Some Like It Rotten

Who are these people? With all the resistance and anti American sentiment coming full mainstream, it makes me wonder. We seem to mainly react to what they say and do.

The old myth is that there is some theoretical discussion of “common ground” to be had with the left. There isn’t. Their goals, to the extent leftists have permanent ones, is antithetical to what most Americans believe in.

This idea about discussion some people have is only an illusion. The big goal of the left is to shut down speech so who in the hell needs conversation? Then “dialogue” becomes only a perpetual list of demands. That state is where the Leftists want us to live.

In other words, subservient to their demands — not requests, not dialogue. There is no discussion to be had. If you can control speech of others, what is the purpose of discussion? It is more effective to control speech than a conversation.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Saving Sanity: a noble cause

Is a once a week rant too much to ask or expect for a blog? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The problem is not the lack of material but rather the sheer volume of it.

That also can lead to things like burnout, exhaustion, even suffocation in a sea of mud. Just saying. So silence is not golden but may at times be the only viable option.

Something has bugged me though ever since I have been doing this blog. It is the amount of humor we use and whether it is appropriate? I mean these are serious times, and does the humor contribute to the coarsening of culture? I’m not sure.

Well, blah blah. I remember a past Bible study over whether humor is bad thing or acceptable? See, there was a belief at one time that Christians should refrain from humor, certainly in Church settings. I think that might have fallen by the wayside, but was once a real issue. The point was humor diminished Christianity.

It took away the seriousness of issues. It was seen to some as an insult. We know some people, for many reasons, do not appreciate humor anyway. But on serious matters it was frowned on. It was thought a type of mockery that didn’t belong in serious debate or dialogue. Using it diminished one’s credibility.

Someone finally wrote a book explaining that humor was not wrong and listed examples of humor in the Old and New Testament. So one cannot ban humor in theory.

My issue with all this is how can you look around today and not have a sense of humor about things? That doesn’t mean you take issues less seriously….or does it? This is where rationality and sanity come in. A rational person is aware of the serious nature yet can still poke fun at the condition of society. It doesn’t diminish one’s sincerity, or an issue itself.

Sometimes humor is the only way — or one of the ways — people can cope or deal with a given situation. It can cover pain, or masque all kinds of personal emotion.

It is similar with some violence these days. You see random murders and people killed for no visible reason. One struggles with trying to understand why? As if we need to know why to make sense of it. Humor is different. Humor makes sense in a funny way. But we are struck at a murder that had no rational reason for it. That it keeps on happening adds to all those questions. We don’t know and may never know. Sometimes even the killer had no reason. This is where rational thought has a problem. We almost need to see why. And some people today are uncomfortable with just calling it evil. It bothers us and it should. We don’t want to lay a blanket excuse over it just to try to explain it. An excuse that may or not be true. And explaining evil may be excusing it.

Humor can punctuate events without tainting them — or at least intending to.

Does using humor on serious issues take away seriousness from them? Maybe it can; though attributing false explanations also takes away from them. We almost expect those. I question fairness in a lot circumstances and think of humor as a great equalizer. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. Sometimes humor points out the absurdity. Sometimes nothing short of a punch line does it justice. (no matter how bad the event) I think we know that doesn’t mean the thing was funny or a joke. We don’t mean it is not serious.

Late night comics in recent years have gone to a whole different level. In fact, their humor has become the absurdity — and maybe even the thing that drives any of their jokes. And less, their jokes don’t seem to be funny anymore but their absurdity is obvious. Then for these intended jokes to be taken as fact or for mainstream political dialogue is another matter. Their absurd humor replaces political thought. It becomes mainstream opinion. This has been validated over and over since Trump took office.

Defamation of character?

They have basically turned Trump, or what he is about, into a joke. I get the joke part and we make jokes about Hillary. But that is different, no one loses sight of the seriousness of the threat she represents. We still understand all her real flaws. Still we use humor to poke fun at or take the edge off the hyper-serious nature — seriousness she imbues on herself. We don’t lose sight of the greater issue. The fears and concern so big that humor can be a coping mechanism because we cannot see or visualize the whole extent. It is beyond simple description — and breaks all past comparisons. So you see there is a difference. Their political objective is to reduce Trump to an absurd caricature

But these days the joke is the entire issue. The left turns the joke into reality, instead of vice versa. Humor is used as ridicule, and the left does ridicule as a political weapon well. In fact, the purpose of it is to bury or lose sight of the truth and reality.

