Trust Dictionaries

I am going to leave this one up to Webster’s who seems to understand the nuances of Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism.

The gripe I have is with Leftists who state a simple definition of Socialism as government owning production or the means of production. Some in media also use this definition. This has long been used as a blanket denial of socialism. One can say that definition is the hurdle and they are not advocating that. Thus, they blame you for misstating their position. It becomes a semantics argument. I reject that — and the approach.

That is why I believe Dem0ocrats are some of the most disingenuous or dishonest people there are. And why it is often pointless talking with them. They’ll throw these simple or deceptive meanings out there and expect you to comply with it. What is the point?

It is better to say government controls the means of production. Even that is a little flawed in today’s definitions of Socialism. They’ve been working at creating vagueness for years.

So here is the definition of Socialism and I encourage people to see this page for more information. Webster’s claims communism is one of their most looked up words.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Then we come to the basic Hitler description of Socialism. Asked prior to WWII about abolishing private property, he wanted people to keep their private property just as long as they understand that they are agents of the state. In this way, government does not need to own production or private property, merely control it. While you may own it, you and the property are virtually controlled by the state. All they need is control.

That same philosophical distinction can apply to production. All the state needs is control, which can be achieved by regulations or other arms of the state. So that is the dirty thing Leftisits don’t want to talk about or you to know, as long as you accept their definitions.

The Dem Vote Is In

Democrats’ vote is in, at least from a CNN focus group. And guess what the results are? Indeed, AOC-Snake Charmer is Democrats’ candidate of the future. Cue the celebration.

I don’t know if this is really CNN News or a Mardi Gras hangover?

Washington (CNN)A group of Democratic voters praised Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a discussion of the New York Democrat, citing her boldness and regarding her as the future of their party.

“She is the candidate of the future. She has got this down pat. And she has also nailed it as a woman in a male-dominated field,” said Christian Tamte, one of six Democrats who spoke on a range of issues with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on “New Day” this week. [see link and video]

Tells you almost all you need to know about the future of Democrats or the DNC. I rest my case — or theirs. … Nailed, that’s kind of the way I saw it too. Yep, “badass” AOC.

All right then. Any questions?

Climate Of Religion

What we have seen is the overt politicization, weaponization and religiosity of the climate, or climate change, and the propagandizing of it. It should be no surprise that they politicized it to the max. That’s why so many people are outraged. But that was only the first step. Then they weaponize the climate, against the people of course.

Then they use the climate as the apocalyptic fear-mongering vehicle

When even the former head of Green Peace has to go on Hannity and call out the apocalypse hysteria of the Left, we are in a strange place.

He actually said that if we do the fossil full elimination they are calling for, it would decimate civilization. Or maybe that is what they want? He also said that our coal fired consumption is about 90% cleaner than it was decades ago.

But he said that today we still rely on fossil fuels for 80% of our electricity. Apparently they didn’t realize that when they tell us they want to switch to electric cars. Imagine the reaction when they all plug them in.

But they are telling us something with these Big Green Plans. They show us it is a religious movement now, full stop. The former Green Peace guy said what they are doing in incorporating kids into their message is equal to child abuse. Well, it should be criminal. The same person also said that the direction they are taking it, including using children (and emotions), is just to push their radical socialism or social justice platform.

I guess they don’t realize that we see exactly what they are doing. They turned it into a political issue, weaponized it, then made it a religious one. And they now feel comfortable turning that weapon on anyone they need to propel their political agenda.

Wouldn’t you think using and scaring kids would be a bit over the top? Not for them. In fact, it is right up their alley. The same way they have been using kids in their socialized healthcare schemes. Just roll out the children. What’s next, having children lobby and protest for late term abortion rights? Don’t be surprised.

As I said some time ago: is there anything too radical and extreme even for Democrats? Not anymore. Remember Claire McKaskill let the dirty secret out of the bag in the campaign, before she lost? She said those are the crazy Democrats and she was not one of them. But now that the election is over and AOC has taken over the party, with an assist from Bernie Sanders, it looks like they are telling us loud and clear that really all Dems are crazy Democrats. That’s the way it works.

We used to hear them say on the campaign that they would not be a lockstep vote, and they were independent minded, and that they would represent the people. Remember Trump called them out at rallies and said if they get in, they will only be Pelosi puppets and vote in lockstep. Rubber stamps. Again, Trump was completely right. But it only took a few short weeks for that to happen and prove it.

Bottom line is these people are not at all about preventing a catastrophe, they are all about creating one. And the faster they get there, the better. Have kids believe that the world is going to incinerate. We used to hide under desks in schools, remember. Now just tell them it is over. So we might as well blow through a hundred trillion dollars trying because it’s a lost cause unless. Unless they can save planet earth from destruction. Well, I wonder what kept planet earth from destruction years ago before they came along? They sort of sound like a revised version of Heaven’s Gate people over the Hale-Bopp Comet.

