The Bottom Of The Empty Barrel

There is a point you will never here on lamestream media. It’s actually profound but I am not going to give it away in a few words. Please read the whole context rationale for it. Pity a thousand words were necessary but could easily have been three.

We know the George Floyd case and I don’t need to repeat all the details. Yes, again, horrible and shouldn’t have happened. I’m outraged.

And that supposedly set the latest sequence of events in motion. You know the arguments, police brutality, structural and systemic racism. They’ve assembled endless marches. It would be interesting to know who is doing all the organizing and funding. But never mind that. We have a bigger issue at hand.

Now we are told that practically everything we do is racist, or race-based. They say we have to deal with that; so they get people apologizing for something they didn’t even do to try to appease race hustlers. However, I hate to tell the kneeling do-gooders, it isn’t going to help you or them. That will not solve anything in the end, if they don’t want it solved.

It is just placating them.

Here is example one: if someone who is white has a child today, no matter how you raise him/her, in 18 years or so they will be considered privileged and blamed for being part of the systemic white racism prevalent in this country from its inception.

How’s that for a charge? And nothing you can do will change what he/she is: a white, privileged part of the long problem. I mean how do you explain or prove you are not? That’s the point, it doesn’t matter. And you can be branded as racist even if you do nothing racist. Okay, put that aside now. Though it’s probably an inevitability on this course.

Now we look at reforms they claim are needed. There is naturally police reforms since that seems to be their biggest priority. Blame cops and change all these procedures. You know those, I am not going to list them here. They are not crucial to the point.

The Left and the protestors already told us the problem is systemic racism, so pervasive that it is oozing out of every institution or economic sector in this country – everywhere. And a police reform is going to fix all that? No. But then they will tell you all the other changes we need to make to correct it, starting with us getting on our knees to apologize.

I get a little upset how all the onus and phony questions are always aimed at us. It’s a gotcha game that, even if you participate, you are designed to lose every time. If you play it their way by their rules, that is. They don’t tell you that even if you make all these changes and reforms that guess what? It will still be called systemic racism and you will still be a witting or unwitting participant in it. Because that is the only possible outcome.

Maybe that is a little bit hard and they may give you credit for all these changes while you made them. But it will not be enough in the end because the game doesn’t stop there. Nice try but we will have more work to do. (not that we aren’t now making strides) That’s why kids born today or tomorrow will be blamed in 20 years for being accomplices to all past and present problems and grievances. Yes, there will be another generation of leftists around to make sure that generation are held responsible for it, too. It is perpetual.

Leftists’ love for country is inherently contingent on them getting what they want.

Notice all along it is they who run the show and narrative on all this? No coincidence. You cannot have anything to say because there is nothing you can say. The whole thing continues on and never goes away. I don’t have to explain that. And they will be sure to keep it all alive. But the why is important though.

Example number 2: suppose I buy a house that needs a lot of repairs. The question is why would I go to all the trouble of making extensive plans for it, if I already decided I am gong to level it and build something else in its place? I wouldn’t, it would seem pointless if that were my real plan and I already decided.

What I am saying is that these people, predominately the leftists and Democrats with the go-along dupes, have already decided what they want. These reforms or changes aren’t it. They really want a brand new system, new country and Constitution. The old one is not in the cards, in fact, it isn’t in the game at all.

So we are only appeasing them on the highway to utopia, in their minds, while privately debating over a new foundation layout. But they will never be happy because they want a whole new system. Actually, they want this one to be so flawed they have to change it. That is at the heart of most problems. They tell us.

The other thing they want, in the meantime, is to use the perceived flaws and problems for political gain to increase power. Election fodder. Crises are “opportunities,” they all tell us. Pelosi boasted that she only sees all these crises as opportunities. So that is what all this is about in the end – political power.

Now that we established those basics, there is just one thing left. No wonder they aren’t happy and will not be satisfied? Since they are always posing gotcha questions to us, I have a very important one to ask the Democrat Left. It is the holy grail of questions.