See there is a proper purpose for humor as hyperbole. It is also a tool. It points out the error through exaggeration. Again, that is not to lose sight of the truth. It is not to try to turn hyperbole into literal reality. The Bible uses hyperbole for emphasis. The object is not to make hyperbole a fact. We are also supposed to know and see the difference.

But then when Trump uses hyperbole or exaggerates something, the truth slayers run out to correct any errors. Yet they have accepted their fictional character of Trump as reality. Trump, off the cuff, uses a lot of rhetorical tools. That is why the left likes it, they busy themselves pointing out any perceived inaccuracies. Funny how they don’t “factcheck” themselves or their depiction of Trump and coverage.

We are in an era when reality has no value to the left. Into that void they have put narrative, and perception has become their only reality. So when humor is applied, it is taken as perception — which it is — but then taken as fact or reality. The narrative rules and protecting that narrative becomes their chief mission. Humor is not humor, it is now reality. That narrative drives their politics, even moreso than they drive the narrative.

Right Ring | Bullright

Another wicked excuse for Hillary

One more excuse to Hillary’s bottomless bucket list of denials, now from Politico.

Hannity.com

Politico published an article Sunday titled, “Trump thrives in areas that lack traditional news outlets,” suggesting the President was able to “Swamp Clinton” in areas that had low subscription rates to local newspapers.

The data suggests those voters relied on national news outlets and social media for information instead of more traditional media outlets such as newspapers and local television reports.

Notice how in this one they get to take a shot at ill-informed people, popular anti-MSM sentiment, and pat themselves on the back while attacking social media and online news. If only people would have listened to them. The hubris.

Next, they’ll be blaming MSM’s lack of credibility and downfall on Trump, like NYT. So then why are the left and their MSM minions dumber than rocks? So dumb to believe all of Hillary’s excuses? So stupid they never saw that big Trump truck coming?

China and the Left

I see a similarity of China and the Left here, aside from the communism ties. It is not a stretch, the political strategies align. You might say birds of the feather.

It is always about the goal with the left, as it is with China. The means are only the vehicle, to be discarded when the goal is achieved. And anything that achieves it is acceptable.

Regarding the trade deficit with China, and recent tariff announcements, Trump said that there may be some pain but in the end we will have a stronger country. That is the first time I heard a leader reference the long game of what we want. (okay maybe not first) A lot of people probably shuttered to hear that.

I bet that got the Chinese’s attention because he is referencing the long game. Something we don’t always stress. It shakes their predictability about us. In other words, that we would be willing to weather some pain to get to the benefit in the end.

See the strategy to Chinese is really as simple as the lefts’ is. Both are focused on the destination not on the means. Whatever the means matters little. The destination is king. That is the same with the Chinese. And If they really believe in their dominant end, and we know they do, then that tells the real story.

To Chinese they want to control or run the world. See if that is their goal then nothing else is important. Do you get it? If that is where they see themselves, at that point there is nothing anyone can do to them about anything — there’s nothing to negotiate. That may seem a fantasy to us, but if they believe it then it gives their strategy away. Once they are in the driver’s seat the game is over.

We, however look at this as a long term game that will continue. It won’t once they reach their destination. They will be the tyrants they want to be and it will be tough to anyone who disagrees. That is what they have in mind. Nothing like our goals or strategy. We want a working relationship, for the long term. They are just thinking as the short term until they get to their destination.They think none of this stuff will matter then.

It is the same type mindset the Left has. They look only at achieving their desired ends. Once that is done, nothing else such as rules apply. It is a king of the hill perspective. They plan on keeping the hill once they get it. That is the way their plans work. Do you see the similarity? Power is rule, and rule is permanent not temporary. At that point, all resources go to preserving and keeping that permanent rule. Sure, it is a scorched earth plan but so what? That is how they play. We are looking at it as a balancing act but they don’t want anything balanced. They want control and once you have it, you run the show. If we do not look at the end game, goals, of those like China, Russia, N Korea, or Iran, then we underestimate the game. The days of just ignoring it are dwindling.

This is why we, meaning media and talking heads, are concerned about a trade war. It’s a perpetual real war to China, and they plan on winning. So the state of a trade war does not matter to China at all. This is also why intellectual property is a major issue to us and not to them. Their end doesn’t see a problem with private intellectual property.

It is sort of the same thing as CNN or MSM worrying about so-called Russia collusion. while the rest of the country is concerned about trade. The two are not on the same wave lengths, like two different orbits. Which one matters?