It does show us something. That the climate change and socialists, besides getting in bed with each other, are reading from the same script. It is all about belief. It is only based on that. Throw in a few anecdotes and current events to make your case, then round up the kids and give them their lines. Send them out to the public and watch people get sucked in. Or so goes the plan. However, what it really is based on is belief.(echoes of Obama) Have enough people to believe it and you can even summon a Hale-Bopp comet to come and rescue them. And they are betting all their marbles, and our money, on it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Seduction of Sedition

What have we learned? That politics over country is status quo, and party politics is all there is for the Left. It has been this way for some time.

When people have no priority to their country, party is everything. The sedition movement consumes everything. Where was resistance when we really needed it?

I think we learned this thing engulfing the left, this sedition, is very seductive. It draws people into its vortex and keeps churning them into anti-American parasites.

The latest example was Michael Cohen. It’s hard to believe he was an attorney and Trump’s attorney. Of course they must use sedition to atack and destroy the grassroots trying to save and preserve the country. They claim to be trying to save democracy while destroying it. Party before country or anything else. Now it is party loyalty to take down a sitting president, everything else be damned. Nothing but politics matters.

And that politics is a radical leftist ideology, fomenting a coup and revolution in one.

Another seductive force of the Left is socialism. It operates the same way as sedition, consuming people like a wild fire. But many of us see it as communism on the rise. Their objective is to imitate the ’68 French model commonly known as a rise from below (or rise from under), sought for years. The left combined it with sedition to drive the model.

The design of which is to create an appearance of common folks rising up, in a revolution style, to demand and push the socialism they desire. A grassroots appearance is their goal and means. (Anarcho-commies, Marxists, socialists, Leftists) Bernie gave them the vehicle. Now they have this movement with its perceived momentum. That is nirvana to Leftists.

It is a revolution and coup by other means. Bringing us right up to Bernie’s call for economic and political transformation — sans the term revolution.

What we have generally with the progressive Left is what we have in Bernie Sanders: one whose loyalty is only to political ideology. A dangerous condition.

Right Ring | Bullright

Bernie Explosion

As expected, Bernie announces that he is once again running for president. Of course he is, did anyone doubt it? He could not “resist.”

Skip his other statements, the one I care about is when he said he wants to radically transform America “economically and politically.” No kidding?

While we may have figured that, he is now boldly telling us in case we weren’t sure or living under a rock. And he expects that to be a selling point to rally the base.

This is not a good thing. I am way past the laughing and mockery stage. It is serious.

I will cut to the chase of my conclusion to save anyone the agony. I am not being glib or pessimistic here. The downfall of the US will be entirely the fault of the Left — or whatever name you want to call them. You know what that means? They can cause it by themselves.

Why that matters? Because I mean they can single-handedly destroy America even regardless of what we do, not withstanding extreme measures that might come about.

Sorry, that means something to me. I don’t know about anyone else. That would make us merely passengers on a train. That may not be fair or right but this is the way I see it. I like to think I gave it some thought to reach that conclusion.

Here is a fair question to ponder: will there ever be a point when the Left is too extreme or radical even for Democrats? I don’t like the answer. There are a couple different ways you can ask that question with the same inevitable answer. No.

Imagine JFK reading this news in the newspaper.

Right Ring | Bullright

Music And Politics Sitting In A Tree

But let me start off with a made to order joke. Bless their little young hearts.

Sometimes I get a kick out of young people today, their naiveté still intrigues me. Even though they often seem ignorant of basic history. That is not all their fault.

So one day I was in a fast food place. The employees were having this discussion about the upcoming 50th anniversary of Woodstock. I couldn’t help listening because I was not doing anything except standing there waiting for my order.

All three of the guys were fairly young, and the only women was about middle-aged. She appeared to be schooling them on Woodstock, odd as that seemed to me at the time.

Then the one young guy ask her impatiently “well, was Hip Hop going on then, too, were they doing that?” I couldn’t resist cutting in to say, “they hadn’t even put those two words together yet” and I chuckled. They all looked at me with their upper wheels turning.

I looked at the guy who asked and said “ Man, they barely knew what rock and roll was back then. They were still breaking it in.” But then I saw his big eyes and knew that went right over his knowledge base and sailed into the deep. I smiled and walked away.

Dummy me, I thought maybe a joke would illustrate the point and further their discussion. But instead it ended it and left me wondering if it was my delivery that failed? And if it was some generational thing I crossed? At least I thought it was funny, they will probably never know if it was true, funny… or both?

Joined At The Hip

Say what you will about the original Woodstock which stole headlines some 5 decades ago this year. Those discussions are still going on, as I can testify. Organizers are planning a 50th anniversary to the Woodstock concert this year. But déjà vu all over again.

The original site in Bethel, NY has plans for an anniversary to memorialize the Max Yasgur Farm concert in ’69 and has already booked one top headliner, Carlos Santana.

But Michael Lang, one of the original promoters, has planned what he claims is the only original sanctioned anniversary celebration, which he announced will be in Watkins Glen, NY. In that one, political activism and sustainability will be a central theme for the event. And no doubt for the “woke” as well.

