New Deal…. Old Problem

If the 2020 scrimmage warm up is teaching us anything, it is holding up a reflection of what our future really could look like with champions of doom. Not a pretty picture.

I know, some past elections were a positive time of reflection when we could look at what is ahead with enthusiasm. It re-energized people on the concept of what is possible. But that is reversed in this election. With fear and anxiety we can look at what we see roll out in enemy plans. I say enemy because it is.

Another dynamic at work is an old principle. The old mantra is divide and conquer. It has been the strategy of wars and arguments over centuries. But something else is afoot now. We see that unification can be a threat as well. How so?

Well, the left continually hones its lockstep unification. Maybe their objective is to divide us but their unity is much of the problem. This mob mentality grows its obsession to stomp over anything in its way. Unity is its holy grail. The right never operated like that. But mob rule has had its successes over years. Worse, it has had a wearing effect on the right.

Think of all the media has done in 2 years. It’s goal is to break the enthusiasm of the right. Tear at the foundations of what keeps people together. It jackhammers on the will of the people daily. Dividing opponents may be their objective, but their unity is the threat.

It is a coalition of disgruntled, grievance-riddled groups – all with their own demands – that have united under an anti-American banner of resistance, sedition and disdain for anything productive for our country. Time-honored principles are cast aside.

That has all been replaced by a negative critique of America. It is an endless criticism of the US, what it has stood for and things we held dear as a people. Then it fills the airwaves with its critique, as the prevailing mainstream thought.

This coalition despises any memory of a good America. Progress and forward are code words in its obsession to blot out and deconstruct the past. The objective is to divide us from the America we know, the real America. Does fundamental transformation, of our political and economic systems, sound exciting?

For example, Bernie Sanders did a townhall with Fox in Bethlehem PA. The location didn’t matter as much as the content. Bernie came prepared, like usual, with his supporters.

The questions were asked, how would you pay for it? Explain your healthcare plans? All the questions morphed into his critique on America. Remember too, his 2016 campaign really never ended. So he has been campaigning all along. Everything he said was just a criticism of what is America. Naturally, his socialist ideas were embedded in it. But it was a deacon’s pie of class warfare, political and economic animosity, linked with the promises of free stuff to solve all the problems. They bring their own problems and solutions.

The first problem it needs to solve is the vote. So buying votes becomes their number one priority. He looks to be gaining with young people in that department.

The prescription for their socialist wave is a never-ending criticism America. It’s a catchy habit. They don’t have to answer or be accountable for anything. Just blame it on America. Except they have no answers. Their only interest is in using the critique as a tool to break down America. Break down our will, break down our economy, break down our politics. Then they substitute their mob rule for the will of the people.

So Bernie showed us nothing new. It was all the old mantra. Every question to him was turned around and redirected at someone else. He has a book now, did you hear? Of course he does. They all do. His wealth is justified, you know, while everyone else’s is questioned. Do they really need that much money? Bernie justified capitalism while railing against it. He made it clear he would not apologize for capitalizing on a best-selling book. But others need to apologize for their offensive, greedy wealth.

This mob rule doesn’t have to be a real majority; just a very loud, demanding one. They have never been this close to consummating power as they are now. Then they will align themselves with every evil ally they can. We cannot allow this to take hold.

When the socialists and commies talk they sound so sincere. Though they are far from innocent. They sound angry most of the time. I think anger is their emphasis for justification. It is like a self-confirming tool meant to convince others they are right.

Berine has another rhetorical device. When given any question about a policy, he says he voted against this or that. That leaves him off the hook of accountability? Then he has to answer no serious questions about it. He just says he voted against it. He was against everything, but what he is for should scare the hell out of you.

He also started by saying that he bases his philosophy on his beliefs. That is interesting because that is what it all comes down to, his belief. It is so ingrained in him the word ideologue is not strong enough. At least he admits it all rests on his beliefs. The same as Marxists and commies. And he has a lot of other like-minded people believing it too. Remember how critical belief was to Obama. His whole campaign (and presidency after) was faith-based on belief. He had nothing else of experience. Their belief is the bomb.

Socialists’ picture of America is morbidly disturbing. Well, it isn’t based on the positive.

Right Ring | Bullright

Food and Taxes cookoff

I anticipate that aroma wafting ahead. Every time you want to count on Congress doing something, inevitably it seems to end in disappointment. Why is that?

The trick in cooking some foods is the seasoning. Now we find key in cooking up a tax reform plan is the use of SALT. (state and local taxes) It is also what causes the most argument among chefs. Some prefer salt free and others don’t want to change habits.

How this plays out across America is the largest debate we’ve seen so far. Yes, there are always class warfare warriors. They’ll use anything they can to make the rich vs poor paradigm the whole issue. And they’ll be those who only look at it from the corporate or wealthy side — not particularly concerned about lower or middle income. (as if government is not doing plenty already) The fair people’s minds look at the whole reality.

Taking away something, we see, creates a reality unto itself. The same applies on taxes. Take away and someone surely complains. It is someone’s bread ticket. And we are taught to think and act out of our own self-interest, whether that is on voting or on policy. We are supposed to stay in our lanes, which mostly is how we got into this predicament.

The fight and debate goes on.

You heard much of the debate about taking away SALT deductions; or keeping them in place to protect people in high-taxed states. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground. Now I’m no moderate, but there is no position to please both sides. Or so we are told.

There are creative things they can do like capping that deduction. Maybe halve the amount one can claim? Or how about cut it off by income so the wealthy do not get the deduction? No, do away with it all at once is a tough pill for some to swallow. But why, at last report, will corporations still get to claim SALT deductions?

Except for one thing: if these states are exorbitantly high taxed, then they have been that way for some years and didn’t suddenly become high. That means those people have been reaping the rewards of high-tax deductions for years and years. While low tax states, or no tax states, have not had that big deduction — meaning they kept more of their income out of state coffers. This is the difference in the states, they say. Right, on one hand many people make more in those states while more is taken in taxes, then deduct it on their federal income taxes.

If you look at the whole picture it is a dramatic difference in policy. We have catered to the high taxed states. I think Ron Paul says what government subsidizes it gets more of.

The good news is that taking away the SALT deductions from high-taxed states puts incredible pressure on those states. What we need. Already they are moaning about it. It could be the biggest lever against higher taxes.Their raising taxes gig would be up.

So the point to remember is that the high-tax states have been benefiting on that paradigm for years. They get government to reimburse or subsidize their tax policy. Taking that away sends shutters up their liberal elitist spines. Yet they have benefited for years on that spending, by offloading their costs to the federal government.

Now the truth has hit the fan

But to start with it is a pill to swallow, doing away with that deduction. It does take something away from some people, who are already paying a lot of taxes. Obviously, I never liked what legislators and liberals used to call targeted taxes. Why don’t they call it ‘targeted-voter tax cuts?’ Those were canards meant to apply to a narrow populace. Little bang for the buck. And the I got mine’s cheered it. No one ever cared to address the mass imbalance on taxpayers. So if you are making a lot of money, why shouldn’t you get relief? Sure people at the bottom need some help as well. Loosening the chains on the economy also helps that.

I suppose it is still up for debate and people can have different positions, based on their factors. If we are honest conservatives, we should not want those deductions — or the high taxes for that matter. Both are real. Pull out the rug and the panic begins in state capitols. Good you say. But some people do get hurt. Leave then im place and the game never changes, does it? The elitists and establishment crooks continue on their road, unabated. No, change needs an appropriate force or resistance. Could this be it?

Now if the object was to strike some balance, there could be ways of doing that. So far, it appears there is no list of options.

Also missing in all the highlights of both tax plans is the issue of carried interest loophole, or the infamous hedge fund loophole. When it was such a prominent part of the debate and campaign, even on the left, its absence speaks volumes. People want to see that and loopholes closed. Now that is popular. Why make it all about SALT when they aren’t yanking hedge fund loopholes? Seems money talks and so do interests of donors. Republicans have barely mentioned it. They still need better P/R to cut the clutter.