Right Ring | Bullright

Sicko Soros Election Meddling

Calling all election meddling cops.
Breitbart

Hungary: George Soros Interferes in Election Campaign Through NGOs, Media

“Hungary’s government spokesman Zoltán Kovács has warned that open-borders financier George Soros is interfering in the country’s upcoming election through pressure groups and media outlets.

Speaking on Kossuth Radio on Sunday, Dr. Kovács referenced a recording obtained by The Jerusalem Post which revealed the head of the Soros-funded Civil Liberties Union for Europe admitting to lobbying Germany against Hungary.

The government spokesman said that the audio recording proves that “forces arranged into an international network” are attempting to pressure Hungary into abandoning its NGO transparency law and anti-mass migration policy.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/04/hungary-george-soros-interferes-election-ngos-media/

Wait for public outcry, and demand for investigations. Waiting……

DNC clowns easy marks for Awan family

See no evil say no evil… but if you see evil: say nothing, know nothing, do nothing.

I told you so is written all over this. No interest from the press, wonder why?

Daily Caller

Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made “unauthorized access” to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks, according to congressional documents.

All of them appear to have waived background checks on Imran Awan and his family members, even though the family of server administrators could collectively read all the emails and files of 1 in 5 House Democrats, and despite background checks being recommended for such positions, according to an inspector general’s report. The House security policy requires offices to fill out a form attesting that they’ve initiated background checks, but it also includes a loophole allowing them to simply say that another member vouched for them.

Among the red flags in Abid’s background were a $1.1 million bankruptcy; six lawsuits against him or a company he owned; and at least three misdemeanor convictions including for DUI and driving on a suspended license, according to Virginia court records. Public court records show that Imran and Abid operated a car dealership referred to as CIA that took $100,000 from an Iraqi government official who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. Numerous members of the family were tied to cryptic LLCs such as New Dawn 2001, operated out of Imran’s residence, Virginia corporation records show. Imran was the subject of repeated calls to police by multiple women and had multiple misdemeanor convictions for driving offenses, according to court records.

If a screening had caught those, what officials say happened next might have been averted. The House inspector general reported on Sept. 20, 2016, that shortly before the election members of the group were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

More http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/01/democrats-pakistani-background-checks/

Looks like all one big happily incestuous family. The DNC Cosa Nostra.

Well, why would anyone have to go to all the trouble to hack a system when they can just walk in there and do it, get paid for it, and then have Congressmen vouch for them?

Let’s just say they are all having a big Sister Sledge moment

    Everyone can see we’re together
    As we walk on by
    And we fly just like birds of a feather
    I won’t tell no lie
    All of the people around us they say
    Can they be that close
    Just let me state for the record
    We’re givin’ love in a family dose

Leave it to left to define Roseanne

After throwing his own family under the bus, as the typical Trump -supporting, racist-type family, this NYT columnist says about Roseanne’s show and Trump-supporters:

Read here.

“The dark underbelly of the white, working-class, the intolerance that permeates so much of their lives, is completely absent, and that absence can serve a dangerous purpose: to reinforce the delusion that they’re actually supporting somebody like Donald Trump for honorable reasons.”

But this deserves commentary. It seems so easy for them to try to shove (no pound) Trump supporters into some stereotype but it doesn’t work. That’s probably what frustrates them. It is a delusion, he says, and nothing about their support is honorable.

Rather their view is some distilled elite, deceptive, liberal projection of people that no one in the world should like. Or that is the hope. ‘Who could like these despicable people?’

Maybe he should look in the mirror and face the kind of world view he and his Liberal ilk represents. It is they who are so far off the mainstream of any political alignment with reality, much less the electorate — and proudly bigoted about it.

In truth, as Sterling might say in Twilight Zone, “he seems to have turned into a caricature of himself.” And speaking of dysfunction, how functional could these Leftists be in their families or community? It is also a ruling-class elitist mindset that asserts only they know better how to fix or run your lives. If you only follow their plantation politics.

Maybe I will do a satire on the kind of people Liberals would like to see portrayed to represent their politically correct, leftist view of how a typical family should be and live.

So says the misinformed Lefty antagonist. Trumpism, whatever you term that to be, is not an ideology. You sure missed every lesson offered in 2016.

The Left’s Hogg Business Model

Yes, give us a description how that anti-business model works. Inquiring minds.

