Ideology become Apostates or Infidels. The Islamic Ideology is contrary to the Global Humanitarian way of life, its Beliefs, and Culture.

Countries around the world, America included, need to debate the subject: Is Islam a Religion or Ideology. If it is a Religion, then is it compatible and harmonious to our Western Judea/Christian beliefs, and conducive to assimilation and integration into our culture. If it is not a religion but an ideology, then again we ask the question, is the Islamic Ideology also conducive to harmonious assimilation and integration into Global culture. At the moment, throughout the world, it is becoming clearer each day that Islam is an ideology which is incompatible with every Western and European country. The people of America and Australia should find the Ideology of Islamic Beliefs to be a Credible Threat to America and Australia.

I feel sad thinking back over the years when America was an Ally of Australia, an America that stood for freedom and democracy. A country that stood for the rights of their people, and all the peoples who were oppressed around the world. That dream has gone. America no longer holds my flag in support of Humanity — not only America but my home country Australia as well as Germany and Canada.

The Russian President Putin sides with the French President to face ISIL front on. The American President will not, simply because the American President wants Assad removed. Here we have two major country’s fighting the evil of ISIL for Global humanitarian reasons. America, under Obama, wants Assad out purely for political monetary gain, no word of Humanity out of Obama.

I do not cry for France, I do not cry for all those European countries experiencing terrorism, I do not cry for America or Australia when the next wave of terrorism comes. I cry for those world leaders who have sold their country out to Islam.

The Bald Eagle of America may be Bald, but the American Bald Eagle no longer has feathers under the Obama Government, and as such THE BALD EAGLE WILL SOAR NO MORE.

*The above written by a friend, an ‘old Australian soldier’, © Emu. (his blog)

Thanks for the heartfelt words and concerns for both our countries, and the West. America needs to hear the voices, be they in the election or on the survival of the country, or warnings on the West as we know it.

Sometimes people can’t see the forest for the trees in our own backyard. Yet they can see the same turmoil in other countries headed for us. Can we heed the warnings, finally? The clock is ticking.

A Hard Self-Therapy in a Word

This is a difficult yet therapeutic post to write that has been a long time coming. I’ll start with a simple word that frames up my sentiments at the moment, goodbye.

I’ve felt and lived through the difficulties of saying goodbye at the bedside of dying friends and loved ones. It’s one of the hardest things to face. But this is not that kind of goodbye. There is another type that has a brighter hope and opportunity attached promising new adventures ahead. It’s more that type I’m referring to.

It’s been a strange few years with many disappointments, pains, and the agony of defeat. Sure, there were a few short-lived successes here and there. Just enough to create temporary optimism about what lays ahead.

Okay, before misleading any readers to what this is about, what I am talking about is the country’s current situation — through my eyes at least — in the 2016 election. We have had a few good times in recent years but they soon turned back to a dark cloud.

What on earth am I rambling about? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s just possible that there are some things we might finally bid farewell to. (at the time of this writing anyway) They are things that have been with us for a while, etched into our minds and factored into any serious political discussion.

Picture an episode of Twilight Zone where Rod Sterling says,
“Imagine, if you will, a country without these…..”

Politics as usual: It’s probably the biggest one. Politics as usual may finally be changing. Too early to say if it will stick or not. But it feels pretty good in the short term that politics as usual could be grinding to an end. It outlived its utility and is now called into question. Could there really be something else? There may, in fact, be some life outside it after all.

Race hustling: This one may still be in effect but it seems to be losing traction fast. It might have worn out its welcome. Since things like traffic and road closures, detours, and mall demonstrations inconveniencing millions of Americans, this one may be in search of a new cause which was inevitable. Likely a migration into other areas like plain political activism.

The Democrat plantation: May be heading off into the wild blue yonder. It seems the old blue identity plantation may have outlived its fertilizer supply. This one goes with politics as usual. The primaries are revealing some serious fractures in the same old, such as taking voter groups for granted.

The establishment: Well, this one is not so much what it is but the incessant influence it has. Now its influence could be challenged. It remains one of the biggest factors in our politics today and may lose its control on our system. This one will not go quietly.

Race card: Just as race hustling is called into question, the time has come when the narrative finally got so old and predictable, and less believable than ever. It suffered from overuse and abuse. Imagine a place where it is frowned on to play the race card at every opportunity?

Woman card: This one was a little surprise, but again it suffers from overuse and abuse, especially where abortion is concerned.If the objective was fairness, we may have come full circle with the latest idea to mandate that women also register for the draft.

Interesting, too, in the first Iowa caucus that women went for Sanders. In New Hampshire the 18 to 34 yr old women overwhelmingly went for Sanders over Clinton. 87% for Sanders and 9% for Clinton… says something about choice.

Political correctness: This one is still hanging on by the skin of its teeth but has suffered some serious blows in this election cycle. We’ll have to see if it goes on life support but it is in intensive care. Some wonder now if it is really worth saving.

“It’s my turn now” — This old standard may finally be going the way of the Edsel. It never was very flattering anyway. It looks like it has been challenged from every side and found wanting. How the “rightful” heirs will feel about its absence has yet to be determined. Will they cry and demand it? Will even they be too ashamed to pursue it all the way? Time will tell. But patriarchal families are considering the dire consequences. It could be a bit too much for them to accept all at once.

Note: this claim may seem a little premature. However, chances are good for some of them, better every day in this political climate. It would require vigilance to enforce their absence. Well, that is what this formality is all about — with optimistic hope — bidding them farewell and goodbye. Can’t say I’ll miss them, dibs on the epitaphs though.

RightRing | Bullright