Its a smorgasbord of interests.

Right Ring | Bullright

House Divided – 2: place your bets

[Pt #1]
Now leftist “progressives” want to cuckoofy anyone supporting traditions, values, founding principles, or our ability to speak up for them. Publicly or privately makes no difference. While those things are only reasonable to us, they turn even those ideas on their collective heads. So it’s a logical leap, to the left anyway, to plunge another step down the ladder to declare that any reluctance to support the LGBT agenda is either prejudiced or hate speech. Now they claim courage is best defined by Bruce Jenner in his sex change.

Never mind that for centuries we thought we knew how courage was defined. And dare you call courage something related to the military or war, or standing for freedom. Then the Left gets all bent out of shape at using the term courage toward soldiers. Use the term courage toward Chris Kyle, or American Sniper, and you get the ire of the left. How many other names or labels did they define him with?

Now it’s even gone another step lower on the integrity scale, to endorsing a field trip to a sex shop for middle school students. They will probably define that as a courageous stand — and no apology needed. Who do those parents think they are? What’s it to them?

A while back a public school teacher was compelled to apologize for having 5th grade kids send get well cards to a convicted cop killer in prison, and filling them in on his circumstances. But when she made her “apology,” people in the crowd yelled “you have nothing to apologize for”. Is that not revealing? Another thing to call courageous. People cannot even be outraged about that without getting attacked for their outrage.

But if you want to make a statement against police or call an entire police department or city “structurally racist,” be their guest and you’re applauded. No proof needed… surely you cannot deny it is. But when a Christian family criticizes leaking sealed reports about two under age victims for political purposes, then you are the bigot for complaining. The world, it seems, has been reversed and cranked to mach speed.

I posted an old report on Harry Reid taking an anti-illegal immigration stand in the early 90’s. Well, it seems hypocritical enough alone. But in the rhetoric Reid used lies the disturbing truth. Back then what Harry Reid was pushing in his bill was called “immigration reform”. He also took issue with the anchor baby policy. However, as evidenced in the last several years, the term immigration reform has been spun around to apply toward amnesty supporting illegal immigration, even open borders. See how the term changed? Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of the redefinition.

It turns out that things have reversed even in the past 20 years. So what was then considered “immigration reform” is now: “straight up racism. We want amnesty NOW!!! (and the votes that come with it) Borders are for bigots!” What happened? Anyone that can deny the change just isn’t living in this country.

Today doing something unconstitutional rallies applause. Calling a branch of government obsolete and irrelevant is in vogue. People demand more executive orders. Attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU address, bonus points and turn the attack into a campaign fundraiser. Years ago a national police would have been protested. Today progressives and activists demand the federal government take over the local police departments.

Take issue with the death of one person by cops and hold rallies in cities; shut down bridges, roads, traffic, or shopping centers at peak holidays. Hold marches chanting death to cops. Complain about police departments and politicize them. We saw how it works. Have mayors and officials tell cops to stand down while crowds loot and riot. Then ask the government for money to pay for damages. Tell store owners they should shut down and abandon their property. Pay for the political policies of leaders with the property of private store owners. Must be some form of reparations for slavery or something. Meanwhile, the slavery we are seeing is from thugs in the streets. HANDS UP…DON’T LOOT!

Finally, a stand-up comedian with a great reputation says the college campuses are too politicized, or politically correct, for his jokes. Yet an elitist political creature of Washington is paid 250,000 dollars to speak at Universities. No one bats an eye at that. Obama ran his campaign from Universities. The same colleges and Universities declare people speaking about Human Rights abuses are way too controversial for campuses and called trigger warnings. Organized anti-Semitic groups petition Universities to boycott Israeli students — persona non grata.

Protest a man be thrown out of Mozzila because he happens to hold traditional personal beliefs. A pizzeria makes a theoretical statement to not cater a fictional same-sex wedding and activists want it shut down, and threaten its owners. Don’t bake a cake for gay couple and you are shut down, hauled to court, threatened and defamed. Give to certain groups or try to support causes you agree with and you’re singled out if not by radicals as a bigot, potentially by a radicalized IRS. Sell the wrong legal merchandise in your store the government doesn’t like, wham you have big problems.

Try to start a 501-c3 to educate people and be attacked by mountains of regulations with bureaucrats from every alphabet agency of Government, which would make King George blush. Then the federal government seizes entire business accounts because it does not like your business. So do you ever hear liberals and progressives complain about these abuses or actions? You already know.

This is just a short list of examples. All have something in common. What once might have been taboo, perverse, abuse, harassment is now standard protocol. Want justice? Yea, they’ve sort of redefined that to proving your innocence first. King George would have been elated and rolling on the floor.

So the progressive left has big problems with people wanting to have some pride in our country and the rule of law, or its founding documents?

Sorry, I needed a new word – cuckoofy, I like it.

RightRing | Bullright

Speak loudly and carry a big threat

That should be the new motto for the Marxist, militant left.

Michele takes to the campuses to exact her vengeance on America — structural racism in particular, since that is the left’s new code word no matter who is in office.

And in the face of all of that clamor, you might have an overwhelming instinct to just run the other way as fast as you can. You might be tempted to just recreate what you had here at Oberlin -– to find a community of like-minded folks and work with them on causes you care about, and just tune out all of the noise. And that’s completely understandable. In fact, I sometimes have that instinct myself — run! (Laughter.)

But today, graduates, I want to urge you to do just the opposite. Today, I want to suggest that if you truly wish to carry on the Oberlin legacy of service and social justice, then you need to run to, and not away from, the noise. (Applause.) Today, I want to urge you to actively seek out the most contentious, polarized, gridlocked places you can find. Because so often, throughout our history, those have been the places where progress really happens –- the places where minds are changed, lives transformed, where our great American story unfolds.

Then came the lecture on social justice (their definition) and the get out to vote message. Is that all they care about: politics, elections, and political power? Some “struggle” that is.

So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable. Follow what’s happening in your city hall, your statehouse, Washington, D.C. Better yet, run for office yourself. Get in there. Shake things up. Don’t be afraid. (Applause.) And get out and vote in every election -– not just the big national ones that get all the attention, but every single election. Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.”

Raw raw sis boom bah!
Hold them accountable? Unless you elect Hillary Clinton, then ignore accountability just like now. And while she’s running, give her a big wet-kiss pass.

If Michele was pounding the bigotry of racism, social justice, and revolution; then Obama is pounding the Global Warming propaganda just as arrogantly hard to Coast Guard grads.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term.”

So let me combine Obama’s cliff notes for the military. Do not talk about or mention Christianity or Jesus. That gets you in big trouble. Do put faith in the religion of global warming. Swear on the altar of climate change, talk about it all the time. Mission #1.

 

Well, Obama had already done his own rage routine earlier.

Luther, Obama’s anger translator:

HOLD ON TO YOUR LILY-WHITE BUTTS !!!

Oh don’t worry, Barry, we will… we are! (he couldn’t even say it himself)

Every which way…. but lose

This is probably one of the most painful columns I have had to write. Had to out of a sense of obligation. Someone should say it.

Ferg-us-soon and Baltimo’ have taught us something. They weren’t the first riots and won’t be the last either. No, that isn’t the lesson. Most of us are still alive to remember the 60’s riots. We remember Martin Luther King, too. Even that is not the real lesson in this stuff happening.

Like anything else, the real lesson about catastrophe or disaster is what you do about it that counts. Still not quite the lesson. Have we learned anything after the sixties’ riots? It was that people need to get involved in the political process to affect any change. But those were mostly civil rights issues etc, important stuff. Today it can be over one person being hurt or killed, not that it doesn’t matter but that is all it takes. (in truth it probably won’t even take that in the future)

There is a whole grievance industry built on decades of people having a chip on their shoulder. Sooner or latter it explodes. What do we hear about people who go out and commit mass murder or destruction? It’s that there were problems all along which manifest themselves, ultimately, in committing the acts. That’s what we hear anyway, like it was an unavoidable train wreck bound to happen. Someone should have stopped it somehow, before it was too late. Who can we blame? We’re told all this by psychologists, sociologists and professors in Ivy Towers, and finally by mainstream media.

