Problems for critics in Putinland 2018

Putin critic Alexei Navalny thinks there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll be killed

CBS News August 5, 2017

Russia’s main opposition figure thinks there’s a 50 percent chance he will end up dead for speaking out against President Vladimir Putin, a fate that has befallen many of the Kremlin’s enemies in recent years.

Alexei Navalny, 41, is Russia’s most outspoken critic of the Putin regime, and is campaigning to challenge Putin in Russia’s presidential election in 2018, even though he is officially barred from the ballot.

Correspondent Ryan Chilcote spent a week with Navalny for the second episode of “CBSN: On Assignment,” ahead of mass protests in June against government corruption. Thousands of young people took to the streets in cities across Russia, with protesters marching through Moscow carrying signs that read “Navalny 2018” and chanting “Putin is a crook.” More than 1,000 people were arrested, including Navalny, who spent 25 days in jail.

  • “Enemy of the State” airs in full on “CBSN: On Assignment” on Monday, Aug. 7, 2017, at 10 p.m. ET/PT on the CBS Television Network and on CBSN, the network’s 24/7 streaming news service.
More http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-critic-alexei-navalny-thinks-theres-a-5050-chance-hell-be-killed/

Tonight at 10 is the story on CBS.

Awan tries to cop a flee

And what is Imran Awan’s defense, after being arrested trying to flee for Pakistan over fraud charges, while working for Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Man does she know how to pick them, or what?

His lawyer told Politico later on Tuesday: ‘This is clearly a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.

‘A quick glance at what the government filed in court today confirms the lack of evidence or proof they have against my client.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730382/House-aide-arrested-fraud.html#ixzz4nzEV0f00

Sure that explains it…right! That makes people do things like smash hard drives.

Schultz promptly fired him, after his arrest. Rapid response.

Once again, for a major story you have to turn to the Daily Mail just to read it. Seems there is an embargo in media on the story for some reason.

Daily Caller exclusively reported the arrest 3 days ago and no media besides Fox wants to touch it. I know, it’s radio active. Debbie is glowing in the dark.

Media can run with anonymous sources all the time, or out a CIA operative overseas, for the need to know but this is too hot to touch? Tells you something. Maybe if Awan was a transgender person it would fit the media’s narrative.

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Intell failures and media attacks on Trump

I recently posted on the cooked reports about progress on ISIS. It’s been in the news. Whether its cooked reports, cooked polls, cooked politics, cooked media reporting, seems it’s all the same. O’Reilly even said don’t trust anything coming from the media.

This week, Trump receives his first briefings sparking more media attacks. Have you ever seen one man be attacked that way? Well, the reporter asked Trump point blank if he trusted the intelligence? What would make them ask that and why? So Trump was hesitant to just accept it considering the background of what has been going on.

Politico:

Earhardt followed up by asking whether Trump trusts “intelligence.”

“Not so much from the people that have been doing it for our country. I mean, look what’s happened over the last 10 years. Look what’s happened over the years. It’s been catastrophic. And, in fact, I won’t use some of the people that are sort of your standards, you know, just use them, use them, use them, very easy to use them, but I won’t use them because they’ve made such bad decisions,” said Trump

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-us-intelligence-briefing-227109#ixzz4HhmYUztO

Gasp, comes the response across media. “Did you hear what he said?” What did he mean by that and why would he say such a thing? It’s outrageous.

Well, has all critical thinking been abolished now? Seems so.

Movement politics

Much is made that these are extraordinary times and politics these days. I would agree with an exception. The thing is if we are just comparing it to what was ordinary in the last 20 years or so, then, yes, they are. Pretty much that is a good thing.

It is about time that we finally focused on both the ugliness and the importance of politics. I don’t need to tell anyone how divisive it all is. But maybe it’s time America has told them, the ruling class elites.

Things have evolved into what I call movement politics. That is separate from the classism and identity politics that have been standard fare of Democrats for decades. I doubt that these identity merchants, tacticians and strategists ever thought we would move past these time-tested mechanisms. Though we may be seeing just that.

I know that the identity memes have been the flavor of the day, even now. Though the people are rising up with ideas of their own, and they aren’t all about identity anymore. More than that they are concerned about the identity of the country. They are concerned about the condition of the US and losing our identity with freedom, prosperity and our posterity. Sure there are still identity merchants as there are grievance merchants.But they are being surrounded and outnumbered by others.

The only math the old-school establishment politicians know is the numbers of identities and the way they can pander to them. Estabos other math is the calculation of special interest dollars in their campaign coffers. That is the equivalent of their common core math. And not much else matters.

However, something interesting happened with the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left. It undermined Hillary’s base and consolidated the Left wing of America much the way Move On and George Soros did since the Clintons. Its ranks swelled and cut across cultural and identity lines, much to the aghast fears of the political elites and the identity merchants.

Probably one of the pivotal moments was when Sanders’ rally was nearly shutdown by the BLM movement. It revealed the clash therein. But the strange thing is that the Bern came back around to encompass and co-opt the Black Lives Matter crowd.

