Obama Slimed Trump And America Again

Obama running around the country warning about Nazi Germany is really rich. The guy has no shame or conscience. He hasn’t gone rogue, he’s been rotten from the start.

“The danger is growing complacent. We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly.”

That’s what happened in Germany in the 1930s, which despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolf Hitler rose to dominate. “Sixty million people died, so, you’ve got to pay attention. And vote.”

Does he mean fall apart quickly like they did under Obama?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked on Fox about Obamas remarks and said maybe he could reconsider, and hoped he might realize how distasteful those inflammatory comments were. No, Sarah, that is exactly why he said them. It is his intent to inflame. That’s his purpose. But retract them? No chance. He thought it was a home run.

With what Rev Wright has preached in Chicago, with Obama in the pew, that could be considered temperate. Anything in any way condemning America would be an easy par for the course.

Take his words “garden of democracy” though. I guess he hasn’t accepted that the Garden just chose its leader despite the Resistance, opposition from every corner. If democracy worked for him, I don’t know why he cannot accept it when it doesn’t go his way? He is just like Hillary, he can’t deal with the democratic results. He cannot take rejection.

That Garden doesn’t just take its cues from its office holders and the establishment. That is what unnerves him. We didn’t listen to his insidious threats or Hillary’s. We didn’t buy his nuclear fear mongering from the White House podium. It was just as rich when Obama declared that Trump was not fit or qualified for the office. He’s a hypocrite in search of a new word. Bombasticrite maybe?

Actually, Obama’s radicalized government was a threat to the people, Germany move on over. And we found it was a threat to the very democracy he used to create it. We were only lucky to pivot from it, though we have not recovered yet.

Then imagine the irony of him in Chicago saying his biggest regret was not getting gun control through. (He should lecture the gangs) Oh that sweet smell of arrogance.

Hey, I guess he had to sharpen his venomous rhetoric since Nancy Pelosi had already said ‘this is Armageddon.’

Pelosi said on the tax bill:

“It is the end of the world. The debate on health care is life/death. This is Armageddon.” […] [She then had another swig and came back to say] “The only reason it isn’t the end of the world is because America is a great country… and the greatness of America, and the fact that God is always with us is what gives us hope. But it’s very important for the people to know how adversely they will be affected by all of this.”

Well, it is a little hard to come back from Armageddon. I mean once you’re there…

That’s just the way it goes, one day you are in Armageddon and the next you are in the Weimar Republic with Hitler on the doorstep.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Now a word from Reality, not resistance

US Engulfed in the Most Corrupt Event in History and All Roads Lead Back to Former President Obama

Gateway Puntdit | December 8, 2017 by Jim Hoft

While the mainstream media (MSM) focuses on the fake news Trump-Russia collusion farce, the US is engulfed in the most corrupt event in its history and all roads lead back to former President Obama.
As a matter of fact, the fake Trump investigation is a major piece in the attempted coup d’état currently in place and the MSM’s fake news reporting is part of the Coup.

Just this past week former UN Ambassador John Bolten stated that this is the “First Attempted Coup D’état in US History” –

More: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/us-is-engulfed-in-the-most-corrupt-event-in-its-history-and-all-roads-lead-back-to-former-president-obama/

——————————————————————————————————————-

As a bonus prediction,  I’d say if it is Friday, then it is time for some sort of leak on Trump/Russia from the Mueller Special Counsel, planted in media, meant to drive the weekend anti-Trump narrative. I could be wrong but…. And all of it intentionally looking at the wrong people and events. Guess who they aren’t investigating?

The Resignation of Me, Al Franken

I’ll include the whole miserable, all about me, speech.  But the lies are just as significant. He married Paul Wellstone, Bill Clinton, and a hat-tip hint to Tom Steyer and impeachment just for flavor. The only guy who could mention I more is Barack Obama.

But I will only go after extensively venting my oratory hole.

Franken said his resignation will take place in the coming weeks.
Read a full transcript of his remarks below: (italicized for emphasis)

Stay tuned for when he actually vacates the Capitol premises.

A couple months ago I felt that we had entered an important moment in the history of this country. We were finally beginning to listen to women about the ways in which men’s actions affect them. The moment was long overdue. I was excited for that conversation and hopeful that it would result in real change that made life better for women all across the country and in every part of our society. Then the conversation turned to me. [1]Over the last few weeks a number of women have come forward to talk about how they felt my actions had affected them. I was shocked. I was upset. But in responding to their claims, I also wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation because all women deserve to be heard and their experiences taken seriously. I think that was the right thing to do. I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that in fact I haven’t done.

First strike, have a denial announcement. Did you expect anything else from someone who had to worm his way into the Senate by stealing an election? ‘I respect their voice!’