So the potential is there for it to happen, maybe it’s always been there? You are always going to have a few disgruntled people etc. These are the lines we are fed over and over again, like a Christmas fruitcake.

No, I don’t want to ague that they don’t have a point. Sure there are always going to be crazies. We know that. There are always going to be problems, issues, disasters, “tragedies” — however they define the term. There will be broken people, humans, behind it. We may always have disgruntled people: have nots, you got yours I want mine, or whatever their grievance is. They live out an act of revenge. But this is not about that.

This is bigger, it’s about what is acceptable to do in society or not.

It’s about moral boundaries, decay, wanton destruction. It’s about disgust for our system, be it the political one , capitalism, or government writ large. It’s also about feelings too numerous to mention. It’s about a sense of who cares how much damage it takes? The reasons are no clearer than the violence or its objectives. It is becoming all too common. It goes from one event to the next like wildfires. It looks for an incident to justify itself and finds it with frequency. No, you cannot eliminate the causation because they will find it anywhere, anytime they want. You cannot beat them at that game. Find it — some justification — they will.

But we must look at the whole, too. We now have a political system with a win at any cost mentality, whatever it takes. Sound familiar? They take pride in that philosophy. If Alinsky tactics are bad, those are only the starting point and only a means. The real enchilada is in the ends. They can twist any issue into a banana peel to slide off into massive protests sparking riots and looting. We know there are professionals out there who do that. Whatever the last one was will be nothing compared to the next in their minds, progressing in damage and passion. They can plug in their formula to any issue and come up with the same answer and results — protests, rioting, looting, burning down and destroying neighborhoods, creating chaos.

As much as government or some in it try, they have no concrete answers to it. Oh, they say we need economic development, jobs and mo’ money to combat it. It’s always the same patent answers no matter the issues in question. Spend more is the prescription for everything. Meanwhile, our legislators and politicians continue on their own win at any cost campaign. They are not oblivious to what is going on, but which one is really the priority? It has to be their jobs and winning elections above all else. That’s just the way it has to be.

Look at the real problems with the protests and riots. They breed on themselves. And there is always some debate through it, in all the media attention, as to what the answers are. Even after, the debate goes on and maybe hearings or an investigation into the problems. How many grueling studies or whatever have been done? How many columns are written on the dynamics? How many “passions are flared” comments will come out of it all? Still the same thing happens over and over. Then there are the political racketeers who say the answer is voter registration to give people a voice, to affect a change. Yep, we’ve heard it all before. It’s as predictable as the taste of that fruitcake. That airbrushes a sense of legitimacy over the whole thing. “Now if you will only vote we can work this thing, or problems, out.” We just need their involvement in the system. Right?

We seem to forget.

We had the riots in the 60’s and they were told the same thing in the aftermath. Where did Bobby Rush come from, the only one who managed to beat Barack Obama? So they did get involved. Let’s call them activists now. They went into the influence game and made a difference. We’re seeing the results of it play out before our eyes. They have made an impact. And today the very same radicals from the sixties hold higher offices around the country. Look at Chicago, look at Baltimore, Elijah Cummings, Eric Holder, and countless others like Maxine Waters. And they also went into academia to influence society and culture. Then they got control and look what happened? We even got Obama in the White House. He set up a network administration of radicals. They got involved, no? Now we see the fruits — and that fruitcake is tasting worse and worse. (apologies if you like fruitcake — just a metaphor)

Flash forward to what we see now. Even before the riots ended they had the registration drive. Sign up, we need people like you in our process. I understand their ploy to make everything about voting and the process. Has it worked? Has it stopped the problems? Along the way, progressives and liberals have actually politicized every possible thing within reach. They complain about the process being so politicized or that the problems are so politicized. But that is what they have done with every stinking issue, politicized it.

Of course there is going to be hypocrisy, they assert. So what? Well, remember when there were all those Tea Party rallies around the country. They were not burning down buildings, rioting or looting. Let’s not forget the answer in that case was not to register people to vote, or tell them to get involved in the system. No, in fact, it was the exact opposite. They called them racists and mocked anything they did. The last thing they wanted was them to get involved in the process. In fact, they resented them for doing just that. Of course then we had government’s jihad against them, whether they were business owners, running for office, or starting non-profits to make a difference. Remember it was all out war against them.

The very same people and government who now goes out to plead the case for these rioters and looters. We see an organized pattern of backing off the police and allowing rioters and looters to have their way. Then there is an attempt from mainstream media to refer to them as “mostly peaceful protests,” even while it is going on right in front of cameras. But police being stood down sends a sharp, disturbing message to protestors et al. The officials come right out to say let them riot and loot, it’s only property. Yea, who cares about that? The message is even worse and more profound than that.

If there is to be a fringe benefit or quid pro quo to the protestors, it this rioting and looting aspect. Someone gains and someone loses. I’ve said this is all part of Obama’s economic recovery program. It really is, it is redistribution in the most basic form. Sure it is a bit more crude than the the methods politicians and Washington uses. But hey, same effects.

Over the last few years we’ve heard an awful lot of talk about how communities have been militarized to the point of having the same equipment right here on our streets as they have in heavy combat war zones. Yes there is some undeniable truth to that. What do they use it on? Then there are countless no-knock raids carried out all over the country everyday.They incorporate some of the same military-style tactics. Whether it is federal agencies or local communities, the same rules or tactics seem to apply: explain later. And they use them on a multitude of issues. Swat teams practice their maneuvers for use on schools and public buildings. All communities have swat teams with much of the same military-type hardware.

Even so far back as the nineties military tactics were used to scoop up little Elian Gonzalez to ship him back to Cuba, authorized right from the justice department. They had military style deployments at Ruby Ridge and Waco run by Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Lest you blame this too on George Bush, this was alive and thriving long before he took office. Sure there were hearings over it, but so what? They also had hearings over baseball and steroids.

What’s the point?

Well, there are many points. It is an evolving landscape of militarized action on people when government deems it necessary. (subjectively and selectively) Now it has evolved again to the point of making a calculated decision, in the case of riots — racial et al — to hold back the police presence. There has been a calculation to let the looters loot, and let the rioters riot. They’ll stop eventually.

In the meantime, in the heat of the situation, the calculation has been made to let them have the private property — loot. So private property of people is now the bargaining chip for communities and federal government. Let them steal or destroy property to pacify the thugs. Let them have at your property if it can calm things down. It doesn’t buy that doesn’t matter, they’ve already made that calculation. “Why get involved and inflame the situation further? It’s only property.”

Yea, and it’s only private property.Your loss, but then who cares about that? If they are determined to loot, then let them loot. That business or home you worked all your life for, scrimping and saving, is now just a bargaining chip for government and communities. Criminals, thugs and looters know this. The principle is very simple and basic though, sacrifice private property for the greater good. Socialism has no better tenant. Your private property is on the chopping block, whether it is by eminent domain abuse, taxes, “civil disobedience protests” or riots. It is there for the purpose of sacrificing it to criminals and thugs to appease a situation. When we all just start realizing that we will be a long way closer to the truth. Just that they have finally codified that process.

To politicians and government it is every which way but lose. To private citizens and property owners, it is every which way at your loss. They win, you lose — fairly simple.

RightRing | Bullright

The economic activism of the Left

Two aspects of liberal activism share a common theme.

The Left and the gay movement boycott your business if they don’t like your views or ideas. Or they want to force you to do business, while giving you the business.

Here we have progressives, Liberals, Democrats or what ever you want to call them, with their favorite method of economic activism. Striking at the heart of businesses has long been a target of opportunity for the Left.

Boycotting places like Chick-fil-A was their standard m/o when a company or owner did something, or had a social position, they did not like. Yes, it turned into a boon when people countered by taking business to them in droves. It was a reverse activism the Left despised. So they painted anyone who patronized the business into bigots.