Then Hillary has proved the other thing about politics. On the Left, they gravitate and rally to the furthermost Left in the spotlight. Elizabeth Warren demonstrated it and Obama proved it. Bernie extorted that theory. Of course on the Right it has been almost the opposite. They sanitize the politics until it becomes invalid. Mediocrity is now King. This is just as a matter of comparison. So what you have is more marginalization happening on the Right and less to none on the Left.(even on the fringes) On the Left, they won’t cast off fringes; they embrace them and devour them. Hillary must swim against the current and, wherever she can, graft on the hard left’s dogma and carry their banner.

On the Right

Enter Trump on the Republican side. Sure there are all those quibbles over what he is, or what he is not. But what he has done on the right is to mobilize and rally people from across demographics — usual stereotypical onse. Some thought Trump supporters were just a marginal group of identities on the right. Yet identity pigeonholes have been disproved throughout primaries. He increased turnouts and interest in the whole process.

While Cruz, if anything, has stuck himself into a margin. He played heavy on the Evangelicals. The theory being if he could just activate them, he could overcome all comers with a lock on that bloc. A funny thing happened in South Carolina, crossing the lines.

[Politico]“It was amazing how similar Texans and South Carolinians are. I’d never thought of that until seeing the bus. They’re Southerners, they’re evangelicals, they’re military veterans, they’re gun owners. There’s just a feeling that is similar. They feel like Texans.” — Cruz said of S Carolina.

Indeed, Evangelicals also turned out for Trump. Even a few Evangelical leaders endorsed Trump. That was pooh-poohed and they were wackos that don’t know what they are doing. Yet even while everyone is demonized for supporting or endorsing Trump, it didn’t kill off his support. They had said he could not break 30%, then they said he couldn’t get 40%. And it is still actually early as to final tallies but if the primaries are any indication, he’s bringing in higher numbers.

Politicians and the establishment have long criticized the people for being disconnected from events, or being behind the times, or failing to understand political reality. Except now it is a different story. The establishment is at a loss to understand comprehend the new political reality. At first they dismiss it, then they ridicule it, then they go tot war with it. Remember that just five years ago we saw almost the exact opposite. Town hall meetings were the target of voters looking to hold politicians accountable for their failures. All that was done without much concrete leadership, certainly not a single leader in charge. That may have been the first indications of an actual movement afoot.

Summarizing Trumpism and the movement politics on the Right

Now all the talk is that Trump is bringing in old political hands and Washington insiders, hence hurting his freestyle, outsider brand. Well, you cannot change the DNA of a movement like that. It must co-opt the establishment. And Donald understands it, correctly, as a movement not a political campaign. He may be running a campaign but his base is a movement.The question is will it be embraced as the base in the RNC as well?

RightRing | Bullright

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

Fair is not fair – rhetoric or otherwise

John Kasich said that Donald Trump has created “a toxic environment.” So Trump is to blame, apparently, for these protests and large group that shut down a rally in Chicago.

Now I know people appreciate Kasich for his record and success, and so do I, but I have to take issue with his statements. Let’s put the blame where it lies, can we?

Trump is not an isolated factor nor the cause of everyone’s opinions. He is not the cause of the anger, it predates his run by far. What has failed us is our Party and leaders. To ignore the cause of this movement, the anger and disgust is to dismiss the purpose. Many people try to ignore and dismiss the purpose of this.

In Chicago, a protest organizer explained that, after they positioned themselves all around the venue, their goal was “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.” Now is that perfectly clear?

Then Kasich’s spokesperson came out, also condemning Trump, but saying we understand the reason people are mad as heck and he[John] understands that anger. Does he really? He seems to dismiss the voices of masses so easily, but put some blame where it belongs — with politicians and the establishment status quo.

How come when someone surges like that on the uber-Left everyone celebrates them, they gush praises on them? But on the right, they rush to condemn them. Why is that?

Rubio says he doesn’t know if he could support the nominee if it was Trump. “I don’t know.” He believes trump would shatter and fracture the [party] movement, as the nominee. Again, what has fractured and shattered the right has been the establishment politics as usual. Only insiders or estabo hacks could claim that… because it already is.

Cruz said the “responsibility for any campaign begins and ends at the top.” Maybe for others, not considering camp Cruz’s dirty tricks applied in Iowa. Cruz implies that if we just talk a certain way and act a certain way — like him — and have a dialogue, it eliminates problems like the Chicago protests. Please, is this really Ted’s understanding and knowledge of the Left?

Their Marxist purpose is to shut popular voices on the right down. It is not about dialogues or reasoning with them. All these front groups on the left operate the same way, or in concert with one another.But their objective is to stifle opposition to themselves any way they can. All of us should appeal to civility or appeal to our “better angels,” Cruz said.

Carly Fiorina said Trump “has taken advantage of [people’s] anger and frustration.” Blind are leading the blind. When she was talking about people’s anger that was different. Was she extorting that and her female credentials? Now just blame Trump for having given voice to the exact issues GOPe wanted to bury.

Obama, for the second time in a week, took his time to delve into politics namely on the right, in his roadshow tour. He said:

(Wa Po“)What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time — that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s — look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.”

He went on to add that there are “thoughtful conservatives” out there — read who agree with him — that care about poverty, climate change, don’t insult people, who are concerned about what is going on. Well, everyone is concerned, supposedly, one way or another. But more of the same is not exactly the answer to any of it, or what they are asking for.

