Lights Out

The dimwitted left has lost whatever small piece of its mind that may have remained. Now they attack General Kelly and the ‘Empty Barrel’ called that name racist.

It ain’t working! Ha, Planned Parenthood issued a statement that they stand with black women and the black community. There’s an endorsement of culture for you.

So former presidents(Stripes) are having a fundraiser at Texas A&M, excuding Trump. Well, bite my asparagus! That’s bad? Exactly why we elected him.

“Deep from the Heart: The One America Appeal” is part of an effort launched last month by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom are scheduled to attend the concert Saturday.

Their thousand points of light have gone dark. All more of a political appeal.

But their incessant, incestuous lectures continue against voters and we the people?

Planned Parenthood lets us know they are still in business: (from Planet Absurd)

‘Human Rights! Human Rights is the goal! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Just in case there was any flicker of light left, PP makes sure to snuff it out.

Advertisements

A week In Dem Spinville

Since the left is so big on collective, I thought I’d take a nice sampling of their collective voice over a week. I’m sure I missed a lot.

Jimmy-“guess what’s in my pants”-Kimmel says of people who stopped watching his anti-Trump show that they likely aren’t the kind of people he would want to talk to anyway. He’s glad to be rid of them and would do it all again.

Eminem, aka Marshall Bruce Mathers III, did a video giving any of his fans who supported Trump the finger, spitting on the floor, saying he doesn’t want them.

Colin Kaepernick now claims that he’s been colluded against in a conspiracy, files a suit.

Kathy Griffin stuck her head up to say “I’m being blacklisted”. But doesn’t mention the spying complaints and restraining order against her. Her booking canceled but last week was wearing a Trump mask giving him the unapologetic finger. She told the audience it would be all over youtube and right-wing media. Now she’s back to Trump victim #1.

Berghdal goes to court only to blame Trump for his treason woes.

Hillary weighs in on the flag protest. The flag and anthem are just dog whistles too.

“Let’s be clear, those players aren’t protesting the national anthem or the flag,” Clinton said. “They’re protesting racism and injustice, and they have every right to do so!”

Dear delusional loser, you don’t recognize a protest of the flag when you see it.

Oh, let’s not forget Hillary went over to London and blamed Nigel Farage and Brexit for her loss. Brits cost her the election. She must have run out of people to blame in the US .

With all this talk and bitchin’ lately, don’t think McCain could hold his tongue.

John McCain went to Philadelphia to receive an award “for his “lifetime of sacrifice and service” to the country. Ironically, he used the opportunity to viciously call our patriotism “some half-baked scurrilous nationalism” that needs to be condemned. Well, that means we all need to be condemned. We re unpatriotic. (call it Juan’s wet kiss to media)

Referring to the new administration:

Echoes his Senate Floor rant where he lashed out at people:

“Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.” adding “Let’s trust each other.”

He meant “trust” fellow Senators — not the people.

Reminiscent of his blast against Evangelicals and Christian conservatives back in 2000 in the primary. Then he branded Christian Conservatives “agents of intolerance” in the “outer reaches.” He can broad brush us but we can’t generalize on their actions.

Then McCain’s recent slam in the Senate saying ignore us that we just don’t want any public good. He is obsessed with blaming the people. Every speech is just another opportunity to bash conservatives in his tolerance mantra. Sounds like Hillary.

Hillary’s instincts are always wrong on everything. Those instincts tell her to be quiet when she is under investigations or should hold a press conferences. Speak through lawyers. Instincts to get a private server, hide emails, then delete them. Then her instincts won’t let her shut up when everyone wants her go away and shut up.

So all those “collective” attacks are directed at not only Trump but toward the people, especially supporters of Trump.(peeping haters) They all agree that we are the problem.

Right Ring | Bullright

Strategy is the boss

There was a reason I mentioned the rules for radicals because they are tactics. So that brings my concern to the front.

I think most of what Trump has done has been refreshing, a welcome change. But I do have one concern. I may not understand all of Trump’s tactics, he’s been doing this long enough to lose track. I like most of it.

There is this question I have though. You have strategy and you have tactics. My question is wondering if the tactics are getting ahead of the strategy? I know Trump has active plans and a strategy, but I’m starting to see more tactics than strategy.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, though it does prompt the question.

However, when tactics supplant strategy we have a problem. When tactics don’t support an overall strategy, they can’t be that effective. I wonder if we are at that point? I don’t think it is a major problem except it is far better if all the tactics coincide with the strategy. And we know that tactics alone cannot be a strategy.