[2]Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently. I said at the outset that the Ethics Committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard and investigated and evaluated on their merits, that I was prepared to cooperate fully and that I was confident in the outcome. You know an important part of the conversation we’ve been having the last few months has been about how men abuse their power and privilege to hurt women. [3]I am proud that during my time in the Senate I have used my power to be a champion of women. And that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside every day. [4]I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks but I know who I really am. Serving in the United States senate has been the great honor of my life. I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator, nothing, has brought dishonor on this institution. And I am confident that the ethics committee would agree. Nevertheless today I am announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning as a member of the United states senate. [5]I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the senate with the full support of his party. [6]But this decision is not about me. it’s about the people of Minnesota. And it’s become clear that i can’t both pursue the ethics committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator for them. Let me be clear. I may be resigning my seat, but I am not giving up my voice. I will continue to stand up for the things I believe in as a citizen and as an activist. But Minnesotans deserve a Senator who can focus with all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day.

There is a big part of me that will always regret having to walk away from this job with so much work left to be done. But I have faith that the work will continue because I have faith in the people who have helped me do it. I have faith in the dedicated, funny, selfless, brilliant young men and women on my staff. They have so much more to contribute to our country, and I hope that as disappointed as they may feel today, everyone who has worked for me knows how much I admire and respect them. I have faith in my colleagues, especially my senior senator Amy Klobuchar. I would not have been able to do this job without her guidance and wisdom. [7]And I have faith, or at least hope, that members of this senate will find the political courage necessary to keep asking the tough questions, hold this administration accountable, and stand up for the truth. I have faith in the activists who organized to help me win my first campaign and who have kept on organizing to help fight for the people who needed us: kids facing bullying, seniors worried about the price of prescription drugs, Native Americans who have been overlooked for far too long, working people who have been taking it on the chin for a generation, everyone in the middle class and everyone aspiring to join it. [7]I have faith in the proud legacy of progressive advocacy that I have had the privilege to be a part of. I think I’ve probably repeated these words 10,000 times over the years, Paul Wellstone’s famous quote, “the future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” It’s still true. It will always be true. And most of all I have faith in Minnesota. A big part of this job is going around the state and listening to what people need from Washington, but more often than not, when I’m home, I am blown away by how much Minnesota has to offer the entire country and the entire world. The people I’ve had the honor of representing are brilliant, creative, hardworking, and whoever holds this seat next will inherit the challenge I’ve enjoyed for the last eight and a half years, being as good as the people you serve.

This has been a tough few weeks for me, but I am a very, very lucky man. I have a beautiful, healthy family that I love and that loves me very much. I’m going to be just fine. I’d just like to end with one last thing. I did not grow up wanting to be a politician. I came to this relatively late in life. I had to learn a lot on the fly. It wasn’t easy, and it wasn’t always fun, and I’m not just talking about today. This is a hard thing to do with your life. There are a lot of long hours, and late nights, and hard lessons, and there is no guarantee that all your work and sacrifice will ever pay off. I won my first election by 312 votes. It could have easily gone the other way. And even when you win, progress is far from inevitable. Paul Wellstone spent his whole life working for mental health parity and it didn’t pass until six years after Paul died. This year a lot of people who didn’t grow up imagining that they’d ever get involved in politics have done just that. They’ve gone to their first protest march or made their first call to a member of Congress, or maybe even taken the leap and put their names on a ballot for the first time. [7]It can be such a rush to look around a room of, full of people ready to fight alongside you, to feel that energy, to imagine that better things are possible. You too will experience setbacks, defeats and disappointments. There will be days when you will wonder whether it’s worth it. What I want you to know is that even today, even on the worst day of my political life, I feel like it’s all been worth it. Politics, Paul Wellstone told us, is about the improvement of people’s lives. I know that the work I’ve been able to do has improved people’s lives. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. For a decade now every time I would get tired or discouraged or frustrated, I would think about the people I was doing this for, and it would get me back up on my feet. I know the same will be true for everyone who decides to pursue a politics that is about improving people’s lives. And I hope you know that I will be fighting alongside you every step of the way. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. ###

 

Well, too bad he didn’t yield the floor after two words, “I resign.” Don’t count me out until…

Let me paraphrase:

[1]  How they “felt” my actions affected them. I’m shocked. Not that they are upset. But let’s make it clear, I am not admitting anything. They felt erroneously.

Newsflash: Franken, it is not about what they felt, it’s about what you felt.

[2] I remember it differently, like a mutual feeling. I preferred the ethics committee as the right venue…only because I had no choice. So I agreed with it, naturally.

[3] Like all progressive superheroes — of which I must be one — I used my powers only for good, in the end. I championed women, yeah, that’s the ticket. I earned a reputation from women I worked alongside. What I did with other women doesn’t matter.

[4] They all have painted a fraudulent picture of me…. just like I had to fight them for my first election. (Cain Mutiny) But I know who I am. They apparently don’t.

[5] I see that huge unfairness irony of a president and another candidate, but now they are worried about little ol’ me, Al [hands] Franken? Why me? I’m a scapegoat for them.

[6] But this is not about me….. it’s about voters. (ignore how I talk about Me a lot)

[7] I know, you all need an arrogant, idealistic, self-serving lecture on running for [progressive] office. I’m a perfect example. I’ll be with you cheering you on. I’ll channel all your other progressive heroes to my career. It’s borrowing, no stealing, but what the hell?

It’s all been worth whatever the cost to others. They owe me an apology.