Then Obama said:

“We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network,” he joked.

“Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out how do we make an adjustment.”

We are being bamboozled people. This is the way the left operates and made to order for the party of Alinsky radicals. I’m not saying we are playing into their hands. Heaven knows they are going to do and act this way no matter what. I’m saying Trump presented them with an ideal opportunity for their tactics. Maybe this is one of the ways Carson can help Trump, by knowing and understanding their exact tactics.

What they have done is use Trump to personalize their attacks to broad brush the whole conservative country. Trump gives them a personal target. This is what they’ve always done. So while Ted Cruz rails about the Washington Cartel, that’s fine. But we also have to focus on left-wing fascism, too. Let’s not look at Trump as the problem when, in fact, he has been one person to speak out about the problems. So naturally he would be a target of theirs.They want to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way. Why should it surprise us?

Give me a break though, as everyone comes along to say “we know people are angry…” blah, blah and it is justified. Well, if they do know, then why do they face off with and criticize the people for taking action? In fact, they tell us they understand it that they too are angry. Really, what are they doing?

Maybe Trump is getting the hang of it and understands this radical dynamic of the Marxist Left. He has taken to pointing to the protestors as Bernie’s people, and indeed many were Bernie people in Chicago’s protest. He calls them out and personalizes who they are.

Hillary could not pass the opportunity to say “When you play with matches, you could start a fire you cannot control.” Let’s talk about playing with matches and starting a fire you can’t control sometime. It’s a long conversation.

Bernie continues to say Trump stokes anger while his campaign throws the “revolution” around loosely. Now considering Bernie’s chances against Hillary, what happens when he loses and when everyone does not get their totally free college education? Talk about stoking people’s anxieties, anger and expectations. What are those people going to do? You and I both probably have a good idea what they are going to do.

Now have you ever seen a candidate or someone take as much incoming attacks and criticism as Trump, especially from powerful places and the media? And it keeps coming.

Jekyll Island redux. A group of top Republican establishment, operatives and donors organize a meeting to take out Trump. Of, course the strange thing is it is not in secret, they are right out in the open about it. Jeb Bush has a private meeting with Kasich, Cruz, Rubio strategizing a take down before the debate.

I’ve already talked about Mitt Romney fiasco, also scheming behind the scenes. Then there is the matter where Republicans or Trump critics cannot oppose protests or Romney attacks because both comports with their own opposition. What kind of Party?

MSNBC has been reading motives into Trump all along, like racism. Other media jumped on to condemn Trump for what happened in Chicago. Glenn Beck a week ago referred to Trump supporters as Nazis and brownshirts. Talk about doing the Left’s work for them. Then another news broadcast said the rallies are WWE-type events where Trump incites and promotes violence. Two weeks ago, and still, they were stuck on a KKK message trying to tie Trump to racism. Is there anything they haven’t thrown at Trump? Not much.

“Imagine what Trump would say if he had a record like this – [his]?” Just imagine.
Barry, just imagine if you had half of your records (in question) thrown at you?

RightRing | Bullright

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.

What’s that, you’ll vote for neither?

This seething Trump complaint comes from the Senator in Nebraska

I guess anytime someone has to tell me “you are right to be angry” I am suspicious
Okay, I’ll cut to the chase:

At this point in Nebraska discussions, many of you have immediately gotten practical: “Okay, fine, you think there are better choices than Trump. But you would certainly still vote for Trump over Clinton in a general election, right?”

Before I explain why my answer is “Neither of them,” let me correct some nonsense you might have heard on the internet of late. – Ben Sasse

At this point, I could go on about that reasoning and rebutting the philosophy. But that’s his opinion, he’s sticking to it. (I looked to make sure that is his writing, far as I know it is)

And already I have heard this Senator quoted by many Democrats and media.

In the end, it’s Trump

After months of deliberating and looking at candidates, I whittled down on my options to one. I thought I had a second choice but alas that was just an illusion.

So I decided on Trump. Since people already criticized and attacked me for supporting Trump, I suppose I might as well. Kidding aside, I tried all along keeping an open mind. In the end, I decided Donald Trump gets my vote. Unlike other people, I won’t hate on those supporting another candidate. It’s their choice.

First, it was not about popularity or favorites. I often support underdogs. In this strange case, Trump is a little like an underdog.(in some ways) He is not the favorite of the establishment. In fact, he is about the least favorite.

But there was a purpose and an objective. It was a 75-25 decision. I was already 75% behind Trump before. Then events of the last few weeks put me over the line. What a few weeks it has been for the panic-stricken arrogant elite. Plus the media has been casting its vote all along. That all made it easier. So there’s a hashtag NeverTrump making the rounds. But my hashtag would be not again. So I settled on Trump.

Reasons for my choice were broad. Enough is enough. Well, it has been enough for a while but this was the opportunity to voice it and do something different that hadn’t been done. Every election they tell us who our choices are and ram their establishment choices down our throats. We’re told we just have to accept it. Well, this is a bit of irony.

