No means “no” except when it should

It would seem pretty ironic that the party of the radical left who never misses a chance to say no, in defiant “resistance,” just cannot say no to condemn violence of their left wing radical base. They can’t ever do that.

Instead, they will go to any lengths on the left not to voice any opposition to, or offer no condemnation for, the left’s violence. Whether it vandalizes a Republican building in NYC, burns police cars, or commandeers a chunk of a city in Washington, or whether leftists chase down conservatives in restaurants to create a crowd, or shout down Congressional hearings so you cannot hear. Dems will say or do anything else to avoid condemning it.

Out of those same zipped lips for condemning they call us extremists and dangerous. They have a phobia to the word no when and where it matters. But we know why.

They do condemn our use of the word Mob though, when that is how the miscreants act and who they are. But they can never condemn a possible friendly group to the Left, even if it is a rented one. They couldn’t even call MS-13 gang members animals for what they do. Instead, Nancy Pelosi said they have a spark of divinity.

The same spark of divinity that an unborn baby lacks.

They need anyone who could be a potential voter bloc for them whether legal or illegal. If they can use violence to their political ends then what won’t they use? That also fits the definition of terrorism — using violence to perpetuate their political ends. Yet we are supposed to be hostage to this political blackmail of the Mobacracy. And what does the Mobocracy want and support? A Thugocracy. Democrats call that a value of democracy.

No condemnation for cop killers, violence addicts, fascist Antifa, or those working on behalf of the Mobocracy. The only question remaining in the end is who is really in control in this Mobocracy of the left? Is it their politicians? Doesn’t seem so to me.

On the contrary, Holder said “when they go low, kick them.” Hillary said we can never have civility until they are in power. No, their hallmark is incivility, regardless.

So, I wonder why we didn’t see any civility when they were in control of all branches? What we got was “I won”….shut up and get in the backseat. We don’t need to hear from you. Incivility always rules; in power or out makes no difference. We got Obamacare lies.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

A Word From Alternate Reality

In an alternate reality, there is room for this story.

It is so ridiculously Orwellian. Why the whole thing seems like a mindless projection.

So the tagline for this fiction is that somehow Democrats are not “ruthless” enough. Therefore, they lack something of a serious radical strategy. Can you imagine?

People that continually engage in behavior that threatens to shut down the very government they love to control, are not ruthless enough.

Politico has the scoop. (consensus according to the leftbots)

“They [Republicans] are more ruthless,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who over a quarter-century has served as a top aide to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. “And I don’t want to be like them. … The answer can’t be for Democrats to be just as cynical.”

Finally, it did admit that: “Whatever factors fueled Kavanaugh’s victory, it was hardly that Democrats were too nice to attack him personally.” — Surely not the problem!

But never mind all that. It contends Republicans just stick together better.

Begala said part of the explanation for this divide lies in Democratic psychology, citing Bill Clinton’s saying that, “Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

Really? Anyone buy that blather? Then they launch into the popular vote in presidential elections should be the gold standard mantra. Where do they think we are, Disney Land?

I’m not going to blame Politico because it is the message Dems desperately want to send. But it is nonsensical how anyone could take it seriously…..i.e. the Alinsky-ite Dems just aren’t tough enough. The radical party of Lockstep Is Us, whatever the issue.

And the second part that Repubs are the stronger with staying in line and fighting. Beam me up. Projection. Well, until now Republicans hadn’t even shown a unified spine. Democrats have institutionalized the word fight into every campaign and message.

I now return you to the gravitational planet, where physics still applies anyway.

The Stocking was hung, with a new spine intact

…in hopes that the GOP could make good use of it.

The formerly spineless Republican Party rebounds

By Bobby Eberle – – Monday, October 8, 2018 | Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
If there is one word — one defining, all-encompassing word — that has summed up the state of the Republican Party for years (if not decades), it’s “spineless.” Whether the issue has been illegal immigration, the budget, standing up to Planned Parenthood, or even the wildly unpopular and disastrous Obamacare, Republican “leaders” have tucked their collective tails between their legs rather than stand up and fight. But something remarkable seems to be in the air, and there’s no doubt that the change in resolve has been brought about by Donald J. Trump.

Remember all the rhetoric concerning Obamacare? Analysts said it would fail. Obama officials even admitted they lied about terms. No, you can’t keep your own doctor. No, you can’t keep your own plan. No, prices will not be lower. Republican legislators said they would repeal it. They voted to repeal it. Oh, but wait. Barack Obama was still president, and the Republican votes were simply a side show next to Mr. Obama’s veto. When Donald Trump first came on the scene, he said he would sign legislation repealing Obamacare, but the GOP couldn’t get it done. They showed their complete lack of fortitude and rolled over.

That’s just one example of many, many other issues. …/

More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/trump-delivers-the-gop-an-early-christmas-present-/

Times…they are a changing.

Lesson to Republicans now seems to be:

You see how you are treated when Republicans do fight back. So tell me again why you would ever want to appease and capitulate to these dishonest radicals?

Any questions?

Little Miss Profit

Update: “selfless…courage” is now valued at over $800,000 dollars.