But there is a danger of reversal. That is when strategy becomes subservient to tactics. In that case the strategy loses, and certainly can’t be very effective. That is my fear.

Well, at least we don’t have to worry about those two things with Congress. They have neither a strategy nor tactics. And whatever political tactics individuals do use don’t support any kind of strategy. So the body is completely incompetent, useless and ineffective. But that’s probably why we can’t collectively oppose the left, let alone follow through on plans. Probably why we are losing even when we’re winning elections.

That brings it back to Trump. Finally we have someone with an actual plan and pretty basic strategy. But then I wonder if we are losing the strategy for the tactics and maneuvers? And a strategy should not be incoherent among team members. What team? Congress is acting as if the Dems are in charge and Republicans are an opposition party. So they haven’t got the hang of winning. That might turn into a self-fulfilling philosophy.

Because if we lose a cohesive strategy then we are a lot like Congress is already, and obviously their lack of plan is not working for us at all.

Right Ring | Bullright

Micro macro targeting the opposition

Why does the radical left often appear to gain more, faster ground than the right on issues? Well, again, it may have something to do with Alinsky tactics.

Rules for Radicals: rule #12

““Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

I’m not saying they are more successful as a rule. However, it does seem like the right is constantly caught up in attacking institutions, if by their nature, Yet we know the root of it is the Marxist people. Not like you can go through liberal academia one by one, that would be exhausting. We have. So we focus on the institution they’ve corrupted.

We focus on areas of government they’ve corrupted. But we did have the perfect match with Obama in office — even Holder, Lynch, Rice and Hillary. And guess what? We were told those attacks were off limits, or racist. Republicans frowned on those claiming they did not want it to be personal. Why not though? We ceded the perfect weapon and target. It was successful when they finally held Holder in Contempt.

But we do need to make constant personal examples within the institution. Think about this flag controversy. When we made it about the flag, that was a win, and we used Kaepernick as its poster boy, we saw much more success. Notice how everything the left does is personalized at Trump, even when it doesn’t apply.

Name it and shame it can work. I’ve realized just because Leftists have no shame doesn’t matter. It’s the people who see it who matter. If we concentrate on leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, et al, we are getting more bang for the buck, especially when the Left is also thinking of replacing them. Whenever they stick their heads up we should be zooming in on the opportunity to personalize it.

The same must apply to the RINOs in congress. If they get isolated, they feel it. Sure as heck, those like Corker are going to feel it from home. He can’t even run again. But if he is going scorched earth, then his record and pending scandals are fair game too.

Whether it is tax policy or Obamacare, we have a plethora of personal examples. Just what the left doesn’t want to talk about, real people affected by policy. Besides, the left going after Trump on everything is a tad bit old and stale. Another rule applies there. Rule #7:

““A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.“ Don’t become old news.”

At some point even Trump attacks get old. Media can’t keep them alive on life support. Think of how many things Obama just waited out, scandal after scandal, till finally nothing was done. Remember he called it old news when we never got any answers?

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

Mayor Carmen Cruz the terrorist supporter

Well, that didn’t take long. The lamestream media made an instant hero out of the San Juan mayor, to oppose Trump. Now they’re entwined with the terrorist supporter.

BUSTED: Anti-Trump Puerto Rican Mayor Supported Terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera

Got News – Sep 30, 2017

Carmen Yulin Cruz, the anti-Trump Mayor of San Juan who has used the national spotlight of Hurricane Maria to attack Trump, has a long history of supporting convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican radical who ran a paramilitary group that waged war against the United States.

Since May 29th, 2012, Cruz has used her official Twitter account 49 times to lend support to Lopez, a man arrested by the United States government in May of 1981 for seditious conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to transport explosives to destroy government property, among other charges. Later that year, Lopez was sentenced to 55 years in jail for his various crimes.

Moreover, it appears Cruz is more than just a supporter of Rivera’s; she appears to be a personal friend of his. On May 29th, 2016, Cruz posted a tribute to Rivera, and wrote “for a great friend, a great patriot: for you Oscar Lopez Rivera.” …/

Read http://gotnews.com/busted-anti-trump-puerto-rican-mayor-supported-terrorist-oscar-lopez-rivera/

Maybe she should drop the Resistance program and concentrate on the assistance.

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/

Big Picture, Big Story

After Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation comes this second installment.

I think this is a big story. And I think Trump was right that it is a big story, bigger than people know. Home run, we got us a story here.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

Rice denies engaging in improper political spying
BY: Bill Gertz | September 19, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a House committee this month she requested the identities of Trump transition aides that were hidden in sensitive intelligence reports to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

Rice testified before a closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Sept. 6 that she asked U.S. intelligence agencies for the names of Trump advisers to be unmasked in transcripts of communications intercepts.

