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

Advertisements

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.

Lawless Left

Did you miss it all evolving? Maybe you could have, if you were not paying attention this week. Within a day of an unknown candidate winning a primary race in Queens, NY, over Joseph Crowley, Democrats solidified their “abolish ICE” position. Three days later they were in the streets protesting to demonstrate their newfound position. Mainsteaming it complete. Within days, NY’s junior Senator was wholeheartedly sporting the position.

But no one saw that one coming. They could be excused for a host of reasons. But no one heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before that either, the 28 year-old Bernie socialist.

It was like a meteor hitting. By Saturday, media reported 750 marches of protest across the country. It was so quick; evolution is now lightning speed with Democrats.

It normally starts with the same line.

Let’s be crystal clear, when Democrats say “this is not who we are,” what they are really saying is that we are not a country that respects the rule of law. We are not a country that should protect its borders from invasion. And finally, what they are saying is that we are a lawless people….or should be. That’s the way, uh-huh uh-huh. they like it.

Yes, I know that is a radical statement but it is not hyperbole. At least it represents the Democrats and their party to a tee. Lawlessness is key in their agenda.

But I know people disagree. Somehow I am being dishonest. Though the facts stand contrary to that argument. They only “respect” the rule of law when it fits their political agenda, and only for as long as it does.

So Democrats are lawless, like those people they “stand up” for and encourage.

Obama pipes up, as the latest push of the illegal invasion spawns media stories about children being separated from parents and families. Washington Examiner:

Obama added Americas hold the common ideal “that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve the chance to become something better.”

“That’s the legacy our parents and grandparents and generations before created for us, and it’s something we have to protect for the generations to come,” he continued. “But we have to do more than say ‘this isn’t who we are.’ We have to prove it – through our policies, our laws, our actions, and our votes.” — Obama commenting on World Refugee Day.

Here we go with the same code words again, ‘this is not who we are.’ They said it on preventing terrorists from coming to America, or getting tough on Islamists. The travel ban was the latest. But thankfully that power has remained within the president.

Look, they have no respect for law really. When in their favor, they say “that’s the law, period.” But otherwise, if you don’t like the law, or don’t believe it is right, then civil disobedience is the answer. Defy the law, and protest it. But respect it? No chance. So there is no illusion Democrats respect the law. If they don’t like it, they simply ignore it as their right. And they will go to battle against the rule of law.

Another great line for Democrats in prime time talking points.

Their other favorite words to repeat, “we are better then that.” But no, Democrats are not better than that. They only use words like a lemon meringue pie in your face. They are revealing the truth, they have no respect for the rule of law — only the politics of activism. The more radical the position the better it sells.

They want open borders and lawlessness. What is next, you might ask? They already called for abolishing local police forces. That seemed radical even for them, but maybe no more. Basically anything that stands in the way of lawlessness could be a target. Or anything that stands in the way of chaos and anarchy. (their other best friend)

It is a hard case to make that progressives want vast government control over every element in your lives, where the nanny state rules, and yet want people to be lawless. I guess that is what happens in “evolution,” sometimes it missfires. If you have people that don’t care about consistency or hypocrisy, or even decency, and grounded by nothing larger than themselves, then this is the inevitable result. A collision of forces.

Desperation can do dangerous things. The left will cling to any new – hopefully radical — idea now that might be popular with their radical, angry base. All at an alarming speed. What is the next new thing? Who could predict? But it is not pretty.

The central rule is Republicans and conservatives, their enemies, should follow and be saddled by the law but Leftists? Not so much.

Right Ring | Bullright

Swamp Economy of Politics

Many people laughed at Bill Maher wanting the economy to crash, but it does show something more sinister.

Let’s not forget that the left politicized every department of government under Obama. Let’s not forget he weaponized much of it against his political opponents. Isn’t that what the Left wants government for?

So is it such a leap then that they are wishing for economic collapse to hurt Trump or drive him out, and hurt those supporting him? Not at all.

However, it says a modicum of truth about the left today. Forget all what liberals say they are about and care about. Like everything else, they want an economy politicized and weaponized against their political opponents. That is the economy they have in mind.