Follow the money. Remember all the myths about Christine Blasey Ford being courageous and selfless for coming forward? And “she has absolutely nothing to gain by doing this”?

Those ain’t banana peels and it is still going. Right, her main GoFundme said last week that they were officially turning off that Christine Blasey Ford campaign — recommending people also look for other progressive causes to donate to.

But on second thought, now they have recalculated and discovered that no, in fact, it was not enough. So it is back on. The statement reads:

“The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up. Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.”[emphasis mine]

But, you know, they will let you know when/if they do reach that level of enough. Courage is now valued in the high six figures.

Too bad the people can’t send her a bill… just for all the expenses incurred.

Right Ring | Bullright

The Art of Media’s Character Assasination

H/T to Emerson, for pointing out the article. Notice how media follow and repeat the original assertions.

Character Assassinations by New Jersey’s Star-Ledger

by Noah BeckThis article originally appeared in The Algemeiner.
September 13, 2018

The Star-Ledger’s smear of terrorism expert Steve Emerson and Arab-American Emilio Karim Dabul is a textbook case of journalistic malpractice, providing the quintessential example of what honest journalism should avoid.

On August 5, the Star-Ledger called for the removal of Dabul, a New Jersey US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office spokesperson, in part by attacking Emerson with a variety of false or misleading claims. At least three other NJ papers then published similar stories about Emerson and Dabul: WNYC (which incredibly sought comment from the Council on American-Islamic Relations — CAIR — but neither Emerson nor Dabul), NorthJersey.com, and MSN.com. Adding to the damage, La Opinion ran a similar piece in Spanish. The Hill also ran an article inspired by Star-Ledger’s August 5 article, but promptly removed it after hearing Emerson’s objections.

The Star-Ledger’s attack was severe enough for Emerson to involve his attorney, Richard Horowitz, who, on August 9, demanded that Emerson be afforded “an opportunity to respond” and submitted a letter to the editor by Emerson. The Star-Ledger published Emerson’s response on August 24.

In the interim, six New Jersey members of Congress, all Democrats, wrote a letter to ICE, demanding that Dabul be fired, claiming that he “edited and wrote for anti-Muslim hate groups,” as alleged in the Star-Ledger’s op-ed trashing Emerson.

Furthermore, the paper’s editors refused to publish Emerson’s response unless he agreed to the removal of key details.

Emerson asserted that the Star-Ledger’s editors made no attempt to contact him or verify any of the facts assumed by the paper’s allegations, but those important points were deleted from Emerson’s response by the Star-Ledger’s editors, presumably to avoid exposing their unprofessionalism.

Similarly, Emerson’s response tried to set the record straight about the Star-Ledger’s materially false suggestion that Emerson blamed Muslims for the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing — an allegation that he says has been “manufactured and peddled by radical Islamic groups” — but the editors deleted that as well.

Thus, the edited version of Emerson’s defense produced by the Star-Ledger’s editors effectively extended Emerson’s character assassination, while whitewashing the paper’s journalistic malfeasance.

For the sake of setting the record straight and exposing the extent of Star-Ledger’s journalistic negligence, it’s worth reviewing the many problems with the paper’s August 5 op-ed. [Please see the rest at the IPT]

https://www.investigativeproject.org/7619/character-assassinations-by-new-jersey-star-ledger

Sure there are reasons for this hit and there is an agenda behind it. More on that later. Or as Alinsky said, personalize the attacks. In this case, smear one expert that says things they don’t like. But what a concerted effort. They don’t smear, they do character assassination hits. Then they put it into their media echo chamber to drive it home.

Who are these hatchet men. You all know the Muslims have many working at all levels in media and within government (something Obama excelled at placing) Then they have their allies of SPLC as the designated smear merchants. By the time it’s back washed in a few days in media, it is hard to know exactly where it came from, which is the point.

Do you think anyone out there is saying, “let me read today’s corrections and clarifications in today’s paper”? No, they do the drive by and screw even cleaning up the mess. The mess just makes their message that much harder to ignore.

Apology to the Left

 

I’m sorry that you interpret my love for country as hate.

I’m sorry that you characterize patriotism as bigotry.

I’m sorry your bitterness toward America cannot be contained.

I’m sorry you see racism everywhere.

I’m sorry you believe America is a structurally racist country.

I’m sorry that you don’t see America as exceptional.

I’m sorry that you believe America caused or deserved the 9-11 attacks.

I’m sorry that you thought Benghazi was a conspiracy theory.
(But Obama created a conspiracy to cover it up, though.)

I’m sorry that you believe Mueller’s investigation is legitimate.

I’m sorry you think socialism is the answer to disunity.

I’m sorry that you despise pride in America – as repulsive.

I’m sorry you are offended by borders and law enforcement officers

I’m sorry you chose to side with illegal aliens over US citizens’ safety.

I’m sorry if the National Anthem offends you.

I’m sorry that you are so misguided.

 

I didn’t cause that. Just saying….

Right Ring | Bullright

Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

I scanned a few “up and coming” Democrat candidates for Congress and here is what I find. Caution: it is a murky picture. Very entertaining though.