What will it take for them to be proud of America? Would there be any reforms possible to make them proud of America? Oh sure, they are capable of some short-term pride when they are in the White House or control everything. Even that is temporal and condition based. The Left only have pride in an agenda.

Actually the only thing they have pride in are politics. That political pride remains. Quite literally it puts politics above the country. They aren’t capable of being proud of the country – systemic racism or not. They have no attachment, emotional or otherwise, to it. They dropped that long ago. Their agenda is a new country, a new society. The whole idea is not to have any pride in this one.

So there is the bottom line question to it all: Will they ever be proud of America…. and what would that take, if even possible? No reforms can spawn that.

This is the question for the Democrats, socialist left and all the rest. I’m sticking to it.

As much as they’ll always pledge to get to the bottom of it, we must never and can never get to the bottom of an empty barrel.

You’ve probably heard that pride usually comes before the fall. But in this case, it is a lack of pride that spells the cause for the country’s fall.

[previous post – “Open Letter to the Resistance” – 12/16/17]

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Journalism under attack by Coronavirus

Or is it? …The lamestream manstream media is rolling out a brand new narrative Monday that “journalism is under attack by Coronavirus,” by MSNBC’s own Andrew Lack.

Headline: “Journalism is under attack from coronavirus and the White House. But we’re winning.”

“President Trump came into office railing against many of the foundation of our democratic institutions, including a free press.”

In his supposed defense of journalism, he says Trump has not landed a glove on serious, honest journalism (well, then they trashed their own credibility ratings) and claiming that “the heart of journalism has never been stronger.” It gets worse.

[journalists are] “not looking to win any popularity contests – just doing what Woodward and Bernstein inspired my generation and the generations that followed to always do: seek the best obtainable version of the truth.”

Despite the poor writing skill, can you imagine he has the chutzpah to put out that revision? First, no, it is all about popularity contests. He admitted as much in the subtitle claiming “we are winning.” How about best (or worst) version of the narrative?

Secondly, he could have picked better examples but he went for all-stars Woodward and Bernstein, who managed to fame themselves with no shame from the beginning. And if they are your idols, Andy, you have been great students of their goals. In fact, it is now all about who can transfer the latest words into ammunition to weaponize in this political — not journalistic – warfare. Or who can get the most twitter attention or go viral over their political attack. So yeah, they’ve made Woodward and Bernstein(a regular celebrity guest hack on CNN) look like pikers. Jim Acosta turned WH briefings into a resistance sideshow to wax his own ego. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika are on a planet of their own.

Lack goes on to say:

“Reporters have been on this story from the start, tracking the spread of the Coronavirus without fear or favor, faithfully doing their jobs even – and especially – in this perilous time. Every day, with every story, they try to find what is most relevant to the public and relentlessly work to uncover the essence of what it means.”

What all is wrong with that? Everything. He paints them as selfless heroes of some sort. They missed this story and others from the beginning because they were enveloped in propagating the impeachment conspiracy hoax. Just the way they intentionally ignored and smeared the biggest story of our time, about an elaborate coup and coverup 3 years in the making. Oh fearless without favor? Give me a break.

Then, when they did start reporting on it, after mocking the idea it was something to worry about, they collectively went after Trump as the only story while people were dying.
Find what is most relevant to the people? I imagine a pandemic and what it is would be more relevant to people than arguing about Trump closing off travel from China. But then the press mouthpiece NYT told people whatever it is blame it all on the Trump Virus.

Faithfully? You have got to be kidding. About the only thing they remain faithful to is ideology and the resistance because they disagreed with the results of the 2016 election.

Actually, the only thing on par with these presscapades is Democrats’ addiction to play partisan political politics with a pandemic, by holding people and businesses hostage to their own radical agenda. No holds barred… politics trumps even a pandemic.

By the way, you try your damndest(yes, as an institution) not to serve people but control what they think and see. You intentionally ignored the biggest government abuse scandal in US history in the coup. And you replaced it with a political narrative of woven misinformation to deflect from and cover it up. You care what Joe public wants to know?