The next time they lecture us that they would be better stewards of the economy, they have revealed what they mean — an economy subservient to their political agenda.

They already showed us in all their protests and boycotts how they want to use the economy, to hurt their political enemies or reward their friends and allies. Just that Maher makes it clear. That is what the social justice warriors mean. It is only another extension of their ideological core and lust for power. Goal: a fully politicized, weaponized economy.

Right Ring | Bullright

What’s a little Coup among enemies?

American Spectator
George Neumayr — March 21, 2018 [excerpts]
“As his plot to destroy Trump backfires, his squeals grow louder.”

America will triumph over a president it elected? That’s the raw language of coup, and of course it is not the first time Brennan has indulged it. In 2017, he was calling for members of the executive branch to defy the chief executive. They should “refuse to carry out” his lawful directives if they don’t agree with them, he said.

Another hardcore leftist, Samantha Power, who spent the weeks after Trump’s victory rifling through intelligence picked up on his staff, found Brennan’s revolutionary tweet very inspiring. “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan,” she wrote. Sounded pretty dark and grave. But not to worry, she tweeted later. She just meant that the former CIA director was going to smite Trump with the power of his “eloquent voice.”

Out of power, these aging radicals can’t help themselves. They had their shot to stop Trump, they failed, and now they are furious. The adolescent coup talk grows more feverish with each passing day. We have a former CIA director calling for the overthrow of a duly elected president, a former attorney general (Eric Holder) calling for a “knife fight,” a Senate minority leader speaking ominously about what the intelligence community might do to Trump (“they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer has said), and assorted former FBI and CIA officials cheering for a coup, such as CNN’s Phil Mudd who says, “You’ve been around for 13 months. We’ve been around since 1908. I know how this game is going to be played. We’re going to win.”

A little late, the coup should have happened by 2011. That was the tree that never fell in the woods, and everyone heard it. But commie fans like Brennan loved that era.

Pelosi goes off along with the obnoxious left

WATCH: Unhinged Pelosi Claims Tax Bill ‘Does Violence’ To Vision Of Founding Fathers

“… it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

Daily Signal

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spewed utter nonsense on the House floor on Tuesday, hysterically claiming that the Republican’s tax plan “does violence to the vision of our Founders.”

Pelosi railed against Republican lawmakers in her speech, decrying the bill as a morally obscene “scam” designed to “install a permanent plutocracy.”

“This GOP tax scam is simply theft, monumental, brazen theft from the American middle class and from every person who aspires to reach it,” Pelosi said. “The GOP tax scam is not a vote for an investment in growth or jobs. It is a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation. They’ll be cheering that later. It does violence to the vision of our Founders. It disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, who are a large part of our middle class and to whom we owe a future worthy of their sacrifice. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children. It demands, it morally demands a no vote from every member of this house of the people.”

Earlier in her remarks, the pro-abortion Democrat pulled out the tried-and-true “think of the children” tactic and managed to connect it to Christmas.

“In this season, we celebrate the miraculous blessings of God,” Pelosi began. “We reflect on the wondrous joy of children and our responsibility to them. We remember our duty to live justly. And for those of us blessed to serve in this Congress, we must remember our special responsibility to govern fairly, to meet the needs of all of God’s children.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24888/watch-unhinged-pelosi-claims-tax-bill-does-ryan-saavedra

Fred Barnes writes, of the resistance, in the Weekly Standard: “Feeble Resistance”

Still, we’ve learned a bit from the resistance. Their policy views haven’t changed much. “Democrats are for jobs, but they’re against business,” Moore says. “They’re no longer a growth party, they’re a redistribution party.”

I don’t know if I’d even say they are for jobs. But they are certainly against business. Really, they are for politics and elections in particular. That’s what they care about. A tax cut? Not so much. Nothing personal but nothing gets in the way of their obsession with politics, not even an international terrorist-crime syndicate like Hezbollah can do that.

The fact that Pelosi has to call tax cuts violent tells us something. Calling it a tax scam, or trying to make their resistance as poisonous as possible, is their gig for successful politics. Start the fundraisers against tax cuts and for impeachment. That is their entire mid-term campaign.