Not only is he drafting top talent, but also encouraging their political activism for the event too. So is this where Farm Aide and Woodstock exchange vows and officially tie the knot, joined in a river of political activism? No matter what the location, it will be billed as Utopia. Who knows if the National Anthem will even be allowed in this one? (old reference to Jimmie Hendrix) Or if maybe the Black Bloc and Antifa will do security for the event?

Take it from Lang himself: (CBS News January 11, 2019)

The festival will also evoke its predecessor through activism, with sustainability efforts and screenings, panels and art installations by non-profit organizations. “The Woodstock 50th Anniversary will be about sharing an experience with great artists and encouraging people to get educated and involved in the social issues impacting everyone on the planet,” said Lang.

“”We want this to be more than just coming to a concert,” Lang told The New York Times. “And hopefully a lot of the bands will become part of this effort to get people to stand up and make themselves heard, to get out [and] vote. And if they don’t have a candidate that represents their feelings, to find one — or to run themselves.”

From coming to sexual awareness to coming to political wokeness. Is that where mud baths come in? Is it where the white rabbit has a coup over the enchanted forest?

Okay, so music, history, or anniversary may not be the real motivation here. Political priorities, you know. No word whether any of the up and comers in presidential candidates are booking the event. They could have hours of speeches to a captive audience if they go all out. How nostalgic would that be? I don’t recall that was the message of Woodstock but that was then and this is now. What better place to grease the skids for socialism?

And now, being the radicalized leftist culture it is, supposedly on the rise, I can see it “and now a word from our movement icon, Bernie Sanders.” To which the crowd roars to their feet and gives him a fifteen minute standing ovation.

That could only be followed by another speech from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bringing home the Socialism message. And Michael Moore applauding waiting in the wings.

If you were one of the headliner bands, how on earth could you follow that bad acid trip? It also has me wondering what would be the definition of “success” for such a grand event? I guess you measure it in political success and, of course, by fundraising totals.

So Woodstock….you are finally 50, now how about growing the f*** up?

Right Ring | Bullright

Of Loons And Train Wrecks

Is a train wreck still a train wreck if it doesn’t realize it’s a train wreck? (rhetorical)

I say that because some people and media seem to afford AOC a kind of pass simply because she doesn’t realize how dumb she sounds or stupid her ideas are — much less the consequences. I think that is a fatal mistake.

The answer of course is it is still a train wreck and will continue to be a train wreck, no matter how you perceive it or choose to think of it. The big ‘Green Dream’ is alive, too.

Something is not merely so ridiculous that it did not happen — only because it is ridiculous. Of course reality can be stupid at times and it can be a train wreck, even both at the same time. There are no mitigating factors to the physical damage done. It is what it is.

Cause on the other hand can be a deliberative debate over many contributing factors to it. But that does not change the final result, after.

I know we have a lack of common sense on the Left. But it is what it is. What consequences there are to that lack are already evident in a lot of places but they do not change due to the cause. Now maybe you could change the outcome of future events if you change the former. But you cannot change what is done.

This is the kind of light under which I think we have to look at AOC. We can laugh at her or react any way we want to but it won’t change what she is. It may be entertainment of sorts. Though I cannot dismiss her plans or what they will do out of hand, just because of the source. I’m done disbelieving what is now possible.

We had a similar thing with Obama. So many people dismissed what he could or would do. It turned out they were wrong. Now, faced with all that damage, the results do not change just because they underestimated him. Yes, I’d like accountability but that will not fix it.

Tolerance needs to be accountable, too.

We cannot underestimate the power of stupidity either. Dismiss it at your own peril.

We cannot suspend all the real consequences, or even analysis of these ideas, only because it is AOC. That is not how any of this works. Maybe she underestimates the will of the people but it does not change what her plans could do to America.

In this scenario, we are still a deciding factor over whether it can or will happen. But don’t underestimate our own stupidity either. (doesn’t matter why) We cannot stop it after.

Excuses or Alibis

In the end, if some of what she is pushing does happen, all we will be able to do is make excuses or point fingers of blame to why. But alibis will mean nothing. That is what makes all this serious now, while we still are a factor in the outcome. Blame is not going to matter. It is not serious because it is AOC, regardless what she thinks.

But what makes it serious is not because it is AOC or because the ideas don’t work, or that they are both stupid. Our big risk is not taking it seriously for what it all can do.

Right Ring | Bullright

AOC The Snake Charmer

I have tried to probe the intellects of Aristotle and Solzhenitsyn over the years, but now I’d like to try something different and go where no man has gone before.(or lived through it) That is to attempt to probe the intellectual curiosity of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Even more to this challenge, I will do it without the aid of alcohol or hallucinogenic drugs.

First thing though is she reminds me a lot of Jim Carey. She is looking dumb and dumber all the time. Now you see what an enormous challenge this is.