“At this dark hour, Americans are scared. They’re hungry for accurate information and the unvarnished truth. Now, and in all the days to come, journalists will be there.” — [read article here]

They are fairly angry with what the institution of press has become. No wonder the trust and credibility deficit in media. “Unvarnashed truth” was sacrificed on the altar of politics.

In the end, I don’t know what case he was making that journalism was under attack by Coronavirus, except to once again paint press as victims. Meanwhile, the administration has weathered a coup and now fights a pandemic; so yeah, I’m pretty sure journalism should be able to cover a nasty pandemic. They covered up a coup with no conscience.

Right Ring | Bullright

Show and Tell Politics

Today I needed to have an argument with someone and so I picked Karl Rove. Good old Karl, who really is a whiz at politics and known as the architect for Bush’s successful campaigns. I do tip my hat to his knowledge of politics. A very intelligent guy.

However, if you have to pick a fight with someone he would be the one. Because he has so much credibility. When you have a disagreement with a guru in politics, it must be real.

Anyway, though I have mentioned it before, he is setting up a nice contrast between Republicans and Democrats. He sees it one way and I think I see it a little differently in perspective. We may both want the same thing, in the end, but we come to and at it on different terms. He being the seasoned expert may have the favor. But I don’t really care, as I am determined to get the perspective right to the core.

He has lectured the same strategy several times on Fox, which he sees as a formula to winning. I don’t accept the basic premise of it. That’s where it gets hairy. Color me skeptical. I have no time-tested methodology or anything, only a sense based on what I know and have seen. That leads me to make a hypothesis and prognosis that I want to treat. He sees more a typical case. This is important and goes directly into my thesis.

Rove has a plethora of plug and play models of prescriptions from which to choose. He also has a good background in history. I am David but battling with an intellectual Goliath.

We both see the same battlegrounds of Democrats and issues driving their whole platform. They are as socialist and radical as the day is long. At least we see the same issues. But our combat tactics have to differ. He is ready to use an arsenal of resources to counter them all. Okay, I understand the reasoning. He wants to get organized and go down some type of list of Democrat issues, one by one, with an answer for each one. He wants Republicans or their spokespeople to be armed and able to tell voters what our ideas are and why they are better than Democrats’ failed ideas. An ultimate battle of ideas. Fairly basic, right?

On the face, you could say he is right. All it takes is that information and plugging it in wherever needed to explain our ideas. Forgive me here because I start seeing that as a little mundane. And in the end, it would depend on whether you can convince targeted voters that your ideas are better and right for America. It sounds a little déjà vu as well.

Wasn’t that what Paul Ryan kept saying? So we do have a case example. Did it work? Jury is still out I guess. But I remember him talking about this “better way” campaign. It is also a tedious thing of sitting down with people and requires being allowed to present your ideas to a willing audience. What could go wrong with that?

Now I promise I am not literally trying to pick apart every little thing with his plan. I’m just trying to be realistic. And today realism can cause you all sorts of heartburn. It is not as simple as it sounds. See we have to consider that target audience. So they are independents and some Democrats. We must know the environment (arena) too.

Targeted audience and arena opens up a big can of worms. And the people who we are inevitably responding to are those Democrats. It also means they are setting the terms for debate with their issues. We are then forced to debate on their terms. Sure we know what those are. But you have to know your audience too, in order to try to convince them. Basically, Democrats are now socialists. They know what they want, too. Long gone are the days Democrats didn’t know what they were, even what they were fighting for. They boldly admit being socialists, or Democratic Socialists if your like. And they are radicals, their ideas are radical. We shouldn’t have to adorn socialism petite along the way.

The logical way to look at it is you cannot go on treating the symptoms without diagnosing and addressing the disease. Pretending it does not matter is not a logical response.

So my point is that you cannot reason with radicals the same way you discuss a family vacation. By their nature they are altered to operate differently. They are hardened in the arts of radicalism. The point is you have to take into consideration who they are. David did know that much about his opponent, Goliath. He found out. And that helped determine how to fight him. It also impassioned David to fight him. I am not saying that socialists or socialism is a giant, only a big glob. Don’t underestimate the ability or capability of your opponent. They have gotten these inherently radical ideas because they are radicals.