As background, you’ve heard about new Democrats being recruited to run in largely Republcan held districts. Many of them touting military careers and many of them women.

In the last few weeks, districts who were Republican are considered “toss ups”. More recently, some are being relabeled now “leaning Democrat.” Right, I believe that.

When you look at their social media campaign statements you see similarities.

Well, one after another their statements read like a book of platitudes. No, not about current hot button issues but glowing terms. My sampling were not heavily campaigning. They did not seem to have layers of popularity and comments on their posts.

But those posts themselves, claiming the reason they were running, read eerily similar too. They didn’t tell you about their stand on issues. But like this one, it was personal. Well like this: “I’m running for Congress so that our children will have a brighter future and so that all our daughters will know that they can grow up to be and do whatever they dream.”

‘Hello’…. I mean your children had no hopes or dreams without you running? Wait, children have had those ideals and goals as long as I remember. Glad yours now have a brighter future only because you are running! What does that say? Well, kids have had those rosy ideals until 2009, when dreams took a nose dive. Now they are back?

They talk about about “shared values” and “moving the country forward.” What does that mean? I prefer an ash heap, myself. All undefined, vague terms to try to appeal to voters’ emotions and inspirations without much thought to what the words mean. You are supposed to know if you are a left wing progressive Democrat. And you do: against tax cuts, raising taxes, growing spending, cutting military spending. All of which is like caviar on a cracker to Democrats. “Come get it”. Free college, socialized medicine, single payer, Medicare for all, opening up the borders. Who can be against all that?

Another lofty word they are for, “equality”. So like we Republicans are for inequality, the more unequal the better. They want “affordable” things; like we want everything unaffordable. They actually support policies that make things less affordable. “Together, we’ll bring a sea change to Congress.” What kind of change, doing what? What will be different with you in Congress? Right, your children will finally have a bright future. “We know how vital our educators are to our communities.” (pandering to teachers – unions) We don’t even like teachers or value them. In fact, we see no use for them.

“We are fighting to keep dark money out of politics.” That’s popular. Naturally, a reference to Citizens United and reversing the Supreme Court decision. Hillary touted that in her campaign along with overturning the Heller decision. They use a complete script of progressive code words for which only Dems have a decoder. Dog whistles like their talk about hatred or hate speech. We are racists while they are, well, the good racists.

No election is complete today without sympathy for illegals. Say nothing about the crimes committed by illegals which impact Americans from coast to coast. Then there is the animus for law enforcement, ICE or border control. But of course they use the right statements to frame it. So they want people afraid of law enforcement and unsympathetic to cops being killed. They want to dehumanize law enforcement, along with anyone who works for the Trump administration. Amnesty is the bomb, “a path to citizenship” is the rage, from people who don’t much value US citizenship. And we are not exceptional. In fact, NY Governor Cuomo led the charge saying “America never was that great.”

Give a shout out for “justice,” especially the more radical candidates. The rest of us must want injustice. Except that we have a lot of injustice going on coming right from the Dep of Justice, but Dems see none of it nor do they care. As long as Deep State is in control Dems are happy. And as long as they are in control of Deep State. But “justice” talk is usually the segue for Resistance — sedition. That subversive obstruction is always a good thing for Dems to run on and support, for justice’s sake, when they do not control government.

Another popular favorite is ____ is against women… “”who stand to lose access to affordable birth control.” I wish I had a nickel every time I heard that bumper sticker phrase. It was popular against Kavanaugh, too. No one is losing access. “Affordable” is now a code word for free or almost free. Losing access, a guaranteed right, to free this or that. Like I’m losing access to a Mercedes 450 SL. I declare such access a “right.” Still, loosing access to something free is a popular notion. Affordable just translates to what they think they should not pay for.

Then there is the golden altar or calf of abortion, Planned Parenthood. Useful against Kavanaugh and campaigning. But I see nothing threatening Planned Parenthood’s status or Roe v. Wade. Nothing. Yet the great scare is on to “protect women’s reproductive health, rights” from invisible harm.” Personally, I’m opposed to women’s reproductive health.

They tell us “stay out of women’s sex organs” yet march in the streets with vagina costumes, condoms and protest wearing pussy hats. They live and breathe in women’s reproductive organs, at least in campaigns, and want them exhaustively legislated. How can killing babies be a stand for women’s reproductive health, or for healthcare? Just do not not legislate that. They yell about preserving lives by preserving abortion and planned parenthood. Planned Parenthoods are saving lots of lives, aren’t they?

Another habit Dems seem to have in common, these up and coming pretenders, is that they make the entire campaign about them not the people they are running to represent. Is that telling? It is not about the issues. And the kicker is the Democrats seem to eat it up. They could not care less, only that he/she is a card carrying socialism-pushing progressive. In fact, whatever he/she says is fine, as long as they are progressive. They will vote with the Marxist left anyway, so what does it matter what they do or say?

So which is worse: the platitudes of vague ideals or what they do say about the issues? San Fran Nan called MS-13 members a spark of divinity. It contradicts her staunch support and protection for abortion. Does a spark of divinity only apply to gang-bangers? Aborted lives must be much lower on the chain than even MS-13 gang members.