Rice asked for names to be unmasked in a transcript of an electronic intercept involving a meeting between three senior Trump aides and a United Arab Emirates official who had traveled to the United States for an informal visit.

The three officials included candidate Donald Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; presidential campaign chief executive Steve Bannon; and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, according to CNN, which first reported on Rice’s closed-door testimony.

Details of Rice’s testimony on the unmasking of Trump aides were made public Sept. 14, quoting unidentified government sources, and included comments from members of Congress who did not dispute the closed-door testimony.

Rice’s disclosures before the intelligence panel appear to contradict earlier statements she made asserting that she had no knowledge of the unmasking of Americans, the process of identifying the names of Americans who are protected by privacy laws and who are incidentally spied on during sensitive foreign electronic intelligence operations. …/

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story. I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world,” Trump said, adding cryptically, “it’s a bigger story than you know.”

Rice’s testimony before the House committee is part of a committee investigation into allegations of improper intelligence gathering by the Obama administration, as well as Russian influence operations targeting the 2016 election.

“We know the unmasking investigation is moving forward, and that the intel committee has amassed a lot of information about it,” said one congressional official. “It seems like you had Obama officials doing this and thinking they wouldn’t get caught.”

Read: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-nsc-adviser-admits-seeking-trump-aides-identities-intel-reports/

Maybe we knew or heard most of that before. The difference is context. No, it isn’t in the reporting or events. It seems the momentum has changed. Now, with Rice’s testimony, it is hard to overlook the obvious: that there was some surveillance at Trump Tower and that the names were suspiciously unmasked around the events of the campaign. So there was a meeting with a Saudi prince, which supposedly tripped Rice’s trigger to have to know everyone who was there. Or that is her excuse. Why? Your guess.

They only know everyone that was there, who is masked, because of surveillance. It is so blatantly political you cannot deny it, even if you wanted to. Then Rice refuses to say why she needed to know, saying it would involve classified information. If this is not worthy of investigation — why they were worried about all this — then what is worthy to know?

And now the people know too. See what changed was we were not supposed to get caught up in the how or why they got the information. We were just supposed to hear it trickled out from the Obama perspective, unquestioned. We were supposed to concentrate on their intentional outcome — not the means to it. Get it?

That makes all this smell more like the set up that it is. My explanation:

Maybe this investigation was loosely planned or not? At the least, the information was supposed to come out, somehow, at some point, to make Trump look bad. But it was to be by slight of hand, then passed right through so we couldn’t really question where it came from or how. Then we would be so busy in looking at its implications on Trump, shocked, to be bothered with the questionable means and/or their motives.

This, I believe, was cooked up some time ago. Before or right after election makes little difference. It may have been the ‘just in case plan.’ (JICP) Call it an insurance policy. In fact, they could have discovered enough info on the way they thought could be useful blackmail material. Maybe not a lot, just enough to cause major discomfort, or at least keep people answering questions as a distraction or diversion. But any information found along the way could be useful. The damage is in how the information is used, not whether it is damning or not. That is the weaponizing part. The time and purpose they used it for, the goal, would be up to them. But we would not be able to track down exactly where the information came from — not for a long time with a lot of effort.

That is where there was a problem. It didn’t unfold just the way it was supposed to. When Trump shot off a tweet about being wiretapped at the Trump Tower, it was like a canon going off around the world. We didn’t know why that was such a big deal, since it was obvious to most of us that there was some type of surveillance around Trump and the Trump Tower. We knew enough already. Maybe we didn’t know how deep it went, or who was involved, but we knew it took place. It interrupted the plot. Any incoming Republican would have faced the same thing.

Their problem was Trump pulled the trigger calling it out, untimely as it was, which set off a sequence of events and reactions to his accusation. That began the ball rolling, even though they mocked and attacked him for having said it.

He was not to be so bold as make that claim. It didn’t fit their plans. Then, surely, no one was supposed to believe it anyway. So it went on for weeks, as they tried to put Trump’s charge to bed quickly and permanently. (they: Democrats, Left, media and Obamafiles) It mostly did work; they tamped it down where only people brought it up to mock Trump’s ridiculous assertion. even demanding apologies. That started to screw things up.