When it comes to any interactions with them, one must remember they are radicals. Or go in with that conception anyway. Then the rules of reason that might ordinarily influence anyone else may not work on these people. They have built-in predjudices to their ideas. You aren’t dealing with an objective, even rational, person. Of course you are shooting for those you can influence or convince. Also, by nature, the other way these Democrats move is by group or mob. That is how they are influenced as well, by the wave of the mob.

Content Conflict

Then there is the content conflict. We are fighting a mass of media propaganda at the same time. Whatever we say is likely to be turned into the next day’s sound bite against us. So if we are just going for the straight information argument, bombing them with info to make your case, it is possible. But do realize what you are up against or the message will just fall on intentionally deaf ears. When I hear stories of Russian defectors, I get a sense of what this is like. They have preconceived defenses built against your ideas. They are trained to hear things only in a certain way. It may not be code but it is in a way that fits with their ideological (in this case radical) mindset. The worst part is they have built a bias against even opening the door to you.

All this is why I find myself questioning Rove’s approach. Not because he is wrong about any of it, but because of who they really are on the other side. So at one time Karl Rove’s formula would be perfectly right because it would have been like normal politics. Today though, politics is not normal. To call it abnormal would be understating it. This is a whole different politics and relationship to them. What I am trying to say and show is that since Karl Rove has been around and involved in politics, things have changed.

It is not the same as it used to be. And what always worked before may be worthless now, unless you factor in who they are. Regular politics is not supposed to work with radicals because politics is what they were designed to hinder and overcome. Is that a fair match?

And we cannot afford to lose. This will definitely need a part 2 – sometime.

Right Ring | Bullright

Fear mongering meets comedy in news

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

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

In November, what will we remember?

The strategy for Republicans to win in November amounts to one thing at the top of everything. National issues win. On the fly in less than 800 words.

What the public cares most about are the national issues, which is why Trump won the way he did. That didn’t change. The big picture is now optimistic but needs more clarity.

National issues simply means broad popular issues. The same as 2016. This is not to say that local issues are irrelevant, but the same national issues do affect people locally. It is like a template: budgets, tax cuts, strong military, security, illegal immigration, border enforcement, the wall, jobs and a cadre of others as part of the local mix. Add to that the rise of Sanctuary Cities, pols who support them, and Leftists’ attempts to usurp power.

But face it, local school budgets and zoning ordinances are not the stuff of a national election. Though notice how Democrats try to nationalize them? No, voters go to polls to vote on their congressional reps and, yes, now senators. (17th amend did that) See, Democrats try to nationalize everything to suit their agenda.

We, on the other hand, as conservatives and Republicans, have a great basket of issues people care about, including the blue collar workforce. The fact that unions haven’t caught on should not effect it. There is no one else standing up for people. And those people are still fed up, and now at all the Democrats’ obstruction.

And Democrats are flush with cultural and divisive issues which are not the people’s agenda. Of course, their identity politics requires they play that game. But it is a huge turnoff to voters. Why favor a segment of people when you can appeal to all people?

When people look at their finances, of course they are concerned about jobs, growth, the GDP and spending. Promising someone a free college education doesn’t solve problems, it creates them. Appealing to black lives matter rhetoric doesn’t help anyone. They are identity issues. Screaming racism solves what? Notice how Democrats, to their credit, try to identify with what are now Trump voters. They can’t, yet want to sound Trumpian. But that is the guy they want to impeach as soon as they get their chance.

Republicans cannot be naval gazing, just fighting with themselves, handing Democrats ammunition. Bob Corker went off his little rocker, again, to attack any Trump supporters. He called them “cult-like.” I have a real cult to introduce Corker to. The mirror.

Recently, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote a column explaining the threat this election poses to Republicans and Trump. Impeachment was a big part of it. Understanding that, and impeachment itself, should be a part of this election process. He said much the same thing about national issues. A clarion warning, it offers some inspiration.