Remember how they boycotted Dr Laura and her sponsors? Eventually she gave up. Notice all the times they targeted businesses and sponsors of shows like Dr Laura’s they didn’t like. The Left loves a good boycott to get their collective juices going. They don’t have to know all the details. But of course they don’t stop with boycotts, they actively protest or march against the establishments. The goal is to hurt or destroy it.

Then there was Occupy Wall Street cranking their strategy up a few notches — as only the left can. That just showed how they can roll all their ugly activism into one and still have pols and government pandering to their agenda — whatever that was, and it’s a moving goalpost.(capitalism, big banks, big business, big-government, wages or whatever)

Then there is their beloved crown jewel, the BDS movement (haters inc.), against Israel. Anyone who does business or buys and sells with Israel deserves to be on the list. Anything tied to Israel in some way gets on that enemy list. That is on top of their ordinary protests against Israel. Fuel it with plenty of anti-Semitism. Israel is grounds for protest; or divestment of anything related to Israel. They call on governments and campuses to take up that banner. They call on countries and the UN to slap sanctions on Israel. The reason becomes secondary to the actual movement, it doesn’t really matter. In effect, they want a world united against Israel. No, it doesn’t matter who is a party to the movement or what they’ve done. Anyone can and should join, according to the organizers.

The BDS movement offers a glimpse into the scope of their activism. Anything goes: board a ship or break the law, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is hatred of Israel. It brings on board some of the worst of the worst offenders in human rights. It unites them all — the Left, Muslim Brotherhood, dictators,terrorists, academia, unions — under the same banner on a platform of hatred. Rally the troops. The same formula on a smaller scale plays out on all sorts of the Left’s favorite social issues. Again, the political movement matters even more than the justification or rationale. Politics rules.

The civil rights activists operate in the same way, from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Hollywood celebs engaging in the same politics. Blacklisting people, no problem. Boycotting or running them out of business. Shaking down corporations for money or cronyism. Now the gay agenda, a limb of the Left, engaging their sexual agenda.’ Don’t like a policy or something of a business? This is the means to whatever ends you desire.

Now up pops another tactic: force businesses or people to do business in ways they don’t want. The polar opposite of boycotts. Force businesses into agreements or relationships because activists can. Then use the Left’s staple of government force, against their will, as the enforcer. They always love to have government coercion working on their behalf. The ultimate goal of the Left is having government enforcement. Think of it as the 60s radicals now having government serve their interests.

Use it under the banner of: environmentalism, the green agenda, illegal immigration, social justice, gun control, spending programs, energy, oil and resources development, same sex marriage and gay agenda, abortion, crime and justice, class warfare, wages, union activism, or anti-Christian agenda.

So they pick out those they choose to offend into submission under government’s hand. Morals and principles are replaced by political agenda. Politics trumps all. Now when Harry Reid tells a big lie from the floor of the Senate, it is justified if his enemy loses. People refer to this as “the ends justify the means” but it is worse than that. It is a politics at any cost ideology.(the very definition of an ideologue)

This is their economic terrorism model. Just that it strives to have government run interference for their political agenda. Any wonder we see a politicized bureaucracy and hyper-partisanship? That is by design, after all, and exactly what they want. They don’t want a neutral or Apolitical government, they want it radicalized just like under Obama. It could be the closest thing yet to a utopian model.

You already knew that but it doesn’t hurt to keep pointing it out. They want government to be their big brother, the thug, the enforcer… the Cosa Nostra. They don’t want officials to take an oath, they want them to vow to government’s omerta and punish whistleblowers. (break their kneecaps) It all means whatever their political agenda is at the time. And keep those government wheels well-greased with plenty of lobbying and activism — Organize for Activism and Move On dot ug. Petitions and perpetual grievance keep it running smoothly. (smooth in radical terms)

So activists want to force a business they don’t like to do business against its will, or activists will boycott and ruin the business. Make sense? Hey.hey, ho, ho…

RightRing | Bullright

A few words about the SOTU

You may think you know what Obama will say in his SOTU speech, but I know what he will say. (…so says my satirical pen)

  • Valerie Jarrett could not speak tonight, so I will.
  • The only war we will engage in is class warfare. And that war will never end.
  • I’m officially changing the name “Uncle Sam” to Uncle Obama.
  • Peace through appeasement.
  • Now, for my next trick I will pull out my veto pen.
  • Stealing people’s money and spending it is now called investment.
  • Elections have reactions not consequences.
  • You didn’t build that, but I did.
  • If memory serves me,  and it should….

Just a few of the highlights. The WH has been asking its minions to sign up “are you in?” to say they will watch, so expect much more. Word is some straw men will be attending, too.

Whatever floats the boat

Or sinks it… whichever the case may be. I don’t know.

I’m going to take a blank sheet of (internet) paper and make a big mess. I don’t know where all this is going to go, or where it will end. It will evolve.

I could make a list of things and characters, then draw lines and arrows connecting them. That would be even a bigger mess. So I’ll try it in writing. It could cover a lot of ground.

Ferguson revealed a political tactic, or was it more of a law enforcement strategy to deal with protestors? It started with the governor. If you read the tea leaves, Gov. Nixon thought the answer to the protestor problem would be to let them riot and cede businesses and property to them, to do as they wish. That might appease protestors immediate needs. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and civility, just react to the results. Cops stand down and businesses and property owners are sacrificed, not to mention entire communities.

But then even that was not enough to satisfy the perpetual protestors. Wouldn’t they only want and demand more? Rational persons would think so. When they can let the public be overwhelmed by hordes of others, then protestors aren’t taking on police or governmental authorities directly. It’s a tradeoff to protect the powers that be from taking the brunt of it. Confrontation could be more controversial and costly, they reason.

And that fits right in line with the protestors’ goals who are all about some forced sense of equality between haves and have nots. Material property is a natural outcropping of their philosophy. So Nixon decides to give them what they want, let them run roughshod over other innocent bystanders. That would seem to divert the clash from being aimed at him and his fellow political class.

Is this becoming the default strategy for dealing with out of control protestors? In other words, to legitimize protestors’ concerns in word and, in deed, to let them have their way. Let them shut down communities and resources.There were early warnings of this with OWS. But can they let this go on and on? Though the public at large eventually gets tired of being sucker punched.

There’s that old saying that “you can’t make all the people happy all the time.” So why even try? But at what cost will they try to make some of the people happy, that’s the question?

Protestors got the message and responded in kind. They unleashed their wrath — over exactly what is debatable — on their fellow citizens and businesses alike. Make it as hard for people to carry out their daily activities as possible. Make their fellow citizens pay. Set up demonstrations in malls and storefront entrances; shut down bridges and travel; take over the streets of entire neighborhoods interrupting services and transportation. Make life a hell for their so-called neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with their grievances. That will get their message across, while chanting hate toward cops.

For law enforcement’s part, just let protestors continue in an attempt to avoid a clash between authorities and defiant thugs. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it? That’s what people like De Blasio are doing under the guise of ‘feeling the pains’ of this movement and appealing to its violent undercurrent.

Try writing a letter to your elected representatives sometime expressing your grievances about something and see what result you get. It sort of feels like you are talking into a tin can and string. Even after a landslide election against political elites, they defiantly interpret the results however they choose. It’s as if they were elected to invent reality.

The left’s method has long been to get pols attention with chaos and temper tantrums, and they have. Their defiance cannot be ignored. So much so that some politicians made the decision that a sacrifice must be made on the part of some people, to try to satisfy others. But in extension, it’s the same thing they’ve always done by playing their class warfare. Have one group opposed to others, long as the infighting suits the objectives of the power-hungry ruling class.

Then look at libs reaction from major media to elected officials, to the Stalingrad leftist minions. Days ago they were talking about the situation on Fox. Juan Willams was schooling his colleagues on how “we love protests”… that we may not agree but “we’ll defend to death your right to protest”. But those are hollow words we’ve come to expect from the Left. Look at Tea Party protests and rallies. Defense was not their response.

