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

Advertisements

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.

Ripples in a world of news

Leaked Docs Show UK’s Spy Bill Would Force Internet Providers To Track People In Real Time

A draft of a proposed new surveillance law in the U.K. leaked Thursday shows the country’s government wants the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to give up people’s communications in real time.

The Investigatory Powers Bill, colloquially known as the “snoopers’ charter,” originally passed under the helm of the Conservative Party in November.

Read Daily Caller

Other world news

Venezuela — NBC News

In cities around the country there are reports of political unrest by day and shootouts and looting at night. Scenes include students and housewives armed with sticks and rocks, confronting National Guard troops with anti-riot gear using tear gas, water cannons and other weapons to beat back crowds.

Does any of that sound vaguely familiar?

Who knew El Chapo Guzman had a wife who is an American citizen, with twin girls? Just consider those thoughts for a moment. – NBC News

The Skinny on Media Leftinistas

I admit to occasionally watching CNN, but only so you never have to. I also have a part time therapist for it. Kids, don’t do that. Well, all their antics are not new except they are upping them to another level. Hey, it’s what they do.

Hard to believe though that 6 months or a year ago, resistance to the president — as taboo as it was even to say then — was everything liberals were against. Suddenly, they are certified experts on presidential resistance, no holds barred. They’ve gone into full-blown government-resistance mode. This from the very people who depend on it most.

So CNN sent reporters out to talk to people in America, which they are now wont to to do. You couldn’t have paid them to talk to the people before. Remember those phony interview narratives with the Tea Party? They could not hide their disgust.

First, reporters ceremoniously went to speak to Trump supporters. You know, just to gawk at their mistaken nature, perhaps to blame them, and probe their election conscience for signs of second thoughts. Then to mock them, in the media way, finally in editing. Then portray them like zoo animals. (which supporters are fully aware of, but don’t care)

To compliment that, CNN had on air interviews with JD Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy — cultural expert of working people and Appalachia — in its panel discussions. To paraphrase, ‘We must understand those people, but only so far.’ (wrong as they are)

But in this latest episode it sent a team to California, LA area, Maryland, Baltimore area, then Massachusetts, only this time to talk to the voices of the resistance in blue states. You knew they would get around to the apologists for the Resistance, diehard anti-Trumpers and opposition. They sound just as grieved as the night of the election results. Whaah.

Now Trump is being called unAmerican… so that’s the reason. Oh, we couldn’t say that about Obama. You know, we were mocked even for opposing Obama. Now they are justified to resist everything Trump as a sacred opposition. Actually, they blame Trump for their hatred. Ingenious. Gee, we should have thought of that; we might have gotten further. Maybe limiting Captain O to one term. Yet remember how McConnell was mocked, over and over, just for wanting to make Obama a one-term president?.

The Resistance say as long “as he is in office, they are going to keep fighting at [Trump’s] door.” No hatred there. But hey, at least I am not blaming their bitter hatred on racism because Trump is white. No, they do that themselves, The Left claims they are against white supremacist policies. Who knew law and order and treating everyone the same was supremacist? So they redefine things as they go along. But that is what they do.

When Steve Bannon called them the opposition party, there was a good reason.

RightRing | Bullright

Soros’ ship skipped the port of call

This just in:
Soros lost a billion on the election of Donald Trump, it has been revealed. Oops!

According to the WSJ, “George Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Donald Trump’s surprise presidential election.”

Left still in panic, jump mode. All flights to Canada have been canceled. (not really)

Wish he would have bet it all. That would solve so many of our problems.

A preface to a larger post

This is a preface to a piece I had in my drawer for months, and the product of months of thoughts on this election. It is a little nostalgia and a little rant, written over time.

Lengthy but I hope you could take time to read it. It is as finished and before the Clinton DOJ deal went down. I didn’t bother to update it. Everyone knows what happened. Things have only got worse since.

A lot has been said about this election, yet there is much that has not. This is just one individual take during the ongoing process. One other caveat is that I have never seen the amount of bias and outright campaigning from MSM. They cast their vote everyday. We get but one chance to vote. Theirs, in media, is ongoing right up to election day.

Below

Crazy system, Obamacare

“They are getting whacked.” Hoodwinked, bamboozled, whatever. Crazy Bill opines.

More a case that the Crazy Clintons are running for denial.

Of course people have been whacked by Obamacare since the beginning, as Jonathan Gruber admitted. It’s built on lies.

