Mayor Carmen Cruz the terrorist supporter

Well, that didn’t take long. The lamestream media made an instant hero out of the San Juan mayor, to oppose Trump. Now they’re entwined with the terrorist supporter.

BUSTED: Anti-Trump Puerto Rican Mayor Supported Terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera

Got News – Sep 30, 2017

Carmen Yulin Cruz, the anti-Trump Mayor of San Juan who has used the national spotlight of Hurricane Maria to attack Trump, has a long history of supporting convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican radical who ran a paramilitary group that waged war against the United States.

Since May 29th, 2012, Cruz has used her official Twitter account 49 times to lend support to Lopez, a man arrested by the United States government in May of 1981 for seditious conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to transport explosives to destroy government property, among other charges. Later that year, Lopez was sentenced to 55 years in jail for his various crimes.

Moreover, it appears Cruz is more than just a supporter of Rivera’s; she appears to be a personal friend of his. On May 29th, 2016, Cruz posted a tribute to Rivera, and wrote “for a great friend, a great patriot: for you Oscar Lopez Rivera.” …/

Read http://gotnews.com/busted-anti-trump-puerto-rican-mayor-supported-terrorist-oscar-lopez-rivera/

Maybe she should drop the Resistance program and concentrate on the assistance.

Advertisements

CNN gets dose of Anthem reality

CNN’s David Axelrod does an interview with James Baker and jumps on the flag National Anthem protest ‘controversy'(everything is a controversy to CNN). But he doesn’t get the answer they wanted.

“There are plenty of ways that you can, that you can call into question some of the racism that may still exist in this country, but that’s the wrong way to do it,” Baker said, adding that being American used to be “the one thing” that unified people.

“You can’t tell me that not standing up for the National Anthem with your hand over your heart is not denigrating to the National Anthem or the flag… it is,” Baker told Axelrod.”

Right, don’t try to tell us this is not a disrespectful protest of the flag, National Anthem or America. Bozos. Now the left is too damn dumb to know what American dissent looks like. They just pretend it isn’t anti-America.

Sad Sackers football flop

Green Bay are now the Sad Sackers. Thursday, the Packers tried to recruit fans to lock arms for a Kodak-moment display of solidarity with the anti-American, anti-cop protest agenda but it backfired. They got a protest returned from fans when they booed them.

Do football teams and the NFL really want to die on that hill? Apparently so. They now think they can browbeat or shame fans into joining them? Good luck with that.

Ref: http://truthfeednews.com/clueless-green-bay-packers-invite-fans-to-join-anthem-protest/

Clap-Trap Clapper

Clapper’s mouth just keeps moving, now as an analyst on CNN.

CNN

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Friday night that the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race “cast doubt” on the legitimacy of President Donald Trump’s victory.

“Our intelligence community assessment did, I think, serve to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory in the election,” Clapper said on CNN’s “Erin Burnett Out Front.”

NFL Goes Full-Blown Protest Mode

PC crap, here is NFL’s new ad on unity — I suppose that is the message. But you figure out what “inside these lines” means….or is supposed to mean.

So game day turned to P/C day.

Steelers announced they would stay in the locker room for the National Anthem.
All but one of the Steelers stayed in the locker room for the opening. (*later revealed they were in the shadows of the stadium.)

Hey, Steelers, I got a real protest for you:
Just stay in the locker room ….if you really want to protest.
Sit out the game. Stay off of the field …show us you can really protest.

All these teams protesting now. What’s next, eliminate the National Anthem… maybe flag burning? The Anthem could be too divisive, so just eliminate it. Is that where this is going?
You want to protest, cancel the game. See how that goes.

Roger Goodell called Trump’s remarks about flag and National Anthem protests “divisive”.

Goodell issued a statement Saturday

The following statement is in response to President Donald Trump’s comments last night…

STATEMENT FROM NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL

The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month. Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.

Roger, what is divisive is this protest crap taking part of opening ceremonies, now that is divisive. Lack of respect for the NFL? You deserve respect? Seriously, the irony of that.

This is not football day, this is National Protest Day.
Call it what it is….but football has absolutely nothing to do with it. So why there?
It is only another public opportunity for glorified protest.