Some say he is not the best choice. I say he is not perfect. No candidate seems to be -particularly these three. But this offers more than a usual choice between two evils. This choice goes back a long way with me. In fact, back to 2000. That’s where Cruz took it, too. He brought John Roberts into the Bush vs. Gore battle. The rest is history, punctuated by Cruz’s advocacy for Roberts as a SCOTUS pick. He’s complaining about him?

Now that we are to decide who the outsider insurgent is, between three, the other two candidates have taken to the air to raise every suspicion possible. The roles reversed and Rubio is channeling Trump. Cruz pulls out every accusation he can dream up.However, it is not just them. The RNC and every operator within the establishment has been scheming to oust the Trumpster. Who’d have thunk something would cause such a stir in the establishment? Venom and tempers flare.

Romney, probably the king of the establishment, came out to personally launch an attack and whisper campaign against Trump. He was shopping for surrogates to do the dirty deed and then decided he would do it himself. Rubio contacted Christie after he dropped out, also after the smack down debate attack. Rubio boasted to Christie that he has a very bright future ahead. (you thought the Donald was the one with the over inflated ego)

Then Christie endorsed Trump, attacking Rubio in his speech as not ready for prime time. Cruz is too slimy for prime time. The RNC flung itself into the toilet threatening to flush itself down over Donald Trump. (hint: it might take a double flush, Reince)

The establishment had a meeting, according to NYT, to brainstorm how to take Trump down. They fear Trump threatens the Party(as they know it) and could cost them Congress and the election. Camp Rubio is making plans for a brokered convention scenario. Mitch McConnel is planning a Senate coup to abandon Trump.

At least one report says RNC has people strategizing some independent run. Kasich and other candidates are hypothesizing parsed out spoils of a post Trump era. They all complain about why more or somethimg wasn’t done to stop Trump much earlier? I thought they had tried. (everything they could think of) If these guys are this baffled over fighting off Trump, how can they deal with Hillary?

Little does this Party establishment elite realize their real fight is with the people, base, and conservatives. The more they dig in the more obvious it becomes.

Establishment RNC are boldly trying to connive a candidate ‘choice’ for the Party. Gee, you thought that’s what elections were for? So did I. It just reveals the true character of the RNC and estabo elite and how far they will go. It’s like gang turf war to them.

So in view of all this I made my decision. This all made that easier.
In the end, it’s Trump. Or is it Trump till the end?

RightRing | Bullright

Tale of 2 wealthy candidates

This is a comparison between Trump and Romney. Both independently wealthy but the contrast couldn’t be any greater.

When Romney ran, his wealth was an embarrassment used against him. Trump’s wealth is a good thing. He self funds. There are pros and cons to that but…like it or not.

Trump doesn’t hide from his wealth, it’s part of who he is. Yet he relates to working class people just as well. Romney had difficulty relating to regular or working people.

Romney’s wealth was used a weapon against him. They don’t seem able to do that with Trump. Are Democrats going to go with the old rule book and demonize him for being rich? Nice try, what will that do? Trump’s wealth is an asset not a liability.

What a difference. Romney would wait to see which way the wind was blowing before making a position statement, parsing it any way he could. Romney had his circle of advisers, who also blew it. Remember the debate where he finally took on Obama and Benghazi? Then he dropped the ball and fumbled the rest of the race. He swore he was the only one who could stand the heat and take on Obama and his long train of abuses. But the left defined him early and often, which he had no answer to. He was disconnected from the actual voters. Romney had his political record and his schizophrenic stances. Finally some concluded he really didn’t care if he won — even with all the RNC’s help and defense.

Trump, on the other hand, has none of the Romney attributes. He does not play by the politically correct rule book. Romney was all about political correctness. Trump is not the wall street insider. He is not predictable as the morning dew. He does respond and answer critics without taking days, even weeks, to formulate a palatable response. Trump swings hard. For a guy who wrote a book on “no apologies,” Romney certainly was apologetic for a lot of things, especially his wealth. Finally for losing. Romney had a history and dynasty aspect to his political career. Trump is very much all on his own, with no family baggage.

Romney allowed himself to be defined by the critics. Trump refuses to fit their mold and play their games. In fact, Trump changes the game. He defines his opponents. Refreshing.

Romney stepped on the conservative vote. Trump broadened the playing field. Trump points to the exact Romney-type people who created the messes. How many people sat out the vote and didn’t participate in 2012? The fix seemed to be in with Romney from early on. Trump redefined what the Washington fix is.

Trump can identify with people where Romney could not. Romney gave the impression of the Northeast RINO. Trump exudes the street fighter persona that Mitt only wished he had. Romney got lost in staff bureaucracy. Trump owns the face of his campaign. Romney was perpetually on defense. (don’t ever run again) Trump is on the offense to spite his critics. Trump attracts attention, Romney put people to sleep. Romney had the golden opportunity handed to him. Trump was attacked from the onset. Trump has the scruffiness of a cab driver. Romney would not think of such things.

Oh but now Romney resurfaces as a backseat critic in the primary process — I guess that’s all you could say Romney won — with his widespread team of gurus and composites in tow. Romney was entrenched in the establishment which separated him from the working class. Romney had the top down approach, Trump has the bottom up “movement” approach. When did you ever see anyone get a tattoo of Romney on their leg? Trump has a brand, like it or not, and a following. Romney had his family and a close set of advisers and hacks. Romney was the carefully scripted candidate, Trump is not.