Pink Floyd had a song with the lyrics

“Hello? (hello) (hello)
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone at home?”

With AOC, who knows what answer would come forth. Maybe something like “Who dis?”

Sure, I mean she does have a stupid reputation. Is that really fair to her? Does she deserve all the attention she receives? Can she last in the annals of politics? Does she have a bright future ahead of her? Can anything good come from the AOC experiment? I’ll inquire.

But is there possibly more there within the canyon walls of her brain that she is hiding? More to its utility than we can see? Stay with me on this. So far in 2 weeks that she has actually been in office, she has called for a purge of Dems non-conforming to her ideology. (that word fails to describe her politics, but I’m working on a more suitable term for it)

At first look, she probably does not deserve the resources expended in an any article about her. We shall see. She has been sucking all the oxygen out of every room though, so what is her gimmick? Why does it seem to keep working in her favor? What lessons can we draw or learn from her case study? I know, so many questions…. so many roads.

To establish the prevailing point, whether the most important one about her or not, that she is a narcissist of an extreme level. Does that remind you of anyone else? She also seems obsessed with attention, not that it is the same as narcissism. No, she demands attention. She lept out into the public spotlight in her race but never crawled back into her hole. For most people, there is a shelf life on that national spotlight. Not with her. Whatever she is doing must be working to keep bestowing all that nationwide attention on her.

Is it her dumbness that everyone is fascinated by? Is it her naivete? Is it that she fits the stereotype of many young people today? What is this magnetism by which people seem drawn to her? Is it our fault? Did we create this Frankenstein and now we don’t know how to stop it? Can we reprogram that power, whatever it is?

She also does not seem to care what people think of her, or say about her for that matter. She is proud of herself. That is a trait of many snobby, spoiled children. Is she still a child, because in many ways she still acts like one? Finally, is she really as dumb as she seems?

She definitely appears to be just as oblivious to others as she seems to be. Two times when prominent Democrats, one a seasoned politician and one a comedian personality, have denounced her upitiness and behavior only for her to dismiss them and snark back at their advice. She is a know it all who seems to know little about anything.

From waitress to Diva, without a particular skill or talent to her name, in record time. Or is that a skill in itself, to be perpetually relevant? But that strategy has not always worked for Hillary and look at all she has done to get it. It seems to come easy for Miss Sleazy Ocasio. Is she the female version of a Che Guevera?

Of course we can sit around blaming her for a lot of what is wrong with politics today, post-Clintons and post-Obama. She fits the mold for criticism of it all quite well. But are we really almost as much to blame for what she is? That thought sickens me.

I would rather blame Hillary and Bill Clinton, Obama and Bernie Sanders. Indeed, she could be a byproduct of all three, made to order. Especially Bernie. Funny, the guy we laughed at and mocked as a socialist years ago turned political superstar in 2016. And AOC rode that subway in large part to power. If there was something to fear from it all that would be a good place to start.

Is she as complex a political creature as some think, or only as conniving as she appears?

The synopsis

The point I inevitably come to is that she is a mirror reflection of society today. Maybe not all of it but enough. She is what that comic strip Pogo was talking about in that line, “We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.” Sure we can blame and pick her apart but is she not a reflection of the modern politico and activist of the left? She is the consummate leftist, no wonder they all seem to gravitate to her. She is everything they are and want, but afraid to admit it about themselves.

So she continues on her way, championing one grand leftist idea after another, barely taking a breath between them. Exactly the way they talk. She must know the policies are pie in the sky, with no real definition. Who cares? But enough to have Democrats cheering for it and more. Fiction or reality makes no difference, it is only what they perceive.

And in the end, I come to the conclusion she is a talented snake charmer. She is able to communicate in telepathy with the hard left, which is all she cares about. She is everything they want and nothing they don’t. They are her targets. She plays the tunes and they dance. It all goes off as one big show.

It seems to be working because she has them believing that melody is all that matters. They are coaxed out of their baskets like trained serpents. Some Democrats may complain but her methods are working. The masses consistently respond to her seduction.

Right Ring | Bullright

Mark Zuckerberg bleats his best defense

Mark Zuckerberg has his ‘come to press’ moment just in time to ring in the new year. Out with the bad FB. But actually, he is fighting for his job as the top fascist of Facebook.

No need for my lengthy critique. Just read his words and they are enough to curdle the milk you drank yesterday morning.

I’ve learned a lot from focusing on these issues and we still have a lot of work ahead. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made in 2018 and grateful to everyone who has helped us get here — the teams inside Facebook, our partners and the independent researchers and everyone who has given us so much feedback. I’m committed to continuing to make progress on these important issues as we enter the new year.

So all the chants and demands from civil rights organizations for a new CEO are falling on his deaf ears. He’s chaining himself to the door. I can’t stand the self-congratulatory ‘tude.

Same Old Talking Points with Stilettos

Surf is up for socialism from Leftifornians to Leftiyorkers. Their latest stunt involves comparing Venezuela to the US economy. Right, not a lot of difference between them.