But don’t blame President Trump or our NFL Boycott then.
But don’t, don’t demonize and condemn our protest of you.

“Get your protest here….get ’em while they’re hot!”

National Protest America Day, fireworks to follow.

Right Ring | Bullright

Big Picture, Big Story

After Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation comes this second installment.

I think this is a big story. And I think Trump was right that it is a big story, bigger than people know. Home run, we got us a story here.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

Rice denies engaging in improper political spying
BY: Bill Gertz | September 19, 2017 | Washington Free Beacon

Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice told a House committee this month she requested the identities of Trump transition aides that were hidden in sensitive intelligence reports to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

Rice testified before a closed session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Sept. 6 that she asked U.S. intelligence agencies for the names of Trump advisers to be unmasked in transcripts of communications intercepts.

Rice asked for names to be unmasked in a transcript of an electronic intercept involving a meeting between three senior Trump aides and a United Arab Emirates official who had traveled to the United States for an informal visit.

The three officials included candidate Donald Trump’s national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn; presidential campaign chief executive Steve Bannon; and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, according to CNN, which first reported on Rice’s closed-door testimony.

Details of Rice’s testimony on the unmasking of Trump aides were made public Sept. 14, quoting unidentified government sources, and included comments from members of Congress who did not dispute the closed-door testimony.

Rice’s disclosures before the intelligence panel appear to contradict earlier statements she made asserting that she had no knowledge of the unmasking of Americans, the process of identifying the names of Americans who are protected by privacy laws and who are incidentally spied on during sensitive foreign electronic intelligence operations. …/

“I think the Susan Rice thing is a massive story. I think it’s a massive, massive story. All over the world,” Trump said, adding cryptically, “it’s a bigger story than you know.”

Rice’s testimony before the House committee is part of a committee investigation into allegations of improper intelligence gathering by the Obama administration, as well as Russian influence operations targeting the 2016 election.

“We know the unmasking investigation is moving forward, and that the intel committee has amassed a lot of information about it,” said one congressional official. “It seems like you had Obama officials doing this and thinking they wouldn’t get caught.”

Read: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-nsc-adviser-admits-seeking-trump-aides-identities-intel-reports/

Maybe we knew or heard most of that before. The difference is context. No, it isn’t in the reporting or events. It seems the momentum has changed. Now, with Rice’s testimony, it is hard to overlook the obvious: that there was some surveillance at Trump Tower and that the names were suspiciously unmasked around the events of the campaign. So there was a meeting with a Saudi prince, which supposedly tripped Rice’s trigger to have to know everyone who was there. Or that is her excuse. Why? Your guess.

They only know everyone that was there, who is masked, because of surveillance. It is so blatantly political you cannot deny it, even if you wanted to. Then Rice refuses to say why she needed to know, saying it would involve classified information. If this is not worthy of investigation — why they were worried about all this — then what is worthy to know?

And now the people know too. See what changed was we were not supposed to get caught up in the how or why they got the information. We were just supposed to hear it trickled out from the Obama perspective, unquestioned. We were supposed to concentrate on their intentional outcome — not the means to it. Get it?

That makes all this smell more like the set up that it is. My explanation:

Maybe this investigation was loosely planned or not? At the least, the information was supposed to come out, somehow, at some point, to make Trump look bad. But it was to be by slight of hand, then passed right through so we couldn’t really question where it came from or how. Then we would be so busy in looking at its implications on Trump, shocked, to be bothered with the questionable means and/or their motives.

This, I believe, was cooked up some time ago. Before or right after election makes little difference. It may have been the ‘just in case plan.’ (JICP) Call it an insurance policy. In fact, they could have discovered enough info on the way they thought could be useful blackmail material. Maybe not a lot, just enough to cause major discomfort, or at least keep people answering questions as a distraction or diversion. But any information found along the way could be useful. The damage is in how the information is used, not whether it is damning or not. That is the weaponizing part. The time and purpose they used it for, the goal, would be up to them. But we would not be able to track down exactly where the information came from — not for a long time with a lot of effort.