We were told Romney expanded the party tent. RNC pushed that one. Trump actually does and attracted new and young voters. Actually, a study in December showed Trump had at least 5 points more support among young voters than polls suggested.

So Romney decides he knows better than all injecting his criticism for Trump — possibly on behalf of the RNC establishment et al — to call for a release of Donald’s tax records. There might be a “bombshell” in there he says. Romney goes down the maybe road. Romney takes Harry Reid’s slimy strategy, then asks “What’s he hiding?”

The Romney campaign was train wreck of record chases. No one bests the Democrats at their own game. Romney could not even use Obama’s spurious record trail to his benefit. Failure defines Romney. Winning defines Trump. Still, Trump’s own opposition research turns up things when needed, unlike Romney’s. Now Romney calls for records all over the liberal mainstream media. He even uses their catch phrases like a weapon. Romney is no friend to conservatives, he’s the consummate political hack carping from the bleachers. So the guy who couldn’t take on Obama now plays Mr Rough and tumble critic with Trump. This just shows Romney as the elitist establishment insider he is.

Mitt makes Trump look better, if that’s possible. Thankfully it is not 2012, again.

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton’s Black Firewall

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, penned a memo in which he emphasized the large, March-voting states with significant minority populations. He alluded to Hillary’s strong support among African American and Hispanic voters.

“Many of the most delegate-rich states also have some of the largest minority and urban populations — states like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Illinois and Florida” — says Mook.

“It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters … Hillary’s high levels of support in the African American and Hispanic communities are well known. She has maintained a wide double digit lead over Sen. Sanders among minority voters in national surveys.”

So “African Americans,” how do you feel about being Hillary Clintons firewall? Now that sounds overtly racist to me no matter how you look at it.

The only next thing she could do to secure her “firewall” black vote is get Obama to campaign for her to hand off the black vote — the way they do things on the progressive Left. After all, some black activists are already agitated at Hillary’s assertions and, declaring their independence, are saying “We are not your “firewall.””

How do blacks feel about being Hillary’s “firewall”? I guess it must mean Sanders has a lock on the White cracker vote?

Meanwhile, Hillary now says she never tried to lie to the American people — “I’ve always tried” to tell the truth. Right. What a big fat pregnant lie. She tries to lie about everything. Benghazi to emails to promises before being Sec of State. It’s what she does.

But she isn’t lying about counting on that black firewall.

In other news, astronomers discovered a huge black hole 300 million light years away. But we don’t have to look light years away, there’s one right here where Hillary’s and Obama’s statements go — and it keeps expanding.

Papal Protests and 2016 Elections

Pope Francis nas taken the liberty to weigh in on the election and call Trump a non-Christian in one swoop.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel,”– Pope Francis.

He seemed to do it as Obama is also attacking Trump as being “unelecatable”.

Trump replied from Carolina that:

“They [Mexican government] are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.”

I know, some people frown on public criticism or commentary on the Pope regarding politics. But that is not me. In fact, these comments just beg a response to them. And I’m just one to accommodate it. Now it appears fashionable for this “Vicar” to do public cut and run comments from his Papal paradise, yet people are to supposed to remain silent.

This is not a matter of political correctness either. However, it is considered politically incorrect to criticize the Pope or Francis. Sorry for the disclaimer. I don’t hear him warning ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” No, he endorses the public stoning of non-compliant individuals, metaphorically.

Rather this Pope went on the campaign trail when he came here, aligning his position and public ad campaign with Tom Steyer and the far Left joining their big-government, Global Warming agenda.(Steyer sponsored his ad campaign message) Some may regard that as courageous or welcome his critique in our policy and political process. But I for one do not, especially as it is a one-sided, double standard approach.

Where are the Papal excommunications of Leftist politicians who support abortion, even up to and including the infanticide of partial birth abortion? Where is that public flogging or that multi-million dollar ad campaign? Don’t point me to general comments selectively littered in some of his speeches between his pros on Climate Change.

Show me where he singles out someone on the Left and calls them a non-Christian — or excommunicates someone. He might just start that one with the Oval Office Occupant and his anti-Life voting record. There are times when hypocrisy just stands up and screams.

I am grieved today because of what Francis said on Donald Trump. Not because of my predisposition toward either side of it. If it were someone other than this Pope, then he might possibly regret those statements. But that won’t happen. As with the uber-Left, unfortunately, shame is not a factor in their sentiments.

Remember, in August 2015, Pope Francis was said to have excommunicated Donald Trump, citing it “behavior recognized as un-Christian to the community of the faithful,” barring him from partaking in sacraments of the Church. ***(Update: Apparently it was a satirical site post here though in effect this is much the same thing)

So Pope Francis and the Vatican endorses the illegal invasion of our southern border.

Let the mass excommunications begin. Has a sort of an Inquisition tone to it.
But deporting illegal invaders is compassionateless.

Note: (my apologies for the mention of the satire excommunication) Later, the Presbyterian Church was calling on people to denounce Trump’s statements saying his church should look into his standing.