The Media Matters thuggery behind the astroturfed boycott of Laura Ingraham Tolerance bullies.

Conservative Review — by Chris Pandolfo | March 30, 2018

Media Matters is once again using its tired, sleazebag astroturfing tactics to bully and intimidate those who don’t agree with its far-left agenda. This time, hiding behind a child, the despicable thugs are pushing for advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after she mocked 17-year-old Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg, for which she has since apologized.

On Wednesday, Ingraham tweeted a Daily Wire story, “Gun rights provocateur David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied,” adding “and whines about it.” Hogg responded on Twitter, asking about her “biggest advertisers” and tweeting “#BoycottIngramAdverts” [sic]. He later tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top twelve advertisers.

At 1:06 p.m. ET on Thursday, Ingraham apologized “for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” Yet after she apologized, at 2:15 p.m., Media Matters published a story on Ingraham’s “bullying” and linked to a list of her advertisers. Hogg rejected Ingraham’s apology exactly two hours after she issued it, saying “an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough” and demanding that she “denounce” Fox News’ coverage of the Parkland anti-gun activists, saying “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.” The calls for an advertiser boycott against Ingraham continue, and according to Media Matters, nine companies have pulled their ads from “The Ingraham Angle,” including TripAdvisor, Joseph A. Bank, Hulu, Expedia, and Johnson & Johnson.

So a leftist social media mob has been organized against Ingraham, and there are a few important things to note.

First, this is not a grassroots effort led by Hogg. Media Matters has a long history of organizing boycotts against conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hogg’s age and his victim status as a Parkland survivor are a shield that cowardly Media Matters is hiding behind to obscure its astroturfing. His voice is a sword the organization is taking advantage of to launch an attack on Ingraham (and other conservatives). The media is complicit in this abuse of a child.

Second, this is not a campaign against Ingraham. It’s still going on after she apologized. The real target is Fox News and anyone in conservative media. Media Matters founder David Brock has previously described the mission of his organization as “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News channel. In 2010, arch-progressive financier George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters, noting, “Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.” This group has an agenda, and it’s out to destroy those who disagree with it.

Third, it will not stop with Laura Ingraham. Media Matters has previously used its social media mob to go after several conservatives. This is far from the last time it will attempt this, especially if it succeeds in driving more advertisers away from Ingraham’s show. The Left takes pleasure in ruining the lives and livelihoods of conservatives who do not submit to their agenda. And if you do submit, if you do back down, if you do apologize, these petty tyrants will keep trying to grind you into the dust. Who will be next? Another conservative media host? A real estate agent who tweets something that upsets the Left? Will they destroy her business? Or a doctor’s? A mechanic’s? ~ ~ [see]

 
Being schooled by children? Ed-U-K-shun.

But we’re told to lighten up. Then we’re attacked for supposedly attacking or hating the kids. I know I was.  Like we just hate kids. Saying anything back to or about these kids constitutes an “attack”. What kind of nonsense have we slipped into?

Now businesses are supposed to kowtow to the whims of children, who make the rules, law and decide who you should do business with. They decide where you can advertise or, more importantly, where you can’t. That’s a business model?

The world is supposed to look at this and say it is normal? What is wrong with all those that comply? Okay, corporations, do you want to turn the reins of your company over to children who can barely drive? How responsible is that? What does that portend for the future of the country or business?

So you liked those eyeballs a few years ago when you were targeting them as your captive audience of TV viewers. But now that they are intervening in your board room and bottom line, you just have to suck it up. There is nothing you can do about it.

Who makes your decisions?

As I have said here before, is that really how much you care about your company? These kids were obsessed with Nickelodeon while you were building a brand. Now you are going to turn the integrity of that brand over to children? And you can’t do anything about it but give it to them? I guess I’m confused…and disappointed.

David Hogg lists a bunch of businesses to boycott because of tweets from Laura that some universities have rejected him. Shouldn’t he be boycotting the universities? Oops, seems he already is. I guess it is how he deals with rejection. Somehow she’s the bully.

What is it called when you bully businesses into taking actions or making decisions to suit you, on a sliding scale? And instead of these children going on a national political campaign, shouldn’t they focus on the local politics and policies that led to this avoidable shooting?

Right Ring | Bullright

Roseanne reboot praise or bust?

Is the intention to make the lead character, Roseanne, just sympathetic enough so that even Trump supporters can laugh at the caricature they create? Maybe they can convince them how dumb they look? Some people think so. Sitcom or situational politics?