But rest assured, there is always that bastion of world stability called the UN. (achem) Well, they vote to condemn our decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. So Nikki Haley gives them an ultimatum that we are watching and will remember. So for that, John Brennan rushes out on social media to condemn her message. Now having a memory is considered a “threat.”

Only to an Obama radical, remembering the damage done is a bad thing. We all could need full-frontal lobotomies to accomplish that. How can they write and glorify Obama’s legacy like a gift from on high while we are looking at the effects?

The real problem is not just Trump, to them, but all the people who voted for him. It was Nancy’s last part that took it right over the top, making resistance into a religious doctrine. ‘Save the people by opposing Trump on everything,’ is the message. She lost her credibility card by being in bed with Planned Parenthood. Now she lectures us on taking care of the children? A bit much even for my stomach.

So their rhetoric is high but their ethics and responsibility are not. They can oppose the American people who want to fix the problems, not create more of them. People wanted a wall, border enforcement and to grow America, instead of destroying and dividing it by every conceivable group. Dems want the latter.

Now if any of that seems or is offensive to you, well, you are probably right on the mark. It offends because it is meant to. All the left’s agenda drives the message of protest as the means — when elections and courts don’t yield the desired effects. From blocking roadways, to shutting down businesses, to tearing down statues, all are means to offend people. That is the point of it. They tell us that we must be made to feel uncomfortable, made to feel their ridicule. That, they say, is the motive for change.

When NFL players took a knee toward the national anthem and flag, we rightly called them out on it. We said it was offensive to the rest of the country, to the military, to the country at large. And they told us good, I’m glad you are, we want you to be. That’s why we are doing it, that is the point of protest and civil disobedience to disturb and make you feel uncomfortable. Until lots of Americans are offended then nothing changes.

So in that same spirit they carry the offensive objective into the halls of Congress. Resistance. Make no mistake, when it rolls out and hits you right in the face as outrageous and offends you, because that is their whole point. They want to inflame.

Is it any wonder then that it is almost impossible to deal with or work with them? No it isn’t and also why they are in a perpetual protest mode. They operate on the same M/O as terrorists do: to force a political objective, whether it is baking cakes, changing bathrooms, or removing statues, or removing displays, or violent protests, or defending corruption.

And if some of their policies also offend you even more when they are carried out? That’s all the better, it keeps you in the perpetually offended mode, awaiting their next demand. These are not just the collateral effects and consequences of the left, these are their very intentional means. But tax cuts are a violent attack on the founders?

Right Ring | Bullright

Brilliant Deductions

Since it is the end of the year, it is time to recognize the most influential people of the year. My nomination of year has been finalized. It must be the Deep State, even over Trump.

If you thought the Deep State was a conspiracy ruse, then you must have noticed they removed all doubt. Seems Trump has exposed that for the cabal it is. There was so much evidence this year, no one can rationally deny it exists.

The fact that libs want to cover up for it, only further validates it is alive and well.

So congrats, Deep State, in my mind you get the person of the year award — collectively.

Class warfare is really in season. Economics of tax cuts are raging. On the left, the politics of tax cuts are surging. The mainstream media and left only care about election politics, not the people affected by them. It’s all politics.

In light of the current economic issues, this quote happened to be on Spurgeons Daily Devotional for December 20th. (an old resource)

“Call thy labourers, and give them their hire.” — Matthew 20:8

Lastly, engaging in sexism is something most conservatives frown on. Especially when they are hyped up charges. Well, it is nuts when conservatives are blamed for being sexist. That doesn’t happen much. However, what we hear are sexism charges leveled against conservative women.

That should not make sense. Yet the sexism police on the left always use sexist attacks on Republican or conservative women. Just think of Sarah Palin, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Betsy Devos. Or remember Condoleezza Rice? Okay, but they do have favorites and make exemptions for moderate liberal tools, who are useful.