So if they can compare Venezuela’s dire situation to the “evils of capitalism,” then these people really don’t have a clue. Venezuela shows the softness of socialism?

When a Go Fund Me page appears and raises 17 million to build the wall, of course liberals or Democrats are fuming. People should only be able to raise money for lying hacks to take down a SCOTUS nominee or conservative. How dare people support border security.

Though Democrats’ talking points about the wall secures nothing, but costs us billions.

So Twitter slaps a big warning on the Wall petition and fundraiser telling everyone that Twitter and their “partners” have determined it too risky to link it. They say they are protecting their users from “potential” malicious threats by blocking the site. Now raising money to build a wall to secure the border is a huge threat. Orwellian.

However, the leftist shadow campaigns which sprung up as petitions and fundraisers in response to the Wall fundraiser have naturally not been deemed a threat. So open borders are no threat to national security either. Encouraging lawlessness is Christian compassion.

But there is a problem every time the left tries to outdo itself on talking points. They have been so far over the top for over ten years that no one could take them seriously anymore. Still they need to come up with new language and comparisons all the time, because the last stuff they shoveled out has already gotten old. So “Buyer Beware!”

In fact, if we haven’t gotten the loud and clear message yet, between media attack dogs and the rowdy fascist left, reality is that they have finally mainstreamed radicalism.

Mission complete.

In the immortal words of the colorful James Traficant, “Beam me up, Scotty.”
Or as Texas Congressman Ted Poe always said…”and that’s just the way it is.”

In Venezuela they call the organized gangs extorting conditions “the Colectivos.” By George, I think I will start calling Democrats here the Collectivos.

Right Ring | Bullright

Thugs of Descent

They wonder why we call them thugs. That is racist, they tell us. But how many other of these anti-American thugs are out there creating havoc on the streets among the people in this country? Plenty. This is a guy with a triangle background.

And somehow we get criticized for what we call these commies. How they assert themselves into the conversation in the first place is another serious issue.

Yet it is all just another part of Obama’s enduring legacy of deceit. Take this guy as a prime example of a leftist activist and organizer, thug. I mean really take him.

Daily Caller – (positively must read all the details)
“Revealed: Antifa Leader Relied On Anonymity To Push Radical, Violent Communist Agenda”

Smash Racism DC organizer Jose Martin, also known as “Chepe,” is a radical communist and Antifa leader operating in the U.S. He advocates for the violent overthrow of the government and for the murder of the rich and claims to have international involvement in left-wing movements.

Smash Racism DC is the Antifa group that protested in front of Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s house and berated Sen. Ted Cruz at a restaurant until he and his wife were forced to leave. It’s only one of the Antifa leader’s radical left-wing projects.

See: https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/18/antifa-leader-violent-communist/

Note how proud he is by media not covering Antifa and ignoring it that they’ve been mainstreamed. Look at his connections from thugs and fellow commies, to members of congress in DC, to media. Yep, he touches all the bases. And the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree with his family of the same lifestyle, shared beliefs.

America, is this your future? That the left can normalize and mainstream this crapola says a lot. This is who some promote as the morality police? You’ve got to be kidding me. Nope.

Obamacare’s Ironic Fate Hangs

Well, sports fans, it seems Bernie Sanders and some Federal Judge in Texas have done what Repubs have tried to do for years, get Democrats to oppose Obamacare.

Now they are against it. They’ll be opposed to fixing and saving it because they really want single-payer Medicare for all. So there is no big movement to save it. Democrats and their mob will now go against it. If that is not strange irony I don’t know what is.

So Nancy “we have to pass it before we know what is in it” is tasked with defending something they don’t want which is unpopular. They don’t want it fixed, Nan. The people want single-payer now. See how that works? The mob holds the poison pill.

Poor Nancy will have to learn to count all over again. And that won’t be easy at her age, in her condition. Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can give her a few pointers?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Case Against Medicare-for-all

Here is the reality of the single-payer as it is called, national healthcare plan for all. Or socialized medicine as we say. Welcome to the nightmare.

New York Post — By Betsy McCaughey — October 16, 2018

Sen. Bernie Sanders says that because Medicare is “the most popular, successful and cost-effective health insurance in the country” everyone should have it, regardless of age.

But watch out for the bait and switch. Truth is, Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation actually abolishes Medicare and Medicare Advantage, as well as employer-provided coverage, union plans and plans people buy for themselves. Every person will be forced into a mandatory, government-run system with the phony name “Medicare for All.” Whether you want it or not. The quality of your medical care will plummet.

Medicare for All will plunge hospitals into financial distress, exposing patients to dangerous medical shortages and forcing pay cuts on health care workers. New York hospitals and their workforce will get clobbered the worst.

But 16 Democratic senators, including New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, and 123 Democrats in the House endorse the legislation. Have they actually read it?

President Trump warns that Sanders is “eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors.” He cautions that “hospitals would be put out of business,” patients will face “long wait lines” and seniors will “effectively be denied” care they need.