Is Hollywood trying to play a high-brow sophisticated game of satire? But it does seem clear to me, as popular as the show may be, that if they were to lose that base of viewers it would no longer be the great hit it appears. All you have to do is remember that Hollywood does have a knack for flops. Every sitcom doesn’t work.

This one is a reboot which brings back a certain nostalgia too. I’m not sure that would work for all sitcoms. I’m just curious about this one. I think I know their original intent. I keep hearing from liberals how we “aren’t getting it” and that by about the 5th episode we will see it is the opposite of what we think it is. In other words, it is really poking fun at the caricature of Trump supporters.

That’s a pretty big stereotype of a pretty big group. And being Roseanne is a woman, it would be a shot at women who went that way. It seems to fit all their needs. Would it be cool to mock women? Add Hillary’s critique about why they vote that way.

That could be true. I wouldn’t put it past Hollywood and writers. In fact, I will give them the benefit of the doubt there. It could be that they want to make both sides into a caricature of themselves. But in doing that one side wins out. I mean one side could be more appealing. One is more outrageous or funny. A lead up to 2020?

Is it possible the writers are throwing Roseanne under the bus? That they are really mocking her character? That is a funny thing to do to the lead character. Archie Bunker was another such character. He ended up being more sympathetic than they expected.

The key is this: it will have to remain sympathetic to a degree to Roseanne because otherwise it turns into another bash fest mockery of the character they are exploring. And do we really need to see more of that? We have plenty of it already. It’s nothing new, in fact it is old. So if they go that route it becomes a bomb. That is popular only to Liberals.

Liberals always want to laugh at people on the right, but make a game of doing it without them realizing it. It fits the narrative of dummies who don’t know they are the joke.

The problem is if a pro-Trump type character is the butt of the joke it looks bad. Then they are mocking a large number of people. It is not above Hollywood to try that. They mock religion like that. There was another sitcom targeting a protestant minister and his family the same way. It didn’t last though the mockery was obvious. Here it is working class people. The same type that liberals are disconnected from and now trying to schmooze over. So do they shoot themselves in the foot?

Where does the racism come in? It does make me wonder what an All In The Family reboot would look like today? What do other people think? I suppose we will know in time. Playing with fire or burning themselves out? A last gasp for Hollywood relevance?

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.

All in a Facebook day’s work

What is the rub on or about Facebook? First of all, I think a lot of people are looking at Facebook’s relationship with its users in the wrong way.

The problem is the business model is not what many people assume it is. The users, those people who put all their personal information on there, are actually the “product” – not the client or consumer. That’s not just me, even CNN’s business pundits have said it.

The client of Facebook is the advertisers or those who use that bulk information, which Facebook sells too. See, it is just that people have misunderstood the real business model.

And when it comes down to protecting the users? Well, that was never the real priority or objective of the business model. Protecting their clients, the advertisers or paying consumers, is a necessary part of the model. They are the consumers.

 

See also: https://www.infowars.com/revealed-leftist-bias-of-internet-social-media-giants/

Right Ring | Bullright

Talking vs. listening to God: who you going to believe?

This is a post I wanted to write and didn’t want to write. Wanted to because I think it is important, but didn’t want to because I know people roll their eyes or get turned off talking about faith or Christianity. Still here goes.

A few weeks ago Joy Beyhar made a comment on the View attacking Pence for his Christian beliefs. Then she was forced to apologize by Disney. But Pence, in his kind way, accepted it and urged her to make a public apology to the millions of Christians she offended. Finally, she did make a public apology on TV.

Yes, regardless of the apology, it is still worthy of discussion. IOW, that is not the end of it.

What she said was the subject of the matter.

“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Never mind the grammatical faux pas, she referred to it as mental illness. Great job offending ignorant Christians who just don’t know better. Her apology did not make it go away. She was just voicing a common misconception about Christians.

Apology — “I was raised to respect everyone’s religious faith and I fell short of that,” the comedian said. “I sincerely apologize for what I said.”

The crux of the matter is listening to God. That is the big offense here. Apparently talking to God is fine but listening to God is not. That, in a nutshell, is a common liberal opinion out there. In othe words, it would take a Christian to be offended at that because most other people would not be. No wonder we are where we are in society.

Listening to God, can it be possible that is a chief offense? Is it really the stuff of loony tunes and crazies? Nonsense, but it makes for a good sound bite.