Contrast this with the latest charge of Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren that a tweet from Trump was a sexist attack on her. First ones to squeal “sexism” against Republicans. So why would they be the ones to make sexism attacks on women? Now Susan Collins has the nerve to call the media left sexist over the way she was treated for supporting the tax cuts. Well, this is what happens when you consistently side with the left on issues, they get very agitated when you don’t go along with them. Then they revoke your woman-pass card.

Politico reported the story:

“I believe that the coverage has been unbelievably sexist, and I cannot believe that the press would have treated another senator with 20 years of experience as they have treated me,” she told reporters in the Capitol. “They’ve ignored everything that I’ve gotten and written story after story about how I’m duped. How am I duped when all your amendments get accepted?”

Collins, whom Obamacare supporters earlier this year hailed as a hero for blocking GOP repeal legislation, has faced intense criticism from those same voices for supporting the repeal of the law’s individual mandate as part of the tax bill.

What else would you expect from the radical, fire-breathing left but to try to shame anyone who doesn’t go their way, then weaponize womanhood against her? Par for their course. And do it while calling the right sexist.

Right Ring | Bullright

Open Letter to the Resistance

I know you people are fairly disagreeable by nature but allow me to explain a few things to you. You can accept them or not, at face value, but I really don’t give a shit.

You all seem to be in an even bigger stupor than normal lately as you follow all those sensational headlines that come out, one by one. Did you ever think this could be a tactic of choreography going on? Did you ever think maybe you are the fish falling for the bait, almost every time?

Well, of course you probably didn’t because as soon as that thought entered your gushy head, you succumbed to the “want to believe” doctrine. The same doctrine that led your brain cells over the last 8 years of Obama. Even despite evidence to the contrary, you “want to believe” it all true. And with the left, the law of perception rules supreme. If you want it to be true, it is. You must deny whatever contradicts that belief of yours.

But unlike all your hopes, Donald Trump really is still president and he is not going away. And remember those people who voted for him you claimed were a minority? Well, they are still here. We aren’t going away either. We didn’t change our minds, or make a mistake. We are quite happy and do not have any empathy for your resistance — which if you think about it is actually sedition. We are happy your perverse system is being disrupted.

Worse for you, we will still be here in the coming years and that means through the midterms you are giddy about, all the way to a crescendo of momentum in 2020. You see, you bought into a failing paradigm. We are actually the real “resistance”… to your deeps-state scum that is sucking the blood from our country.

So we are still resisting and bringing correction to this corrupt DC sewer you worshiped at the altar of for at least 8 years. I know, you don’t care about the effects of what you have done, or what your Messiah Obama did. But you should be concerned that it was all destroying the foundation of this country. No. All you care for is your twisted ideology.

Of course you ignored and/or denied that — the ideological dreams of your utopia were more important. It was not a utopia or right but you didn’t want to hear that. Your social justice is really a wet blanket of socialism that doesn’t work no matter how hard you try to ram it down our throats. Again, you don’t care. Your nanny-state desires are more important than life or the preservation of this country. So you actively work to destroy it, which you don’t care about anyway, in order to get what you want.

But your nanny-state also comes with a cost of the sewer sucking the oxygen from society. And it requires fuel. It gave birth to and marinated in corruption, now that your phase of politicization reached its peak. You love the politicization because it was radicalized like you and the leftist base. That feeds the beast. It doesn’t care about the consequences, only the agenda. The fruits of which are as toxic for freedom as it is for the health of the republic itself, though that doesn’t matter to you. In fact, you are willing to cover up all the evidence of corruption or seeds of sedition against America for your own selfish interests, to propel that agenda. And it is not even your noble pipe dreams and illusions you care about.

The real objective is, and always was, power and control of the people you use in your grist mill of politics. The plantation that grows and maintains this manure field is the machine used to propel its political abuse and malfeasance in its lust for power. This plantation utopia can never be satisfied, it isn’t meant to be. Its goal is the evolutionary destruction of the republic into a socialist state. That requires a fair amount of force to accomplish.

What better way to perpetuate that objective, force, than deceptively naming it something like resistance, which is a perversion of the word? If you are actively in a state of resistance against the democratically elected government, it is a state of sedition and insurrection. To be in resistance against the democracy you claim to care about — and rule of law — is to be actively working against America and the Americans who made their choice in the election. Immediately, you went into the persistent state of denial and “resistance” against the government and the people that elected it.