Sanders calls Trump a liar. Fortunately there’s a way to determine who’s telling the truth. The answer is in the 96 pages of Sanders’ bill. Here’s what it says.

Four years after Medicare for All begins, all private insurance will be banned (Sec. 107), and Medicare and other government health programs will be terminated, just as Trump said. Everyone, including illegal immigrants, will be enrolled in the new government program (Sec. 106). Newborns will be automatically enrolled at birth (Sec. 105).

On paper, the new program guarantees hospital care, doctors’ visits, even dental, vision and long-term care, all paid for by Uncle Sam. Here’s the hitch: Hospitals will be forced to operate under conditions of extreme scarcity, with too little revenue and more patients than ever.

Right now, Medicare shortchanges hospitals, paying them less than the full cost of caring for seniors. But hospitals accept the low payments, because they can shift the unmet costs to younger patients who have private insurance that pays more.

But in the new scheme, hospitals will be paid at Medicare rates for all their patients, not just seniors (Sec. 611). With everyone on Medicare for All, no cost-shifting will be possible. The rates will be 40 percent less than what hospitals could get from private insurance plans. The severe short-changing will throw hospitals into crisis. Meanwhile, demand for care will surge, because it’s free to all comers.

Hospitals will have to jam more beds into rooms and corridors, skimp on nursing care and make patients wait. Sounds like the austerity in the British National Health Service, only in Britain, the public has an escape hatch. They’re allowed to buy private coverage. Not under Sanders’ Medicare for All (Sec. 107). Those alternatives are banned. You’ll be trapped.

The gold-plated union health plan or Medicare Advantage Plan you used to have will be a distant memory, as you wait in crowded clinics alongside people who never paid into Medicare or earned on-the-job coverage.

In New York, the austerity will be magnified. Hospitals here have more debt and slimmer operating margins than elsewhere, making them less able to withstand cuts. Gary Fitzgerald of the Iroquois Healthcare Alliance warns that Sanders’ bill would “devastate upstate hospitals.”

Doctors will also be paid 30 percent less than private insurance would pay them. To keep their doors open, they’ll have to see more patients per hour. That’s bad news for seniors, who take up more time. Doctors will avoid them like the plague.

The Sanders bill is a labor fiasco in the making. A staggering 1.2 million New Yorkers work in health care, more than in retail or manufacturing or any other industry. When hospitals are paid less, health care workers will see layoffs and pay cuts, too.

Bottom line: Under Medicare for all, patients will suffer, seniors will be shunned, hospitals will fail and health care workers will lose. Who exactly is supposed to benefit, except the politicians?

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research
See from: https://nypost.com/2018/10/16/trump-is-totally-right-about-the-dangers-of-medicare-for-all/

 

Well, Democrats do a great job of hiding the truth, don’t they? Of course they don’t want you to know what it really is or what it really does.

Dems politicized the nations entire healthcare in 2010 on a party-line vote. Yet it was only phase one. This is the second phase of the final solution.

Then they want people to have to go to the polls and vote for their personal healthcare in every election. Politicians are in bed between you and your healthcare.

This illogical nightmare while they extend it out to illegal immigrants. No one is supposed to know, or care, about the consequences. Just keep going back to vote for the hacks.

Who are the real beneficiaries of this?

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

Avenutti King for the Day

So it is almost official, creepy porn lawyer really wants to run for president to be Democrats’ designated “fighter”. He’s already visited Iowa to listen to the grievance list.

Business Insider

“I think the party has yearned for a fighter — a fighter for good, if you will — for a significant period of time,” Avenatti said.

“And for many, I’m probably seen as that individual.”

Well, the only problem with that is he will have to fight off the dozens of other Democrat “fighters” Democrats all claim to be. Like Cory Booker with his imaginary drug dealer friend, T-Bone that just had his Spartacus moment. The guy in the pocket of big pharma.

Like Elizabeth Warren, who told us “you didn’t build that” the big government built it for you. Like Joe Biden who called us all Dreggs and said we are going to put black people back in chains, as a couple of his favorites. The anti-Me Too guy who freely gropes women and young girls publicly because he thinks they like it. Both designated Democrat “fighters.”

Or like Bernie Sanders, the king of socialism. Compete with that ‘fighter Avenutti.’ If you can’t promise people free stuff, how can people vote for you? Because you fight for them? Ha, all that Fighting is really for their free shit. Try an original line like “Two Americas.”

Like wannabe president, wing man Eric Holder who has a record of radicalism, contempt and fighting public interest behind him.

Does this mean Michael Avenutti is getting out of the Creepy Porn Lawyer business?

Right Ring | Bullright

Proper Apathy: a case for it

Inevitably in every recent election, one word always seems to pop up usually close to the election. That word is apathy. There is almost an obsession.

Always mentioned as a negative and normally connotes a warning about bout being complacent. Not caring or not caring enough to vote, along with not caring who to vote for. It sets off a red flare about priorities. It is meant to shame and even inflame citizens.