RightRing | Bullright

The year of the Outsider

I know who should have been the generic ‘person of the year for 2015. It should be “the Outsider”. Score one for the non-politico, non beltway-sized person from the private sector who is fed up with the same mealymouthed politicians we’ve come to expect, especially in our presidential elections.

If there was a huge loser, it would be Jeb Bush for much of the above reasons, and being the poster-child for ruling class elite. But I know, the real poster of the insider should go to Hillary and Obama for being the stereotype of elite politicos, who are only limited by their own political ambitions and greed.

Since outsider was the real person of the year, IMO, then who was the most effective at being an outsider? Was it Carson, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, or who? I have to say it was Donald Trump. In any future contest DT would be tough to beat as the ultimate outsider. Some people may disagree with that. But even besides Trump, and how you feel about him or don’t, the pure momentum was behind the outsider. That seemed like a history changing thing. But Jeb does fit the estabo qualifiers for losers.

Just for the sake of being a real outsider, one was granted leeway simply for not being connected to the political elites — or for being disconnected. Sort of a real twist from the usual reality. It would not be hard to make a good case for the outsider.

When you think about it, it could have been the year of anything but the outsider reigned supreme at every turn, even in the media. And it was kicked, punched, prodded, ridiculed, and mocked. Still, the unpredictable nature just drove up popular interest and curiosity. Finally, something that broke that conventional model of the politics-media alliance. Something that would break the conventional wisdom of the media and pundit-class.

My prediction for 2016 is a strong push, by estabos, to make it the year of the insider.
Do they win?

RightRing | Bullright

Rahm Emanuel cooked before the Christmas goose

He tried to throw the police superintendent under the bus but it didn’t work.

Rahm has drowned in the political environment he swam in. Adios Rahm, you are now unredeemable even among the left. Can you say toxic?

His brother is part of the Obamacare scandal and Rahm is destroying Chicago. But then he also played political hide and seek about it. Did he not think the people would find out? (‘Hey, I got this…!’)

Rahm -“Never let a crisis go to waste” finally created a crisis that laid waste to him.
Who’s sorry now?” (sorry Connie)

Stories R US

I was going to do a post on Obama’s statements and threats. But why give them more attention if we aren’t going to do anything about them anyway? They get plenty.

I thought about doing a post on Hillary’s latest lies. But they are just like all the other lies, and all the other posts. All blend into the septic stew.

I thought about doing one on the real principles Jesus espoused, you know, opposed to lessons liberals harp about. Nah. He drove the money changers from the temple and look where they went.

I thought about doing one of my trademark satires but they end up being too true.

Well, I did notice something weird about this presidential race. Everyone says it’s about the outsiders vs the establishment. It probably is; though this election also seems to be about story lines. Most every Republican candidate has their own story line they are pushing. Not to mention most of them also have a book.

They have constructed or extorted these story lines so that, in turn, it is not an election about a certain individual, it is about the story he/she is promoting. I’m led to think that we are supposed to vote for best story line. It’s not just an outsider story. It’s an outsider, non-politician, neuro-surgeon. It’s about a mega-mogul, celebrity, real estate developer and builder.

So with that background, someone like Cruz has a problem that even his story line is not that big of a deal. Then you have Carly vying for any attention as a woman and business executive turned politician. We’re not asked as much to judge their qualifications as their degree of separation from establishment and their creative story line. Some are naturally better at promoting their story lines than others.

I wonder if we have not now entered the age of the story lines in politics? Is that the natural extension of identity politics? I think it might be. Look on the ither side and you have Hillary running as … are you ready for it…a woman. Then she adds that she would be the ultimate outsider as the first woman. And she already has her own story line which she doesn’t even have to promote. Everyone knows it and does it for her. So the first woman, who was also first lady, married to the serial rapist president doesn’t really work but all the other parts of it are there for the extorting. Now, whether they planned or want it to, this becomes a battle of story lines. That is if you follow the tactics the left uses in politics. Obama was much the same way. The Kenyan, Indonesian black kid rise to president. (we’re still trying to digest that story line and some of us cannot)

Now Trump takes that to the next logical stage. He gave a speech wherein he goes on a rant talking about the details of Ben Carson’s story line — in brief: angry poor black kid to Christian, to top surgeon, to candidate. Media has already gone all-in after Carson’s story. Knocking the candidate’s story is a twofer for the media, it also attacks his trustability polls that are higher than anyone’s. Of course Jeb Bush’s story line that he tries to ignore is the third in line to the Bush dynasty. So instead he promotes his preferred story line, and also tells it in Spanish — a real plus in his case. That includes leaving out the part about Bloomberg’s Foundation promoting abortion around the globe. He tries to make it as attractive as possible.

So we also have Rubio pushing his Cuban ancestry, only in America, story-book story line. Christie pushes his tough guy prosecutor thug image. Trump pushes his anti-P/C story line which allows him the freedom to say just about anything that in some way fits or works in his favor. People seem to like that ballsy approach even if they occasionally blush. Kasich has his own story line, a player all the way. Oh, Carly promotes the ‘woman’ secretary to CEO, to president story. Fill in the others. Cruz may be out-storied.