Oh, I did not dishonor the institution. I only complimented it and made it so much better with my super-heroic presence, Al Franken. But I shall resign. Adios, sometime, I think!

And then there was Light

My editorial juices have been running a little low lately, and I have been tapped out of ideas feeling, as Solomon said, that there is really “nothing new under the sun.”

My friend Pepp recently wondered if Shakespeare was alive today, what he would say? That got me thinking with all that is going on today, he would have a field day or go crazy. One or the other.

Then I saw this article in the Federalist by someone that caught my attention. It was sincere, only by a self-described liberal who had awakened to the media bias during the election. I hope you check it out. From that point of view it is informative.

Up until now I figured it was mostly a lost cause, but this person gives me a little hope that there is life out there after the liberal bubble. (her own term) Though it made me think of the countless others I see on social media. I could almost write one profile to include them all. These are your typical liberals from not-so informed to hard line Marxists. And there often is not that much that separates them.

Anyway, so predictable that you can expect their words. I’m beyond, way beyond, feeling sympathy. I mostly accept that they are not reachable anyway, which seems a fool’s errand to try convincing them of anything. It is what it is, as they say.

But this piece gave me renewed hope for some of them. (I am not going soft or gushy) For a moment, I considered their point of view, or perspective. I know what they think. I may not know the why in many cases. I know the what though.

Their view of the media, their positions, their favorite candidates and policies, even their dislikes, and best what sets them off. Maybe that is a study in psychology in itself. Considering their perspective did reveal something I hadn’t thought much about.

One of the triggering things to them is always conservative media. Fox News is akin to poison to them. More than anything else they love to bash Fox, almost as much as Trump. That is the key.

Now think for a minute what that person thinks and feels, not their ideas. Well, Fox is the worst thing that came along. And if you were they, it is Faux News and always lying or agenda driven. However, it is the central problem. That means all other mainstream media is okay but Fox is the problem.

So that presents a simple view. One just has to believe Fox is wrong and everything else is, well, right. It is not hard to take that there is only one enemy, maybe a few marginal others, while everything else is friendly and honest to you. They don’t try to lie to you.

Doesn’t that make things so much easier thinking only Fox News is wrong? Sure, then you accept everything else as authentic at face value. You can accept it. You don’t have to be suspicious and question what comes from Mainstream Media.

Go a step further and you can accept all our institutions as good, except on their structural racism thing. Other than that everything is on the up and up and the media all have pure motives because, after all, they agree with most everything you think and believe.

It’s much easier and simpler that way. They are on your side. Everyone is looking out for you too. No, they don’t really like America, or that antiquated patriotism. The government is your friend, or should be. The government shouldn’t even believe in an exceptional America or us first. Blame America first is cool.

But then there is always world globalism which is basically on your side too. It’s a rosy-eyed view but the enemies are caricatures backed into corners. They are the flat-earthers and the like. But the general “mainstream” (i.e. liberal stream) all thinks and believes much like you. And those are the people who get to authority, because we stick together and get them there.

I figure that is so much simpler, it’s an easy way out, and lazy. In that backdrop you’d have to think that coming out of that la la land would be a challenge. It’s much easier to stay and believe in that illusion. Or keep believing, as Obama said. You don’t need critical thinkers, you just need lock-steppers.

So now isn’t that a crazy way to look at things? But you don’t have to think or worry about things except those creatures in the corner infringing on your paradise. Then there was Obama who confirmed to them all that they owned this phony paradise. Now they are flailing at anything that might distrurb those happy thoughts. They’ve already infested everything and everywhere of importance so that they are embedded and radicalized. All of it is based on your ideological worldview that you all accept, voluntarily of course.

I followed it out because it really makes the case of an easier less-complex way of looking at things. Well, you can be suspicious of those outside that bubble. You may question their motives all you want. Make fun of them, mock them, call them names, they are like animals anyway.

Still it is an easier lifestyle. Corporations and even markets should be in your favor. Everything should be in your favor because your are the ideal people. And within being a member of that society you can do anything. Those outside it should be questioned and accused on every little thing. You have an exemption card. You don’t want to leave.

It just gets me that all you have to know is that Fox is wrong. Everything and the media is right. They are the intellectual betters so don’t need to question anything except Fox. And in that situation it seems the only way to change that thinking would be on their own. You or I could probably not convince them. So they have to see it. It must be their doing.

Reference article in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/im-liberal-agree-sean-hannity-american-journalism-dead/

Right Ring | Bullright

What Discrimination?

How about another backwards thing? For years we’ve been lectured about discrimination by the left. I’m not sure why since it shouldn’t be a partisan thing. But they seem to think it is the right’s dream or agenda to discriminate. Well, a funny thing happens when you parse it all down to politics, which is what really drives the left.

The left is all worked up about Little Sisters of the Poor, birth control, the abortion agenda, Obamacare, and now baking wedding cakes for LGBTQXYZ’s. Tuesday is the day a case is going to the Supreme Court to decide. But you know the drill, you cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake. Period! So there are activists going around trying to force bakers to make them a cake. If you refuse, they sue. It’s the new fad for the left.

Issue of the case: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

But who cares about any of those Constitutional rights?