So let’s take a look at the definition. According to Merriam-Webster:

1 : lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness drug abuse leading to apathy and depression

2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference
i.e. political apathy

First if all, I empathize with the passion or appropriateness of using the word. But again, it is always considered a negative. Is there a positive use for it? Maybe there should be.

For a change, I wondered about using some of that righteous apathy toward our allies and European friends. What could be wrong with that? Now just hold on there, lilly liberals.

So take the textbook definition of apathy (#2) and apply a good healthy dose of it toward them, basically the whole lot, allies included. Lack of interest or concern, indifference to them. But wait, isn’t that treatment what we already receive from them and have for a long time? I mean they do treat us that way. When was the last time they made domestic or foreign policy based on what we Americans or the US thinks, or will think of it?

Get it? It seems to work fine for them.

I see a good apathy, liberally applied. Why should it always be a negative? Why not put it to good use? It is not like we get something different than that from them. If people have practiced their apathy, then why not sharpen it a little to where it is appropriate?

I can hear the liberals screaming on both sides of the Atlantic now. Except can they give a valid reason why not? I don’t think they can. Yes, I know all the standard talking points about allies and treatment of how we want to be treated. And all that gimmichery about what’s in our interest is what is in their interest too. Sure we have common desires. But this is only a one-sided thing, you do realize. Each of those countries gives us no consideration on what actions they take. They look out for themselves.

Yes, we share some values and technology and security issues. But where is the reciprocation, as Trump calls it, from them? We’ve certainly been doing this for a long time now. When was the last time they took our advice? Oh, right, we restrain our advice. Though they freely give us unsolicited advice, don’t they?

Here’s one illustration: CNN regularly has pundits, academics or intellectuals, commenting and lobbying our policies and politics from Birmingham (UK), London and Belgium. They are some of the biggest critics of Trump and the administration. But we have enough of those critics right here. Do we tell them what they should do at home? We don’t need their pontifications. What should we care what they think, let alone provide a platform for it.

Sure we just want to show them we care. Again, what does that matter when it comes down to it? What do we get in return? Maybe it hasn’t been such a great idea to consider the impact on them in our every move. I mean they have leaders and governments to represent their interests, and they do. In most cases quite well.

Why are we always thinking about sensitivities of others? It baffles me. Was this in the founding of America? No, we had our hands full thinking for ourselves about ourselves, looking after our interests because no one else on earth will. Do we now think all these countries look out for our interests? Hell no. They expect us to do that ourselves.

What happened to “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none?” We’ve self entangled our dream with their selfish realities.

Washington instructed in his Farewell Address:

” In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
…/
“As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
…/
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.”

…“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation [as ours is]? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”

The other sweet spot factor liberals always point to is human rights. We need to influence that or this. But we don’t need to make our decisions based on our desires for them.

What I’m saying is that the reality is more stark. We have gone so far over to the international, globalist, bent over backward (and forward too) for people who generally 1) don’t appreciate it, or in some cases don’t want our help and; 2) aren’t considerate at all of us. And we don’t expect it. Shouldn’t the latter have changed if it was going to change?

What I am also saying is that it was never started out this way. Now I do hear critics of America’s every policy about a big footprint of US imperialism. I don’t agree with much of their emphasis but there is something to this one sided, lopsided, foreign policy (if that is what it is). The problem is it is not just in foreign policy but in domestic policy too, that we are influenced by their concerns.

No, I don’t buy the America is the big bully and aggressor argument. We bend over trying to make our policy based on their whims and desires, for or about us. We have to stop empowering those who never had our best interests. You know the Obama lesson on being an appeaser or slave to our enemies, empowering them and weakening ourselves.

However, we never see any signs of this consideration returned from abroad. They only have their hand out to receive not respond in kind.

This is not a case for protectionism or “isolationism”. But the affect may be protectionist.

I’m not sure what an official policy of apathy would look like or what it would do. But I dang sure know what our default doctrine has left us with. What did we get?

I wouldn’t mind being accused of it from across the globe. I might consider it a compliment. And maybe they would stop dishing out their helpful advice to us, too? Incidentally, applying some indifferent apathy to our friends and allies might also decrease the popular use of it in our election process. Apathy gets a pretty bad rap.

Whether consciously or not, we haven’t been making decisions on our own merits for our interests. They’ve been parsed down to p/c and sensitivities about what others think. Others have become proxies in our decisions. We could be a little apathetic, even rude.

Or in other words: quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!

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

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

What Do Antifa Protestors Say?

‘Do Him Like Gaddafi’ — Antifa Protesters Caught On Video Threatening To Kill The President

08/13/2018
Benny Johnson | Reporter At Large | Daily Caller

One year ago, President Trump told the American people that there was “violence on both sides” during the Charlottesville riots.

Those riots pitted neo-Nazis marching in the city against Antifa and other progressive groups. The powder keg was lit and both sides committed acts of violence against each other. The riots left many injured and one activist lost her life when awhite supremacists rammed his car into a crowd. Trump was attacked for the “both sides” comment in the wake of the violence.