Is it not about character or ability anymore but about the story line? You can expect that blunt approach from Democrats in the general election.(who are still searching for a black or Hispanic transsexual woman candidate – man doesn’t work) Whoever promotes their story line narrative the best wins. Bernie Sanders has his own story working. He and Hillary are vying for historical firsts. Trump is an expert promoting his. Do people just want a story? Are we bored with positions and policy preferring a narrative instead?

RightRing | Bullright

PA AG Kane gets down and dirty

If it is one thing Democrats know how to do it is play dirty when the going gets rough. But in this case it is an Attorney General of Pennsylvania. She’s already had her own scandal going on that would make the Obama administration blush. Now she is releasing dirty emails of her enemies and accusers.

Kane has threatened to release more, and the state Capitol is ablaze with speculation about whose emails may be next in the drip-drip-drip of disclosures.

“It’s a mess. It’s just a freaking mess,” said John Morganelli, the Northampton County district attorney and a Democrat who at one time supported Kane. “Accusations and counter-accusations. And it gets worse every day. It’s like going into a war zone.”

Read at: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/05/porn-scandal-top-prosecutor-keeps-releasing-raunchy-emails/21259529/

Oh what the heck, add a few more charges. What difference at this point does it make? So now she does what Dems do , she pleads her innocence. Dig in and blame accusers. Oh what a tangled web she weaves. She even has some stupid people buying it.

She doesn’t belong in the AG office, she ought to be on Jerry Springer. Even the Democrat governor called on her to resign. But you know what Dems do. Or maybe Judge Judy could make room on her busy docket for this one?

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Where have we gone?

“The Democrats would revise history to rationalize a return to bigger government, higher taxes, and moral relativism. The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance. But they have not forgotten their art for dissembling and distortion.

The Democrats are trapped in their compact with the ideology of trickle-down government, but they are clever enough to know that the voters would shun them if their true markings were revealed.

America had its rendezvous with destiny in 1980. Faced with crisis at home and abroad, Americans turned to Republican leadership in the White House.”

This is a quote from Republicans platform back in 1992. From then until now, one must ask “what happened?” We appear now to be a ship without a rudder, stranded in a stormy sea. Where are those tried and true principles that supposedly guide us? Have they been moth-balled in favor of Big-Government Lite rhetoric?

Along came George W who arrogantly claimed to have redefined conservatism and Republicans, (unbeknownst to conservatives) with his compassionate hubris he sailed us into uncharted waters of amnesty plans, appointments, enforcement failures, all while failing on most occasions to make the case for true conservative valuess. He waffled on this or that and then, after trying to foist crony Harriet Miers on us, gave us a nominees that again deceived. John Roberts turned into John Dud. He had already given a peace offering on the 4th circuit to Dems. (which meant nothing to Dems)

Then came not so popular President W deriding his own base who protested Miers. He steamed full speed ahead despite all conservatives lobbying efforts and letters to the contrary. But the Left didn’t like Bush and never would. Who was he fooling? What made him start down the road to concessions? Only he could know but it didn’t work. Appeasement was not the bomb, it never is with the radical left.

And leaders in Congress did virtually the same until turning over their majority to the libs — who were already quite skilled at minority power. Now along comes Trump to remind the RNC of its long trail of inconsistencies. Some deep irony there.

More from ’92… as painful a reminder as that is:

“While our goals are constant, we are willing to innovate, experiment, and learn. We have learned that bigger is not better, that quantity and quality are different things, that more money does not guarantee better outcomes. We have learned the importance of individual choice—in education, health care, child care—and that bureaucracy is the enemy of initiative and self-reliance. We believe in empowerment, including home ownership for as many as possible. We believe in decentralized authority, and a bottom-line, principled commitment to what works for people.

We believe in the American people: free men and women with faith in God, working for themselves and their families, believing in the value of every human being from the very young to the very old.”

Have we really learned the tough, necessary lessons? Are we now better for it? Are we now defining progressives, socialists and Marxists as they should be? Are we telling the truth about the Left’s agenda and schemes to correct the record? Are we seizing leadership opportunities to provide the kind of example of conservative values our country so desperately needs? Or are we cowering in a corner declaring to be beaten before we even throw the first punch? Shamefully, I say it is more of the latter. Time and time again we have seen deals being cut that display no conservative values, gaining nothing.

For a moment in time I almost lost my head and optimistically thought we returned to foundations and principles. But Jeb Bush came saying it’s his turn — to try the moderate, Rodney King approach to liberals who will never be appeased and always demand more. Compromise to progressives only amounts to doing it their way, and giving them the credit. I regained my sanity seeing the defense of Jeb Bush. Did we ever want to see a dynasty, be it on the Democrat side or the Republican side?

Yet here we are again fighting for our values to be relevant in a system given over to thugs, elites and special interests. We haven’t yet found the way to master real leadership. It must come from within, but our leaders still have not gotten that message. They even resign in a strategic way to hedge the opportunity for the establishment’s benefit.