Details

The agency, however, dismissed that explanation as “a distinction without a difference,” and it ruled both that Phillips’ refusal to provide the custom cake violated Colorado anti-discrimination laws and that Phillips had “no free speech right” to turn down Craig and Mullins’ request. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld that ruling and told Phillips – among other things – that if he decided to create cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would also have to create them for same-sex weddings.

The problem with their discrimination complaints is that discrimination is the business model of the left. It is their M/O. They want to force people to do whatever they want them to do and they won’t take no for an answer. Discrimination is the enforcer.

Take their boycotts, for example, which are based on discrimination. That’s how they do politics. They want anyone to refuse to do business with Trump supporters or anyone who supports the Republican tax plan. They’ll use any businesses they can in their agenda.

They look for advertisers of Fox or Fox shows and then rally their activists against them, by phone calls, twitter or Facebook campaigns. They target businesses into submission to their agenda. Then the business or corporation is to take action against a particular person, show, or program host. Have a bad decision in court they don’t like? Well, organize the people and boycott the offending parties. Beat them into submission.

They like to black list or boycott anyone or thing that does not conform to their political agenda. But that is their model. They get things done by coercion, intimidation or force, by any means necessary, bullying them to cooperate. Or else you will be barred, marginalized or retaliated against just as those who disagree with them are. That is the big stick they use against you, discrimination. The Black Caucus discriminates based on ideology.

It’s the same principle that caused Senator Schumer to single out a woman in a restaurant in NY and berated her for voting for Trump. He followed her outside to continue his verbal assault on her. When Barack Obama was in office during the government shutdown he sent word out to the departments that the public, people, needed to be made to feel its effects. Obama’s IRS targeted individuals and harassed them due to their political beliefs.

In Senate nomination hearings, Senator Feinstein told nominee Amy Barrett that “dogma lives loudly” in her. The statements caused NYT and media to then take up that mantra in media and columns. So they operate as a caliphate. But a senior Catholic scholar took issue with their discriminatory track against Barrett.

Ashley McGuire said: “An accomplished professor and legal scholar at the University of Notre Dame, the qualifications and credentials of Amy Barrett are unchallenged. That the left continues to treat her Roman Catholic faith as an impediment to office is a testament to just how beholden they are to their anti-religious bigotries.”

So true; it is a validation of Democrats own bigoted, discrimination agenda.

In another infamous hearing, Chuck Schumer was so worried about “deeply held beliefs” that would disqualify the nominee. He was determined to make that the deciding factor on nominee Bill Pryor in 2003. (just in case we think this is a new phenomena)

Charles Krauthammer, at the time, took him to task for his bigoted discrimination:

Pryor has more recently been attacked from a different quarter. Senate Democrats have blocked his nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of his personal beliefs. “His beliefs are so well-known, so deeply held,” charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) , “that it’s very hard to believe–very hard to believe–that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law.”‘

An amazing litmus test: deeply held beliefs are a disqualification for high judicial office. Only people of shallow beliefs (like Schumer?) need apply.

Of course, Schumer’s real concern is with the content of Pryor’s beliefs. Schumer says that he would object to “anybody who had very, very deeply held views.” Anybody? If someone had deeply held views in favor of abortion rights, you can be sure that Schumer would not be blocking his nomination. Pryor is being pilloried because he openly states (1) that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutional abomination, and (2) that abortion itself is a moral abomination. — Chicago Tribune column.

So that about covers it. You see, ‘it’s the discrimination, stupid.’ Only now it is out in the open. They use words like “so far out of the mainstream” all the time. Code talk. Who gets to define “mainstream?” Of course, they or Schumer and Feinstein do. Judging by the direction the Democrats have gone in the past few years, mainstream is now in the San Francisco Bay. Don’t agree with abortion? A litmus test is discrimination.

If you don’t follow them into the Bay, or at least to the shoreline, then you too will feel the wrath of their discrimination. It’s only a matter of when and how. Discrimination is alive.

Though the left will be the first to raise discrimination objections as a defense. Rep Conyers is rolling out a whole discrimination defense. The radical left made discrimination the basis of an anti-travel ban campaign. They discriminate against conservatives on campuses, or Trump voters in the heartland, while accusing them of discrimination.

Saul Alinsky was probably their top cleric of discrimination. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” That’s the way, uh huh-uh huh, we like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Sanctuary Argument Problem

I have just the argument for the Sacnctuary Moonbats. But I promise they won’t like it.

You know their ever-loving, illegal alien argument for Sanctuary Cities. They claim it makes us safer. We all need to follow their lead, they say.

So the mantra goes that the Sanctuary policies — lawlessness — makes the city safer. That’s why they do it and need it. See, the illegals won’t be afraid to call the police or report crime, or will not commit crimes, so they say. Thus, crime rates go down. This is the latest airtight argument for Sanctuary Cities. (plus they are supposedly a shinning example) Illegal aliens are afraid of their illegal status. Let’s just humor them and play along.