Here is the only conclusion I come to: just take all those big, important issues people care about and put them up against the only major issue to Democrats, impeachment.

After all, what would Democrats say, if they were honestly nuanced: (for a sampler)

1) We are going to make you less safe.
2)We’ll make the border less secure — open it up to everyone!
3)We’re going to raise your taxes and explode the budget, at the same time.
4)We are going to tar and feather Trump, first, then Impeach him.
5)We want to roll back your tax cuts and the last election.
6)We want to make America sorry for electing Trump — revenge, payback.
7)We want more sanctuary cities, more ‘sanctuary dances’ like the Philly Mayor’s.
8)We want your guns too, what good is a majority if we can’t take people’s freedoms?
9)We want to stop investigating DOJ, and cover up the Deep State agenda.
10)We will take the abuse of power and obstruction to a whole new level.
11)We will ram our Obamacare back onto the front burner for the 11th year.
12)We would like to turn California into about 5 new Liberal states too — like the way we gerrymander districts. Eric Holder probably has a plan for that.

 Yet that is only for starters. We will just be rehearsing and warming up for phase two, our 2020 takeover. I think we’ve proven our electioneering prowess and capabilities.

 

Not much of a choice when you look at it that way.
We need to finish what we started. Let the Red Tide roll.

Right Ring | Bullright

Leave it to left to define Roseanne

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

Read here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

“They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.” – from The Ethics of Elfland

I should have posted this quote alone, but I could not do it. It occurs to me this is part of what is wrong today. The opposite of this quote rings too true for culture. I don’t think Chesterson is even taught in schools anymore, someone who contributed so much.

There’s a movement by the Catholic Church to sanctify him. Chesterson honored God in what he did. All the more reason he is marginalized from society.

So if they are not teaching him, you can say par for the times of ours. However, if this all continues, at some point they may not know how to teach it — being too impractical.

Conditioning

You can see it in this shooting. To take the general view that people forego principles and morality to accept culture as just the way it is, then it alters what we do. It lowers the standard. It rationalizes morality away. It becomes a state of these are the circumstances we live with now. We act accordingly and presume to be excused because of it all.

We can/do teach that in schools: these are just the conditions we are dealt. Teach that shootings are now normalcy. Just accept that is the way it is.

Chesterson was making a point to say that you don’t have to take that view, or concede your fundamental beliefs and principles. That is much the reason we got to this state.

Right Ring | Bullright

Plantation Politics: an appeal to the left

After years watching politics, the one thing that still bugs me more than almost anything is the left’s paradigm of identity politics. I know the right knows all about this. But for the sake of it, I want to frame it in speaking to the left. They’ll never read it but so what?

There are either denials about the use of identity politics or shrugs that both sides do it that it is just politics. It isn’t just politics, but has become just politics as usual.

So Democrats, forget your phony emotions for a second. The Democrat Party and elected Democrats don’t care about you. (stomach that) They don’t. They only care about your identity group. Even that is a shell game, as phony as their compassion for you.

That’s just the way it is. They are pretty proud of that, too. The proof is all over every Democrat’s campaign. Here is the big nut you are also forced to swallow. In turn for your part in this “process,” you are expected to vote with your identity group.

You are not an individual. You are a member of an identity group or identities. You are of no relevance or use to the party as an individual. (neither are your ideas) You will be expected to vote for and with your group(s). And your identity group will be expected to support the Democrat Party. Why isn’t that a disclosure on all their party literature?

This is plantation politics. I know you don’t like that term, but that’s what it is. You will never have an individual voice or say, because all that really matters is your identity group and its use to the Party. This ties in to what the rest of us normal people have been calling for some time the invisible or forgotten man — thus the invisible voter.

And the party spends its available time and resources managing those identities toward its ends. Call them the demigods of demographics. Your individual vote doesn’t really matter. It was hijacked, taken for granted, and sold into their identity paradigm — like an indentured servant. You thought Dems had issues with voter ID? It’s all about identity.