They’d rather have Obamacare than the truth. New Econ 101: Lie and keep on lying.

“Give me a break, this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Redistribute this….

This has circulated the Internet but worth reading.

College Student Ashamed Her Father Is A Republican, Until He Said THIS…

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Think of that the next time you hear “fair share” or “level playing field.”

H/T Allen West and The Federalist Papers

Crooked pols and cooked polls

Cooked books and cooked polls, is there anything the left is not willing to do in pursuit of their agenda? No but it was rhetorical. Cooked numbers, cooked jobs reports, cooked economic data and information fed to media. Then there are the fact checkers trotted out to continue bolster their case on issues from Global Warming agenda to fracking and the war on coal or energy. Throw on top their cooked up speeches pandering to the greens, socialists, progressives. It all gives us a toxic soup of headlines, opinion and polls.

Media does their part. I have never seen the kind of bias agenda driven news as over the last months. Is it so hard to believe with all these weights on the scale that polls are reflecting their phony reality? Then media touts them as Hillary’s wide success. Well, with all that help it would be hard to believe she didn’t have some upswing. If, for instance, with all their effort Hillary’s numbers did not budge, then that would be hard to believe.

Probably among my worst observations of the effects of all this spin and manipulation comes from listening to random people. I hear the back-fed talking points of media coming from the mouths of regular Americans. And almost word for word I hear the views of the media and political elite regurgitated.

Last week there was a letter from a bunch of Democrats sent to Paul Ryan demanding he withdraw all support from Trump. This week, people are sending a letter to John McCain insisiting he withdraw all support from Trump. Folks, have you ever seen anything like this on this level? I urge people pull their support from Hillary, considering her record.Duh.

Maybe all this effort will have a reversed effect to consolidate support for Trump rather than erode it? I can’t be sure. But when a large percentage of people in this country are smeared, branded, marginalized and mocked, who knows what the results could be?

Now the latest offensive is Barack Obama’s rise in approval ratings. No one explains why his poll numbers should be up. But then because his approval numbers are up, that is supposed to be a glowing positive push for Hillary. Just because it is built on fabrication doesn’t make a great case for her foundation of lies.

Here’s another random observation. When have we heard this much official consternation about a President and access to the military codes and arsenal? I don’t ever remember it. All this is fear mongering about nukes in the hands of Trump. What about the likelihood of Iran or others getting nukes in the hands of Terrorists? Not so much.

Obama made his comments now, following Hillary’s, suggesting doubt Obama can be trusted with nuclear codes and repeating his distrust a day later. Now he is asked whether Trump can be trusted with the Nuclear weapons? He says people should really think about it. Hyperbole. However, we cannot trust Obama with an Executive Pen.

But then much of this election is not standard fare. Maybe that is because Trump is not a standard candidate and maybe it is because of the threat Trump really poses to the establishment status quo? You decide. But we are so far out of the universe of what is standard with the way everyone treats Trump. Hillary is the poster child for the establishment political elite — unfortunately, even for the estabo’s status quo.

RightRing | Bullright

Heard it on the X and DeRay

How about a greatest hits collection from the DeRay portfolio?

Best in Show

That sort of depends on his definition of “productive.”

Arrest for obstructing a highway, days later a 4.5 hour high-profile conference with the President of the United States.

I hope if he shows up in Cleveland he’s wearing his famous vest. It will make him easier to spot. (well, that and the SS protection he’ll probably have) Then there was this article.

#BlackLivesMatter leader DeRay Mckesson may claim to be leading a grassroots revolution for racial and economic justice, but he has close connections with the privileged and elite.

Mckesson lives in a home owned by philanthropists James and Robin Wood in Baltimore, Maryland.

It’s the same address he used when declaring his residency on his campaign committee registration form for his failed mayoral run in the city’s Democratic primary earlier this year.

On Monday, the Balimore Sun reported the 31-year-old agitator Mckesson is making a handsome salary courtesy of Baltimore school district taxpayers.

In his new role, Mckesson is earning a salary of $165,000 as the district’s third chief of human capital in two years, and manage of a budget of $4 million and 56 employees.

More: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/blacklivesmatter-leader-deray-lives-home-owned-by-soros-connected/

But it’s his idea of “world-class education” that bothers me.

For kicks

What message Brexit sends

Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.

But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?

“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.

Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)

Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.

Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.

Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.

Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.

Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^

Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?

It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.