However, in the year since, the Left’s violent tactics have been on full display in multiple arenas across the country. Riots and death threats have targeted Trump officials, ICE agents, police officers and children. A former Bernie Sanders staffer opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen practicing baseball, seriously wounding House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

See comments at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/i-asked-leftists-protesters-what-they-would-do-if-they-met-trump-their-answers-horrified-me/

What do College Students Think of Socialist Agenda?

Some views really need to be heard.

College Student Tears Apart Own Socialist Generation, Pushes Plan To Turn Them Around

Matthew Pinna — August 13th 2018 | Western Journal

Conservatives often wonder why more and more young people consider themselves democratic socialists despite overwhelming evidence against the rosy claims of that political philosophy. The truth is that unless we understand why they believe what they do, our critiques will fall upon deaf ears.

There are two ways in which generations are defined: by how the world has developed around them, and by their educational system, which influences how they understand those happenings.

From the previously unimaginable violence of World War I to the broken rubble and thick smoke of the fallen Twin Towers, Americans took away the same persevering and exceptionalistic attitude: that despite seemingly insurmountable odds, for Americans, anything is achievable.

What I and others my age experienced, however, is what has since come to be known as the Great Recession. For the youth of today, their understanding of the world is entirely contextualized through what their families and friends went through because of it and, in short, they believe that no matter how deeply they struggle, our capitalist system is always doomed to fail in the same the way they perceived it to have in 2008.

Such logic is, of course, faulty — the reason why it is called the “Great” Recession is because it truly is an exception; it is just as ridiculous to assume that capitalism will always end that way as it is to think that Alexander the “Great” was simply an ordinary general.

In previous years, our educational system would have empowered students to recognize facts like that, but for a generation of youth that has found itself forced through Obama-era “Race to the Top” Common Core testing — standards that even many Democrats found themselves rallying against — this reasoning seems foreign.

Education has been the primary means of social mobility for millions of Americans throughout our history, fostering the uniquely American optimism and entrepreneurial ability that has positively impacted both our country and the world. Schoolchildren were imbued with passion by their teachers and rightfully believed that by focus and hard work, they could live a fulfilling and promising life.

This is no longer the case.

As opposed to being taught what they need to succeed in their careers, students are taught how to best take a test. They are then funneled into a university system that feeds them theoretical, rather than practical, information, teaching them how to critique a world that they have not yet experienced — and because of their previous education, do not even know how to start experiencing.

I am not criticizing the teaching of theory to students like myself — it is extremely valuable knowledge (and I greatly enjoy it). What those who have come before us better understood, however, is that theory must be buttressed by practice. Evidence of this can be seen in our Constitution, a document that is a healthy combination between liberal French Enlightenment theory and provisions based on what our Founders had personally experienced under tyranny and oppression.

In today’s public education, where words like “democratic socialism” and “Marxism” are too often portrayed as alternatives to evil capitalism, there is another philosophy nearly as prominent and just as misunderstood: nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophy of meaninglessness, and one that is often reflected in today’s youth culture and politics.

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes and the Bernie Sanderses of the country play off of that philosophy, preaching that it is meaningless to try to succeed in the world, as systemic odds — reinforced by those better off than ourselves — will prevent us from doing so. Overtaken by the same nihilistic despair that Friedrich Nietzsche warned about when he proclaimed that “God is dead,” these politicians have gathered people under a new rallying cry: “The American Dream is dead!”

Democratic socialism is, in essence, a political justification of mediocrity and failure; because many of its supporters lack purpose in an economic system based on empowering human motivation, they instead propose one based on impossible and inhuman characteristics.

I cannot fault those who have been tempted by this siren song — I recognize that they badly want to play a part in defeating something they think has wronged them and those whom they love. They have been told that if they don’t, they lack compassion for what their friends and family have gone through. They are told to see fellow Americans as dollar signs and measure the intrinsic value of someone by his net worth; the more they have, the less human they are.

Anybody who doesn’t see the world in this narrow, defeatist way is tossed aside and — in a cruel twist of irony — “otherized” by the same people who claim to be victims of such thinking.

These insidious practices end up polarizing young adults — you have to have a strong opinion on politics, regardless of whether or not you actually care. Coerced into becoming activists, they have no actual desire to learn much about what they are protesting for beyond a few talking points; hence, the hostility.

Democratic socialism is not a movement with passion and purpose, but rather one that is lacking entirely in both regards. Schools need to return to teaching the skills that students need to actually transcend barriers, so that a sense of purpose can once again be felt by our youth, enabling them to succeed in the American Dream.

Matthew Pinna is a student at the University of Chicago studying political science and English. His writing has appeared in numerous publications, including the Chicago Tribune and American Thinker. Matt lives — depending on the time of the year — in either his hometown of Farmingdale, New York, or in Hyde Park, Chicago.