Yes, the function of the Democrat Party is to manage identities. As long as they do a good job managing them, everything is okay. Take a closer look at who you are. What matters is your identity. Teacher, union member, Latino, Hispanic, immigrant, refugee, black, black Hispanic, woman, white. You fit in where your identity is, from gender or race to cross-dressing hairdressers. Not how you see yourself? Irrelevant. That is how they see you.

You are expected to live within and vote your identity group. Don’t stray from that and you will be okay. But venture off the plantation, or from its hierarchy, and you have a problem. No one realizes this until one doesn’t stay in their lane, as you should.

The problem of management: Democrats have not been doing that too well either. They know it too, which is another thing deemed irrelevant But then you cannot make all the people happy all the time. As long as you the identity member realizes a certain amount of sacrifice will always be demanded for the greater cause. Sacrifice is expected. You won’t get everything your identity wants and neither will most others, save for the elite, elected. Their protection is a perk of the job.

The real costs of sacrifice is even irrelevant in exchange for the greater whole. There are no awards for sacrifice. All the accolades go to the greater cause or ends, except those at the top blanketed in praise. It keeps the masses happy. They get the accolades and you get the gratuitous slap on the back for making it all possible — you and your identity that is.

The party makes the decisions for you or on your behalf. See, they’ve decided, usually in advance, what you shall have and get. If it interferes with their elite leadership and greater agenda, it is thrown to the side. (no matter how noble you may think it is) You’ll get used to the sacrifice thing, just keep your eyes on their larger picture. You’ll get the hang of it.

Understand the only way this whole paradigm continues to work the way they designed and constructed it is if everyone sticks with their identity group. Another self-sacrifice, antiquated individualism. It is so ‘not today.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Means of dissent

Whether consciously among most leftists or not, the idea is that many people all have disagreements and that those individual disagreements can then be harnessed, united and directed, symbolically, at the flag and Anthem. America itself can be the object of individual disagreements under a big tent. (in reverse of unification theory) That big tent often becomes the Democrat party. So people can loosely unify against the flag.

This is evidenced in the NFL protest and all those being sympathetic in some way to it, even including the owners. They parlayed it into a vehicle for generic hatred of Trump, or protest of him. And racism or oppression. The individual issues or disagreements don’t seem to matter, as long as collectively focused or that they march together.

Disagreement to disdain

Why can they unite on a platform of dissent so easily but not uni formally under the flag? Disagreements. They say that they don’t feel united under the flag, or feel left out, or don’t like our policies etc. Even if much of the discontent is a product of what they are doing.

Everyone may have their different disagreements, powerful as they are, with issues or policies or traditions, yet all can sort of agree in protest as a loose-knit group of discontents. That dissent can then be channeled or directed at America. Dissent breeds disdain. And those who are not predisposed to have much affinity for that American flag, America, have no problem transferring their animosity onto the flag. In the end, the source of animosity is often not as important as what it is directed at. The gestalt of the protest reigns supreme.

You see, it amounts to using the freedom of speech to protest the very guarantor of it. This is a radical perversion directed at America’s foundation. Freedom of press, or the first amendment, can be used to solidify dissent against America. That is something Marx and Engels understood well. It does not take a majority to succeed in undermining America.

Protesters and discontents can stand on their freedom to do it, but what of its use?
Does what you do with something not matter at all — but only your right to do it?

It should sound familiar: the ends justify the means. Just like the slogan of the Trump Resistance movement is resist “by any means necessary.” Outcome is all that matters.

On the plus upside: at least one ESPN host is “tired of it,” Stephen A. Smith. Score.
And Ravens’ Anthem singer resigned, a vet, saying to ‘go where you’re welcomed.’

Cost of NFL’s anti-America protest — fans and NFL sponsors.
Cost of American freedom — eternal vigilance.

Right Ring | Bullright

CNN gets dose of Anthem reality

CNN’s David Axelrod does an interview with James Baker and jumps on the flag National Anthem protest ‘controversy'(everything is a controversy to CNN). But he doesn’t get the answer they wanted.