But this is getting long, the hour is getting late. The contradictions and vague platitudes remain, popular only to the Left. What outcome can we expect from this soup for fools?

Right Ring | Bullright

Dem’s begin pre-election Swan Song act with Kavanaugh hearings

To make a complete mockery out of the entire process, including a clown brigade, Dems used the holiday to plan and plot disruptions for Kavanaugh hearings.

NBC’s Katie Hunt reports via Gateway Pundit

President Trump’s Supreme Court pick Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.

Democrats and screaming protesters interrupted the hearing for the first half hour.
Judge Kavanaugh has not even been sworn in yet!

It was all planned.

Democrats plotted the coordinated protest over the holiday weekend. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a phone call and Committee members are executing now, reported NBC’s Kasie Hunt.

Read: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/schumer-plotted-kavanaugh-disruptions-in-weekend-call-execution-of-mob-tactics/

What else would we expect from the theatrical band of radical leftists? They are not only attacking Kavanaugh, but making it a mockery by attacking the entire process.

I’m sure fundraising received top billing too.

Leave it to Chelsea and Planned Parenthood

Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.

Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:

By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
Comments

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.

And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/

She’s a monster, trust me on this one!

Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.

Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.

If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?

But maybe I could be off target somewhere.

DNC Melltdown

As midterm elections start to heat up, with all the primaries going off in every state, you might see enthusiasm among Democrats. You might even think they are the ones with the unified momentum. Well, you may be wrong if you do. I’m not spinning it, I don’t need to.

Here’s why, first. Take a good look at the bare cupboards in the DNC. Then take a glance at their big funders. You know who they are: Tom Steyer to George Soros and a basket of others. It is not as important who they are as what they are. They are the hair on fire, far-left radicals that drive the Party. But more importantly, drive any base. DNC is out.

–(Open Secrets)———-Total Raised——–Total Spent——Cash on Hand——–Debts
Democratic Party——–$510,732,825—-$405,218,739—-$139,922,483—-$11,902,719
Republican Party——–$630,554,660—-$426,703,807—-$150,139,527—–$1,650,056
Demo National Cmte —$110,040,264—-$112,645,182——$9,185,284——-$6,353,378
Repub National Cmte –$213,054,677—-$187,695,079—–$50,687,610————$0

And now there is a fairly new big player, not really new. The ACLU has been stepping in, or should I say kicking in to drive many races. So they are in more than ever. We are literally now running against ACLU and Planned Parenthood.Chelsea tipped their hand. Twist Roe into economics, if your economic message is as vacuous as your political one.

But then look at the DNC coffers. They aren’t just empty, they are in big debt. Not only are they on the financial verge of bankruptcy but the Party is bankrupt on ideas as well. They still blame Obama who left the Party in shambles. Then Hillary. There is very little cash on hand and a lot of debt. What do these factors mean?

Enter my opinion and just that. They will manage because they always find a way to flow some money. However, what is happening is the big funders, i.e. special funders and special interests will fill the gap. People are not funding the party, instead putting gas in the tanks of candidates and causes. Money is flowing around the DNC. Read again, Democrats are not funding their own Party. It is all but irrelevant, at least as any central Party apparatus. By design? I doubt it. They just cannot fund it. And who would put much confidence in it after the way it worked in 2016? So they are going around it. No credibility is telling.

Don’t just take my word for it, listen to others make the case. A WaPo opinion piece by Ed Rogers in June described the dire Democrat Party conditions as unraveling. (I refuse to call it Democratic) And now good reason to use that term instead of their preferred one.

In the meantime, the Democratic Party appears to be dismantling itself. Outside groups are fighting their own fights, donors are being pulled away, and potential Democratic presidential candidates show no sign of being party-builders. If you believe in the two-party system, you know this isn’t good. Party discipline has eroded, and that makes it harder to govern once a party is elected to power. We need reforms that empower parties and candidates and diminish the influence of deep-pocketed plutocrats and narrowly focused interest groups.

Well then, is the fat lady warming up her vocal chords? All he can do is make the case for the “two party system”. But is it really a two party system anymore, I mean really? Regardless of how the DNC finances look, is it half of a two party system? I don’t think so. Even the author points to the non cohesive and unconventional funding. What does that say? I don’t see a party unity. It’s a grab bag of mostly socialist ideas bickering for turf. While Bernie might be ecstatic, when the dog finally catches the car what happens?

I think they have big problems. Maybe they are all smoking some real good stuff over there but how about the unity and love? It’s not there. While the Republicans are unified, to some greater degree on issues and a platform, Democrats are flailing about making a lot of noise, with no central theme or purpose. Many years ago I would have prayed for this scenario, a disunited party and bad if any leadership. Worse yet for them, seems no one can reign in the Party or their dire finances. It’s broke. But the people of the party are broke apart too. The screaming and yelling make up for, or paper over, the empty shell that remains of a party. There’s nothing there.