Then I have the perfect but real argument they cannot reject. Gun owners and second amendment advocates respect the rule of law as law abiding citizens because they don’t want to jeopardize their rights or carry permits. More legal gun owners makes us safer. Non-gun owners have nothing at stake. So the more legitimate gun owners we can have, the better and the more safer we all will be. That’s a win.

Here is the difference and contrast. Notice how Sanctuary advocates always blur the line. They morph legal and illegal immigration. They will only use the word “immigration.”

Gun owners don’t advocate for law-breaking gun owners, like criminals and gangsters. They don’t have any problem condemning the criminals and their use of guns. They don’t stand for lawbreakers. That would make them look bad. We don’t lump them all together in one, gang members and black market guns with upstanding gun owners.

However, the illegal activists and advocates cannot distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Doing so would ruin their cause. Actually, it is a real insult to immigrants who follow law and become legal citizens to equate the two. It is offensive to legal immigration. Yet they do it all the time, asserting no difference from one to the other. They only say that we must change laws so that illegals can become legals. That is amnesty.

You won’t hear the second amendment activists and voters saying that we need to legalize all illegal gun owners. They certainly do not unify behind that idea of lawlessness either.

Right Ring | Bullright

Connecting the Soros Dots

Secretive Liberal Donor Summit Increases Security, Changes Itinerary Following Free Beacon Report

Deep-pocketed donors meet in California to plot 2018 ‘resistance’ and game plan
Washington Free Beacon

CARLSBAD, Calif.—Members of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive dark money liberal donor network, appear to have moved to increase security presence and alter its schedule at its fall donor summit following a Washington Free Beacon report released Friday morning based off the group’s internal documents.

The high-dollar progressive donors, who each vow to direct at least $200,000 in funding to approved left-wing groups of the alliance, are currently gathered at the posh La Costa Resort located in Carlsbad, Calif., for its three-day fall investment conference to plot their 2018 “resistance” and game plan.

The Free Beacon, who appears to be the only members of the media on site covering the conference, has obtained internal documents meant only for attendees that detail the conference’s agenda and those who are currently at the gathering. Janell Ross, a Washington Post reporter, is allegedly at the summit, but is listed as being on a “getting the economic narrative right” panel at the conference.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/secretive-liberal-donor-summit-increases-security-changes-itinerary-following-free-beacon-report/

Well, do they do anything that is not secretive, and having to do with raising lots of money to support their radicals and their agenda?

And Free Beacon stumbles upon a Washington Post political reporter who attended just to help assist them in crafting a message strategy.

Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation

Lerner, Paz say they fear physical harm from enraged public, want IRS testimony sealed permanently

The Washington Times

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/

Retaliation — I think that word should be banned from her vocabulary. I’m not feeling the sympathy. What about her pension? Consequences? There’s Obama’s not a smidgen.

Career government criminals want the records permanently sealed and government protection now. She now wants to reverse the Constitution.

Our government then had to pay out 3.5 million taxpayer dollars for what she did! And it took 6 years to do it. She had her 5th amendment privileges, what do they have?

That’s a brand new kind of chutzpah. My G-A-S is busted.

The political marketplace: weaponizing business

Check out this foundation article included which seems a bit misleading – to be kind. It is about the Hannity advertising scheme going on. Let the dis-ingenuousness begin.

You know the routine: libs feign outrage over something in conservative media and turn it into a war on sponsors. Or war against them as the case may be. It is all too common. Even worse is the will of businesses to comply to demands. See full article:

(Marketwatch) – “E-Trade, TripAdvisor and Conagra are among the companies that say they will stop advertising on ‘Hannity’ in the wake of Roy Moore allegations.”

“Stop” being the operative word. Just keep that in mind and decide if that is misleading. Some companies make statements who were not currently advertising anyway. But it makes for good fodder for Media Matters extortionists. See what you notice in it.

Back to the M/O

But even the left’s outrage is disingenuous because the offense is not the real objective, the voice of the person is. Libs don’t want to watch the content regardless of the offense. They want the person or show canceled via their protest causing sponsors to abandon it, thereby hopefully getting it removed. The offending material is only an excuse to attack the show/host. The left has a pattern of these attack campaigns. And none other than Media Matters specializes in attacks on anyone or media that doesn’t cow-tow to their agenda.

It has had some success I won’t bother to list.

So it is all routine to the radical left but claiming it is about this or that issue is very deceptive. It is about silencing opposition, simple as that. We all know it but it is important. If they can only shut up their opposition they can railroad their agenda. Only one thing stands in their way, the 1st amendment — free speech and freedom of press. Actions of leftists don’t support either. Sure, they talk a good game when convenient.

Again, we know that. However, nothing stops them from pushing the envelope of their agenda further and further. As is the case when they go down their extensive ‘targets’ list to silence; or down their list of advertisers to the program.

First of all, when someone advertises, it does not mean they are endorsing all the opinions or content of the program. It is not a political endorsement either. It is, in fact, an advertisement to reach eyeballs or certain people. Their objective is sales or exposure to viewers. Again, it is not an endorsement of content or politics. Consumers know this.

You cannot hold the advertisers responsible for what the show does, and you cannot hold the network responsible for what the advertiser says. The network is not the customer service center for the company. And consumers shouldn’t be calling the company because they don’t like the programming. Each are independent with their own interests.