That was about the time we were hearing Obama was traveling the globe and kite surfing somewhere in the Caribbean. So statements came out from Ben Rhodes and others calling wiretapping preposterous. But why wouldn’t Obama and his cronies be willing to spy on Trump, especially after he won, when they had been willing to do most anything during the campaign to aid Hillary? Why stop now when it is even more critical to them?

SO their loose plans were interrupted, inconveniently. And they couldn’t put the lid back on it. Suddenly the public outrage kicked up saying ‘wait a minute, he was under some kind of surveillance.’ We already knew that much. Remember how nasty they got in denials?

Now people were questioning the means of the information, not just whether Trump did something. Ah oh. People wanted that investigated with the other. Well, that wasn’t in the script at all. Actually, that was the one thing that could not be worked into their script. It messed everything up when it looks as if there was some agenda all along against Trump. No, they wanted us to only see a Russia agenda. (just as they did during the campaign.)

Anything else was very inconvenient. Must demonize Trump. Put him down and keep him down. Delegitimize him. But do not expose their creative, political, informational techniques. It usually does come down to narrative to the left. When they can control the narrative, they are ahead. But interrupt or change their narrative, they have a problem.

This was a big shift exposing the corrupt means, machinery, behind their Russia narrative. Like in Wizard of Oz, we weren’t supposed to see that part. That changes their whole story line. We were supposed to see the what, not the how or why. It blew up their plot.

The same applies to the Mueller and company. The investigation was to justify itself. The fact that they got a special counsel established — not the how or why — was supposed to convey legitimate authority for it and perception of “must be some wrong doing” then. Democrats and media touted that it exists therefore is justified — or else it wouldn’t.

The same rules, or lack of, also applied to Manafort’s no-knock raid. “If they got that warrant then it was justified.” If FISA or any judge issued it, there were legitimate grounds. And we certainly need not know why. The process is supposed to justify itself.

The same faulty premises applied to the surveillance. If there was surveillance, then obviously it must have been (a)legal and (b) justified by its existence alone. Never mind the reason. Which, in the case of Democrats, an outgoing president, a radicalized administration and party, after a terrible election loss, is entirely questionable.

Especially if the entire basis for said investigation is due to Democrats losing the election — or Trump winning. Never mind all the shenanigans that happened repeatedly on the left.

Therefore, it makes it easy for them to say any surveillance would have to be justified — or it wouldn’t have happened. See this is the way of using the process, corrupted as it is, to justify all their misconduct. That process and their creativity using it, is not to be questioned in any way, according to Dems. ‘Trust us.’ Then, as a backdoor guardian, if anyone can explain or sell this way of thinking, it would be media — their chief ally.

Meanwhile, let’s also pretend not to have noticed what is really taking place in front of us: the complete litigation of the election and outcome of it.

Right Ring | Bullright

2 Major Problems, Government

There are two things that stand out lately. Take your pick, they go hand in hand.

The thought of a weaponized government, against people, and then that government weaponizing information and intelligence against people should scare anyone. You could say that sounds like what Russia is doing — or did last year, in the eyes of the left.

No that describes our government under Obama’s reign. I could add politicizing government, for its own political objectives, but that goes hand in hand with the weaponizing. That could not be done to this degree without intent.

Instead of the broader left being an ideological movement and just another loosely connected political party, it now operates more like an organized crime syndicate.

Thus, it ( the left) uses any resources or information as a means to its political objectives. Some say “but the left doesn’t all agree on everything.” Well, it doesn’t have to. Though the ends are being served regardless.

What is the solution? I don’t see a simple fix to either of those.Once the government has been weaponized against the country, the way it was in the last 8 years, it is hard to repair. We’re finding out now. And when a party operates that way, there is no turning back. Together, they give us a radicalized government. But we have been screaming about this for years, no one was listening. Like we made this tangled web up?

So it was suggested by Newt Gingrich on Hannity that Congress needs to step up, investigate, talk to all the Obamafiles and do its diligence. Well, except does anyone have any degree of confidence in that happening, even in a Republican Congress? Or if they did, would anything come of it? At least we are finally talking about it. Now the fun begins.

I guess that is major problem #3. Yet look at what stuff government is investigating.

Have a look at one night’s coverage. Teed up and tee’d off.

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

Orwellian Antifa in perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the entire op-ed: The Hill

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

The Dreamer Obummer goes to the Wall

It’s okay For Democrats to fundraise off of redacting DACA but it is so wrong to tie future legislation to funding the wall and border security. What a heap of manure.

Now which two of those things are part of the illegal immigration issue?

Obama said Tuesday, after the decision:

“And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future.”

“What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals…”

“That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.”