RightRing | Bullright

The Unreported Non-story

The media don’t seem willing to talk about Democrats, not accurately anyway. All the attention is on Republicans and their dysfunction in the election, as they see it.

If you weren’t a progressive Democrat operative, or a socialist by any name, then you probably did not hear of the meeting over the weekend in Chicago. That meeting was called the People’s Summit.

Just about anyone who is influential in the far left — which is just a euphemism for the active Democrat base — probably attended the 3-day Summit. But absent by reason of non-invitation was one Hillary Clinton.

The uber-liberal pundit Ellis Henican said on CNN over the weekend the Democrats have a hairline fracture but the Republicans have a canyon in their Party. Oh really? Totally dismiss the fight going on in the Left but drum up the revolution going on in the Republican Party, as they all portray it. There is so much distrust and vitriol for Hillary on the Left. Many of Bernie’s people have said they would not vote for her. Her scandals go way back, her self-serving interests do as well. The only one who benefits around Hillary is Hillary.

But the disdain for Hillary is not the whole problem. There is a giant fight on the left. Socialist Bernie was the only one who excited them. Hillary is part of the past and liberal Democrats have progressed far past the Clinton days. Bernie even calls his movement a political revolution. Is that a chorus of Kum ba yah? Add to it Hillary’s legal circumstances and investigation. So the unity and lockstep in the Democrat Party is pretty fractured. Then add all their emotional baggage and positioning to that.

This weekend’s meeting is exhibit A of the deep division in the Left between all out communism, socialism with their shelf-brand covert “progressive” politics. There is a lot of friction and many of them want to state their communist goals openly, proudly. They are tired of being closeted Marxists. They want to scream it from the rooftops. And their bitterness now for those less verbal progressives is fierce. Hillary, to them, is not far enough to the Left. But many of them don’t know just how far left Hillary is. The fact that she is not good enough should tell us a lot. It is even past Bernie, he was just a vehicle.

Human_Rights

Media turned their attention to everyone else this election, allowing Bernie and his people to claim their territory, which is the actual base of the Democrat Party, They’ve taken control. Media took its cue from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Jennifer Granholm, with David Brock and Axelrod thrown in. Even Hillary’s surrogates are shaken by Bernie supporters’ fierce confrontation whenever they meet. But media has not played that up. It pretends that everything is flowers and rainbows on the Left.

Though all you hear from Liberals, Democrats and media is about the dysfunction of the Republican Party and how it is in all out war and total meltdown. Get the message? Only Repubs have internal problems. Only they have wide areas of disagreement. So now that it is obviously clear beyond any doubt about the bias of media, turn on the TV and you will hear a steady harping about the Republican war. You’ll be treated to non-stop coverage about Donald Trump. For anyone who thinks all media coverage of Trump is a positive for him, I have a few bridges to sell them. That coupled with the Left-wing punditry amounts to a constant and continuous attack on Trump.

Right, Trump is being attacked from every direction. If you cannot see that then you aren’t looking. Hillary totally drifts off the radar, whatever it is she is doing.

Hill FBI

Enter Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program

A real example of this is CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who fashions himself a world dignitary and influential journalist. (read global advocacy journalist) He does an exclusive interview with Vladimir Putin, with other leaders on the stage. First question right off is “are we entering a new cold war?” Putin navigates through that. Then he asks about compliments Putin paid to Trump and got a few laughs. That opened the door for Putin to shred Fareed appearing to embarrass him. That wasn’t the plan. Then Vladamir went on to criticize our election process while Americans preach democracy. So he turned that right around on Zakaria.

Then Putin cleaned up his negative remarks on Hillary after Fareed brought them up.

That’s why Fareed is a good example, straight for the political as if by impulse. In fact, he opened his show with a monologue about guess who? Donald Trump. He asked where all the great Republican leaders, former cabinet members, were on signing the latest Never Trump pledge? He castigated the silent ones. He called on McCain to preserve his honor by signing it. Who made Fareed leader of the Never Trump Train? We know what he is trying to do, push Trump out and marginalize him. He had no shame directly doing it.

So is it any surprise he goes to Russia trying to use Putin to make a public laughing stock of Trump, and humiliate him in front of world leaders? Putin didn’t bite. That reminded me of the old Ted Kennedy communique to Andropov to undermine Reagan in the ’84 election. Kennedy and his pals promised Russians a media stage here if they would come to undermine Reagan’s campaign. Or in effect to campaign for Ted. Russians declined the offer. Fareed’s Putin interview was in the same vein.