However, advertisers turn into political fodder when they are manipulated by activists like Media Matters and used in a silencing campaign against their targets. Companies are objects of extortion or intimidation in an effort to politicize, and then weaponize them.

Yes, they can go along willingly, but they can be threatened to go along as well. When they comply, they allow their brand and its recognition to be used for specious political motives. So political activists hijack and freely use brands toward their own political objectives.

Normally the problem or damage comes when companies do not give in to the threats. Then they are smeared just as the original target is. Some businesses take what they think is the “easy route” by complying to the demands. It is like the old mob protection racket, where they promise not to break your windows if you just pay the protection. In this case the payment of protection is dropping your ads from a certain target. So, in effect, they are asking the store owner to go break one of his own windows, with the promise they’ll help with the damage. The store owner then, consciously or not, enters into a cozy alliance with the villain racketeers. As long as you support their agenda with your own business practices, they will not cause you further injury.

Does enslavement enter your mind? What about the concept of private property? Something radicals do not have personally invested in it.

Just think about turning over your brand, or proprietary info, to activists for safekeeping? All the years of building your company and brand mean nothing to these extortionists. They only care about what you do with it, or more like how they can use your brand for their political objectives. The definition of Terrorism is threatening or harming people for political motives. Would you turn your car or house over to someone to use to further their own political agenda? I don’t think so.

Now we conservatives don’t sit around and say I don’t like this media or this person and take note of their sponsors to harass them into pulling their ads. It’s not something we do. We don’t hate watch them to track sponsors. And we know that those sponsors are not endorsing the content or opinions, only advertising to eyeballs or ears.

Fast forward to this latest attempt to weaponize Hannity’s sponsors over an interview he did with Roy Moore. The content was not the issue. The statements of Hannity was not the issue. Shutting Hannity down is the only issue. Another priority is the election in Alabama. (or elections is now a priority to Media Matters) And this plays to both ends, the election and silencing Hannity. In the left’s sponsor shakedown they solicit statements from advertisers to not advertise on the show. Keurig was one such company — whether sucked in naively or not.

Only this time the viewers, conservatives and free speech advocates intervened. They promptly told Keurig it had earned a boycott for their trouble. It wasn’t for Hannity but the principle. Over a few days, Keurig realized they tripped over people’s wrath by complying with the fascist left, Media Matters. A boycott was off to a bang but was criticized by MM as dumb for Sean to do.(it wasn’t him) The CEO then apologized to its employees — not the public — that it did not intend to take sides. Ha, too late. They were now involved and had their company held hostage to the left’s demands. Apologizing to the employees does not help that.

Videos popped up of former customers ejecting their coffee makers. This time was different. They may have been threatened with a boycott by Media Matters’ goons, but now they got an actual protest….anyway. See what you get playing games, trying to appease the left? Then came the oops to employees. A funny thing happened on the way to appeasing the fascists: they realized they will get a protest even if they appease the left, and very possibly a boycott too.

Then Libs didn’t realize we we were 6 weeks from Christmas and this puts their season at some risk. Well, that is the cost of getting into bed with the left. Do they care about your business? Do they care about your bottom line? Do they care about your employees? No, and they don’t care about your name or brand either since they are putting that at risk with their political campaigns. Does that mean anything to them? Not a cent, they are only using, abusing, politicizing, and weaponizing these companies.

By Wednesday, NYT had this piece saying advertisers were walking back tweets.

But by Tuesday, those companies were clarifying — or even deleting — statements they had made on the platform that indicated they had pulled ads from Mr. Hannity’s show because of comments he made about Roy S. Moore, the embattled Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama. Those moves followed a backlash against Keurig that included fans of Mr. Hannity posting videos of themselves destroying the company’s coffee makers.

“It’s pretty unusual to see companies like this handling an issue so poorly,” said Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She said it was especially surprising to see companies like Realtor.com and Volvo delete widely circulated tweets.

The problem is that in the case of Hannity, he has a following including free speech advocates. In Media Matters’ corner, you have radical political hacks and their trolls attacking anything it disagrees with. An actual product or show has a consumer base, where MM does not — it operates on opposition. So fans and advocates or speech spoke up. I guess MM did not anticipate that. Then advertisers realized they could incur as much wrath from taking a stand against Hannity. (which shouldn’t be a compan’s role) They may have figured it is better to appeal to someone’s loyal base, rather than just oppose it. See the dynamics? Interesting that the left has always operated with free reign, where the default position was usually to side with it. But all you need is that big crack in the wall.

From the company point of view, who would want to be brow beaten into doing something or told by others how to spend their ad dollars? Then who wants their company dragged through the mud of politics? Their business model is the bottom line not politics. To add even more damage, MM hacks have also taken the liberty to start speaking for companies, if they are with them or if they are against them. And they usurp a certain power (liberty) over companies in the process. Then they have the nerve to act or even say they represent the best interests of the businesses. No they don’t. Remember the protection racket?