They can trot out the Alinsky stuff, bring out the Marxist ideas, plug in their socialist values, get fired up for a few key races, do a few marches and fundraisers; but in the end, what do you really have? A hot mess that’s what. The great divide in overdrive.

It would be a mistake to try to run an election against an empty bankruted party. What do you focus on? There is nothing there? Call it what it is. Before you get too excited, we still run against the socialist party they are, only we are not running against a party structure. You are basically running against all these splintered special interest groups. Though the only thing that does tie any of it together is a socialist agenda. That is where the energy is. You can no longer say or talk to the moderate, sane ones, or adults in the room. peel off a few. There are none. Everyone is just out for their thing, whatever bad acid trip it is. But they are a long way from any resemblance to unity, virtually on anything.

Sure they agree on issues here and there, but not on direction or a central vision. They want to abolish ICE and do something to cops and hate Trump. They are the anti-party now. Their resistance is all that defines them or unites them. That may be where the solidarity is but there’s a random hodgepodge everywhere else, including in funding which does matter. That funding is a collection of special interests. You could call them a party of special interests, but even that wouldn’t be really fair. Even special interest have more cohesive unity than that. The people are not really united. It’s a giant illusion. We shouldn’t fall for thinking that it is some solidly united party. What is missing?

Any defining leadership – MIA. Nancy Pelosi recently made statements to reinforce her leadership but then she blamed the press and media for trying to divide them. Wow, a tell that is. Blaming the press now? Bad when you have to blame the strongest allies of the Party. And media has drifted along its own far left course. Nancy may be on an isle all by herself. Does she dare take on media? She can’t. They are all she has to try to control it.

In the last almost two months, I see nothing that has improved or changed for Democrats. It’s still a party of misfits. Interesting that this whole meltdown happens at this time, when Republicans are unified in issues and a message with Trump having consolidated his approval. It looks like a time to close the deal. I mean any questions have been resolved and Party unity high, we now know what he can do, we’ve seen it. All we need is the how. And that is where the midterms come in, with a new Supreme Justice on the way, and tax cuts in the rear view, we have a good economic message. So there are problems, so what? There are always problems. But this kind of unity can’t be wasted at such a time when our enemy (opponents) have none.

Put it this way, politically, the trends on the other side are not positive. They are negative. And what they are really running on is all negative. Who can get behind that with any enthusiasm? I know, never underestimate the Party of Stalin. But Republicans seem to have found their voice, finally, and the fog is lifting. They’re perpetually underestimated.

The fork is ready….the lady is standing in the wings getting anxious. Someone could say but in the end, the Democrats always unify. Except on what this time? There’s nothing cohesive there, like their bank accounts.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Meanwhile Press and Media Whine

I’m going to put up this piece from the news association, not because it deserves to be but because it needs to be called out for what it is. I am mean for picking on the press.

They are calling on all press to use their prestigious space to defend the “free press.”
A few hundred have agreed, like a solidarity thing.

RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom

August 13, 2018 | RTDNA [*emphasis mine]

The Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force are calling on our more than 1,200 members and their broadcast and digital news outlets to join the Boston Globe and more than 100 other local newspapers across the country on Aug. 16 in a coordinated editorial response to attacks from the President on the media.

“We urge our members to join the effort on Thursday, Aug. 16 by dedicating airtime, publishing an online editorial or sharing information via social media platforms that speaks to your viewers and listeners about the role we play in preserving the public’s right and need to know, in a government for and by the people,” said Dan Shelley, RTDNA’s executive director.

“The President has ratcheted up his anti-press contempt. Journalists are now the ‘disgusting fake news,’ and according to one presidential tweet, we also ‘cause Wars [sic].’ This rhetoric has contributed to many of the president’s supporters lashing out harshly against members of the White House press corps and other journalists. It must stop before more journalists are hurt or worse,” states Shelley.

Today, RTDNA, its members and the other broadcast and digital journalists it represents stand in solidarity with the dozens of American newspapers that have joined the Boston Globe campaign to publish editorials pushing back against the notion that responsible journalism is “fake news” and that journalists are the “enemy of the American people.”

Please contact RTDNA at pressfreedom@rtdna.org if your station plans to participate. For more information on how to explain the public service your news organization regularly provides, please see this list of resources for rebuilding trust with news consumers and this list of questions to consider as a newsroom.

About the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force
RTDNA formed the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force to defend against threats to the First Amendment and news media access, and to bridge the divide between responsible journalists and those who don’t like, or don’t understand, the news media. People wishing to support RTDNA’s efforts may reach out to the task force by emailing pressfreedom@rtdna.org.

About RTDNA
RTDNA is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. Founded as a grassroots organization in 1946, RTDNA works to protect the rights of electronic journalists throughout the country, promotes ethical standards in the industry, provides members with training and education and honors outstanding work in the profession through the Edward R. Murrow Awards.”

Original source

So it is a campaign defending press freedom. Oh goody, a special day for that.

Instead of what they claim, this is a dedicated day to attack Trump, feel free as if they do not already do so daily. So what is the special occasion about this day? That’s what they have done since Trump won.

