Coulter Revolution or Revolution against Coulter?

Let’s look at Ann Coulter’s business model. Never mind her pro-against Trump stances.

Never Trumpers, they bailed on her somewhere in 2016 for not opposing Trump.

Liberals and San Fran leftists. have hated Coulter for years. But that was one thing that conservatives liked about her.

Liberals now cite Ann Coulter’s criticism of Trump as “he’s losing his base.” (They encourage her on, as a great Republican divider. She’s being used by the left)

Trump supporters have now had enough of her back and forth antics and bashing.

  • Media are all out against Ann calling her a crazy, fringy.
  • Many conservatives don’t like her demagoguery.
  • Moderate Republicans don’t like her.
  • The left despises her.

Best selling author of how many books?. But is it a sustainable business model?

Part of her business model seems to be built on this concept that one can turn on and off his/her support for say a president, as the mood fits daily. On today, off tomorrow.

If that is the model, then it seems safe to turn Ann off for now. She will always be there later, should you change your mind. Though that gets more complicated when people burn her books today. What would they do re-purchase them tomorrow? I don’t think so.

But it is doubtful that they will run to buy her next book  So with that factor in mind. I think she has run to the proverbial end of her business model. Or she has to think up a more outrageous or controversial  outline for another book. But what is more controversial than what she has done for the past year, to piss off nearly everyone in earshot?

I’m not betting against Coulter, just not betting on her right now.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

The March for lives?

Since yesterday was the students March for our lives and today is Sunday, I thought a scripture might be appropriate for the occasion.

Well, other than it being just another big registration drive for Dems, you know, everyone wants to defer to the expert wisdom of these kids. Who could disagree? That’s the idea.

And just for a reminder that there is really nothing new under the sun.

Isaiah 3 (NASB)
4And I will make mere lads their princes,
And capricious children will rule over them,
5And the people will be oppressed,
Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor;
The youth will storm against the elder
And the inferior against the honorable.

12 O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths.

 

One girl named Naomi Wadler, who led fellow students on a walkout at her school, said:

“My friends and I might still be 11 and we might still be in elementary school, but we know,” she said. “We know life isn’t equal for everyone and we know what is right and wrong.”

And of course Obama chimed in with an always relevant piece of outhouse wisdom:

 

Nothing can stand in the way. Forget that, unfortunately, nothing stood in the way of this shooter in Parkland to commit this atrocity. Nothing except a coach who tried to intervene to save some students and died.

But no law enforcement officer stood in his way, no social worker, school employee, sheriff deputy, FBI agent, or school resource officer on the scene. Nothing. But they deliberately ignore all those failures on the record. Yet nothing can stop these kids, this anti-gun movement, now.

Obama must be snickering about that. No stopping the shooter, just stop NRA and any legislators in their way.  I get shivers when I hear Obama talking about “change”.

Yet there were some counterprotestors calling to protect the Second Amendment.

“I like talking to people I disagree with so I can get a broader range of views. I’d say there’s a lot of misinformation and I came to talk to people,” Eric Ciabottonia, a 19-year-old engineering major from Penn State University.

Right Ring | Bullright

McCabe muddies the swamp water

McCabe pens an editorial in the Washington Post. This man is sick like his mentor.

Just as disgusting as the leadership and things he was party to is this excuse of a self-defense, using the entire FBI to make it.

In totally political hubris, he broadens the case against him as one against the entire FBI. Not so. He leans heavily on the rest of the FBI to bolster him as a great leader. Not so.

“I was drawn to the FBI by nothing more complicated than a desire to do good. In 1994, I submitted a special-agent application, dreaming about what life as a criminal investigator would be like. I devoured every book I could find, and binged on news coverage of FBI investigations.”

Spare us the self-flattering noble intentions. Anyway, it is entirely possible to have noble intentions, 21 years ago, and end up as a dirty cop. That is the matter we should deal with: what happens when that person, you insist you were, turns into the one who deserved to be fired? That is the lesson or example recruits and FBI agents should heed.