That stand and attitude should bother anyone in business. The idea that a company you built or run is suddenly turned over to whims of a political agenda should be concerning. That a brand you have a proprietary value in is being toyed with by political activists, is equivalent to squatting on your corporate name. It should be seen as an infringement. I think it is time someone send a cease and desist letter to the Media Matters protestors to stop using their name as part of political campaigns. That might send some chills into the corporate extortionists.

Until that happens, when companies and their ad money stand up on their own, independent of political hijackers and extortionists, they can be sucked into a whole lot of bad karma for appeasement policies. It can be a bigger liability than dealing with the protection racketeers.

My opinion is that when companies participate in these campaigns they become tools, weaponized by organizers, little more. I know some may think they are taking a stand but any short-term gains might not be worth the long-term damage and pain it can cause. Not to mention sort of losing control of your business. The issue is bigger than this though. This is a market model.(I don’t believe in it but it is) When companies are activated like this it has an effect on the economy. It turns them into cheap political interests like every other political organ. But actually they become more; they are radicalized and expended as mere political tools. Why would corporations allow themselves to be reduced to that?

I know some companies still take a stand on their special political issues, but they don’t have to morph into special interests or lobbyists. Using a company that way is careless.

Right Ring | Bullright

Tweet of the Weak

For what it’s worth, I’ll call this one the tweet of the week.

How many things are wrong with this? Is Trump-led the worst part or is the “sad elaboration of consequences”? Or is it the fact it comes from Susan Rice?

I guess in her retirement there are no Sunday talk circuits demanding her continuous lies. She’s apparently now bored. Well, it is so hard from her perch to revise history in real time. But that won’t stop her from trying.

What or who made all these Obama failures the certified experts now? It defies reason.

Change of the Guard

The American media is up against a force it doesn’t understand or know how to fight. The two faces of this force are: Donald Trump and the American people.

So the mainstream media flails about because the same old strategies don’t work, which is more the problem.. Why is that?

Before, or up until now, they always had their bucketful of go-to tactics. They seem to be ineffective. That must be depressing for the left. Their media guard has met its match.

Of course there are a lot of reasons for this. But it has to start with who the two faces are that makes them such a formidable opponent for the left: Trump the outsider and the fed up people. Those two make an excellent team we have not seen before. Go down the list of things — political issues — and neither react or respond in a typical way, as the left’s victims normally do. That makes them unpredictable and a problem to the left.

That it only has taken this long for all this to become clear is another problem. Denial.

Everything the media and left say would tell you Trump is a scary person, so controversial, along with the mantra that he’s unfit for office. He doesn’t deserve an ounce of sympathy, the left will tell you. But be careful who and what we do give our sympathy to.

Here is the simplified problem with all this Trump-phobia (and they are phobic to the limit): the answers lie in our present reality and political culture.

This happens to be the turf where I live and breathe, at the intersection of culture and politics — throw religion and Christianity into the culture cocktail. So that is the terrain, my home, where a battle is raging. (though people will tell you its over and we lost) Now within this greater politics, in general, we have things labeled “controversial issues.” That does not surprise anyone. Look what the left calls controversial, as if they define what is controversial — basically anything they disagree with.

Within these issues are the politicians, many functioning as self-serving elitists. Add to that their better than thou attitudes prevalent today in politics. On so-called controversial issues they have focus-grouped, poll-tested solutions.(they call them solutions, I don’t) So they have talking points and politically correct scripts on all these issues — mostly to placate the left. Then this posturing leads them to things like “bipartisan” amnesty. The products are pushed as the gold standard. Then anyone must argue against that ‘standard,’ as if it were a real one. If anything is controversial they are. It’s a perception game.

Back to Trump as a different animal for them. What is different? Everything. You know those talking points about him that he thrives on controversy and all? Well, in business things are done differently, people must solve problems to improve. Businessmen tend to see them as challenges. They are not mere political fodder to bargain with.

Something else about Trump they say is he doesn’t have any political experience, he’s an outsider. Both of those are favorable to the people. Though he has executive business experience. (you know, something Obama did not have) He doesn’t have the experience navigating the swamp. Again, the people see that as a good thing. Yet he does have a toughness and fighting character to break through corruption norms rather than getting sucked into them. Even that is not the whole point.

One thing separates Trump from other politicians more than his resume. He built a campaign based on controversial issues. No, I’ll say that again because it is important: he made a campaign based, almost entirely, on these controversial issues. How unique?

Think of it, when other candidates are running from ‘controversial issues, he enlists them in the foundation of his campaign. Then talks about them. It’s a novel concept, unlike anything we’ve seen. Who would want to do that? No, he faces them and has positions that are not the same old status quo positions. Positions more like what people think about these things. He identifies with the American people.

Now, is it any wonder they would call him controversial? Why they’ve called us controversial if we hold these views. They’ve been marginalizing us. Unlike others, he wants to do something about them. If that makes him controversial, wanting to fix problems, then so be it. It makes us all controversial for supporting him.

Why should we be surprised at Trump being labeled as controversial? But it is not him that creates it all. Then how did it become controversial?