Though we were in dissent with your regime and policies in the last 8 years, we suffered through it. We did not organize all the institutions and embedded radicals against it. Ours was a real resistance not sedition — by any means necessary. Imagine what the press would have looked like over that? And we didn’t try to take power by means other than democratic election. We didn’t try to undermine it or prevent it from taking power. We did not radicalize an insurgency against it. We used the mechanisms of government itself and freedom of speech, peacefully, as the means. Though this was unsuccessful. Our success was in finally stopping that train of abuse in 2016.

Now all of you claim to be under the banner of Resistance, while you are actively opposing America. The fact that you don’t care only proves your loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution, but to an ideology which craves power for its means to success.

Our only option to your craving is to be in resistance ourselves. So once again, we are the real resistance. Without power, your progressive agenda is disrupted. That causes knots in your “by any means necessary” stomach. But the cravings to feed your addiction will not be satisfied in the near future. Your withdrawals will get ugly and violent, but we will not appease your demands. We will not surrender our will or the America you are actively opposing. Your sedition will be opposed. You will not have your way.

Right Ring | Bullright

Party hacks invade Alabama

Leave it to liberals and Progressives (socialists) to read all kinds of wild interpretations into Alabama’s election. It means this and it means that…a point or two difference.

Same old lies and exaggerations and deceptions. Another overreach for giddy Democrats. Though they think it represents a sea change or momentum shift? And then one against Trump, and one big boost for Democrats. Really.

But during the election they said it all about the sex accusations. A referendum. Now that it’s over, that’s all out the window to claim it was a huge, broad message. What hacks. And of course this after Mitch spent 30 million against him.

The whackos are whacked

Probably one thing makes me madder than anything else lately. (well I chuckle I don’t waste too much anger) It’s one constant, old theme.

Are you ready? It’s the left and Democrats telling us some things transcend party. Then there is Jones in Alabama saying time to put state ahead of politics. I think I heard Pelosi and Franken use that line. Pretty sad. Anytime they tell you something is over or above politics, laugh at them.

It joins a familiar refrain I see on social media, like this profile: “Independent moderate. Do not cater to either party.” So you go down their list and see all the hard left stuff they post or like. But non-partisan? Nothing can be further from the truth. Why bother lying?

Moderate is the new code word for liberal and proud of it, or progressive activist. Why they all have to try to keep the lie alive, I don’t know. I mean it gets old. So someone tells you they’re a moderate. They aren’t, they are a card carrying Bernie socialist.

Therein is the game: paint all progressive hard-left policies, and the supporters, as the middle of the road “mainstream.” (another word that irritates me) Enough with the anger purge. I feel so much better.

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!

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.

De Blasio: private property is the problem

Socialist NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Admits In Interview He Wants To Abolish Private Property

American Lookout

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls himself a Democrat but he’s really a Socialist. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, he admitted that he wants to get rid of private property.

Take a look at this:

In 2013, you ran on reducing income inequality. Where has it been hardest to make progress? Wages, housing, schools?

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.

I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development…

Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents.

Perhaps the Mayor could lead by example and give up all of his private property first.

Original see

But no, I disagree: De Blasio is not some kind of socialist, he’s a commie.

Good old Uncle Joe and Commie revival

Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem.

Jarrett Stepman / November 03, 2017 | Daily Signal

The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, but it didn’t end the ongoing battle of ideas between liberty and collectivism.

A recently released survey by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation revealed some disturbing facts about what millennials think of communism and socialism.

Some of the results are a little disturbing and could have big implications for the future of our country.

For instance, the poll found that about half of millennials said they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism.

The poll also found that nearly 1 in 5 millennials think Josef Stalin was a “hero.”

“Millennials now make up the largest generation in America, and we’re seeing some deeply worrisome trends,” said Marion Smith, executive director for the Victims of Communism, according to MarketWatch. “Millennials are increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

The findings of this study should be a wake-up call to those who think that communism is no longer a threat to the United States and the West. Young people, who had little personal experience with the half-century battle between Soviet tyranny and American freedom.