“True to form, our agents, analysts and professional staff reacted as FBI people always do. They continued to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution despite the political winds — and the unprecedented attacks on us by the president and other partisans — that buffeted us.”

They continued, despite yours and Comey’s misguided malfeasance and leadership, to do their jobs. Interesting though not unexpected. That is of course what respectable people do. A government agency has to be much larger than its lone leader(s).

So then he launches into a recruitment theme on how we need good young people. Again, nothing to do with the subject of his own conduct or malfeasance.

“…to protect and defend them, honestly, justly and fairly. There is no greater responsibility, but there is no greater reward. We cannot afford for young people to be dissuaded from lives of public service by the divisive politics and partisan attacks that now so characterize our national discourse and that, I believe, played a major role in the end of my FBI career.

Apparently you are just as much of a narcissist as Comey. It is not all about you. They won’t all make their decisions based on you or Comey. But possibly in spite of you.

“Divisive politics and partisan attacks?” You and Comey dragged politics and dvissive attacks into the FBI. And then you attempt to use the cover of honor, integrity and leadership to justify it. Those qualities don’t justify what you did, they contradict it.

Ah oh… it seems it was your own corrupted political influences and motives which caused your downfall — not the political motives of others for your firing.

“There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day from your retirement.”

Maybe you should have appreciated and then respected the organization more than your personal objectives or desires. Your actions were disrespectful to the organization you led and now claim to defend. In truth, you are really only defending yourself by using the integrity of the agency — not representing it.

And guess what, Andrew-lack of candor-McCabe, you aren’t the victim here. We are.

Right Ring | Bullright

Motivegate: evil personified

It seems a lot of people are disturbed about the questions of motives, or lack of, surrounding the last 3 or so terror-styled events. I call them that because there are questions about calling them terrorism. I.e. Parkland, Las Vegas, Austin.

The second question has to be does it kelp to know the motive? I’m not sure it does. But I can see where motive matters legally when prosecuting criminals. There is still the matter of what they did, not just why.

Concentrating on motive can take our eye off of what they did. We have a need, it seems, to explain why. That can also create lots of conspiracy theories.

In Las Vegas, it leaves room for all kinds of speculation or theories. And there is a niche for conspiracies in this country. There may not be as many motive questions about Parkland since some vengeance or mental characteristics appear to apply. Austin is unique, at least so far, on motives. We don’t know yet or may not know.

But this not knowing seems unsettling to a lot of people. Again, does it change the events, or what happened? I don’t think so.

Another question is: was motive a major consideration to the perpetrator in these cases? I’m not sure, or don’t see it. And if there is no political motive, officials are reluctant to call it terrorism. Yet perps still do these things to instill fear in people by the act itself.

I am coming to the conclusion that maybe the why doesn’t matter all that much. I have to be content that we may never know for sure. Or it could be that they wanted their 15 minutes of fame. I am willing to accept not knowing, though it would be nice to know.

The conclusion though is what if — other than vain fame — there is no clear motive? What if they just did it because they could and because they wanted to? Obviously they could not talk themselves out of it. So it would have been up to someone or something else to intervene to stop it. Two of them had a suicidal pact in the end, Las Vegas and Austin. So they would not really be held accountable.

I am convinced that some people do things just because they can, or because they are fascinated by it. Or maybe it is fantasy they want to carry out? Never mind that it effects so many other lives of innocent people. They overlook that or don’t care.

In the end, I have to be comfortable with not knowing. There is another possibility the person wanted it to be a mystery that everyone is left to solve. Sort of a ha ha, figure it out. To me that can be dangerous. I don’t have to play that game. Then again, maybe these madman killers just want events to speak for themselves? Maybe that is the point.

On the other hand, people sometimes do what they do simply because they can. Maybe there is a void conscience, whatever. I can look at it that they simply had enough drive or ambition to commit the atrocities. Maybe they want to find out if they are really capable of carrying it out in some twisted plan? One possibility is as bad as the next.