The problem is Trump did not run up the debt, or create the Iran deal or Nafta or trade deals. These are all controversies of Washington’s making. He didn’t create these but ran on fixing them. So why would he get the blame for all these problems? Contrast that with Obama. He came into office and left blaming George Bush for everything, even things he did. He made a career out of excuses. But he didn’t make a career of addressing them. No he mentioned them only as an exemption for himself.

There’s another favorite word of the left. It is distraction. They always point to any criticism of the left as a distraction. So, anything the left doesn’t like is labeled a distraction. Yeah, it’s an inconvenient distraction to their subverted agenda. But recently Chief of Staff Kelly gave an interview and was asked about Mueller’s investigation. He said it was a distraction from what was going on in the White House. Kelly used it in the correct sense. A distraction by design not by excuse. Liberals want it to disrupt Trump or prevent us from getting anything done. That is the point.

But in the left’s use of the term, they labeled everything that didn’t fit in their agenda “a distraction,” and controversial. Remember they also called any investigation into Obama’s administration a “manufactured scandal,” even Benghazi. Now they have manufactured an entire Russia scandal to hang on Trump. It’s laughable.

What is both controversial and a distraction is the left itself. And they see everything only in a political lens. A faulty one at that. Blame Trump for controversy?

Right Ring | Bullright

Searching for a reason

What happened today was not earth shattering, even if they hyped the possibilities all weekend. No. What really happened today was Mueller attempted to justify his Special Counsel’s existence. Never mind that even this flimsy justification falls short.

You can think of it as a turning point or anything else. Up until now we had this Special Counsel, appointed on specious grounds, doing what it does — expand its power and scope. The last thing it wants, needs or can stand is to have its very existence questioned. And that was its first problem.

Backstory: Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates were already under investigation before this. This whole thing went back almost ten years. But new it wasn’t.

But today Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation brought charges against the two individuals and unsealed its case against a little-known member of the campaign. That person was George Popadopolous. That’s right, they found someone even more irrelevant than Carter Page to the campaign. All of a sudden he is a household name. So he gets his 15 minutes plus. Ah, it is because of questioable connections he had and attempts to contact Russia. Well, surely that is not the whole thing. Basically, it is.

They think George Popadopolous is the person who individually justifies Meuller’s investigation. See they had nothing, started with nothing… not even the grounds to investigate. So he badly needed to show something to justify its existence. In their minds anyway, this case of George admitting to lying to the FBI does that. It is something, the something which should justify further investigation.

Forget for the minute that the whole thing seems to point more at Clinton than Trump.

Usually you have an investigation based on something. There is something to substantiate investigating. But in this case, they jumped 10 paces ahead to appoint the Special Counsel and hopefully fill in the why later, when they found something to substantiate their reason to investigate. From the beginning of the Special Counsel this was its primary mission, to justify its own existence first. Whatever that takes.

Meanwhile, just the anticipation of charges coming down sent talking heads like Douglas Brinkley to say: “this is the beginning of the end” of Donald Trump. He suggested this would distract, taint or undermine everything Trump does from now on. Beginning of the end? So confident aren’t they, for people who have not been able to substantiate this investigation till now? I’m not sure how George Popadopolous does it for them.

They needed it unsealed now because of the latest revelations on Clinton, pay to play, and Russian involvement in her “opposition research.” Quick plant a flag.

And on the Democrats’ side is a dirty dossier, a dirty campaign and a dirty candidate.

What’s even as amusing is Mueller appears to be running this investigation the same way Comey ran the Hillary investigation, like the political cabal it was.

Right Ring | Bullright

I Know Nothing Defense

DNC Debbie is doing her best impersonation of Sgt Schultz about the dossier funding.

DNC, Wasserman Schultz say they were unaware of dossier payments

By Jonathan Easley – 10/25/17 | The Hill

Current and past leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) say they had no knowledge that the national party was helping to fund a dossier compiled by a British spy that contained scandalous accusations about President Trump.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paid millions to the law firm Perkins Coie, where Democratic lawyer Marc Elias worked with the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to construct the memo, which was compiled by British spy Christopher Steele.

John Podesta has a similar memory black hole.

Former Clinton, DNC aides largely silent on funding of Trump-Russia dossier

Washington Post

Hillary Clinton and top officials of her presidential campaign were largely silent Wednesday in response to the revelation that the campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for research that resulted in a dossier alleging Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

Neither Clinton nor her campaign manager, Robby Mook, responded to requests for comment Wednesday. Campaign chair John Podesta declined to comment beyond referring reporters to a statement issued the previous day by the campaign’s law firm saying officials had not been aware of the arrangement.

Brian Fallon, the former campaign spokesman, said he didn’t know about the research at the time but called it “money well spent” if it provided information useful to the special counsel now investigating Russia’s involvement.

 

So 6 million dollars just flowed into the law firm and went out to fund a dirty dossier, somehow or other, but I know nothing about that. Hell, we don’t even know where all the 2 billion (plus or minus) in the campaign went. We ordered pizza a lot.

Let me get this straight: if Russians wanted to help Trump get elected so much, why were Russian operatives working with the opposition to Trump?

Dumb and dumber have agreed on a ‘too dumb to know’ defense. After all, both were working for the ‘too dumb to prosecute’ candidate.

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.

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.(by peeping haters) 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.