After seeing emails about what was going on in the IRS, targeting conservatives and Tea Parties, and down through the ranks of liberal media, they were not at all sympathizing with “protests” — let alone defending them. They were all about shutting them down by any means, and using government to do it. Liberals objected and rejected permitting for them, saying they would be disruptive. Remember all that? Now Juan trots out his boilerplate talking point about the freedom of protests. Liberals’ allies in the media railed against the movement, painting them as bigots and racists. Let’s forget that.

Al Jazeera has an editorial that made a similar conclusion to mine but by comparing these protestors to the original Boston Tea Party. (more of a disservice to them and history but that is another matter) After making that analogy, it said we are a nation that has not experienced revolt and revolution — at least in modern times — that we tend to put faith in our constitutional system to avert such. So far it has worked, it continued, and we have solved problems through the rule of law. It characterized the current situation as so out of control, by people so distrusting of the very system, that it begs the question: what it will take to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? It theorizes this might be the storm that does us in, after pointing out popular revolutions frequently happened elsewhere. It was not hard to see where they were going, or how their readers might interpret their hypothesis. So the implication is this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

What to say about such an extravagant theory… only it’s not so extravagant in the scheme of things. We have people dead set on getting their way, despite cost or means, who will call it justice if successful. I resent the comparison to the Tea Party though, but it was throughout the piece. Many of these Leftists have been hankering for a righteous revolution for decades. There are rent-a-protestors and communist sympathizers, who latch on to any popular protest movement. (not so much to Tea Parties…)

It even acknowledges the shortfall of Wall Street Occupiers to capture this much fervor. I had to think a little about that one. But it’s amazing what some good old racism can do for you. Two questions spring to mind: 1) was the tradeoff worth it; 2) do the protestors win and replicate this formula on all grievances? Precedent anyone? Are we in uncharted waters? Can their discontent do irreparable harm?

I tend to agree with some of Al Jezeera’s piece. For the most part, because of the mixed reactions and messages protestors have been getting. It’s something academia has aligned itself with. Race-baiters and racists have found a niche. Marxists found another vehicle. Why would any of its factions want to let go when it seems they are getting something in return? Do cops being executed bother them? Not in the least.

But many of these organizers always accused the Right or Tea Partiers of stirring up contempt and anti-government sentiments, holding them responsible for things like Gabby Gifford’s shooting. How quickly the Left and racists have come full circle to endorsing an anything goes, by any means strategy. I do mean anything goes.

The race and all the other interests are becoming mere factors of the whole, or turning into a means within a means. Is it life boat time?

Ref: The spirit of the Boston Tea Party returns – Al Jazeera America

RightRing | Bullright

Time for a dialogue about national conversations

The Left often talks about “conversation” but the word is a euphemism for getting their way.

National Conversations Are Worthless

Column: Especially when Al Sharpton is talking
BY: Matthew Continetti | Washington Free Beacon
December 12, 2014

Activists outraged at the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are not only causing traffic jams and disrupting holiday shopping. They have a new target: President Obama, who the radicals say isn’t doing enough to rectify injustice.

What about opening investigations into the white police officers who killed the unarmed Brown and Garner, what about inviting Al Sharpton and Bill De Blasio to the White House, condemning the decisions of grand juries not to indict the policemen, and calling the ensuing unrest, which has included looting and arson, “necessary” to prick “the country’s conscience”?

Meh. Those things do not appease the left, which never takes yes for an answer.

“Mr. Obama has not been the kind of champion for racial justice that many African-Americans say this moment demands,” reports a disappointed New York Times. For example, Obama “has not stood behind the protestors.” He has not “linked arms with civil rights leaders.” He hasn’t even posed in an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt.

The activists don’t want Obama in the Oval Office. They want him on the picket line. They want to bully the president “into seizing on the post-Ferguson anger.” And they might be winning: “White House advisers say addressing the nation’s racial conflicts is now an imperative for the president’s final years in office.”

Uh-oh. If the president has any sense, he’ll make sure this pledge is as worthless as his red lines in Syria. Sixty-seven percent of adults rate their local police good or excellent, according to a recent poll. A majority of the public already disapproves of Obama on race. As do 57 percent of whites. Does the unpopular Obama (or his potential Democratic successors) really want to see how high this president’s disapproval rating can go?

America does not need another “national conversation on race.” The previous one, which lasted from 1997 to 1998, was so utterly useless that hardly anyone remembers it. President Clinton delivered speeches, convened town hall meetings, empaneled an advisory board, and issued a report on race relations. It went nowhere.

Why? Because the public forums were characterized by self-indulgence, protest, confusion, miscommunication, and acrimony. The advisory board presented the view of race from Harvard Yard. Affirmative action was defended when it was not ignored, its critics muted. […/]

More: http://freebeacon.com/columns/national-conversations-are-worthless/

Funny how all the talk about “dialogue” and “conversation” is really cover for protests, arrogance and lawlessness. As I have said many times, it is now(if it ever was) almost impossible to have a true conversation with Liberals, especially in the collective. Progressives don’t discuss, they react. Their perception is to be considered fact.

Sure you can go through the motions. One can pretend, as Obama did, that he had some conversation with others who disagree.  When two or more parties are interested they can have a discussion. When the interest is not there, you have nothing but words.  Cut to the chase that with the Left, progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or whatever you want to call them, ideology rules.  They are not interested in conversation.  They are interested in getting their way.

When you put race or other issue into the mix, Liberals will dominate the issue to the point of browbeating anyone who disagrees in the same way. So they don’t want conversation. They want to make demands, such as what rules should be used with protestors. They want to limit their opposition in any way they can. And anything they take on is considered a “civil rights” matter, from abortion to cross-dressing or gay pride parades.

You only have to look at the trail of damage and victims to get the point. Michael Brown and the Ferguson protestors caused more victims than they ever prevented. Mike Brown was an excuse. But they call that social justice. We often chuckle at their tactics and strategies, when we aren’t crying at the damage they cause, namely because it is so predictable. The victims and damage they cause is justified as righteous. Think what they did in unison to the Tea Party rallies. Now they are back on the bandwagon, from OWS to anarchy in Seattle, now to Brown and ‘what can racism do for you?’

RightRing | Bullright

The steady drip, drip, drip

It’s Ferguson, it’s NYC, no it’s everywhere. In fact, it isn’t black, native American, or other, it’s everyone. And it’s law enforcement across the board.

So that is Obama’s latest on the police acting stupidly, in Obama’s narrative. Only there is no summit in sight on the problem.

Remember last year under the sequester when Obama wanted America to feel the pain of budget restrictions? He threatened us with cuts to fire and police departments. He used those threats as fodder against any opposition to his unilateral agenda.

Now he critiques the cops for their treatment of people. And he broadens it to their treatment of, well, everyone.

His latest statements come on the heels of the NYC grand jury decision not to prosecute police for “murder” or death of Garner, in their arrest of him for selling cigarettes. A case where, once again, Al Sharpton is front and center in the case and reaction to the decision. It’s amazing he can still have time to have a show on MSNBC. But this is probably considered being “on assignment.”

Obama on NY grand jury decision: ‘This is an American problem’

December 03, 2014 | The Hill

President Obama vowed Wednesday that he would not “let up” in his push to address law enforcement issues after a grand jury in New York opted not to bring criminal charges in the case of Eric Garner, a black man killed when a white police officer placed him in a chokehold.

“It is incumbent upon all of us as Americans, regardless of race, region, faith, that we recognize this is an American problem and not just a black problem or a brown problem or a Native American problem; this is an American problem.

“When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that’s a problem. And it’s my job as president to help solve it,” he said.

Obama said the Garner case speaks “to the larger issues we’ve been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year and sadly for decades.”

“Unfortunately, we are seeing too many incidences where people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly,” Obama said.

The president said he had spoken to Attorney General Eric Holder on the phone, and that the Justice Department would have additional information about the federal response to the grand jury finding.

Okay, people are not being treated fairly, and people across the country do not have confidence in the system. That might have some merit in the broader context.

Either people are not being treated fairly, or there is some wide perception in the public that they are not. But when we the people took issue with the border, we were told everything was fine and that we just had a perception problem.