But my personal issue with this goes much deeper. First of all, when press refers to the First Amendment, they liberally mean “freedom of press.” However, there are other freedoms in the first amendment. Just that to press, this freedom is the only one they really give a damn about. Secondly, it is offensive that they lay claim to the First Amendment as their own. But that is the only part they want people to care about and keep beating us over the head about.

Yes, I understand the need for a Free Press. It is absurd I have to make that disclaimer.

I will take the opportunity to mention another favorite talking point of theirs — meaning the press in general. The claim is Trump declared war on the first amendment. Again, by first amendment they are referring to press. (misleading to say the least.) Or some even say he declared war on the “free press.” What nonsense. I have never seen another president more media friendly than Trump.

This bothers me why? It is mostly this “war on or against the first amendment” mantra that gets me. As the old line goes: “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” With all that is going on, there is not a war on the press or first amendment. It is a battle within the First Amendment. But it has always been there. There has always been some friction within the 1st Amend. The press is only one of 5 freedoms contained therein: Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition of grievance, and assembly. I see press is only one fifth of that. Technically, you can say press may have some tangential influence in others.

As to the “war” as they call it within the first amendment; it is press declaring war on the people’s freedoms. Press has no ownership of or control over the First Amendment.

Despite how I really feel about this brouhaha over the press, I will give them this honored day…… to make a joke out of themselves, as they have done for over 10 years.

What an idea!

We could have had special “defense of the first amendment days” back in 2009-2010. Remember the Tea Parties? But we did not get “special day” kudos for defending free speech. We got the royal condemnation for it, and viciously attacked. For all of our organizing skill and peaceful efforts, we had the long arm of the IRS attack dogs sicked on us. It was labeled traitorous to the US Constitution in media. Talk about Orwellian.

Did we get a special assist or atta-boy from the media/press for standing up and defending the First Amendment? Just the opposite. We were attacked for “hiding behind the first amendment.” But it was press that was doing the attacking. They declared war on free speech and dissent, from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and in press and media.

So what does that tell us, other than the fact that the “press” doesn’t give a damn about the first amendment? It tells us they have chosen sides. And they chose to go to war against the American people, just for standing up for their first amendment rights.

So for this dedicated “defending press day” I offer them a peace sign minus the index finger. Of course they really don’t need me or anyone else to stand up for them, they have the power of the press. And chose to use that power against the American people. What were they “standing up” for back then? Oh, it was for big-government, for the power of the White House, the power in Congress. Remember their stories of outrage that people yelled at Congressmen, especially black members, when the Democrat caucus paraded in front of Tea Parties to fabricate fake news about us. Then press ran that narrative lie into the ground. We were also labeled racists then. Media assisted.

Excuse me for not having any outrage that the press is victimized. Give me a break. Again, press made huge choices long ago and declared war within the first amendment, against the people. You didn’t just stand idly by, you were the enforcers. Even Ben Rhodes admitted the Obama administration had media, press eating out of their hand. Because, at that point, free press sycophants, you were no longer a “free press.”

Is it time for a ‘voice of free speech task force’? — at least I’m being honest.
See what they did there: “Voice of the First Amendment Task Force”?

 

Related Ref:
Boston Globe: “200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials”

[Globe]- The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s opinion page, told the AP last week.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Crooked Hillary and the Cabal

Well, someone is doing some writing and reporting of the accumulative events.

2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives

By Lee Smith, RealClearInvestigations
August 13, 2018

The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between high-ranking members of the Republican presidential campaign staff and a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties remains the cornerstone of claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia. …/

Continue Reading the damning evidence: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

 

But Mueller could never stumble across that pertinent information. Or the fact that Fusion was working with the Kremlin to overturn sanctions — against the Magnitsky Act. It would be too damning to the Democrats and DNC. ‘Quick, we need a diversion’….. this week if possible. After all, Mueller is tied to this cabal.

In case anyone is still keeping Russia collusion score: that puts intel ops, FBI, DOJ, Mueller, Clinton, GPS, Steele, DNC et al on the same side as …..the Kremlin and Putin. Collusion Party anyone? 😎 And I’ll just leave out McCain for now.

With all this known, just what would Hillary have done had she won the election? I don’t think there is much of a question about it, given her character and past.

This was never a Trump issue or scandal, but is yet another Hillary Clinton scandal that she had a whole lot of help with.

Hillary and Obama employed the same strategic tactic

What do Hillary and Obama have in common? Among other things, they both used the heck out of Trump. How?

Well, seems Hillary was lucky enough to have her server scandal investigation turned into a Trump counterintelligence investigation, at the urging of her op-research team. That must have made her very happy to substitute a Trump investigation for her own. No wonder she was so confident in those latter days. She knew she had lots of help.

Obama, well, he found use for Trump as a scapegoat for his lack of doing anything about the Russia meddling. (as I said in May) Finally he found use for Trump as the blame for a Russian problem. He used the Russian problem for a pretext against Trump, for an investigation. Redirect the blame on Trump, for what was a problem since at least 2014.