It is a sad indictment on a generation that grew up with more prosperity than any in human history would turn on the system that brought them there. Alas, socialism appears to be the opiate of prosperous utopians.

Perhaps in the decades of unchallenged international supremacy, Americans let their guards down to real threats to our way of life. We were lulled into a false sense of security about our future and have now fallen into the trap of bringing back dangerous doctrines that we have had the good fortune to escape.

Yet, apologies and even wistful nostalgia for the high tide of communist revolution are being peddled in the pages of mainstream liberal outlets like The New York Times.

…./

Read on http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/03/millennials-clueless-communism-heres-thats-problem/

And weep for this country. Then pray, pray and pray some more that we never fall for this opiate of the past — only to have to kill it again. Here is some food for thought.

Many years back I engaged leftists who would mock any talk of the idea that Marxism and communism was living large among the left. They would scoff saying that is long gone and that we are fighting an ancient war that ended years ago. To believe that is like denying Obamacare passed. You cannot believe them even when trying to lecture you about communism. A Democrat socialist nearly won the nomination. Who are you going to believe? All just to get you to put your guard down.

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

Defining dissent in the kneeling protest

I’m trying to get a grip on this Anthem, flag protest attitude, so I’ll give it a whirl.

The “protesters” are evidently the type of people with an attitude that look around at the current conditions or circumstances in the country to decide if they approve of America, based on satisfaction. Then of course they can’t bring their resentful hearts to respecting the flag or Anthem. The whole America concept is tainted by their disagreements.

It goes hand in hand with identity politics that everything — including your judgement — is based on your own identity. And that is why identity politics are so divisive. By contrast, only if you are satisfied with everything can you support the Anthem or flag. That’s the synopsis of their view. Who could be happy about everything they see? It becomes a false flag; and so dissatisfaction becomes a convenient straw man for American dissent.

If everything is based on your current condition or circumstances, as you see and interpret them, then it is subjective to each person. The old saying is “you can’t please all the people all the time.” – John Lydgate

“You can satisfy some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot satisfy all of the people all the time” ― John Lydgate

Dissent has been turned into an art form.
Enter the Colin Kaepernick kool-aid brigade. 🙃

Right Ring | Bullright

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician.

What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith is deep and authentic,” gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, “and it informs her work as a senator.” How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone’s faith is “authentic?”

We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, “a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade.”

Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man.

This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. …/

Read more https://www.billoreilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html

 
Of course O’Reilly is spot on. I would just add that if she is devout, then it is in practicing at Bernie Sanders’ Tabernacle of Revolution. Why would they choose her sect over — or in place of — Bernie’s in 2020? They’ve already seen the fruits of his. Or maybe Bernie can be high priest and Elizabeth can be the high priestess on a ticket?

Media’s promotion of her faux Christian credentials would “require the willing suspension of disbelief” by the congregants. It’s serving the church of politics. That’s what they do.

Remember how media built up Obama’s Christian cred or how they promoted Hillary’s devout, deeply-rooted Christian beliefs? Planned Parenthood didn’t buy it. That’s what they do — hoping to divide Christians in preparation for slaughter at the ballot box.

However, immediately after election media and the candidates go back to sneering and mocking Christians and Christianity. But that is the very thing we were warned about.

Though in both Obama’s and Hillary’s case, their mentors were theologians of Marx. A dead giveaway. Yet the media got away with selling it as ‘pure as the driven wool.’

Obama studied under Rev Wright’s Liberation (Marxist) Theology, etc. Hillary’s youth minister sent her down the path of socialist activism. Warren brandishes a King James version while claiming to be a nasty, nasty woman of the occupy movement. Money changers anyone? All swear to a blood pact on the altar of abortion. Christian leaders?

So why not? These days progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, operate more like a religious cult. It is no wonder the Left would apply many of their policies as, and with, the piety of a religious sect now.

 

References: Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, Luke 21:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

A Basic Insurance Principle

These are some random thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head for a few years but the current situation brings them to the surface again.