However, it is completely backwards or reversed from Christian tradition. We talk an awful lot to God. Some people pray regularly. Funny that listening would be the problem. We do have an awesome God who not only hears but knows our hearts and intentions. You don’t fool God. Yes, we are not above error. Much of the problem is not listening.

One of the things we are taught, or learn, is the patience and discipline to listen to God. Call it waiting on Him. Remember He has the ability to speak any way He wants, whether by events or natural means or through people. But God’s message will come through if He wants it to. So then it becomes a matter of us being receptive or listening for it.

Discerning

I would actually say that the easier part is for us to talk, the harder part is to listen. If it were only us talking, it is a one way conversation. You talk to your friends, but you don’t do all the talking.(or you might not have the friend for long) And we don’t have all the answers, which is often why we turn to God. We are seeking something from Him.

God desires a personal relationship with his people. How do you have a relationship without doing some listening? In 2 Chronicles 7:14, it tells us “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

That also means we are heard. It says “seek my face.” Well, seeking is also listening, and following. Through the scriptures, prayer talking to others, we seek. Often we are seeking answers, or solutions. Shouldn’t we be open to answers, even expect them? James 1:22 — “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

Or we could try acting like one of the pundits on TV who talks over the other person blocking out their voice. How can they be listening when they shout down the other person? They ignore other people’s answers. Liberals like that method.

So talking to God is fine, but listening is not.

Just imagine how you would teach your kids then. Tell them “we want you to talk to God, pray. Just don’t ever listen to Him. See, that’s where you get into trouble.” Just like if you told your kids: “if you need help, come and talk to me. Just never listen to me or follow me. So, kids, no listening now….don’t embarrass me.” It is the same message.

This is what we get from society. Joy got a lot of laughs, seemed the crowd was with her. That’s what I expect from the secularists today. Sure they preach their religion, but when it comes to Christians? Well, just laugh at them. Okay, so I forgive her. That is the mentality though and she is not alone. They just have it exactly backwards.

Our bodies are gifts as well as our limbs. It is how we use them that matters. Reasoning is a gift and so is our conscience. It’s another way God talks to us. If we don’t listen to our conscience it would cause a problem. You would never tell someone to stop listening to their conscience. But the world and society might. Maybe peer pressure tells kids to ignore their conscience. Do we tell kids to do that? And the world thinks we’re crazy?

 

Flashback of another famous ‘comedian’: (Christmas day)

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary takes another bite of her rotten apple

Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving. She offers another excuse — NO IT WAS NOT AN APOLOGY — for her latest deplorable statements.

After even Democrats objected to what she said, she dug in with an explanation for what she said. How could anyone call that an apology?

(What she originally said) –“[Democrats] do not do well with white men, and we don’t do well with married, white women,” she said. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should,”

Actually, even Dick Durbin was asked about her statement, saying it was “not helpful.” Then he quibbled with the amount of people. So it was the number he disputed?

Now she does a face-plant on Facebook:

“I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted. I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody.”

You understand why you offended so many people! Yet you persist in saying it. Misinterpreted? Meant no disrespect? It was all about disrespecting people who did not vote for you. In her cremation of facts on Facebook, she said:

“My first instinct was to defend Americans and explain how Donald Trump could have been elected. I said that places doing better economically typically lean Democratic, and places where there is less optimism about the future lean Republican.”

No, your instinct was not to defend Americans but your failed bid for president. The only way to do that is to slander the people who voted against you, including women.

“THAT doesn’t mean the coasts versus the heartland, it doesn’t even mean entire states. In fact, it more often captures the divisions between more dynamic urban areas and less prosperous small towns within states.”

Yes, you did mean the coastal regions versus the heartland. Forward looking places like California — who are in the midst of seceding from the union you ran to be president of!

“As I said throughout the campaign, Trump’s message was dark and backwards looking. I don’t need to list the reasons, but the foundation of his message, “Make America Great AGAIN” suggests that to be great we have to go back to something we are no longer. I never accepted that and never will.”

Darkness is creating jobs, bringing back the economy to forgotten people who aren’t in your leftist silo? Leveling the field of trade, reducing deficits is backward?

She closes with another face plant, like the one she narrowly avoided on the steps.

“So to those upset or offended by what I said last week, I hope this explanation helps to explain the point I was trying to make. And I hope now that we can get back to the real business before us: Protecting our democracy and building a future we can all share.”