It worked better than could be expected. No one was asking why he did nothing for years or about Susan Rice telling cybersecurity to stand down on any response to Russia. To which media sighed and ignored with Obama’s failure to act. Just pin Obama’s Russia problem on Trump to avoid accountability. A made to order investigation did that.

Both were using Trump for political expedience to cover their own scandalous records.

Right Ring | Bullright

Crazies Want Their Power

On Socialism Is Not The Answer, he had a good article, by Daniel Greenfield, describing the left as crazies more than they are socialists. I had to agree. Perfect case.

Trump’s victory tore the mask from the Democrats leaving them nothing but rage. Formerly mainstream Democrats are quick to embrace every insane lefty position from abolishing borders to supporting Hamas, not because they understand or believe in them, but because they’re “resisting” Trump.

The socialists think they’re winning. But they’re just the guys shouting things at a crazy mob. And the mob is not really for anything, it’s just enraged. It doesn’t want to build, it wants to tear down. [Read More]

So that put me in a contemplative commenting mode to summarize it in metaphors.

Indeed, it’s not the means it’s the ends. Their euphoric socialism is the illusive Unicorn that always escapes them by running 3 steps ahead of them all the time. The scene will switch to the Wizard of Oz, and that little man behind the curtain, if they actually ever do catch it. But by that time, they all should have known what the scorpion really was all along. And there can be no complaints about it then.

There is no doubt now that they are crazies. In fact, it is their primary objective driving everyone into a psycho frenzy and using that display of it as proof of their blue wave momentum. They want us to believe a Blue Wave is coming when they haven’t even accepted the results of the last election yet.

But the secret is they really are that crazy and been so for a log time. They’ve come to depend on living on the rage juice. There is nothing left but that. TDS is all the rage.

Now we are getting somewhere, Obama

Obama’s Treason: Even Worse Than We Thought

But Leftist Privilege will prevent him from ever being held accountable.

June 7, 2018 — Robert Spencer | Frontpage Mag

The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that “the Obama administration skirted key U.S. sanctions to grant Iran access to billions in hard currency despite public assurances the administration was engaged in no such action, according to a new congressional investigation.”

And it gets even worse: “The investigation, published Wednesday by the House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, further discloses secret efforts by top Obama administration officials to assure European countries they would receive a pass from U.S. sanctions if they engaged in business with Iran.”

This revelation comes after the news that came to light in February, that, according to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, “the U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.”

There is a law that applies to this situation. U.S. Code 2381 says:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

More: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270378/obamas-treason-even-worse-we-thought-robert-spencer

Let the trail of history begin. We have time….’Popcorn, peanuts, treason trial!’

Obama, Treasonous Traitor

July 16, 2018 — Daniel Greenfield | Frontpage Mag

In the media’s frantic downhill race to out-rage each other over Trump, there’s no bottom. Charles M. Blow, the Cory Booker of media columnists, desperately tried to justify his job with this ridiculous column aimed right at the nerve center of the resistance’s id.

Its subtle title is, “Trump, Treasonous Traitor”.

That’s like a parody of a column like this. In it, Blow declares, “Whether or not Trump himself or anyone in his orbit personally colluded or conspired with the Russians about their interference is something Mueller will no doubt disclose at some point, but there remains one incontrovertible truth: In 2016, Russia, a hostile foreign adversary, attacked the United States of America.”

“Trump should be directing all resources at his disposal to punish Russia for the attacks and prevent future ones. But he is not. America’s commander wants to be chummy with the enemy who committed the crime. Trump is more concerned with protecting his presidency and validating his election than he is in protecting this country.

“This is an incredible, unprecedented moment. America is being betrayed by its own president. America is under attack and its president absolutely refuses to defend it.

“Simply put, Trump is a traitor and may well be treasonous.”

Remember when the New York Times wasn’t a complete joke? Still is this what the left wants as the new metric?

It’s incontrovertible that Islamic terrorists attacked America, but Obama insisted on being chummy with Iran, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood: all of whom had plenty of American blood on their hands.

“This is an incredible, unprecedented moment. America is being betrayed by its own president. America is under attack and its president absolutely refuses to defend it.

“Simply put, Obama is a traitor and may well be treasonous.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/270751/obama-treasonous-traitor-daniel-greenfield

If only they would have opened their eyes: Obama, Holder, Lynch. Clapper, Brennan, Hayden, Rice, Rhodes, Kerry, Hillary, what a cabal. A caldron of incestuous treason.

Marc Lamont Hill gushes over terrorist cop-killer

Marc Lamont Hill demonstrates just what is wrong with the Left — or Marxists in general. They leave an ugly trail of death and hatred wherever they go.

Temple Prof & CNN Commentator Marc Lamont Hill Touts Cop-Killing Terrorist as ‘Freedom Fighter’

Breitbart | Tom Ciccotta 07-18-2018

Temple University Professor and CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill published a glowing Instagram post this week for cop-killing terrorist Assata Shakur.

 

Temple University Professor Marc Lamont Hill, who is also a CNN commentator, published a bizarre tribute to convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, a member of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list, this week. Shakur, a former member of the Black Liberation Army, was convicted of first-degree murder of State Trooper Werner Foerster during a shootout in New Jersey in 1973.