“There are plenty of ways that you can, that you can call into question some of the racism that may still exist in this country, but that’s the wrong way to do it,” Baker said, adding that being American used to be “the one thing” that unified people.

“You can’t tell me that not standing up for the National Anthem with your hand over your heart is not denigrating to the National Anthem or the flag… it is,” Baker told Axelrod.”

Right, don’t try to tell us this is not a disrespectful protest of the flag, National Anthem or America. Bozos. Now the left is too damn dumb to know what American dissent looks like. They just pretend it isn’t anti-America.

Sad Sackers football flop

Green Bay are now the Sad Sackers. Thursday, the Packers tried to recruit fans to lock arms for a Kodak-moment display of solidarity with the anti-American, anti-cop protest agenda but it backfired. They got a protest returned from fans when they booed them.

Do football teams and the NFL really want to die on that hill? Apparently so. They now think they can browbeat or shame fans into joining them? Good luck with that.

Ref: http://truthfeednews.com/clueless-green-bay-packers-invite-fans-to-join-anthem-protest/

NFL Goes Full-Blown Protest Mode

PC crap, here is NFL’s new ad on unity — I suppose that is the message. But you figure out what “inside these lines” means….or is supposed to mean.

So game day turned to P/C day.

Steelers announced they would stay in the locker room for the National Anthem.
All but one of the Steelers stayed in the locker room for the opening. (*later revealed they were in the shadows of the stadium.)

Hey, Steelers, I got a real protest for you:
Just stay in the locker room ….if you really want to protest.
Sit out the game. Stay off of the field …show us you can really protest.

All these teams protesting now. What’s next, eliminate the National Anthem… maybe flag burning? The Anthem could be too divisive, so just eliminate it. Is that where this is going?
You want to protest, cancel the game. See how that goes.

Roger Goodell called Trump’s remarks about flag and National Anthem protests “divisive”.

Goodell issued a statement Saturday

The following statement is in response to President Donald Trump’s comments last night…

STATEMENT FROM NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL

The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month. Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.

Roger, what is divisive is this protest crap taking part of opening ceremonies, now that is divisive. Lack of respect for the NFL? You deserve respect? Seriously, the irony of that.

This is not football day, this is National Protest Day.
Call it what it is….but football has absolutely nothing to do with it. So why there?
It is only another public opportunity for glorified protest.

But don’t blame President Trump or our NFL Boycott then.
But don’t, don’t demonize and condemn our protest of you.

“Get your protest here….get ’em while they’re hot!”

National Protest America Day, fireworks to follow.

Right Ring | Bullright

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

Kasich’s wide berth platform

Speaking of triggering politics, another fringe guy is back in the news. Ohio Gov John Kasich. Just remember his boycott a year ago of the GOP convention, in Ohio.

Now he is back out pimping his book and criticizing Trump where possible His lectures are numerous to the GOP — who in case he hadn’t noticed did win the election, despite his persistent resistance.

So he keeps up appearances on MSM and CNN, always happy to give him plenty of airtime. Reports now from CNN say he is in talks, collaboration, with Colorado Gov Hickenlooper .– a name he has been dropping around for a year.

(CNN) — Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper have entertained the idea of forming a unity presidential ticket to run for the White House in 2020, a source involved the discussions tells CNN.

Under this scenario, Kasich, a Republican, and Hickenlooper, a Democrat, would run as independents with Kasich at the top of the ticket, said the source, who cautioned it has only been casually talked about. /….

Politics of “casual” convenience.

Kasich repeatedly denied plans on running in 2020. But since it is his favorite pass time, do you really think he can refuse? Why don’t all these GOP resistance join the resistance on the left? Who is kidding whom? Now he is flirting with running as an independent.

Exactly what is ohe ffering Hickenlooper? Certainly he is wasting no time, 7 months into Trump’s presidency. Kasich’s never-Trump campaign never ended. How about Joe Scarborough if Hickenlooper declines?

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. 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