That is where there was a problem. It didn’t unfold just the way it was supposed to. When Trump shot off a tweet about being wiretapped at the Trump Tower, it was like a canon going off around the world. We didn’t know why that was such a big deal, since it was obvious to most of us that there was some type of surveillance around Trump and the Trump Tower. We knew enough already. Maybe we didn’t know how deep it went, or who was involved, but we knew it took place. It interrupted the plot. Any incoming Republican would have faced the same thing.

Their problem was Trump pulled the trigger calling it out, untimely as it was, which set off a sequence of events and reactions to his accusation. That began the ball rolling, even though they mocked and attacked him for having said it.

He was not to be so bold as make that claim. It didn’t fit their plans. Then, surely, no one was supposed to believe it anyway. So it went on for weeks, as they tried to put Trump’s charge to bed quickly and permanently. (they: Democrats, Left, media and Obamafiles) It mostly did work; they tamped it down where only people brought it up to mock Trump’s ridiculous assertion. even demanding apologies. That started to screw things up.

That was about the time we were hearing Obama was traveling the globe and kite surfing somewhere in the Caribbean. So statements came out from Ben Rhodes and others calling wiretapping preposterous. But why wouldn’t Obama and his cronies be willing to spy on Trump, especially after he won, when they had been willing to do most anything during the campaign to aid Hillary? Why stop now when it is even more critical to them?

SO their loose plans were interrupted, inconveniently. And they couldn’t put the lid back on it. Suddenly the public outrage kicked up saying ‘wait a minute, he was under some kind of surveillance.’ We already knew that much. Remember how nasty they got in denials?

Now people were questioning the means of the information, not just whether Trump did something. Ah oh. People wanted that investigated with the other. Well, that wasn’t in the script at all. Actually, that was the one thing that could not be worked into their script. It messed everything up when it looks as if there was some agenda all along against Trump. No, they wanted us to only see a Russia agenda. (just as they did during the campaign.)

Anything else was very inconvenient. Must demonize Trump. Put him down and keep him down. Delegitimize him. But do not expose their creative, political, informational techniques. It usually does come down to narrative to the left. When they can control the narrative, they are ahead. But interrupt or change their narrative, they have a problem.

This was a big shift exposing the corrupt means, machinery, behind their Russia narrative. Like in Wizard of Oz, we weren’t supposed to see that part. That changes their whole story line. We were supposed to see the what, not the how or why. It blew up their plot.

The same applies to the Mueller and company. The investigation was to justify itself. The fact that they got a special counsel established — not the how or why — was supposed to convey legitimate authority for it and perception of “must be some wrong doing” then. Democrats and media touted that it exists therefore is justified — or else it wouldn’t.

The same rules, or lack of, also applied to Manafort’s no-knock raid. “If they got that warrant then it was justified.” If FISA or any judge issued it, there were legitimate grounds. And we certainly need not know why. The process is supposed to justify itself.

The same faulty premises applied to the surveillance. If there was surveillance, then obviously it must have been (a)legal and (b) justified by its existence alone. Never mind the reason. Which, in the case of Democrats, an outgoing president, a radicalized administration and party, after a terrible election loss, is entirely questionable.

Especially if the entire basis for said investigation is due to Democrats losing the election — or Trump winning. Never mind all the shenanigans that happened repeatedly on the left.

Therefore, it makes it easy for them to say any surveillance would have to be justified — or it wouldn’t have happened. See this is the way of using the process, corrupted as it is, to justify all their misconduct. That process and their creativity using it, is not to be questioned in any way, according to Dems. ‘Trust us.’ Then, as a backdoor guardian, if anyone can explain or sell this way of thinking, it would be media — their chief ally.

Meanwhile, let’s also pretend not to have noticed what is really taking place in front of us: the complete litigation of the election and outcome of it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Entering the Sphere of Influence in Investigation

Mueller Scorches the Earth

by Andrew C. McCarthy September 23, 2017 | National Review

His pre-dawn raid was meant to intimidate Manafort, not just to collect evidence. Robert Mueller’s sprawling special-counsel investigation is playing hardball. It was not enough to get a search warrant to ransack the Virginia home of Paul Manafort, even as the former Trump campaign chairman was cooperating with congressional investigators. Mueller’s bad-asses persuaded a judge to give them permission to pick the door lock. That way, they could break into the premises in the wee hours, while Manafort and his wife were in bed sleeping. They proceeded to secure the premises — of a man they are reportedly investigating for tax and financial crimes, not gang murders and Mafia hits — by drawing their guns on the stunned couple, apparently to check their pajamas for weapons.