Closure should not require knowing a motive. That can be a game. We know what they did.

When asked about the Austin bomber, the family said they could not believe it. “He was a nice kid.” The brother of the Las Vegas shooter said he was a caring guy, it was a total shock — that could be a motive itself. It is a symptom of terrorism. In the Parkland case, you could say it looked like a foregone conclusion that too many people ignored. Seems it is either beyond belief that the person did it or completely predictable.

What about pure evil? I think that is an explanation in itself. People who do evil acts are evil. The acts define thems. Maybe they don’t need a reason? It is self-definition.

We are left to dig through all the evidence and clues to make some theory plausible. Some people get hung up on the why as if there is, or must be, some explanation. Still the rest of us just sit disturbed and offended by the events.

However, these events do raise collateral questions about law enforcement or botched warnings, missed clues. Many more questions than there are answers.

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 they say…blah blah

Firing McCabe set off a rage. With a few extra goodie comments about Trump.

Read, weep, then wipe your feet.

Andrew — sullied his drawers – McCabe:

Fox – “It is part of this administration’s ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the special counsel investigation, which continue to this day,” he added, referring to Robert Mueller’s look into whether there was coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. “Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the special counsel’s work.”

 

While we’re at it….chew on these tea leaves.

NBC NEWS, and Ret Four Star US Army General. Joint Commander Latin America. Clinton Admin Drug Czar. Nat Sec Professor West Point.

Think about that.

That’s how the Dems play the political parlor game.

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

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

Fetus abuse again by PP

In an attempt to out gross itself. Planned Parenthood pulls a new low, even for them.

Life News

Sadly, the United States Supreme Court severely limits what pro-life laws can be enacted at the state and federal level. This is due to the Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which holds that judges can strike down laws if they constitute an “undue burden” to women seeking an abortion. However, that hasn’t stopped us from trying several different approaches to promote a culture of life in Texas. One important legislative issue we have been working on in response to the CMP videos has been to require the humane disposition of aborted babies.

In Texas, the remains of aborted babies may be disposed of by interment, cremation, incineration followed by interment, steam disinfection followed by interment, grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills. In 2016, the Department of State Health Services proposed a rule change, and then last legislative session, the Texas Legislature passed a law, SB 8, removing the options of grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills.

Read more http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/01/abortion-clinics-grind-up-remains-of-aborted-babies-and-flush-them-in-the-sewer/#.WpjkIg6CjD0.wordpress

Instead of getting better, it always gets worse with Planned Parenthood. Or grosser and grosser. What else would you expect from PP, but to fight ethics and dignity?

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

“They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.” – from The Ethics of Elfland

I should have posted this quote alone, but I could not do it. It occurs to me this is part of what is wrong today. The opposite of this quote rings too true for culture. I don’t think Chesterson is even taught in schools anymore, someone who contributed so much.

There’s a movement by the Catholic Church to sanctify him. Chesterson honored God in what he did. All the more reason he is marginalized from society.

So if they are not teaching him, you can say par for the times of ours. However, if this all continues, at some point they may not know how to teach it — being too impractical.

Conditioning

You can see it in this shooting. To take the general view that people forego principles and morality to accept culture as just the way it is, then it alters what we do. It lowers the standard. It rationalizes morality away. It becomes a state of these are the circumstances we live with now. We act accordingly and presume to be excused because of it all.

We can/do teach that in schools: these are just the conditions we are dealt. Teach that shootings are now normalcy. Just accept that is the way it is.

Chesterson was making a point to say that you don’t have to take that view, or concede your fundamental beliefs and principles. That is much the reason we got to this state.

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

The Swamp is heavily defended

In this strange upside down and inside out world we find ourselves in, it looks like the Dep of Justice is actually the protector of the swamp. Call it a guardian or caretaker.