He must be aware of all that, the Russians are, but it didn’t stop him. As media, Fareed went over there to stir up some Russian discontent for Trump – or at least to mock him.. Putin was not lured into being used as a tool of the Democrat Left. Putin claimed they stay out of foreign elections. However, Zakaria was soliciting and inviting their input.

Then Fareed went a step further playing the woman card with Putin and other leaders. What would they think of having a woman leader, with the not so subtle reference to their thoughts on Clinton being the first female US President? They brushed off the real question about Hillary while saying they have well-qualified women in their countries.

Now how bad has this election gotten, and how bad has the media coverage of it gotten? They prove there are no limits to which they won’t go to influence this election — whatever it takes. They found their whipping post, Trump, to collectively attack. No critiques about a woman who should be up on charges. But everyone from DNC to media, even supporters, ignores anything about Hillary as a non-issue. Actually, she claims as well to be the most transparent person, and fully vetted. However, she only ran in the 08 primary but was not vetted in the general election. She skipped that part. Now they give her a pass because, well, she’s also a woman. Did I mention that? She is the anointed nominee.

Now, even many Democrats see the fallacy with this whole charade for Hillary. Bernie was supposed to be just a placeholder for an opponent. Turned out he was way more than that. Turns out there is much conflict, turmoil, anger and unrest in the Democrat Party. They’re already in the red zone, in more than one way.

RightRing | Bullright

Feel the Bern… oh the pain

Hillary Clinton has officially hijacked Bernie’s movement.
And she did it wearing a 12,000 dollar Armani jacket.

Hillary announced that she set yet another historic precedent moment.
So I’d like to continue the history-making trend by indicting her.

Cost of announcing this historic moment — 12,000 dollar Armani jacket.
Cost of making history by indicting Hillary Clinton? — Priceless.

Hillary for Prison

Scratch the Armani

Hillary declared she is now the presumptive nominee.
Someone should have told Bernie that Hillary was the “presumptive nominee” the day she entered the race. So when was Hillary Clinton not the presumptive candidate?

Hillary added she will be taking a few days off to “absorb all the history we made here.
Well, I’ve already absorbed all the history we made here — as challenging as that was.

Benghazi, lies, servergate, speechgate, Clinton Fundation — investigations go on.
We should shatter another glass ceiling and indict the heiress of treason.

Losing in 08, she said that glass ceiling now “has about 18 million cracks in it.”
That happens to be less than the 20 million Hillary made on speeches in 2 years.

Hillary liar

Hillary fired

Hillary should also be the presumptive nominee of the Leavenworth primary.

Scratch and sniff all the scandals…. Wake up and smell the history.

Hillary would appoint Bill on economy

Hillary Clinton will put Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy” turns into a twofer.

The Hill

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is beginning to hint at what role her husband, former President Bill Clinton, could have in her administration if elected president.

At a campaign stop in Fort Mitchell, Ky., Clinton said her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”

ABC news

“My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, ’cause you know he knows how to do it,” Clinton told the crowd at an outdoor organizing rally. “And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”

So Lady Estrogen wants to put Bill in charge of the economy? Well, Bill’s experience with/in the private sector is almost as absent as hers. She’s running on his record and accomplishments? Many people don’t think he deserves a feather in his hat there.

It all sort of depends on the definition of “economy,” doesn’t it?

 

I’m sorry, did I forget about her earning millions for speeches to Goldman and Wall Street? Or Bill earning loads of cash for speeches and running a fraud charity? That experience could come in handy. Selling influence takes loads of practice… to do it right.

Hillary made around 20 million in speeches just since 2013. Hillary’s net worth is about 31 million and Bill’s is about 80 million. Just the middle-class paupers people think they are.

When Hillary talks about economic woes and 2009 with the recession, it is interesting that her income was not hindered in any way in 2009. Hill and Bill did quite fine. Then much better when she left office — after lighting up and burning down the Middle East.

According to MoneyNation reports here and here:

In 2009, Bill and Hill earned $10,084,843, Hillary earned $227,195. She made 52.7k in book sales in 2009. Then after leaving office. she cashed in on speaking fees. “In 2013 Hillary Clinton’s per year earnings from speeches was $9.7 million. In 2014 Mrs. Clinton earned $10.5 million in income from speaking fees.” (MoneyNation) Hill’s net worth peaked in 2009 at about 30 million. A sudden unexplained drop between 2010-2011 has people wondering where a big chunk of money went or if she transferred it, perhaps to Bill? No market forces appear to have caused the significant drop. She’s out of touch.