Now based on a few individual instances, he tells us people are not being treated fairly. And that he supposedly stands on the side of the mistreated people. In other words, like an Al Sharpton in the Oval Office. He rolls all this out as if it were just a matter of fact that everyone knows. (contrary to his reaction to what most people think of the border)

Furthermore, if he wants to talk fairness, how about the way he treated this last flood of illegals over the border? Now he wants to lecture us about fairness? Or how about the way the IRS treated conservatives for years? Remember his get to the bottom of this…before his “not a smidgen of corruption” line. But he is a one-man crusader for fairness.

The real dirty truth about Obama is it very much matters who you are, what color you are, what demographic you are, what political party you belong to, or how much money you have, or what job you have, or who your employer is in the way you are treated. This is just how he and his Democrat colleagues see things. Now he once again comes out pushing his old canard about equality, fairness, and victimhood. And if you trust either he or Holder as the guardians for fairness, then you really need your head examined.

Just what we need, Obama vowing a campaign for fairness. He didn’t even demonstrate fairness in his presidential campaigns. And he didn’t push his Obamacare fairly.

Now, he is Obama, Captain fairness. Captain Hypocrite is more accurate. Any time Obama lectures about fairness, look out. These days lies travel faster than the speed of airwaves, especially from the bully pulpit.

RightRing | Bullright

More fallout on Gruber

Live from Australia, it’s Prez know-nothing at the G-20 Summit commenting on Grubergate.

Obama: We didn’t mislead on health care bill

David Jackson, USA TODAY | November 16, 2014

President Obama says he and his administration did not mislead the public on the financing of the health care law, disputing statements by a consultant who said supporters of the bill took advantage of the “stupidity” of American voters.

“The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama told reporters at a news conference following the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

“I would just advise every press outlet here: Pull up every clip and every story,” Obama said. “I think it’s fair to say there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and was fully transparent — it was a tough debate.

From Politico:

“While Gruber was not a staffer, he was a paid consultant whose models were used to help assess the impact of various policy changes being considered as part of health care legislation. Official logs show he visited the White House about a dozen times between 2009 and this year.

More: www.usatoday.com/2014/11/16/obama-health-care-law-jonathan-gruber-g-20-news-conference/

It’s official, not only did they kick the prestigious professor Gruber to the curb, they completely disconnect him to the Obamacare bill.  Fully transparent, extensively debated – and fair to say that?  Back to the lying mode.

Once again, the Oval Office Occupant says he is just learning about this. I imagine Gruber will be stunned to find he had nothing to do with it. All those personal meetings apparently counted for nothing. Gruber is deemed less important than the WH fence jumper.

Politico reported:

When the president was asked whether he had intentionally misled the public in order to get the law passed, he replied: “No. I did not.”

Obama said the notion that any provisions in the bill were hidden is absurd given the intensity of news coverage of the subject when the bill was being drafted and debated in Congress.

Obama is the caricature he attacks

Obama is the caricature he always ran against.

Obama has created a fictitious caricature of his opposition since the beginning. And loaded it with plenty of straw man arguments, too. Most as specious as the design.

We all know what Ohama has railed against but in actuality he is everything he criticizes.Think of the big spending elite ruling class.

  • Rails against racism whether overt or couched and seems to see it everywhere, except in himself.
  • against big business’s influence in politics
  • out of control spending
  • the elite ruling class making decisions above the purview of the people
  • Foreign policy run amok.
  • a corrupt administration abusing its power
  • constipated government, incapable of making good decisions
  • fat cat politicians disconnected from the people.

In reality, he is all that he attacks and more. He is the poster child for abusive government. He is the classic example of nontransparent government. He runs against government failure while being a product of failure. He claims to be the best ally Israel ever had.

If there was an award for lies, he would be king of the competition.

He nick-named himself as “no drama Obama” and is now anything but. Obama is synonymous with failure. He supposedly stands for healthcare for everyone that will save lives, while he is the biggest proponent for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

When Obama ran against Bobby Rush and lost, he was crushed. He was jilted and rejected. He wondered about running again. Now the inner conflict returns. I wish he were just another Congressman or Senator. Hope and change means: hope nothing changes.

In 2000, then Bobby Rush quipped about Obama:

Rush slammed Obama in an interview with The Chicago Reader published on March 17, 2000, saying, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”

So then, why on earth would the black community be so impressed with him now, using civil rights as nothing more than a whipping post?

RightRing | Bullright

Ed Schultz praising socialism

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Praises Germany: ‘Here’s Some Good Socialism!’

By Scott Whitlock | October 2, 2014 |

Liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz could barely contain himself on Thursday as he gushed over Germany’s “socialism.” The country officially scrapped tuition fees and this sent Schultz into a fit of envy: “We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you!” [MP3 audio here.]

After discussing bailouts of Wall Street, Schultz enthused, “This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free.” (Because if a government deems something “free,” that means nobody has to pay, right?) The host concluded, “In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?”

Schultz then brought on socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. In 2011, the liberal journalist declared Sanders his “favorite.”

In 2010, while calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, Schultz lobbied for “socialism” on the airwaves.

Schultz isn’t shy about his affinity for “socialism.” Considering his extremely low cable ratings, perhaps there’s a reason he wants to spread the wealth around.

A partial transcript of the October 2 segment is below:

ED SCHULTZ: Here’s an idea for you. How about a bailout for student loan debt across America? Now, in 2008, the government had no problem throwing over $700 billion of taxpayer money at Wall Street. How about the government throwing 700 billion dollars at the middle class in this country and let’s start with the 20 and 30-somethings and the folks that have college loan debt out there?

SCHULTZ: We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you! This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free. Education is not a right, is it? No, wait a minute. In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?

Newsbusters

Maybe Schultz and Bernie Sanders could form a nice socialist government themselves somewhere. Right, that would require a whole lot of help.

Is anybody out there?

Dear diary,

Well, I’m writing to you today to tell you how pissed off I am….. er how depressed and pissed off I am. Now I don’t mean to bring you down — bad enough you don’t have a choice on listening. Sorry I can’t be more upbeat for you. Some friend I am.

But hey, since you are a captive audience I thought I’d let it rip. I know most people probably complain about last night’s dinner, or that last electric bill, or that traffic jam on the way home from work after they stopped off to buy their Chunky Monkey ice cream. I kind of wish I had those problems.

You probably don’t know what its like to talk to someone for 3 minutes until you realize they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, much less care. Or when you mention some current event only to realize they don’t have a clue about it, so you end up being the bearer of bad news. Then you feel guilty for messing up their otherwise beautiful day. So they blame you, the messenger! No, you wouldn’t know about that, would you?

We have a pretender in the White House but we are surrounded by a circle of truth-challengd activists who actually do his/their bidding. You probably saw my sock puppet criticism. A nation of sock puppets. Those of us with some sanity left are just livid at what they have done to our Republic. It was by no means perfect before but what they have done defies reasoning. Yet we are considered the crazy ones, extremists, the problem, the wackos, the trouble makers, the nut-jobs. Funny how they can pull that off credibly.

So that is the situation here, not very comforting. That’s been the condition for the last six years. The future is no less bleak. Now, with only 2 years left in this regime, they are doing their damnedest to make sure we have no more choice in our situation then than we have at present. Not very encouraging, I know.

Did I forget to mention, they want to destroy any sense of individuality at the voting booth? They have people voting on their skin color, or the ethnicity, or their sexuality, or their income, even reproductive organs. But anyone else who refuses to be pigeon-holed is marginalized as a bigot, extremist, or a hater. And Christians, well, if they don’t fit the mold of the “liberal” orthodoxy and the emerging church, they are discarded as heretics.

On a positive note, if there is one, I’m starting to see more and more people awakened to all the political failures. So far its more of an elephant in the room, but people cannot put their finger on what the nasty smell is yet. They seem to think it must have always been there… just that they haven’t noticed it before.