“Shifted responsibility” from the White House? It was him that put it there when it belongs in Congress. He’s completely reversing it and then expects people to believe him.

Those ideals. “Reach our more perfect union”… by illegally making unconstitutional, fiat law? That is not an ideal America stands for. But then the guy who created this mess would have to be so far out there to justify it.

Those “Dreamers” must really be dreaming if they would rather have their status subject to a president’s Unconstitutional, fiat law. That is defending Unconstitutionality.

Obama even knows it. So he is probably laughing real hard to have them all defending his Unconstitutional actions thinking “those morons don’t even know it.”

Once again, here we are dealing with another disaster Obama created — while he is cruising in some yacht, writing revision history standing American rule of law on its head.

I’m tired of the protest crap. Protest this, protest that, boycott this, trying to shut down free speech. And there is one person still at the center of it all, Obama.

One protest sign from Dreamers says “Support DACA Not Walls.” Failure to build a wall helped create DACA. It was lack of border enforcement that caused the problem in the first place. Are these Leftists just mentally-challenged or do they really expect people to believe their contemptible BS? America doesn’t buy it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Life Liberty and Right to Riot

In Houston, people volunteer to save each others lives even at risk to their own.

In Berkeley, they threaten and attack people with violence and destroy property.

I’m guessing they probably never had a flood in Berkeley.
Yet many people are making a moral justification for Antifa.

Hurricane Harvey has a higher moral ground than Antifa. Whoa!

Our Country Rewritten

I took the liberty to rewrite the sentiments the way Leftists see things in our country.

Rewritten: the way it was, according to today’s Left:

Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth to this continent a new racist nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created unequal….

That it is government’s duty to make and keep them unequal; that equality of people was never really intended to exist in the US, or be guaranteed by its Government.

Therefore, it is now government’s foremost duty to pay for that. Though this ideal may never be accomplished, it must always strive to admit its racist founding and structuring. But that is not enough.

So groups and minorities can and must hold fast to perpetual grievances against government and others, and dutifully pass them on to the next generation.

That the grievance industry of non-whites be forever granted wide reprieve for any offenses committed against whites on account of this original, ongoing sin of structural racism.

That this white racist nation never be able to shed its blame or guilt for social injustice, inequality, bigotry, systemic and institutional racism, and its offenses to humanity.

That AmeriKa shall never be healed from, or forgiven for, its systemic racist past.
(*I’ll call that the Getty Redress)

Hence. we are the United Racist States of America, or so says the left.
 
Exhibit A: when the Marxists and leftists see the pictures of that march in Charllotesville, they see AmeriKa as the KKK clan. That is how they really see America, like a clan state.

That picture is just a metaphor for their distorted view of the whole country.

But in reality, what normal non-radicalized Americans see are angry, hate-filled leftists: streaming down the streets, stopping traffic, shouting slurs at cops, lighting police cars on fire, burning down buildings, breaking windows, rioting, in black hooded attire assaulting people, shouting down every speaker they don’t agree with, destroying statues, shutting down businesses, looting stores, shutting down bridges and highways, protesting or threatening businesses that don’t align with their political agenda; while calling opponents any names and _phobes they want, who can’t be reasoned with or confronted, and who’s actions are justifiable by government’s structural or other people’s systemic racism.

So the radical left’s metaphor is really only a graphic diversion from the correct picture of reality Americans see unfolding in front of them. Reality does not fit with the left..

Right Ring | Bullright

Foxing the White House

(no, not ‘out–foxing‘) | 8/18/2017

What the left at large has done to Fox they are now trying to do to the White House, and the West Wing in particular, with the same fervor. Just the way Leftists claimed several top scalps already at Fox and more on the list, they are running the same play against the Trump White House.

Steve Bannon is gone from the White House — a mark the left has targeted all along. That only encourages Leftists rather than quells their demands, as it always does.

Immediately after Bamnon’s exit, they moved on to demanding scalps of Sebastian Gorka and Stephen Miller. Well, there are others but they are the next priorities. This is how the left operates, we’ve seen it enough times. Adding to the list of firings.

That will start a daily narrative, “how can they remain?” The clock is now ticking. Of course what the left really wants is to cut off any and all support from Trump. They want Trump himself. But they’ll settle for some top advisors to start with, one at a time.

Let’s see if they get any Republicans to echo their call. The Marxist left is getting skilled at this. I expect the same results. Even many Republicans agreed with O’Reilly and other firings. Now toward the administration where Republican voices matter, I expect them to cave. Mitt Romney was one of the first to jump right on the Charlottesville statements. You know Mitt, as an example, can go along with an anti-statue agenda. Spineless. Basically Mitt will go along with anything the left wants or demands.