I’ll make this brief to the point. Lately, all the talk about Obamacare repeal highlighted all the major problems. Now as the floods hit Texas, the same issues arise with FEMA and flood insurance programs. It is all relative to revenue and liability.

It isn’t necessary to go into all the particulars of insurance problems and expenses. I am concerned with one issue at the center. Its a simple and important principle.

Every conversation or debate always comes back to the people with existing and major health issues. In floods it is people in flood-prone areas. These problems make them “high risk” customers or property owners. In short, they represent a higher risk than average or the median in the pools. Keep that in mind.

Any conversation is always directed back to those “high risk” people, and what to do with them. Now you may say ‘but that is complex, not a simple subject.’ The principle is basic. It’s all about risk. The left likes to surround and cloud that in doom and gloom.

My frustration is these are private and some government programs. And a higher risk of some individuals, through their fault or not, does exist. So naturally the debate always revolves around those particular people. Almost as if the larger numbers of others are hostage to these higher risk. Maybe it’s extortion.

Then they talk about creating high risk pools, who’s in them and who isn’t? That is why proponents for single payer or high flood risk government programs sound the alarm. But if it is just about high risk, then I have a problem with their solutions.

In the insurance industry it is all about risk, an essential purpose of their business. I don’t understand government always taking on extra risk. Why should government assume the highest risk? That is my central problem. These private sector companies are experts with a risk-based business model. We are removing and assuming the highest risk from them under a pretense of reducing costs for other customers. That is their rationale.

If you are in the insurance business, then anything reducing or limiting your risk is a benefit. So if government comes along and assumes the worst, “high risk” people you have a liability windfall. Government taking on that risk reduces insurance companies’ risk.

Since their entire model is based on risk, then that is a huge benefit. You alleviate their liability for the worst risk. Can you say cha-ching? Now that is my problem. I don’t like government assuming the highest risk from the pool. And if we do it in this sector of the market, we can do it in others. Why does government want to willingly take on all that risk, which becomes another term for liability? I want to know why?

It also equates to a bailout, along with the other potential bailouts for insurance companies. So we the government are supposed to assume the highest risk/liability, then subsidize the companies on their other risks. They will also come anticipating a bailout, after we already removed the highest risk. Those are the basics discussed.

My thinking is if you want us to assume the greater liability for the highest risk then we want something significant in return. It is not a giveaway. But the left has their eyes on single-payer, so they don’t care about that. It becomes more rationale for their system. The more problems, the more justification for their system. What about risk?

The progressives see this whole issue completely backwards as a non-problem: “why not? Government should do it.” (and more) But I think we see the big problem with this.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dems lose on a champagne, caviar budget

One of the strangest, and funniest, things I witnessed was Van Jones prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Never mind that 8 months later, Dems never had a real autopsy over the death of Hillary’s campaign.

He gave a speech in Chicago with just that subject on the docket.

The Hill — People’s Summit in Chicago.

“The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”

“Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”

“That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”

Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337253-van-jones-rips-clinton-campaign-they-spent-money-on-themselves

It could be the case that she spent more money than anyone in history to not get elected.

Now, despite all the money flowing into the Georgia-6th District, once again their expensive scorched earth strategy ended in ashes, with Ossoff losing by 6 points.

It is not what pundits expected and it wasn’t what Ossoff hoped. And he was beat by a woman…with a real vagina rather than a Planned Parenthoody imposter.

Elections have consequences, for sure….. they empty bank accounts. So while Republicans want to Drain the Swamp, the Democrats just want to drain bank accounts.

Feel the Bern: Sanders proposes Christian ban in government

Bernie Sanders doubles down on his Christian hatred during confirmation hearings. Since by the left’s own definition disagreement with other religions is hatred, a phobia, then Bernie Sanders has one gargantuan phobia.

See article for Bernie’s condemnation of a Christian who does not deserve to be in government and should be banned from it on grounds of his belief.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

Oh, I feel the Bern. Had he spoke to a Muslim, I can assure you that conversation wouldn’t have happened. However, a total belief in Marxism would be a qualifier for public office.