Surprisingly enough, Islam and Muslims have hijacked our political system and public debate in the country. Meanwhile, more people are being murdered around the world for their Christian faith in the name of Islam. Seems they never learned anything from Jefferson. In fact, they just announced a new caliphate, and even that did not cause much of a reaction in many places, and others rushed to join. I guess they figure its a new social networking tool. ( #hashtag – like us on facebook)

Even as bad, this political caliphate in the US has everyone believing energy is some kind of evil. Anything involving energy has to be run through a P/C decoder in order to approve it. And elsewhere, we’ve even found hospitals that were burning aborted babies for fuel.(at least we think they were aborted) They didn’t appreciate that being exposed. I don’t know if they considered it green or not? Though it could be Sharia compliant, but we’re still waiting for word on that.

The new trend is social justice. It seems that riots in the streets and violence to property is the definition of social justice. There sure is a lot of it being meted out. I haven’t seen so much justice since the 60’s. Well, I don’t want to bring you down, but this sure is not the paradise they claimed it would be. We all waited to see “hope and change” only to hope it changes. It’s not very hop-y if you ask me, but they don’t so I don’t tell them.

I guess I have to close now to leave plenty of time for prayer. These days there is a whole lot to pray about, for, and relief from. Mostly though let’s just pray we can fix the damage being done — with only divine help from above because our attempts aren’t cutting it.

I’ll keep you posted. Maybe I can bring you a little positive news next time. I know you could use some too.

Until then, Love and Blessings… ’cause the world isn’t handing out those.

RightRing | Bullright

Activists Are US: Liberals in rabid political mode

(at a new high even for them)

There are a plethora of areas which tie into the rabid nature of today’s “progressives”.

The latest on Obama’s ‘phoney scandal’ list is the VA and poor treatment of vets, which is an example. There were calls for Shinseki to step down, rejected out of hand.

There is a deeper issue here and its personal with Libs. Do you think the Libs really care about the VA or veterans? They are proving which is more important by defending Shinseki over the widespread mismanagement in the VA.

But first Shinseki’s history. All you hear is he is a four star general served in the military. If you remember Iraq he was a steady voice in the Liberals’ criticism of the war. He was wildly cited by Liberals in their anti-war campaign. Because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on the number of troops in an surge, he was hailed for his disagreement.

Now at the VA, Democrats’ knee-jerk reaction is to defend him, and since he was their VA pick. No doubt past-disagreement politics factor into the administration’s defense of Shinseki. Had he not been useful to them, he probably wouldn’t be there now, nor entitled to Dems defense. That’s my guess. That aside, he became a default ally of the Left. His post military career includes positions at corporations, also contractors to the military.

But the people frustrated with the VA don’t care about that. It matters to Liberals since politics trumps reality. Were it not for Obama being in the White House, and his man Shinseki at VA, Dems would have no problem politicizing the VA situation for political gain. (as if they are out there by their lonesome defending the military – the way they frame every other group they pander to.) It’s what they do.

The White House says they have full confidence in him, and he says he serves at the pleasure of the president. He said he has no plans of resigning. Veteran organizations have called for his resignation for over a year. He might have been wrong there, he serves the Vets in that capacity. Wouldn’t you think he would have said as much instead of just at the pleasure of the president? What is going on in the VA is symptomatic of what happens in Government, and the Left’s mindset. They instinctively protect government bureaucracy. Backlog? Alter the books, fixing the books not patients.

Another issue, in no particular order, is Liberal activism in media on business. The CEO is forced from his office at Mozilla for his past support of “prop 8” in CA. Not that he was against anyone, just supported traditional marriage. He wasn’t out there with a megaphone. But the left went at him like a pack of wolves for it. So he’s out. It’s all part of the culture that tolerates what is politically convenient — even if it is the mismanagement or abuse in government.

Along the same lines is liberal activists supporting same-sex marriage. And you have the LGBT movement/agenda lashing out at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Chick-fil-A anyone? Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty? Oppose their agenda and look out. Standing for tradition is taboo.

On the stimulus, same thing, opposition was hatred of Obama. They distorted and extorted Mitch McConnell’s quote that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” into ‘hatred of Obama’. Then came the mythical “War on women”.

Then you have their defense of ObamaCare despite roll out problems. The defense of ObamaCare stretched from accusations of extreme right-wing politics and branded opponents unreasonable. They did anything to ram it through. Anyone who disagreed was driven by hatred, bigotry or racism toward Obama. The strategy was to demonize any opposition and question their motives.

You have the environmental Nazis in a tizzy defending global warming and Michael Mann, their super hero. (remember the hockey stick) Enter Mark Steyn who said as much in his columns and suffered their attacks, along with National Review, for it. Mann sued both for defamation of character for criticizing his work. Rule number I , tho shalt not criticize or insult Leftisit academia. Buck that and the collective come at you. (by design) But now even defending yourself against their intimidation and attacks can cause defense attorneys to cringe. Possibly even dropping their client.

Along those lines the Keystone Pipeline. The Left channeled all its environmental strength and money to oppose the pipeline for five years. Obama being a creature of the radical Left himself has handed off and stalled the process multiple times. The Left is willing to do anything to “save the earth”. (while destroying civilization as we know it) The lizards’ welfare trumps human interests. Stuck on Steyer; all who oppose them feels their global-warming wrath.

Then we have campuses, universities, and collective academia. This is on various levels on the left’s hot button issues. But gone are the sit-ins, today its about controlling and wielding the strings of government in the most radical ways they can. A pox on anyone or thing that disagrees. It’s called progressive, and so loud and paramount is it that it repels anything in its wake. And the proofs, or fruits, of it are demonstrated across campuses. That’s an entire subject but consider just some of their main bullet points. (Issues coincide with the radical Left, MoveOn and the LGBT movement et al) Not to leave out class warfare — always a popular favorite.

The anti-war left, the anti-Israel left, the pro-appeasement, pro-abortion left, multicultural left, and the big government left, with their ever-present pro amnesty, pro-illegal alien, social justice, pro-LGBT agenda in tow. However, they demand not just in kind support but their full agenda. No a la carte.

What’s new is not just their grievance list or their lobbying power, for their cause, the new tactic is singling out anyone disagreeing with any part of their long laundry list. That is one big difference. It attacks anyone or anything that disagrees. It demands synergy from everyone, despite your own views. And the means is their way, exclusively. No lone cowboys. It plays out in social media, which apparently was bequeathed to them alone.

Start with a few honorable mentions on their menu: Israel boycott, pushing boycotts of Jews on campuses, summer camps on anti-Semitism, and their anti-military lockstep. (they love everything about big government except robust defense?) But factor in the cadre of other issues above and you have a volatile cocktail.

Along comes  Condoleezza Rice and their wrath pours out. Not like she’s Ann Coulter but the same treatment applies. That was only on the heels of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being dis-invited to speak at Brandeis because she did not represent their values. Cair protests and the University of Michigan shuts out the film “Honor Diaries” – calling it hate Anyone speaking to them has to meet their ideological criteria or they get the banner of protest. (that alone rallies their support) Now they won’t tolerate anyone out of lockstep. It sends a powerful, albeit chilling, message to others. If you marginally disagree, you might as well be in full disagreement. Well, not quite your Aunt Nelly’s bra-burning liberals.

Then we have the old standard of the Left, racism. Used to maintain control and intimidation on their enemies, it is their accusation of choice, freely applied. The way it plays out though is the best case against the left. It’s not only militant, it is radical to the core. So the rabid way it treats others is particularly aggressive on campuses where it strives to set the culture precedent for the rest of us. Going after anything perceived racist, or related to Israel, and believing UN and the human rights campaign are its personal tools inspires their activism and emboldens their radical posturing.

I’ve concluded it is now more a culture of intolerance. We’ve had political correctness for decades. Now it is full ‘offense’. More like pc swat teams, pc paratroopers, pc snipers, and a whole armament assembling to deal with their perceived grievances. I’d say they managed to bring all the issues to bear, unified, to make their case. Breaching one pet grievance is to breach their entire code of conduct. If only one side, theirs, sees it as an all out war, then we have a problem. One should no sooner dismiss this open assault than dismiss the Islamic extremists’ and terrorists’ agenda.