But the RNC acts as if that is not an issue. We claim to want to move forward while estabos dredge up people who only exhibit the worst of the past. We provide the big hammer to our opponents and then ask them to hit us over the head. Only we don’t even play the victim very well. We blame everything only on ourselves — on stoopid people and “right-wing extremists,” not Estabo leaders. Then we proceed to ask for more of the same treatment. So reactionary disenfranchised voters embraced Trump as an Apprentice.

The shark-infested waters are just begging to be fed. Some in the Republican Party are determined not to disappoint them. It’s hard to stop this abuse of the base that’s been tolerated till it can’t be anymore. Yes, there are a lot of golden quotes in those old platforms and some good lessons, if we could only see them.

Now, true to the form of uncharted course, it threw Jeb Bush at us along with a wide selection of alternatives that were supposed to be chum to bait us so their selection would rise to the top. Ironically, his “Right to Rise” pac is in your face elitism. Jeb’s scolding lectures on the campaign trail aren’t much of an appetizer either.

Newsmax on Right to Rise pac:

There were also at least 20 donors who gave the super PAC $1 million, including healthcare investor Miguel Fernandez, California billionaire William Oberndorf, Iranian-American diplomat Hushang Ansary, along with his wife Shahla, and hedge-fund manager Louis Bacon.

The 236 donors who gave six-figure checks also include former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Citadel Investment Group founder Kenneth Griffin, and Houston businessman Robert McNair, Politico reports.

Jeb was a founding member and head of Michael Bloomberg’s foundation, which supports all kinds of liberal agenda items. Not in ancient history, he only stepped down prior to starting his pac and running for president. Just last year a major part of its effort was to lobby “foreign nations to ease restrictions on abortion.” Not exactly a Mexico City Policy.

Now he distances himself from the agenda that was a central priority of the foundation. I hope the money he got paid was worth it. He didn’t have to sign off or vote on it, as he asserts, but he was part and parcel to the agenda. For him to claim how pro-life he is/was is ludicrous when this is the very last place he was before running. What other GOP was promoting abortion around the globe? As for Jeb, no wonder George W is getting riled up.

Politico said:

“I don’t know if it’s panic or paranoia in Miami, but they are losing [Scott] Walker people to Marco, and if you say what’s true, they get mad,” said one Bush donor, who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity. “I think it’s just reflective of what’s been going on for the past month or so and the way the race, at least in the establishment lane, has shifted. It’s really Jeb or Marco now. Marco’s fundraising has picked up, and Jeb’s has stayed flat.”

Now they will begin shifting the estabo steam from Jeb to Rubio.

Maybe I’ll post more highlights and low expectations from the past.

RightRing | Bullright

Made for production Dem Debate

Not that hypocrisy ever matters to Democrats or the media liberals.

The story going into the 1st Democrat debate was how Democrats should not attack each other. The whole objective of the two Republican debates was to have them attacking each other.(cannibalizing is a better word) They suggested because Sanders is so low compared to Hillary, that she should let it go even if Bernie attacks her. They asked why elevate him by dignifying it with a response?

On Republicans, they insisted that all the attacks should be responded to, or wave the white flag and forfeit. Now it’s why show any disharmony or disunity in the Democrat Party ranks? Don’t need to do that, even if they are running against each other for control of the Marxist Party.

On the other hand, if they want to talk about rough and tumble Party infighting, point to Republicans. That was surely the script going in.

The debate went according to plan, featuring Hillary in the lead role that will win her an academy award. She’s as gifted at denial as the present Oval Office Occupant. Everyone else was a supporting role. Who cares who they were? Jim Webb didn’t stand a chance with a socialist audience. They made sure not to applaud any of his answers except for a handful that appreciated his pro-gun message. Note, there are a few stragglers left. In their after coverage, they talked about odd moments and pointed to Jim Webb’s answer to who was his biggest enemy? Webb said it would be the enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded him. But CNN and their pundits thought that a strangely odd answer.

Debate is over, gun control is the answer. Hillary chimed in she’d make the rich people pay. What emails, or server? Bernie came to Hill’s rescue saying “enough with the emails”. Case closed. Gateway Pundit reported the press room cheered at that line. He is “sick and tired” of hearing about her “emails”.

Later, everyone fawned all over Hillary for how well she had done. Someone who failed at every job she had in the last decade and a half, always claiming to take full responsibility, wink wink.

For people that are forward looking they spent most of the time in the rear view mirror, the last 20 years worth. Hillary said her chief enemies are the NRA and Republicans. Yea so much gainful news there, over the back-biting long nails of Republican infighting. (so the narrative goes) Only Black Lives Matter was declared honorary winner by Van Jones after the debate, for keeping them all on message. Hillary never answered the question.

At one point, I didn’t think it was a debate, I thought Hillary was giving a press conference. Post debate focus group focused on Hillary, surprise surprise. Hillary “absorbs new information”… good cover for lying and flip flopping like a pancake.

And Las Vegas the gambling capitol was the perfect backdrop for a Dem debate. It’s no longer an election, Dems are betting voters really are that stupid.

United Socialists of America have spoken. The debate is over, just as it is on Climate Change, global warming and gun control. (science and facts be damned) The two most hated things in America, according to that crowd, are flat earth deniers and the NRA. Rich people are a close second — unless you happen to be a socialist Democrat. Gun control, socialism, global warming… what’s not to like?