Ten years ago I might have mockingly wrote that as a joke. Now I only wish it were a joke. Can this please be a joke or an SNL skit that I’ve seen just before dozing off and having this nightmare? The irony of that is just about as wacky as the very idea. But we don’t get to write the script, we are living it out.

With all the latest revelations about texts, then missing texts, refusals to provide documents to Congress, a former AG meeting with Clinton on a tarmac, to an FBI Director who demanded an independent counsel after being fired, it seems anything is possible. And that is just the point, nothing is normal. My worst fears are real, it is all true.

On a daily basis more comes out. If you thought Deep State was a conspiracy theory, you no longer have the liberty to laugh it off or pretend it is not. There is a conspiracy.

Offended? I suppose so. But if you spent all your time being outraged you would wear yourself out before the whole story comes out. Another issue is the selectivity of news reporting about any of it. They don’t want to. It’s like media is on strike refusing to report real news, instead just making up a convenient story line to suit their fancy.

So I, like so many of us, go from one outrage to the next. I’m sick of the perpetual outrage, sick of being offended to my inner being. I’m sick of the moral outrage when wrong is right and right is wrong. The nightmare is real and it doesn’t seem to be coming to an end. It develops new plots and turns daily.

If what has been happening was supposed to wake you up, well, once you are awake then what can you do? The only people who are not outraged about any of these actions are the left. Their silence about it is chilling.

At the heart of the Deep State is its defense. (and at the heart of the swamp is its ecological, biological system)

The offensives continue on common sense and reasoning. Is it a dumbing down of America or just the effects of politicizing everything? Either way, they don’t want you to know.

At the height of this upside down chicanery, the real truth is crystallizing about the Deep State and those who support it, ie, the media, the left and all areas of the Swamp. When faced with the power and influence of Deep State, we see who is willing to protect it. It is now clear the supreme guardian of the Deep State is no less than the DOJ itself.

I’ve long associated Deep State with bureaucracy and especially the state Department but its tentacles are far wider than that. Now we find out that the protector and apologists for it is the Department of Justice. Who tasked them with that duty and responsibility above all else — like keeping America safe and preserving justice and rule of law — to defend Deep State? Of course that is by default the preservation of the Swamp.

So the effects we are seeing of the corruption that went on is bad enough. Indeed that even penetrated the DOJ as well. But when it came down to exposing it, the DOJ stepped right in to preserve and protect the Deep State Swamp — to cover their butts.

Recently we saw how the Menedez corruption trial ended, in a hung jury. This reinforced the claim that it is very tough to get a conviction on corruption and bribery. Maybe William Jefferson’s freezer of cash would not be a problem now? In fact, that case is now under reconsideration. Jefferson will be released after a judge revised the charges.

The New Orleans Advocate – 10/5/17

The decision marked the latest upending of a political corruption conviction since the high court set tighter limits on what qualifies as an illegal quid pro quo in politics.

In a unanimous 2016 decision tossing out the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an official act “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power.”

Roberts added that “setting up a meeting, talking to another official or organizing an event — without more — does not fit that definition of ‘official act.’ “

It was recently announced they will not seek a new trial against Menendez.

“DOJ” now stands for Dep of Obstructing Justice. Like it or not, that’s what we have. The old line is that its not the crime but the coverup. The DOJ is complicit in the corruption and in the cover up. But it was supposed to be sacred (neutral) ground that only cared about one thing, justice.

That all changed under Obama. It became the seat of the corruption — the pinnacle. Then it morphed into its defender of record as the news leaked out. Democrats in Congress want to make sure that the corrupt and politicized DOJ stays in place.

There goes your and my nightmare in a loop cycle.

In fact, they tried to make it impossible for Trump and his administration to fire anyone. If you have the president under investigation, it turns out that only makes you immune from firing. But make no mistake who the real guardian-in-chief for Deep State has been.

Add the failures of FBI to do its job in terrorism or high profile investigations. And they wonder why we are losing confidence in the DOJ itself? It is at the heart of the Swamp.

Right Ring | Bullright