In fact, progressives, Democrats, ‘Liberals’, Marxists, and multiculturalists can see bigotry just about everywhere: from the Internet, to reality TV, to board rooms, to talk radio and sports. Everywhere it seems except where blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by progressive orthodoxy; institutionalized in Universities, on campuses, in the administration, bureaucracy, in the Left, the grievance industry, the LGBT movement, the environmental movement, in Party politics and their conventions, or Islamic radicals. Those are just some highlights of what passes for the progressive left’s politics today — which usurps almost every facet of culture.

RightRing | Bullright

The Great Demise of US

Well, let’s start the week off right. This ties to my recent post “Justifiable Insurrection“. If you thought that was a little vague, here are some details to fill it in – complete with insider spook confirmations.

Sources confirm enemies within are close to their goal

March 19, 2014 | Examiner

Anthony Martin

Throughout the history of the United States, the enemies of freedom have always been at work to destroy the foundation and fabric of the nation. But now sources have confirmed that not only have these enemies been hard at work to negate the liberties Americans have come to expect, but they are close to reaching their ultimate goal of the total destruction of this Republic as a free nation.

The tactical framework by which the enemies within seek to reach their ultimate goal is multi-pronged. The first plank was the implementation of a significant part of the goals of the progressive movement in the early 1900s, again in the 1930s and 40s, again in the 1960s and 1990s, and yet again from 2008 until the present.

The progressive movement viewed the U.S. Constitution as its main roadblock to “progress,” which was the newspeak term they used for regression. Thus, they sought to dismantle as much of the Constitution as the citizens would allow under various leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Wilson believed in eugenics, or the genetic perfecting of the human race as a means of getting rid of the “undesirables.” He also threw persons of German/Austrian/Hungarian descent into concentration camps during World War I. FDR utilized the same tactics during World War II, except it was persons of Japanese descent who were rounded up and incarcerated without charges of wrongdoing, without warrants, and without a trial.

FDR also tried to ignore the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court with his favorites, adding new members without the approval of Congress or a change in Constitutional law to allow it. This he attempted to do because the Court had declared many of his social programs to be unconstitutional.

But perhaps the worst the thing FDR did was to rob Americans of their gold. The government had been keeping records of who bought gold for quite some time. And when the government ran out of money during the Great Depression, which had been prolonged and intensified by FDR’s reckless spending, he confiscated all the gold, just like that. He notified Americans who had bought gold that they were to turn it in to the government. And like sheep, most Americans at the time “obeyed.” But then Roosevelt decided like a good little crook that if these citizens wanted their gold back, they would have to pay at least twice what it was worth when the government confiscated it. This was nothing but a scheme, a criminal scheme, to force Americans to turn over their property to the federal government so that FDR’s regime could charge them double for it and help the feds get some much needed money to fund the reckless spending FDR had implemented.

Criminal theft is still theft even when the government does it. But no one was ever forced to pay for their crimes against the citizens of the United States. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-confirm-enemies-within-are-close-to-their-goal

The next report, which he adds daily, is this one:

‘You have no idea how bad it is,’ says ex-spook on destruction of US

On Wednesday it was reported that America’s enemies within, mainly those who are part of the “progressive movement,” are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.

An “ex-spook” as they are known, in other words a retired member of the CIA, stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., “You have no idea how bad it is.” The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. “Think of how far they have come since 2008,” he continued, “Most Americans don’t even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land.” /…

The progressives/Marxists/collectivists are willing to do anything to advance their agenda, even if it means lying incessantly to the public, or even toying with the lives of citizens, using them as guinea pigs for mass social experimentaion.

An example of one of the most despicable of these experiments is to be found during the mid-1960s under President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Very few except those with high security clearances within the government and LBJ’s inner circle knew about this program. Even fewer know about it today. It was never reported or acknowledged. And most who knew the details are now deceased. A few, however, are still alive and well, and they know the full story. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/you-have-no-idea-how-bad-it-is-says-ex-spook-on-destruction-of-us

Author’s note:

My latest entry is now available at my blog at The Liberty Sphere under the section, “Musings After Midnight.” It is titled, “The latest news from the underground patriot movement, including warnings of more gov’t harassment of conservatives, libertarians, and gun owners.

 
This is good daily accounting of the agenda chock full of details.
Follow the yellow brick road…. and daily installments.

Previous post: Justifiable Insurrection. Is an American Spring in our future?

The Anti-Che (…5-stars)

Speaking of true heroes, this is an excellent article.

August 5, 2013, ISSUE

Felix Rodriguez, freedom fighter and patriot

By Jay Nordlinger National Review

Miami, Fla. — Felix Rodriguez seems fated to be linked to Che Guevara. This is not entirely just. Rodriguez loves freedom, and has worked tirelessly for it; Guevara loved tyranny, and worked tirelessly for it. “Two sides of the same coin,” some people say. Maybe — but only in the way that light and dark are two sides of the same coin. Rodriguez had a role in stopping Guevara. He was there, in the Bolivian mountains, in 1967. He was the last person to talk with Guevara — a man who did so much to tyrannize the country where Rodriguez was born, Cuba.
The story of Guevara’s last day has been told many times, in many ways. Rodriguez told it in his 1989 memoir, Shadow Warrior. It is told in a book published earlier this year, Daybreak at La Higuera, by Rafael Cerrato, a Spaniard. La Higuera is the village where Guevara met his end. Cerrato’s main sources for the book are Rodriguez, who was working for the Central Intelligence Agency, and Dariel Alarcón Ramírez, whose nom de guerre was Benigno. A Cuban, Benigno was Guevara’s lieutenant in Bolivia. He was also a member of Fidel Castro’s inner circle. He defected in 1996 — and now he and Rodriguez are friends.
[…/]
Much more: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/353799/anti-che (4 pages)

Of all the misfortunes he had: from youth, to being let down, to a run in with Kerry, and then to have A-Rod be the only Rodriguez the public can recognize is a disgrace. In that photo he is the true hero, not the fabricated one. Today, he is the other Rodriguez. Kerry was also involved then, and now is SoS. What contrasts.

Now we have Obama with his history and ties. And look who the CIA director is.

Obama’ economic recipe for disaster

Living in a communist economy

July 21, 2013
By Alan Caruba

In the former Soviet Union, the joke was “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” It took over four decades of the Cold War to finally put an end to the lie that Communism as an economic system works. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the Soviet Union came to an end on December 25, 1991. By then Communism worldwide had killed hundreds of millions of people.

Now, it is true that America is not a Communist nation, but by doggedly pursuing the theories put forth by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, as well as the historically failed theories of Keynes, a British economist who believed that the government must pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, Obama has been trying to turn our Capitalist economy into a Communist one.

Calling our economy “Communist” may seem unduly harsh, but under Obama and his predecessors, the government is in charge of the banking sector, the health and insurance industries, General Motors was nationalized, the government is deeply involved in mortgage lending and now controls student loans. Now stand back and ask if the government – the State – is not now more Communist than Capitalist?

Wedded to failed economic theories, Obama has utterly failed to turn around the economy after the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession.

Writing in the August 2012 edition of Forbes magazine, Louis Woodhill said, “If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accepting the gold medal. Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all – things are still getting worse.”

Obama still has three and a half years to make things ever more worse than they are. A Marxist in every sense of the word, Obama is so wedded to his belief in “redistribution” of wealth, that he spent the first term blaming his failed economic policies in George W. Bush and blathering endlessly about “millionaires and billionaires.” If the government confiscated all their wealth, it would barely pay for its operation for a month, if that.

[/…more]

Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/caruba/130721

 

It is as if you are seeing the opening scenes of a play, one that gives plenty of hints of all that is to come. The only thing left out are the exact details but you know it is destined for doom. All you can do is sit and watch the sinister plot unfold.

What you do know, after the opening scene, is that its design leaves no way to reverse the course of events. The “fair” that is loosely tossed around has been completely stripped of meaning. All that seems to matter is the agenda.