So Hillary now decided it a great campaigning point to bring in Bill on the economy, an area she knows nothing about. And Bill, with the Clinton Foundation, doesn’t impress anyone as the gold standard of economic virtue. Haiti voodoo-economics? They speciously prosper as America disintegrates around them. Not to omit their NAFTA and trade policies.

After cornering the market on speaking fees — influence peddling — Hill and Bill are just what we need to put the car back on the economic road. (achem) Wasn’t it Bill who built “the Bridge to the 21st Century?” The Onion satirized it this way back then.

Hillary’s philosophy is drink up, America, “what difference at this point does it make?
Of course, it does make one wonder what the market value of bullshit is these days?

Let me recap their design theme: The Bridge to the 21st Century will intersect with the Hillary Highway to Hell at 1600 Penna. Ave., Washington, DC. — Plan accordingly.

Hillary unfit to run

Hillary is unfit for even staging a run to the presidency let alone being a serious candidate.

5 Reasons Hillary Clinton Isn’t Fit To Be President

John Hawkins | May 21, 2016 | Townhall

Only a living, breathing Hindenburg disaster like Hillary Clinton could make a 74-year-old socialist like Bernie Sanders seem like a fresh and charismatic “new face.” All over America, people are looking at the ancient wife of Bill Clinton and wondering how out of 320 million people, the Democrats could have possibly picked her as their nominee. This is a woman who is simply not fit to be President of the United States. Why?

1) She’s responsible for Benghazi. There have been endless Benghazi investigations and if you believe the mainstream media, you’d think nothing came out of them.However, we did learn that over 600 requests were made for more security. In the end, four men died and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body was dragged through the street because Hillary Clinton never acted to safeguard their lives. Since when do we reward government officials with a promotion after their negligence has gotten people killed?

2) She hasn’t accomplished anything. Sean Hannity has a bit on his radio show where he challenges liberal callers to name Hillary’s three greatest accomplishments. Listening to them hem and haw while they try to come up with anything is hilarious. What her fans don’t want to admit is that despite her mediocre tenure in the Senate and as secretary of state, her real “accomplishments” are being married to Bill Clinton and being female. Take those two “non-accomplishments” away from her and she wouldn’t be in the top 1,000 people considered to be president.

3) She’s a liar’s liar. Merely calling Hillary Clinton a “liar” makes her sound too much like an ordinary politician. To the contrary, Hillary is what a lying liar who spent all her days working at the lie factory on a lying machine would sound like. She lies about the big stuff, the little stuff and everything in-between. This is a woman who falsely claimed that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. A roughly equivalent lie turned Brian Williams into a running joke, but there’s so much more with Hillary. After Benghazi, she told the American people that a video was responsible when she was privately telling people it was a terrorist attack. She claimed that she came out of the White House dead broke and in debt. She said she applied for the Marines in 1975 and was turned down. She claimed she was named after the explorer Sir Edmund Hillary who became famous when she was six years old. You can go on and on with the list. Yes, nobody expects politicians to be as scrupulously honest as pastors, but how can you vote for someone who’s so dishonest you can’t ever take anything she says at face value?

4) She belongs in jail. In America, no one is supposed to be “above the law.” Not you, not me, not the president of the United States. Yet, if Hillary Clinton doesn’t go to jail over having classified emails sent to her private server, it will be purely for political reasons. She knew what she was doing was highly illegal from day one. Not only are there people in jail for doing less than she has, any normal person with a government security clearance who did what she did would EXPECT to go to jail if he were caught. How can anyone be okay with voting for someone to be President who would be in jail if she weren’t married to a former president and running for office herself?

5) She is utterly corrupt. Back when Bill Clinton was in the White House, Hillary received $100,000 in bribes in return for putting $1,000 into the cattle futures market. The odds that Hillary did that honestly have been computed at 1 in 31 trillion. That was small potatoes compared to the deals Bill and Hillary appear to have cut with foreign governments. Enormous sums went directly into Bill’s pockets for doing speeches or to the scammy Clinton Foundation and next thing you know, the State Department was doing favors for those shady deep pocketed donors.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

With Obama in office, Hillary will never be investigated and prosecuted for what she’s done, but she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. She should be running for president of her cellblock, not president of the United States.

Article at Townhall