This will also show which side Trump is on. I imagine he will give the Left a few scalps here and there, maybe to appease them, maybe because it is convenient, maybe for other senior officials. (Jared, Ivanka, McMaster, Kelly, Cohen) But the left is never satisfied.

So Trump will be Foxed. Whether he goes along or not is the question? But I think I know which way the Republicans in Congress will go though. (what do they ever get for it?) Do they split the party? It all comes down, at some point, to the Swamp scoreboard.

It always seems inevitable, how the people come along to support an organization so far and then, at crunch time, it turns away from the people who helped build its popularity. That is a lot like Fox: we came, we saw, we conquered, and then comes a pivot point, like the Murdoch sons throwing in a monkey wrench.

Yet the point is this agenda of the Left won’t stop. It will continue until it finally meets a wall it cannot penetrate, whether it is on Marxist groups, politics in Congress, or on White House staffing arrangements. No one asks why the left should get to choose who fills these positions — or who works at Fox? Arrogance is thy name of the Left.

Then there is the overreach problem of the Left.
Will ‘Foxing the White House’ work and succeed?

Right Ring | Bullright

Washington, Media Cabal of Chaos

They are in a tizzy. Let’s look at the media. They say there is a false equivalency here and that there is/can be no moral equivalency with White Supremacists and Nazis.

First, Trump was not making a direct moral equivalency. But he suggested violence on both sides. Now then, the left’s great equivalency argument.

If they hate any moral equivalence, then why is the Left drawing a moral equivalence of KKK, Nazis, racists with Trump and his entire base? Why can they freely apply an equivalence by comparing and associating Trump with racists or white supremacists?

Now the Left (et al), including antifa, will apply these same protest tactics to anything tied to Trump they can — as if they are racist terrorists. There is a rally planned next week in Arizona. My bet is the Left is staging a major protest for that. They want to apply the same public hatred and resentment against supremacists at the moment, , onto Trump. Get it? Yeah, I smell what the radical left is cooking.

The media has called on any high level Trump administration officials to quit in a show of separation with Trump over his latest statements on Charlottesville. So they want to see mass resignations in the administration. If they can’t directly oust Trump at the moment, they want to shame Trump’s advisers and team into abandoning him. It is now a real part of their anti-Trump strategy. It is disturbing how this is pushed by mainstream media and CNN . This is not a few low-level rogue leftists.

As Trump shut down the manufacturing and business councils, this was one more shot at Trump. It all happens when Trump is on vacation. The left has been ramping up pressure against Trump for months. They want to turn public opinion against Trump when he is on vacation, and undermine support for his agenda. It really is how they think.

I’m calling this a back-door coup. Trump goes out the front door on vacation, and the left tries to storm the back door in a coup d’etat. That is by driving distance between administration officials and Trump. No, it is not going to work like that. But getting any resignation would be useful against Trump. They hoped for a mass show of opposition to Trump. That would set the table for Congress when they return.

Screw America and the people’s agenda, all that matters is the Left’s agenda.

All to show ‘no confidence in Trump,’ of course. Imagine if they did anything like that to Obama? The left wants to drive public opinion/sentiment down so that he cannot carry out anything. Dysfunction is the Left’s best friend. On a regular basis you can turn on news to hear them question if there is any public confidence at all for Trump? I know, but this is what they are doing. Then they pose the old fitness for office question to bolster the argument for the 25th Amendment.

Their latest useful item is Bob Corker’s criticism in questioning Trump’s competence, and stability, for office. Corker said Trump has not demonstrated that he understands the character of the nation. Get that? There is another trophy for the left to use in its war against Trump, along with criticism from McCain, Rubio, Kasich and now McConnell. The usual suspects. What can the left do with that? Just add it to their Russia boondoggle.

The American people are being screwed as usual, by the same people who have been doing it for years, but now on a different level. It’s on, a coup in motion against Trump.

Right Ring | Bullright

14 Minutes from Pacific Chaos

The report is that missiles would take 14 minutes to go from North Korea to Guam. Well, hello, but how long has that 14-minute potential been possible? I don’t know.

Is the real problem the 14-minutes from chaos or that it is possible at all? I know that is provocative, but those are the quandaries — it is possible and why?

What we can know is that, according to everything N. Korea officials have said, their nuclear program is non-negotiable and not on the table. And that their nuclear status is written into their constitution, leaving little to negotiate. Some of that sounds familiar.