Mueller’s probe more resembles an empire, with 17 prosecutors retained on the public dime. So . . . what exactly is the crime of the century that requires five times the number of lawyers the Justice Department customarily assigns to crimes of the century? No one can say. The growing firm is clearly scorching the earth, scrutinizing over a decade of Manafort’s shady business dealings, determined to pluck out some white-collar felony or another that they can use to squeeze him. You are forgiven if you can recall only vaguely that supposition about Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage against the 2016 election was the actual explanation for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. To the extent there was any explanation, that is. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, did not comply with the regulations requiring a description of the crimes Trump’s Justice Department is too conflicted to investigate, purportedly necessitating a quasi-independent special counsel.

The way it’s supposed to work, the Justice Department learns of a crime, so it assigns a prosecutor. To the contrary, this Justice Department assigned a prosecutor — make that: 17 hyper-aggressive prosecutors — and unleashed them to hunt for whatever crime they could find. …/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451649/robert-mueller-special-counsel-investigation-manafort

 
So it is an investigation in search of a crime. More, it is an investigation seeking to justify itself — job #1. See justification of itself and its conduct is the central mission. The rest is collateral. And to do that by or using any means necessary.  Whatever it takes.

Interestingly enough, someone else has also described Mueller’s operation as building another DOJ. That gives me pause, it sure seems that way. Just what we need, another department of justice, or injustice as the case may be.

Now if it were up to me to try to explain this investigation(no one is better than McCarthy), this would only be my starting point. The how and why is another matter.

In the meantime, just imagine if they tried this on Clinton. Oops, no they never would even think of it. But there would be no major Special Counsel “investigation” anyway.

(next)

2 Major Problems, Government

There are two things that stand out lately. Take your pick, they go hand in hand.

The thought of a weaponized government, against people, and then that government weaponizing information and intelligence against people should scare anyone. You could say that sounds like what Russia is doing — or did last year, in the eyes of the left.

No that describes our government under Obama’s reign. I could add politicizing government, for its own political objectives, but that goes hand in hand with the weaponizing. That could not be done to this degree without intent.

Instead of the broader left being an ideological movement and just another loosely connected political party, it now operates more like an organized crime syndicate.

Thus, it ( the left) uses any resources or information as a means to its political objectives. Some say “but the left doesn’t all agree on everything.” Well, it doesn’t have to. Though the ends are being served regardless.

What is the solution? I don’t see a simple fix to either of those.Once the government has been weaponized against the country, the way it was in the last 8 years, it is hard to repair. We’re finding out now. And when a party operates that way, there is no turning back. Together, they give us a radicalized government. But we have been screaming about this for years, no one was listening. Like we made this tangled web up?

So it was suggested by Newt Gingrich on Hannity that Congress needs to step up, investigate, talk to all the Obamafiles and do its diligence. Well, except does anyone have any degree of confidence in that happening, even in a Republican Congress? Or if they did, would anything come of it? At least we are finally talking about it. Now the fun begins.

I guess that is major problem #3. Yet look at what stuff government is investigating.

Have a look at one night’s coverage. Teed up and tee’d off.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media disapproval

How about that news media. What happened to media approval numbers? As much as they are critiquing Trump’s approval numbers, look at theirs.

But one message I took the liberty of interpreting was, those Democrats are even dumber than we thought.

To Gallup | August 25, 2017

First, the number,

Story Highlights

  • 14% of Republicans believe news media get the facts straight
  • 62% of Democrats agree
  • College-educated are most likely to find news media credible

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Just over a third of Americans (37%) in 2017 say news organizations generally get the facts straight, unchanged from the last time Gallup asked this question in 2003. But despite the apparent stability in U.S. adults’ perceptions of news media accuracy, major partisan shifts in beliefs on this topic have emerged over the past 14 years. Republicans’ trust in the media’s accuracy has fallen considerably, while Democrats’

The most recent findings come from two Gallup polls, conducted in March and July of this year and consisting of interviews with 1,810 adult Americans.