Thinking about Assata Shakur on her 71st birthday. She wrote the second book that changed (and saved) my life. She taught me about the value and power of Freedom Dreams. She showed me the beauty of struggle. And she proved that “a wall is just a wall. and nothing more at all. It can be broken down.” I pray for her continued safety and protection. I continue to work to demonstrate her innocence. And I implore the State to stop prosecuting an unjust and unfair campaign against one of our most treasured Freedom Fighters. Thank you Mama Assata. Wishing you 100 more years!

Shakur has lived in Cuba since 1984, despite multiple attempts by the US government to bring her back.

Marc Lamont Hill is a Professor of Media Studies and Urban Education at Temple University. He has worked in media with BET News and CNN. In 2016, Marc Lamont Hill expressed support for the Green Party, adding that he would prefer a Donald Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton one so that the left could build a “real” movement.

“I would rather have Trump be president for four years and build a real left-wing movement that can get us what we deserve as a people, than to let Hillary be president and we stay locked in the same space where we don’t get what we want,” he said.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/18/temple-prof-cnn-commentator-marc-lamont-hill-touts-cop-killing-terrorist-as-freedom-fighter/

He drew so much inspiration from this cop-killer. Yeah, hard to romanticize cop-killers. Freedom Fighters? They are eating on the wrong side of the mushroom again.

Screw his position about Trump, just watch all the Lefties come out of the sewer to defend this. Judging by his following and number of likes, he is not alone. He has lots of company.

According to one of his hashtags, he seems to think of her as a political prisoner. Talking about her birthday is so touching. Hill said “She showed me the beauty of struggle.” There’s that wrong side of the mushroom thing again.

Injustice of Injustice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I do feel very offended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary does UK the wrong way

If you thought you had heard everything before, this will make you question that. Hillary said a lot of things that were wrong. Now she compares herself to Winston Churchill.

Yes, this will remain about her worst attempt at relevancy. Whopper Alert!

Clinton on being a polarizing figure: ‘I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars’

By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.

“I’m sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn’t they?” she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee then immediately claimed she wasn’t actually comparing herself to Churchill, before going on to elaborate on the analogy.

Churchill went into the political wilderness between the two World Wars and during that time was a key voice criticizing then-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward Adolf Hitler. He would go on to become prime minister himself and help lead the Allies to victory in World War II.

The Guardian report notes that Clinton made the Churchill reference “a fraction too quickly for the line to sound spontaneous.”

Clinton continued: “I mean, I’m not comparing myself, but I’m just saying people said that, but he was right about Hitler, and a lot of people in England were wrong. And Churchill was a pain. He kept popping up all the time.”

Clinton indeed has remained a polarizing figure, with her popularity falling since the election, as she has stayed in the public eye with her book tour and media interviews.
She told the Guardian she is not going to “call it a day” anytime soon.

“It feels like a duty. It feels like patriotism, and it feels necessary. I’m not going anywhere,” she said.

Clinton also used the Guardian interview to comment on the separation of families at the border in the wake of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” that ordered that all illegal border crossers be prosecuted. Trump has ordered the separations to be stopped, but critics are still fighting the prosecutions and other detentions.

Clinton said that she is worried that some of the minors may never be reunited, saying that that question is “keeping me up at night.”

“Absolutely I worry about that. I’m worried that some children will not be reunited,” she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/clinton-on-being-polarizing-figure-im-sure-said-that-about-churchill-between-wars.html

 

There are some things you can do; some things you can barely get away with passing off. And some things you ought never to have a logical reason for even thinking about trying to pull off. She’s strong on the 3rd one.

Then there are times when you should be laughed off the stage in a straight jacket, never to be heard from again. Why is that not happening, you may ask?

Secondly, she is a like Madonna. Remember her protest bombshell?

The problem is the amount of forethought she gave that comment. They questioned the spontaneity, You know she plotted out the comparison, practiced it, and tried it out on her staff. They said “that’s good”.

Just how she did the Deplorables comment, then bounced it off people in the Hamptons. Maybe what happens in the Hamptons should stay the hell in the Hamptons. Or at least get buried in the darkest crevices of one’s last fleeting brain cell. This is one.

Let me paraphrase and sum up Hillary’s message: ‘I’m not done pissing off the last person, even people who voted for me, yet. I will not be stopped because there is an unlimited potential for hatred of me out there.’ Face it, now that she cannot demand huge amounts of money for influence anymore, that is her only motivation left.

The only thing that keeps Hillary up at night, after all that Chardonnay, is thinking up a new crazy excuse or comparison for her loss to tell people. Even if there is no market. What she is really worried about being reunited is her candidacy. Relevancy is not her friend.

Dems in their own words: GOP ad

The Dems made the best campaign ad ever, for the GOP, and they weren’t even trying.

Already over 4 million views. Nothing can go viral like Vile Democrats.

The next time Dems say “that’s not who we are,” just show them this.

 

So the message is….. wouldn’t want to be like you.

The #WalkAway Movement is on the rise.