However, the responses I hear from media are astounding. At this point, I don’t know which is more inflammatory, media statements or Kim Jong Un’s? Both damaging.

So it is really disingenuous when you hear how media reacts to N. Korea threats.

The Left has made the philosophical choice that they are willing to live with a nuclear North Korea, just never said so. In other words, they played like they were opposing it in some real way, while already resigned to it.

Where Kim says their nuclear program was not on the table, libs adopted basically the same position. The left accepted N Korea as a nuclear power. The gig is up, let’s admit it. But the left can never be completely honest about its stands. They pretend otherwise.

Democrats say that all this is why we need to use diplomacy, have to negotiate, and need to carefully measure our words. Why are any of those justified? Because they say so. It is part of their long pattern of looking at the problem in denial.

The Hill reports:

You can call [nuclear escalation] a failure. I accept that characterization over the last two decades,” Rice said in an interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer. “But we are where we are. And now we need to decide how to proceed.

Now that we’re here and all…

“When the president of the United States makes statements that could be mistaken for Kim Jong Un’s, it runs a risk of a threat,” Rice said. “We have to be careful. The rhetoric and hot language is itself a challenge. On the Korean side, the North Korean side, we run the risk that they miscalculate the message from the U.S. incorrectly and act.

Oh, our messaging is the greater issue.

“What I worry about is this discussion and preparation potentially for what the administration called preventive war or pre-emptive war, Rice said.

“Decide how to proceed?” Kim Jong Un and N Korea officials have said their right to nuclear weapons is not open to negotiations. Libs say ‘let’s negotiate with them.’ Negotiate what, a 14-minute timeline? Is this negotiating with yourself? We needed to decide how to proceed after Benghazi and you were ever so helpful — plus the media help, too.

Media, as an arm of the left, is a problem in itself. MSM searches for every opportunity to be outraged by Trump’s words. It’s a game to find some small thing in a remark to feign outrage. Always count on the left to lose sight of real enemies and victims.

Secondarily, liberals run to generously offer advice, requiring us to forget their record. The left has been enabling the Kim dynasty for years. Can anyone take their advice seriously? Of course not. Then they say Trump is too bombastic, and that his rhetoric is no different than Kims. Wow, a terrible comparison. But remember they’ve already compared Trump to every dictator, from Hitler to Mussolini to Venezuela; they see no difference.

Now when faced with a contrast between Kim and Trump, they cannot admit it. Yet they don’t seem to have any idea how propaganda works, or how real dictators function.

Even Clinton Def Sec, William Cohen, Republican: “We have a situation where we have two school yard bullies … saying ‘I’ve got a bigger gun'”

All things not being equal. If these dictators were as bad as they admit, why would they want to play up the comparison? Don’t they know the harm of their words? What about diminishing dictators? Sure they claim to be outraged by Trump’s language, but never make much fuss about Kim’s rhetoric. They are concerned with Trump’s threats not Kim’s. And he uses their critique.

A headline comes out in Guam that it would take only 14 minutes for a missile to get there. The left is outraged by another line in the article. A government warning on rules in a nuclear attack: “don’t look at the flash.” (should they have edited it out?) Alarmists ramp up “concerns” about a nuclear attack but then media attacks Trump’s words. The left really has an intelligence deficit — or challenged in using it.

One media analyst said the warning “not to look at the flash” is very scary language. Reality is scary, truth is not comforting. So even publishing a guideline for an attack is offensive to the left. Sorry, these are consequences of nuclear weapons. They call such language apocalyptic. But these are nuclear weapons. Are we to pretend neither exists, the weapons or consequences?

We are faced with another dilemma. Kim needs more time to develop his capabilities, we don’t want to allow him time. Is allowing him time enabling him? According to military experts, ‘time and distance’ have always been the two critical factors in a war with Korea. The distance being the proximity of Seol and other places, and the response time.

Once again, the element of time.(and ‘distance’- relative to capability) By doing nothing, we have willingly provided him time to develop his plans. A game N. Korea played for decades. Until we have done anything to limit or stop him, he will continue on his path. Finally, we do have more sanctions but even that does not stop him.

It’s odd how media are more concerned about Trump than N. Korea. As much as they don’t like Trump or his words that doesn’t make him wrong. In fact, he is right. That further infuriates them. Trump cannot be right. That would alter physics or knock earth off its axis. They would rather believe Kim and let criticism feed Kim’s propaganda.