More http://news.gallup.com/poll/216320/republicans-democrats-views-media-accuracy-diverge.aspx

Compare that to 1998 when ” over half of both Republicans (52%) and Democrats (53%) believed news organizations generally got the facts straight.” And so college-educated are more likely to trust the news media.  Another whopper surprise. Democrats and college-educated, what’s that say for media cred? Pardon me, I smell swamp gas oozing.

Will pollsters also show me where we are supposed to believe media, after their reports on last election, while our approval for congress is in the basement? Nah, probably not.

After the polls and media coverage last year, it’s surprising anyone believes either. Right, Dems want to believe media, and the polls. That must be it. Just look at everything else they want to believe in. How are these polls stable from 2003 to now?

Doesn’t add up, except that there is even more overwhelming evidence of liberal media bias now, and how far they’ll go. They even admit taking a pass on criticizing Obama. All the more reasons for Dems to want to believe them. Democrats wanted to believe in everything Obama said too. So I think this is more about faith.

Hillary finds the worm in the election apple

Last week, I heard Hillary say that big Russia influence operation turned women against her. This weekend she told us that men cost her votes with women.

I figure that now proves Putin and Moscow and men had greater influence with women than she did. It seems Hillary doesn’t speak for women as much as she thought she did.

That piece is from Glamour magazine:
Hillary recounted:

“Sheryl [Sandberg] ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure—and I’m talking principally about white women—they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl,'” she said. “And we saw a lot of that during the primaries from Sanders supporters, really quite vile attacks online against women who spoke out for me; as I say, one of my biggest support groups, Pantsuit Nation, literally had to become a private site because there was so much sexism directed their way.” [read]

That is Hillary using what Sandberg told her as validation for why women voted against her the way they did. Hillary must have missed all those nasty, vile attacks against women who supported Trump. Attacks on Trump were justified. What a one way Diva in Denial.

See in Hillary’s world, women may get to vote themselves but Hillary gets to explain why they voted the way they did. If it were Trump or anyone else, there would be demands for proof. Not for Hillary, her blanket assertions are more than enough evidence.

Note to Hillary

So Hillary, here’s an exercise for you. Sit down with a glass of your imported wine and contemplate out of all those votes you lost by… how many of those votes did you lose because of Trump? I’m pretty sure it was the overwhelming number. In reality, he cost you the election. You lost votes to Trump. I think you need to let that sink in.

Come to think of it: Putin, Trump, and now men cost you votes with women. What’s that say about your influence with women? Then why don’t you just blame those women, too, for costing you the election? Go ahead. You already blamed the people that had influence over them. Don’t let women get away with it. Hold their feet to the fire, Hillary.

Of course after her servergate, deleted emails and Benghazi, anyone who buys Hillary’s explanation on anything should have their head examined.

Or maybe you just had one of those delayed “bimbo eruptions” of your own, Hillary.

We Aren’t Open, Hillary

Clinton won’t rule out questioning legitimacy of election

By Jordan Fabian – 09/18/17 | The Hill

Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t rule out challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election if Russian interference turned out to be deeper than previously thought.

“No, I wouldn’t rule it out,” she said in an interview with NPR published Monday.

The defeated Democratic nominee stressed, however, that she does not believe there is a means to officially challenge the election’s outcome.

“I don’t know if there’s any legal, constitutional way to do that,” Clinton said. “I think you can raise questions.”

Clinton has repeatedly blamed Russia’s efforts to intervene in last year’s election for her loss to Donald Trump, but her latest comments reflect the depth of her frustration with the Kremlin’s efforts.

More: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351189-clinton-wont-rule-out-questioning-legitimacy-of-election

 

Is there any reality she won’t question? I can see, it is never going to be over with Hillary. Hey Hill, remember when you also told us that one about not questioning the legitimate results of the election? A year later and still going. We voted. I know you don’t like how we voted but stick a fork in it. You are now recorded in history as the loser. One and done.

