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 yourself.

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

Advertisements

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.

Kavanaugh and the NYT editorial board

A little comparison experiment: a new commercial calls Kavanaugh a “grand slam for conservatives.” Imagine if Democrats tried doing an honest ad for their nominee. It would be like “he will stretch that Constitution into play-doh. An experienced activist. He’ll assist in rewriting the Constitution. The perfect candidate for Marxists.” No, that doesn’t work the same way. So Dems have to lie: that’s why they can’t be honest. If they told the truth people would be repulsed. Can you picture an honest ad for their agenda?

For a couple years, NYT’s editorial page has tryied to call Trump everything from racist to crazy and unfit. So now their editorial board hires a crazy racist, Sarah Jeong, as a card carrying board member. But they dig in to defend their decision. It is a good fit. No, it was not a slip or something they did not know. It is the reason they hired her.

That is how the Democrats operate. If it were not for deception, they wouldn’t be able to sell anything. So the lie is everything; it’s the bomb.

Just throw in a few more: Obama’s record on the economy. It was abysmal. But now if the Obama economy was that good as they claim, then how come Obama has been out of office for a year and half and the Democrats are still trying to sell Obama’s economic failures? Why is that? But the people would know if it was good, and Democrats wouldn’t have to sell it. It sucked and people knew it did. So now the people have become the problem because they know it. But do you think Obama actually really cared about the economy?

And then Senate intelligence darling, Diane Feinstein has a commie spy chauffeur for 20 years. And Donald Trump’s election was the problem?

While we are at it, Pastor Darrell Scott was called every name and racial slur you can think of. His crime? He went to the White House with other clergy to work on problems affecting justice and the black community, to help people. For that he was attacked. But he was not attacked by nasty Trump supporters, the president, or conservatives and Republicans. He was attacked by blacks and Democrats as an Uncle Tom and traitor to blacks.

This at the same time blacks in Chicago are calling on Rahm Emanuel to resign. Fed up is an understatement. But Democrats and blacks lash out at Scott. It makes no sense, except to the Marxist, increasingly socialist, Left and their plantation police.

Right Ring | Bullright

Crazies Want Their Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injustice of Injustice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I do feel very offended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Dems in their own words: GOP ad

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

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

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

 

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

The #WalkAway Movement is on the rise.

Lawless Left

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

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

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

It normally starts with the same line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another great line for Democrats in prime time talking points.

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Swamp Economy of Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

What’s a little Coup among enemies?

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

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

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

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

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

Pelosi goes off along with the obnoxious left

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

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

Daily Signal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Brilliant Deductions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politico reported the story:

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Open Letter to the Resistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Party hacks invade Alabama

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

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

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

The whackos are whacked

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

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

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

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

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

The Resignation of Me, Al Franken

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

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

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

Stay tuned for when he actually vacates the Capitol premises.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Let me paraphrase:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting the Soros Dots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Blasio: private property is the problem

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

American Lookout

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

Take a look at this:

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

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

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

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

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

Original see

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