Your point was as clear as the deplorable comment was. It does help, only to solidify your disdain for voters. You weren’t about “protecting democracy” but rigging it! A future that the rest of us cannot possibly share in, unless they are an elitist like you.

But one can never believe anything she says anyway.

Read my earlier (mind reading) translation of what she meant here.

Right Ring | Bullright

Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

What is with Obama loyalty?

I kept wistfully wishing that someone would break his/her Obama Omertà and spill the beans about all the corruption (conspiracy) of the Obama era. With every passing day that seems less and less likely. What would it take?

Or were their type of activities in Obama’s Cosa Nostra so intentionally spread out among their crew of ‘bigwigs’ that no one would dare blow the whistle or implicate themselves? (well-schooled radicals) Protecting the whole is greater than the sum of any of the parts.

Or do all Obama-hoodies believe so much in the outfit that it carries a loyalty higher than any moral, ethical code? Especially if the organization is to live on in a future capacity. Hell, they invented their own loyalty (and ethics) to rival any mob or crime syndicate.

Their slogan must be: “no one talks, and everyone walks.”

Maybe… someday?

Note:**Omertà /oʊˈmɛərtə/ (Italian pronunciation: [omerˈta]) is a code of honor that places importance on silence, non-cooperation with authorities, and non-interference in the illegal actions of others. It originated and remains common in Southern Italy, where banditry or brigandage and Mafia-type criminal organizations (like the Camorra, Cosa Nostra, ‘Ndrangheta and Sacra Corona Unita) are strong. It is also deeply rooted in rural Spain, Crete (Greece), and Corsica, all of which share a common or similar historic culture with Southern Italy.

**Cosa Nostra — our thing : the Sicilian Mafia

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s train wreck of excuses

Once again, Hillary’s ship of lies sailed abroad to promote her, well, stolen victory.

Townhall

“And his whole campaign — ‘Make America Great Again’ — was looking backward. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are — you know, whatever your problem is, I’m gonna solve it.”

Hillary muses that many white women were prepared to do the “right” thing until that dastardly James Comey intervened:

‘What happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until former director of the FBI Jim Comey dropped that very ill-advised letter on Oct. the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their work places were being told, “She’s going to jail, you don’t want to vote for her. It’s going to be terrible you can’t vote for that.” It stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough. Because I was ahead and I was winning and I thought I had fought my way back,’ she concluded.

Okay, this needs a translation so allow me. What she meant is this:

‘I had a full-blown revolution going on among women bullied by men and others, long intimidated to vote otherwise. (I should be commended for that accomplishment)  This was real progress for the weaker women who were iberated to vote for me. That is until Jim Comey put the kibosh on that by dropping the investigation hammer on me. That hammer was to be used on Trump. How dare he?

Well, my vast lead, and these liberated vaginas, were halted in their tracks. I tried to almost fight my way back from that, unsuccessfully of course. It totally overcame those newly liberated women with weak knees. They believed this fraudulent bunk about me. After their years of abuse and victimization from powerful men and interests, they succumbed to the plot. My lead evaporated. We tried to correct the record.

It didn’t work, there wasn’t enough time.

But that distrust should have all gone on Trump. I spent a lot of money, as did the DNC, to make sure the voters got the message. They blew it. I mean those incompetent boobs who were paid to arrange this whole investigation into Donald Trump, the dossier and all, with the intelligence community and Obama’s fledglings, were supposed to stop him earlier. They clearly were not up to the challenge he presented. The kicker is Obama used the same vendors in 2012. I even paid them more money. What’s that tell you?

So I did not fail. The village failed to deliver for me. And well, those foolish women who succumbed to bullying tactics should have known better. But I did everything I could do. That torpedo on the 28th came out of nowhere. Now here I am. I didn’t lose, I was prevented from victory. I was well on my way to winning. They stole it from me.

Everyone with a brain knows that. I even had a huge excess of voters in California who still did their duty to elect the first woman. Those backwards areas listening to Trump double crossed me in the end. They kowtowed under the pressure. The bullies — who were always after me and Bill — screwed me over, in a race that mattered for women’s liberation. Those vast right-wing bastards. And I won’t stop talking about it.’

There’s her whole unfiltered story.

Right Ring | Bullright

What’s a little astroturf on gun control?

Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students’ Astroturfing?

The Federalist

The Miami Herald credited their success to the school’s stellar debate program. The Wall Street Journal said it was because they were born online, and organizing was instinctive.

On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/

When Dems say grasroots they mean astroturf. Almost made to order. Hmm.

The leakers get leaked on

The guys who normally do the leaking get leaked on, then cry fowl.

House Intel Committee Republicans leaked texts between Mark Warner, lobbyist for Russian oligarch to media: Report

by Melissa Quinn | March 1, 2018 | Washington Examiner

Text messages exchanged by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch were reportedly leaked to Fox News by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee found.

Two congressional offices told the New York Times the Senate Intelligence Committee’s leaders, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Warner, raised the issue of the leak with House Speaker Paul Ryan during a rare meeting.

As is usual, Democrats only problem is you knowing what they don’t want you to know.

Warner and Adam Waldman, the lobbyist, exchanged messages for several months in 2017 via a secure messaging app. During their conversations, Warner tried to set up a meeting with Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the salacious dossier about President Trump.

Other than that, they want to leak everything they can.

Burr and Warner denounced the leak of the texts in a joint statement last month, saying they were based on “incomplete information.” More

Isn’t that what they always say after something they don’t like? It’s what they said about the Nunes Memo that it was based on incomplete information. They want you to think there is more information — which you aren’t privy to or cannot know — that aquits their conduct. You just do not and cannot know it. (trust us)

Similar to saying “you don’t know the full story,” when the entire story does not change the fact of what they did. It just muddies up the waters. That’s something all Clintonistas learned well. I’m trying to avoid the mental picture of golden showers in the Capitol.

Google does “gun” control

Look how Google does gun control, like they do everything. Add it to the mix.

Google tried censoring ‘gun’ shopping searches. It backfired

Philip Wegmann | Feb 27, 2018 | Washington Examiner

In the wake of the Florida school shooting, Google decided to take a stand. The gatekeeper of the Internet decided to filter shopping searches that included the term “gun.” It didn’t go so well.

Early Tuesday morning, Internet shoppers started noticing and documenting the digital gaffes. Users received error notices when they searched for glue guns and water guns, toy guns and airsoft guns, nail guns and nerf guns. The algorithm is apparently so strict that even the color “burgundy” triggered an error because it includes “gun” in the spelling.

This set off something of a parlor game on social media. Turns out, adults don’t like it when faceless bureaucrats try enforcing arbitrary restrictions — federal, corporate, or otherwise.

Casey “Stable Genius” Smith found that Google now censors “Laguna Beach.”

Technousayt observed that the beloved Tom Cruise film about beach volleyball, “Top Gun,” also could not be found.

Read more at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-tried-censoring-gun-shopping-searches-it-backfired/article/2650230

So it got interesting in all kinds of ways. But it does show how active Google is about monitoring political debate. How many other filters are they now applying?

Follow the trail

It’s nothing new for creatively radical leftists. For instance, the media developed a new trend for pushing gun control. Fox already reported media pushing Florida teen survivors as ambassadors for gun control. Laura Ingraham asked who out there wants to take political advice from students? No one.

But that doesn’t stop MSM like CNN and MSNBC from using the teens as experts on all things guns. Great, they know so much about everything else, don’t they? So they put kids against pols as gun control advocates. It doesn’t stop there.

Another media trend: in a half hour segment on the Fla shooting, CNN put up a pundit from Brussels and then one from London to tell us what our gun laws should be. Of course they exploited the chance to tell us. CNN never said why their opinion was important.

Shame maybe? That’s it, they want to guilt us into gun control the same way media guilted the country into electing Obama — and then unable to throw him out like trash.

On a similar note, Tucker Carlson had a DACA advocate for illegal immigration who lectured about sanctuary cities and laws. Now illegals are telling us what our immigration law should be. He didn’t like Tucker saying he was not an American because he wasn’t a citizen. Yet bozo started every sentence saying “we” should… do this or that.

The arrogance knows no boundaries. We must heed the advice of non-citizens on our own country? Next they will try to lecture us on who to elect, vote for, and draft our laws. Illlegals already demand they will decide who immigrates here via chain migration.

See a trend? Have the outsiders, or those who are part of the problem, be policy experts. How about asking MS 13 gang members what we should do on gang violence? Let’s have inmates run parole boards. Ask children and minors to develop our drug laws.

Though supporting Brexit like Nigel Farage is smeared as illegitimate. So when you want your country back, you are labeled an extremist on the outside fringe — despite polls.

But we need to bring in outsiders to set our laws and policies … or get students to do it.
The new rule must be that citizens are overruled and irrelevant. The coup of America.

Right Ring | Bullright