Return the Bong and Weed

Canadian man, 31, stands outside courthouse in just his underwear for a MONTH demanding police return his bong and marijuana – and it works!

Daily Mail

  • Jeffrey Shaver has been demonstrating outside the Kitchener courthouse, in Ontario, wearing just his underwear for the past month
  • The 31-year-old had been charged with drugs possession after cops found pot on him during another arrest for trespassing at a hospital
  • Officers seized the stash, and his bong, despite Shaver’s medical marijuana card
  • He has been protesting outside the courthouse in his underwear ever since
  • On Friday, the court relented, his drugs charges were dropped, and they announced his drugs and bong would be returned

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4892498/Man-lobbies-bong-underwear.html#ixzz4sxsLob00

Okay, I guess this is a sign of coming attractions to expect. Why demonstrate like that, who knows? I’d say no shame may have something to do with it. But glad they got it resolved before it got any worse.

Dems’ two-phase strategy

It bears repeating:

First, the collective left undermined the legitimacy and integrity of the election.

Next, they try to redefine what the election was about.
So the narrative went from border security to all about amnesty for illegals.

Memo:
Obamacare repeal
Tax reform
The Wall
Jobs
Trade deals
Border security
Illegal immigration
National Security
Terrorism
Politicization of gov
Judicial restraint
Corruption
Drain the Swamp
(sigh)

And back to the first. Repeat…

The United Methodist Church And My Loss Of Faith In Its Mission

JONATHAN TURLEY

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

It comes with much personal reflection that after the United Methodist Church’s Annual Conference for the Pacific Northwest Conference area, encompassing where I live in Washington State, I decided to leave the church after seeing what I believe to be the church leadership moving away from spirituality and Christian teachings to a place where members of the hierarchy in our conference use the Church as a platform to pontificate a particular flavor of politics, aligning itself with an American political party, promoting organizations that provide legal advice to those who evade the law, and worst of all having members that promote an organization that advocates the killing of law enforcement officers. This is a sad outcome, but it represents an evolution of thinking becoming endemic to particular districts. I do not believe that most of the districts approve generally of these changes but unfortunately for…

View original post 3,154 more words

DACA Caca

I just can’t stand this DACA debate caca anymore. It’s time for a good old flush.
As if there is any debate, but the caca keeps getting deeper.

I noticed the left calls us Americans deplorables yet cries their hearts out for “undocumented” illegal immigrants. Dems, I see what you did there.

A couple facts:

#1)The reason they are here in the first place is because the border is broken.

Not because “the immigration system is broken.” The Dems busted “the system.”

#2)The only reason the problem exists is because the Democrats refused to secure the border 30 years ago on Reagan. Liars that they are. Happy anniversary!

Now even Iggy knows that if he leaves the barn doors open at night he’ll have an empty barn in the morning. It’s not about having a fetish for barn doors.

Dems removed the door from its hinges… busted it real good. But then they don’t believe in borders or security anyway. “Everybody in the pool.”

Something like what would happen to my farm if I had no fences, boundaries or enforcement. I’d have no crops either and could kiss the farm bye-byes. So we bought the farm and Dems gave it away, as much as they could. Never mind their reasons.

Obama illegally created the DACA caca for illegals. And one for parents that got derailed.

Now they demand we keep DACA legal but can’t have border security. Sound familiar yet? They’ll promise some border security, if we guarantee amnesty to these undocumented. So they can back out and screw America. Then they’ll want broader amnesty for the other 11+ million more, using their activist courts.

Now whenever I have a defiant bull I find a way to control it before it can do any damage. I don’t grant it amnesty. But Iggy still has doors on his barn too, for a good reason.

They want amnesty for DACA so they can screw USA again. What part of screw America don’t we get? Anytime anyone tries to talk me into forfeiting my barn doors and fences I get a little suspicious. So goes the pussheads on the left.

Now where is that branding iron?