So N. Korea is a glimpse of insight into how the left would react to a threat or an attack. It shows that with the left their first consideration is politics. Even our national security is subordinate to their politics. That’s the problem. The left keeps saying “this is not some reality show,” this is reality. But the left does not treat it as reality. They marginalize a monster like Kim Jong Un in favor of their political agenda.(what got us here) The left is too dumb to notice Korea using their words as propaganda. Politics is paramount over all, while 14 minutes becomes just a calculated political trade-off.

Right Ring | Bullright

Swamp Busting: a new national sport

I feel like I am in a modern sequel to Cool Hand Luke. “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” In fact, communication as we know it is not working. Like the Tower of Babel, language is being deliberately confused except not for any good reason.

Genesis 11:5 “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

But here liberals are deliberately confusing the language to obfuscate the truth about what they are doing. And it is not a noble endeavor. The deception is part and parcel of their agenda to deter the law, justice and is pretty much their entire agenda.

Actually, the voting booth process doesn’t seem to be working either. When a person wins, his opponents feel entitled to take over claiming victory and pushing the ‘winner’ out of the job. We must get used to the new rules. Sort of a right of loser ascension — if you can. So the real winner is the loser, get it? The two problems go together, rules and language.

How is that our process?

Now when a person loses a presidential election, the consolation prize is that all pending investigations or charges are dropped. How is that right? How is that equal justice for all? Why should someone get off the hook for losing an election? Bernie and his wife are trying to apply the same rule — call it an entitlement right.

So let’s write that right into Article II; section 1 — Loser’s Rights.

Needless to say, the same entitlement right to immunity shall also apply to the DNC, or party apparatus that lost. Got that? Sure, it is perfectly logical then that the scandal which swept up not one but two DNC chairs, and their candidate, should be exempt from any investigation. It’s just not fair that they even have to answer questions about it.

Even those IT guys who were working for it shall get an exemption — at least so far. Are we going to have to repeal this law they seem to be asserting to get to the bottom of it, and hold those accountable who engaged in this activity? Maybe so, if I can just find it first. It’s called the “but Hillary lost law” or the “but Hillary is not the president exemption.”

Language has no interpretation; or language can be interpreted any way you want.

To the best of my knowledge, I thought we were going to drain the swamp not expand it. But the people now positioned — or embedded — in the White House seem hell bent on keeping the Swamp thriving and fertilizing their Deep State roots. Drain = “pump it up.”

And those Obama or Clinton holdovers, who I thought are a major problem, and a source of leaks, are now being enshrined into the new administration. Particularly into the National Security Council, thanks to a Trump appointee. Say what? Call me baffled. I know it is not on Trump’s order but the vague open language of the winner is now liberally reinterpreted to the “protection of swamp creatures” — must be evolving language.

Worse, it seems said appointee has now taken over and has veto power over Trump people. Yeah, that language again must be causing the problem. Still, when Trump supporters point out our grievance, it is interpreted as an “attack on McMaster.”

Trump seems to be surrounded now by the enemy insurgency. Wait, I thought we were the insurgency? This is the Swamp insurgency. The Deep State has spread its tentacles as far as it can, right through the current White House as if it owned the Oval Office — which it doesn’t. The Swamp is not ceding ground but gaining it.

To further erode the fairness in draining the swamp, one of the chief offenders of the Obama administration in unmasking individuals (identifying them), Susan Rice, is now assured a permanent security clearance to classified information. Likely her future career has become dependent on it. Language must be the culprit. Are we seeing a pattern?

Words also get in my way, lately.

One sentence keeps on popping into my head at least a couple times a day. That is “I have never in my life seen anything like this!” But of course I haven’t, because it has never happened before. Period! One cannot go back in history because it is not there.

You would think with the new emphasis on the problems of Sanctuary Cities we need a change. But low and behold the Sanctuary cities — one and more to follow — are now suing the federal government to preserve their lawless activities that we must fund. Yet the people support a new change. But lawlessness is enshrined as the law of the land.

Sound like progress? It would if you were progressive. In fact, the steady leaking of information would sound like a wonderful “whistle blower” thing; rather than undermining a new sitting president, his agenda, and obfuscating the voting process of the people.

Welcome to the new language era where: winning means losing, losing means winning, wrong means right, loyalty means disloyalty, disloyalty gets accolades, doing what you promised is treason, and treason means respecting the will of the voters. Criminals have protected status and Drain the Swamp means create more Swamp Gas.

Stay in your own lane and respect the signs or boundaries, however you interpret them.

‘Swamp Busting’ may yet catch on. But so far it is still a quirky, little understood fad.

Right Ring | Bullright — what better anonymous source on The Swamp?