Deplorable Hillary waste: oooh that smell

Hi, Iggy Bliss here. It’s been a while but I’m back after composing my thoughts from the election. (winning can do that to you)

But after Hillary came out with her new book, I just couldn’t re-restrain myself. The queen of “what difference at this point does it make?” has not lost her edge. Now she says “it’s happening!”

Well, I’ve been around the barnyard here for a long time, with all the animals, but I never smelled a nasty pile like that before. Ol’ Iggy knows the difference between hog waste and horse manure. And I think she invented a whole new waste category.

Most of us deplorables, and even barnyard animals, are more tuned into reality than that has been IS. She’s flat out delusional

Here is what she said on Twitter:

So Hillary, you will be “fighting” with everything you have against the rule of law, Constitution, and the American people. Thank goodness you lost, you harlot

Then she does an interview with Anderson Cooper and, asked about going to the inauguration, Hillary said, “I am inflicted with the responsibility gene.”

Call me tared and feathered. She has the responsibility gene? The bitch busts out her new book like she’s breaking out a bottle of Dom Pérignon(’59). Sorry, Hillary, the lies weren’t that good the first time around. But she breaks it out the day after 911. That date is not a surprise or floating date every year.

Yet you picked that day. As they say, “if it happens” in politics “you can bet it was planned that way.” Vintage Dom Pérignon it isn’t. My cousin Carl makes better stuff than that out behind his shed. Maybe you should have had a swig of that stuff before writing a book.

On Russia and Trump, she sees communications, meetings and phone calls and maybe financial intermingling to validate collusion. She says it is bigger than Watergate. Remember she tipped us off in the 90’s about the vast right-wing conspiracy after her husband for years. I got your tip right here, Hillary. All 4 of ’em.

She believes Russia had a “highly sophisticated influence operation” that cost her votes. Thus, she lost the election. But back up! So in her world, Hillary was so good it took Moscow to take her down. Well, with the help of the other culprit, Comey, who she credits with costing her the election. Hey, does that mean Moscow, Putin and Comey colluded?

She’s also more interested in “cleaning her closets” than worrying about her corruption catching up to her — like jail time. Hillary talks about closets? Please remind Hillary that there aren’t any closets in Leavenworth. But so nice for her to leave Bubba clean closets for his new floozy. (she won’t be wearing jumpsuits) She will be breaking into your stash of Dom Pérignon on special occasions, like your sentencing anniversaries.

Hillary says she is deeply committed, to being involved in politics, so Democrats don’t lose ground. Good, she has a lot of experience at losing to share with them.

I think the sun has been beatin’ on that deplorable loser’s pile for too long. If Sarah Palin wrote that book, Hillary Clinton would be the first person out screaming “Bullshit!”

Iggy’s got some stalls to muck out…..Hillary should have done that before her book.

I’ll be back when politics get too squeamish for prime time pussheads.

Clintons, Hurricanes, and 911 Anniversaries

Clintons, from the 90’s till now, will just not go away.

Bill Clinton keeps his feet in the Fundation business, and Hillary can’t even let go of the last election. She’s obsessed and Bill is possessed.

Once again, Hillary is sucking all the oxygen out of the room saying “It’s Happening!” Her book is happening, I guess, but she isn’t. Everyone was dying for her book?

Progressives have long been rewriting history, but now they want to revise it in real time.

Bill Clinton is banging the kettle to tell us to donate to disaster relief for hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Like he needs to tell us? The extorter-in-chief of disasters cares.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Hillary wastes no time rolling out her revision of the election.

Timing is everything. Hillary opens her book sale the day after 911, Never Forget anniversary. Also the date of the Benghazi attack 5 years ago, which Hillary never did take responsibility in. And two days after the devastating Florida Hurricane Irma. Move over Irma, Hurricane Hillary is on the loose. She stuck her finger in two eyes at once.

After the biggest US election, suffering a historical defeat, she now needs to tell us “What Happened”. The people happened, Hillary. Benghazi happened. Pay to play and corruption happened. Deleted emails happened. Lying and obstruction of justice happened. Now she is full of explanations to tell us “What Happened.” No, she owed us explanations for her actions for the corruption and obstruction, not self-righteous election revision.

She should be in jail not signing books. The Politics of Arrogance.

Right Ring | Bullright

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright