The coalition against: NRO spells NO

Now that we have NRO and the misfit coalition “against Trump,” it tells us a lot more about their views than it does about Donald’s.

They lined up far and wide to add their names to a hit list to denounce Trump as the Republican/conservative candidate. Fine, if that is your thing. Seems to me that we have been lectured for about a decade now that it is not enough to be against something. What is important is to be “for” something, they say. So this piece just tells you about who they are against, not who they are supporting.

NROAgainst Trump” | January 21, 2016

But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. – Read more>

But therein is the rub. To include who they support would shatter their coalition into pieces. And there likely is not a big consensus on who they do support. Some of those names in there would be Jeb supporters. There are RINOs in the mix who probably would support Christie. But at least they can all agree on who they don’t support.

I like many of the pundits and conservatives in the No coalition. However, how much have they done for us in their influential capacity over the years? Not much and that is the reason we are in the spot we’re in. They can’t show you a recent record of success. That is one of the charges they levy against Trump.

Which all brings us to the next point. When you dissect this so-called conservative circle, you find that there are establishment conservatives. Surprise, what a timely reminder. Here we are with everyone against the establishment (staus quo) even on both sides. Along come these gurus of politics to out one person for not being a pure enough conservative. Skillet meet the kettle. But what do they mean by not pure enough? That’s the question.

Many of them live and breathe the beltway politics. They are interconnected to the RNC and establishment. Some are staunch supporters of amnesty. Some attack conservatives on a regular basis. Many think Cruz is too far right or extreme for them. But for the time, they all get on board to oppose the Donald. Some back big-government spending.

Then there is the net effect. Who gets hurt in the mix, members of the coalition of “No” or the Trumpster? My money is on Trump weathering the storm. If bringing people together to oppose something was their goal, then mission accomplished. Can they core an apple?

Here is one disgruntled viewer of the Kelly File which debuted the sultans of No. In her own words she has a message for them.

    Published on Jan 21, 2016
    I am livid, I am angry, I have a voice and I am going to use it!

The list of 22 conservatives in the coalition Against Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Iron Lady had Faith

Whatever you say, Margaret Thatcher had her faith and it was rooted. I didn’t know this much about it.

God and Mrs. Thatcher: The Battle for Britain’s Soul

National Review

“Economics is the method; the object is to change the soul.” So said Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady always believed that democratic capitalism involved the transformation of values as much as it did the improvement of Britain’s ailing GDP. Yet few people are aware that Thatcher was a woman of profound faith. She had been a lay Methodist preacher while a student at Oxford University. Later, she would transfer this missionary energy from the pulpit to the political podium. The solid Christian base for Margaret Thatcher’s politics goes back to her strict Methodist upbringing and, more specifically, to her father — greengrocer, councilor, and Wesleyan lay-preacher, Alf Roberts. As a child, Margaret Roberts would sit in the pews of Finkin Street Methodist Church in Grantham, listening to her father hammer home sermons on the individualized nature of faith, God-given free will, moral and fiscal restraint, and the Protestant work ethic. If one were sourcing the origins of Thatcher’s free-market ideology, one should not look to the pages of Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom or Milton Friedman’s monetarist theory, but in the sermons of her father.

As one of her chief aides Alfred Sherman correctly noted, Margaret Thatcher “was a woman of beliefs, not ideas.” In this, Sherman above all recognized that Christian values and convictions were central to Mrs. Thatcher’s DNA.
Read more at:

Well, that’s just an extra reason for the Left to despise her, as if they need any more reason than politics. I ran into a liberal Christian woman not long after Thatcher’s funeral. We were having small talk on current events and I just mentioned Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. Just the mention her name almost caused her jaw to get dislodged. I watched her boil up just like a tea pot. “Oooh, I couldn’t stand her” she said. So much for not speaking ill of the dead. All I did was mention her name. The facial expressions said it all. “What about her,” she asked? I said “just the treatment she got in passing with a boycott and protests, kind of sad.” That look was still on her face as if she deserved it. I dropped it but it told me all I needed to know. I wondered what was so evil about her? Where was the respect for her as a woman achiever? That didn’t count for anything.

The Next Trump Question

In the last debate, Megyn Kelly had the gotcha question and they asked the Trump question: if everyone would sign a pledge to not run on a third Party? Of course that was a question for Trump and not really an issue for anyone else.

As the very first question it got the desired result, Donald Trump raising his single hand amid sneers from others. Rand Paul registered strong protest. That moment and question was supposed to set the tone for the debate and future campaign.

Now that we see media’s agenda, what will the Trump question be for the next debate — or gotcha question? Hugh Hewitt hinted at one in an interview with Trump. He asked him about leaders names of Hezbollah and Iranian Quds Force. Trump muddied the interpretation saying we aren’t doing enough to help the Kurds.

We know the process: liberals get “respectful” softball questions; for conservatives questions must point out what they don’t know. Make conservatives look dumb. What will the question be this time? Seems Mid Eastern leaders are in the mix.

So Trump has now signed their mandatory RNC pledge but that shouldn’t be the end of it.

Here is the real Trump question: Roll reversal 101

As they say, turnabout is fair play. Their Trump question only prompted another question about that pledge. How does the RNC demand someone sign a loyalty pledge to the Party while the Republican party has not been trustworthy? Just what are it’s intentions? It almost routinely stabs conservatives in the back.

Suppose someone turns RNC’s question around and works it into the debate. It would be great. The people should be asking how can we trust the Republican Party to stand by us and be loyal to conservatives? Where is that pledge? I’d like to see the RNC and Rience Priebus answer and sign that pledge. Maybe they all should be asking that and demand an answer. Enough of the horseshit about promise your loyalty to the grand GOP. How about the RNC pledge its loyalty and mean it? A pledge and contract. Trump could do that. But anyone and everyone should be asking. That could even be the theme of the convention.

RightRing | Bullright

Election strategizing begins

Brent Bozell: ‘I Support Ted Cruz for President Unconditionally’

by Breitbart News 25 Jul 2015

President of the Conservative Victory Committee Brent Bozell III endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for president on Friday, urging conservative Republicans to rally behind Cruz “immediately.”

“I wholeheartedly endorse Ted Cruz for president of the United States, and urge all conservatives nationwide to rally behind Ted, immediately,” said Bozell in his endorsement video. “The Republican party establishment is counting on conservatives to be divided, so that they can nominate a moderate, do-nothing candidate. Make no mistake: If the Republican Party repeats what it’s done for the last two elections, Republicans will lose. I guarantee it.”

Bozell praised Cruz as a brave candidate who would defy the entrenched interests of Washington’s political class.

“If, on the other hand, we nominate a principled, passionate conservative America can count on to restore her greatness, there will be an outpouring of support,” he continued. “We need a courageous conservative who tells the truth and does what he promises. We need to nominate an inspiring leader, who’s proven he’s willing to take on the Washington cartel and buck the political establishment of both parties. We need a leader who will win and reignite the promise of America.”

“And there’s some good conservatives running for president,” Bozell added. “But we need more than a ‘campaign’ conservative. We need a consistent conservative who has led the fights important to us. Ted Cruz is this leader. I support Ted Cruz for president unconditionally and enthusiastically.”


Original article

I’ll call this the first of many pleas. I knew it was a case of division, but I was hoping it would be with a number of establishment RINOS. Apparently the fearless establishment have been thinking of this too.(Bozell is no establishment) While the number of candidates and conservatives is great, it does raise those prospects.

So short of dividing the establishment RINOs, we have a limited choice. Though I think it too early to consolidate to that degree. But has anyone noticed the one guy that has not seemed very concerned is Jeb Bush? Trump has just been a weird distraction for him so far. Meanwhile, Jeb horded lots of money and his pac is poised like a vulture.

If the doors aren’t breaking down with more estabos, then we have to start strategizing. I take it RINOs are being shooed away by Jeb’s committee. I like Cruz but consolidate just yet? We also haven’t seen a debate or vetted anyone. I am a little surprised by this.

And if so, Cruz better be prepared for the ambush to follow if he unifies support. He will have incoming from both sides. Jeb has in effect had years to plan this run. Frank Luntz already seems to be concentrating on Cruz. Then the Left. I hope he’s ready.

Speak up, if you are a Leftocrat or theocrat ruler

First we had Ahmadinejad come to speak at Columbia University. That went over well, if you were a Leftist academic that is. They seemed to enjoy that. They hailed it as a great day for freedom of speech.

“It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas…

It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.”– Lee C. Bollinger

Then along came Netanyahu speaking at Congress and the Left booed & hissed about that. Pelosi turned her back to Bibi. Congress writes a letter to Tehran telling them how our system works, so the Left cried foul again and Obama’s White House called it unhelpful meddling. Some called it treasonous. What right did Congress have to do that?

Ali Khamenei writes a letter to our youth back in January that the Left made no fuss over. Two months later, Obama gives an oration to the people of Iran. I’m sure the Left has no criticism for it either. (not a Cairo Speech but they’ll take whatever Obama shovels out) Since Obama’s favorite audience is young people, we know his Tehran tribute was mainly aimed at young people in Iran.

Obama would do well to talk to the leaders in the country that rule with an iron hand. But now he opts for a conversation with young people, even though he ignored them years ago in their uprising. At this point the Iranians are trying to figure out if this is live or just a very delayed response to their earlier pleas. Maybe since Ali Khamenei took the time to write such a thoughtful, inspiring letter to our youth Obama felt inclined to reciprocate?

So we do seem to have this back and forth. But it is only ‘not helpful’ when anyone on the right speaks out. Funny how the subject of his speech was “speaking out” about the “future”. Why that seems to only apply to Liberals, I don’t know? If you are a conservative, “shut up, you have no right to speak on/to that”. If you are a diehard Leftist, your voice is always welcomed even needed. It’s called a double standard, something the left loves. (call it the Hillary or Obama standard)

With all Liberal “dialogue,” as they call it, it never matters if any good comes of it. It is speech. If it is from the Right or conservatives, “hold your horses.” It is wrong-based and wrong-headed. As Heiress in waiting, no doubt Hillary has her watchful eye on this back and forth. In fact, we know because she lampooned Republicans for sending their letter in her speech. That came spontaneously, not like the Keystone Pipeline or anything — not even a Hard Choice. That her response came while she was also trying to explain her Servergate fiasco was purely coincidental. (wink)

    Hillary: Republicans were either trying to help the Iranians or hurt President Barack Obama. (Maureen Dowd replied to Hillary with an open letter of her own.)

This freedom of speech is very tricky, even hazardous. I hope maybe Obama can issue one of his necessary Executive edicts to clarify it. That would be ever so helpful.

The quiet operator

Someone is out there beneath the distractions and radar actively framing a run for 2016. This is not an endorsement, but I saw this interesting article. I’ll put a couple excerpts out here. Sort of like some spy story.


Dec 20 2014 | Conservative Base

Enter George Pataki. The former New York Governor is best known for his leadership on 9-11 and its aftermath. However, after recent trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina, conservatives are finding out that he is rock solid when it comes to issues they care about like immigration and common core. “I was surprised,” one long time observer of GOP politics told Conservative Base. “He articulated, better than anyone I’ve heard, why conservatives must oppose common core and why immigration must respect the rule of law.” Other observers noted that instead of well-rehearsed and carefully scripted 15-second sound bites, Pataki is able to go 3 and 4 layers deep on just about every subject, telling you the history and what the conservative, pro-free enterprise solution should be. “He’s Gingrich with discipline,” summed up one attendee at a recent Pataki talk.

With the GOP establishment trying to shove a nominee down the throats of the rank-and-file, the possibility of a Pataki candidacy is refreshing. The recent University of North Carolina Study of the 2012 Election, which revealed that it took 22 aides and handlers for the Romney Campaign to send out a “tweet” on Twitter, is not lost on the grass roots.

Now this is not an endorsement of him. Just someone else in the mix that no one seems to pay attention to. I don’t know if “Gingrich with discipline” is a slap or compliment?

There is a need for someone who isn’t tongue-tied when it comes to making a case. I get the impression he’s not someone who can be shoved aside, if he has the drive. Maybe someone can influence discussion besides Jeb? And Jeb demands a big stage.

Who knew Romney was so communication challenged?

“Angry conservatives” get lectured

Angry Conservative Birds Need to Flock Together

Michael Reagan | May 16, 2014 |

Stop listening to so much conservative talk radio.

Take a break. Watch a cartoon. Go to a ballgame.

Do anything else for a while but think, talk or argue about politics.

Do what I do and listen to country music instead. I guarantee you won’t be so angry all the time.

That’s what I told a bunch of riled-up conservatives the other day when I ran into them at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

I think I really shocked them when I said I rarely listen to talk radio.

What? You don’t listen to Sean or Rush or Levin every day?

Nope. Nope. And nope. They’re all great radio guys, great conservatives.

But I used to work in conservative talk radio. I didn’t listen to talk radio every day then and still don’t for the same reason I bet most country musicians don’t listen to country radio.

Don’t get me wrong. Conservative talk radio is great. But all you hear are angry callers. The only people I hear enjoying themselves are the hosts.

But these days it can be dangerous for Republicans because all you hear is conservatives picking fights with each other over who they want to run for president in 2016.

It’s become a bitter internal Twitter debate between Tea Party conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians, hawks, doves and who knows how many others.

Everybody else’s favorite conservative candidate for 2016 is branded as a loser, a part-time conservative, a pretender to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Rubio’s soft on immigration. Paul is a dove who supports moderates. Cruz is too rash and too radical to win.

The problem is too many conservatives are spending their days looking for the bad in each other instead of looking for the good. No wonder we have so many angry people in our party.

Remember what’s on my father’s gravestone? — “I know in my heart that man is good.”

That’s something conservative Republicans should keep in mind this fall and especially in 2016.

All this factional infighting and ideological hair-splitting is dangerous for the future of the GOP — if it has one after 2016.

Instead of knocking Rand Paul as an isolationist or a traitor to the Tea Party cause because he came out in support of a nominee picked by the party, give him a break.

And give him some credit for focusing on the most important prize at hand – putting the GOP back in charge of the U.S. Senate this fall.

The bottom line is we’re all conservatives. We’re not the enemy. The liberals are.

See page two

So here we go. The only thing is he is preaching to conservatives, directing his dissatisfaction at them. Angry meet angry. Now I like Mike Reagan but come-on. Might as well tell conservatives to stop organizing and coalescing. And this, while the Left is organized to a soundbite. Make any sense?

Sure there are limits and factions, but when we see little or no action from the GOP establishment, any wonder why they are frustrated? Hello, we don’t do lockstep well. Yes, we have wide agreements but the primary season has a reason.

Goody goody gumdrops, conservatives get yet another lecture.

I often wonder what Ronnie would say? I seem to remember his convention speech for Goldwater and he sounded pretty frustrated and “angry”. Again he sounded angry when someone cut his mic. (both went over rather well, too) I suggest it is about how we channel frustration and anger that counts. Doing nothing is not an option for many of us.

RightRing | Bullright

Can We Talk ?

Some things need to be said but the right people are not always listening.

I was commenting on Necessary and Proper Gov’t and saw things that inspired this. The subject there was the shape conservatives are in, and where it’s going. And Jeff suggested a David Horowitz article. It’s fairly long but if you check it out, you won’t be disappointed. Horowitz always brings a good perspective few others do.

David says it is time for a different dialogue. I agree. Some on the right mean well in zealously arguing for conservative ideas. That’s fine, but is it enough? I don’t think so, not even close. Here’s a hint, I know many conservatives get in the trenches and actually read articles. But Progressives do things different. Talking points are spoon fed to the left, from the top,  so Libs don’t have to read or decide.

We are up against a talking point battle. The public often only hears soundbites. It’s not their fault that is the way politics are on the left. Like Horowitz said: we hear about the war on women, on the poor, racism etc. It doesn’t matter that it is not true, people hear those soundbites  and Democrats  repeat them like parrots. Sure we are tired of hearing them. If you hear it, then other people hear it too. You have to know your enemy.

Long arguments are nice but don’t win the war. They have no impact on the Left.  No one except maybe loyal conservatives reads them. And this battle is a political campaign not a dissertation. I’m convinced we must boil concepts down to simple terms. Also, as Horowitz says, our tactics must change.

Who is going to take the time to read arguments, the liberals we are trying to convince? That ain’t going to happen. Liberals try not to read conservatives. On Townhall, they bash away without even reading it, or maybe a few lines just to aim their talking points at. We give them too much credit thinking logic and reason will work on them. What does work are political campaign soundbites.  That someone will convince them is an overrated goal. They do hear soundbites because that’s what everyone hears.

The problem, as Horowitz states it, is conservatives talk in business language. My idea is to use some biz-lingo on our leaders. Tell Boehner and McConnell to ‘listen up’:

We decided your services are no longer needed. Nothing personal… no, actually it is personal. Your job has been eliminated. The decision is final. That is the job as you define it, doing your own thing doesn’t cut it. You fashion yourselves as deal-makers but guess what, fellas? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is no one out there to make deals with. Do you see anyone? Progressives don’t deal. If they want to they know where to find us.

If an opportunity did come up, there are others capable of making a deal. You have become obsolete. We’re going in a different direction and your particular services are not part of that paradigm. Now if you want to stay on in some reduced capacity, then you will have to get with the program. The old way of operating is  over, do you understand? Form follows function now. This movement is much bigger than you guys and your silos.

This  is inevitable in business. Do you want to be a team player or freelance? Your choice. But if it’s doing your own thing… there’s the door. If you think you can handle being on the team, then its going to be a lot different than you are used to. This is not a top down thing. You guys aren’t our boss, quite the opposite. Your positions, as you know them, have been eliminated. Got it? And we’re not going back to that “business as usual” model. This is only the beginning, we’ll keep you informed if you stay on. “

Here’s what else will change: Mitch, you said we are going to crush the Tea Party:

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” … “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

What’s the “we” stuff?  See, it is just the opposite, there’s a new crew in town — just in case you and Boehner missed the last few elections. I know you were both busy doing your own things. And the guys that stepped up are those Tea Party people. They’re already here.  You don’t talk to the other side that way. We have to “crush” Liberals not the Tea Party, except I don’t hear that spirited passion toward progressives. No one is bigger than everyone else.

If power and self-survival were your motives, bury it now.  Your power is limited by the people, like the rest of the Federal Government.  We stand for unlimited individual opportunity. They are the Party of unlimited government. Our “enemy”, the enemy of the country,  is the other side. And that’s exactly how we’re going to treat them. Progs are the antithesis of freedom and individual opportunity. Are we all clear?

By the way, Mitchster, the reason we are taking such a personal  interest in you is because that is where most of the problems are.


Why Republicans Need the Tea Party

The movement provides an answer to the Left.


“You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.”

I endorse attacks and defining progressives for what they are. But Rove or Gingrich frown on “harsh tone” as a ticket to loss. What do they base that on? No one will pay attention to subtle, half-hearted, apologetic critiques just to avoid a harsh tone. The Left is begging to be branded, so give them what they want.

Newt told CPAC:

“If we spend the next three years being primarily anti-Hillary, we will virtually guarantee her election … “ Gingrich said. “To make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stop being the opposition movement, and we must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of Americans better so that they understand what we would be doing that is right, not just what the left is doing that is wrong.”

We must define the Left. Horowitz knows that as an intellectual. All the right “ideas” don’t get the job done. Amazing, Newt lectured CPAC and the Tea Party on that.

RightRing | Bullright

Memo to self on 2016

So Jeb Bush wants to run. “Wants” to, because he busted open the door and yelled, “I’ll make a decision by the end of the year”. I didn’t see a ground swell inviting him.

Great, another so-called Republican with a grudge against the conservative base wants to run. We already have Christie with a huge chip on his shoulder, he tells conservatives at every opportunity. Now Jeb tells us illegals break our borders out of an “act of love”. And what pray tell is his motivation? Wait, don’t tell me, “compassionate conservatism”.

What we could really use is a Republican/conservative with a chip on his shoulder against the Republican establishment. It’s not just the Washington establishment that is the problem; it’s the RNC establishment. After all, they’ve been a problem for about ten years and deserve our ire. Why should they get sympathy as a victim? Right, they have to attack the big bad conservative base – that elaborate power center. (sarcasm off)

Here’s an act of love to Jeb Bush, stay home.

RightRing | Bullright

If you don’t like your government regulations

If you like your government regulations, and bureaucrats decisions, you can keep your regs. Tough luck it seems if not. But in the event you don’t…. here’s a place to add your voice of disapproval and disgust.

For a look at the current regs of interest on Twitter, and what they’re up to: Tweets are under the name “YourVoice”.

For instance, if conservatives – [translation] Tea Party members, grandmas,grandpas, small business owners, concerned patriots, retired people, and folks with common sense – don’t appreciate the abuse and agenda at the IRS and their new rules, then you can send your comments on this page.

IRS is now Obama’s Internal Revenge Service [ © TM — per JTR’s suggestion 🙂 ]

So if you like your ever-growing government regs, you can simply do nothing and they will continue to roll out as usual, uninterrupted. But if you don’t….


RightRing | Bullright

Here today gone tomorrow

That’s something Christie should have thought about, say about 2 months ago when he seemed to be riding high after his second gubernatorial win in NJ.

Yep, that euphoria then probably feels like a distant memory to him now, on the heels of not one but two investigations cranking up in a midterm year. Even the optimistic Christie has to say “wait a minute, it was only a few short months… I’m just being sworn in to my 2nd term.” Yep, and that’s the way it works.

He pulled no punches in criticizing conservatives and Libertarians even in his election year bid. He went out of his way to cast stones. He claimed to have friends all over. Now he has two mounting investigations strapped to his back and no one is rushing to his defense. He might ask “how did all this happen?” And he might also ask “why me?”

If it were others like Ted Cruz or Paul under fire, I doubt the well-rounded Jersey boy would have time to run to their aid. But since it is him, “oh pity me.” At least he can count on GOP central who helped prop him up among the establishment. Those others can’t!

PS, update: Karl Rove thinks Christie’s crisis will build “street-cred” with Tea Party folks.

RightRing | Bullright

Republicans, a bad moon is rising

Christie on the ropes

I have some criticism I need to get out. But before I do, anyone that wants to remind me of the 11th commandment,(thou shalt speak no ill of Republicans) can can their discontent. (1)It’s early, (2)there hasn’t been a primary or vetting, and yet (3)the establishment has already anointed their Jersey Shore candidate. And don’t tell me it was others. It was the establishment plutocrats who gave the nod to the Patriarch of Palisades. They were going to run with that as long/hard as they could.

Take a bow establishment GOP, this one is on you. It was a bridge too far, from the beginning, to project anyone but you anointed Christie. He’s all yours!

Christie BridgegateSince this establishment pick seemed to run into some headwinds lately, I thought it was a good opportunity to illustrate GOP issues. I know they won’t listen when things are running smooth for them.

One of Christie’s touted assets of is that he can work with people and get things done. He and his fans have also made the case that Republicans have to be more flexible and willing to work with other people. He used his photo op with Obama to drive the point home.

“I’ll work with anyone and everyone who is willing to work with me, consistent with my principles, and the principles that were just affirmed by 61 percent of the voters,”

… “you go there, you listen and you present your views and that’s the way you bring people into your movement.”

Of course, the problem is that they do not work with others themselves. Sure, they talk about it all the time. They reach out to Democrats or the Left, but they can’t or won’t even work with other members in their own party. In fact, they alienate and marginalize members of their own Party who disagree with them. But they will make all sorts of concessions with Democrats. (think John McCain and his gang of 14). Dems do not work with others either — unless they get their own way. So let’s dispel the notion that they are people “willing to work with everyone”. They aren’t.

In July, Christie called Constitutional concerns of conservatives and Libertarians “esoteric, intellectual debates” and a “very dangerous thought”:

“I love all these esoteric debates that people are getting in.”

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.

The Palisades’ Patriarch should be more concerned with traffic direction in his own state.

The real problem is that they can’t work with their own members. For whatever reason, from power rivalries to ideology, they openly chastise those they don’t agree with. They make certain they do it in public to get brownie points with the media and the Left. They don’t even want to associate with conservatives if they can help it. John McCain called conservatives and the Christian Right “agents of intolerance” in 2000. Little has changed since, it’s actually gotten worse. More recently he labeled conservatives “wacko birds”.

Months later, the Daily Caller reported:

Sen. John McCain said Thursday that he’s worried about the Republican Party’s future and the infighting that is dividing it, calling efforts by conservatives to unseat incumbent Republican lawmakers “wrong.”

The famously wry McCain, R-Ariz., said he regretted calling the Tea Party wing of the Republican Senate conference “wacko birds” during budget negotiations, saying he’s learned to “never get personal” in political disputes…

“I do worry about the Republican Party,” he said at the Hero Summit hosted by The Daily Beast. “It’s the first time I have ever seen Republican senators running ads, raising money that is being used to attack incumbent Republican senators.”

Notice the pattern?

So if someone was buying the well-worn notion that we need Christie (or another) because they are moderate and work with others, find another dog that hunts. That one doesn’t. Is there any reason we have to start off with deception and misconceptions?

See my prior post that Christie vs. Clinton shows Christie cannot get Liberal support and he cannot get Conservative support. While Hillary reels in some Repubs and her base at the same time, so apparently she is a crossover candidate. Christie, you gotta know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em. But changing traffic patterns on the George Washington Bridge is not gonna get you to Pa. Ave., or conservative support.

RightRing | Bullright

Putin the Conservative Superstar

This is an older article but so relevant. See previous post on Putin’s address.

The conservative right sees areas to praise Putin. If I told you a few years ago this would be the case, would you have  believed me?

Now he’s riding high on conservative steam.


Why Are American Conservatives Praising Putin?

Russia’s anti-gay policies deserve the scorn of U.S. conservatives.
Cathy Young | August 22, 2013 |

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer who has presided over the rollback of his country’s post-Communist freedoms and revived Cold War-style anti-Americanism, is an unlikely hero for American conservatives. Yet the Kremlin strongman has lately found some fans on the right who see him as a defender of Christian values — most recently, in the imbroglio over Russia’s new legal ban on gay “propaganda.” It is a sad misjudgment that does a disservice to the causes of conservatism, freedom, and religion alike.

Take a minute to inhale that. Its a good article too, aside from the subheading. But there is a point many miss. Sure, I have praised some of his moves myself. Does it make him a stalwart conservative? Put in relative terms, is he more conservative than Obama? Without doubt. I don’t think Putin is worried about his approvals either.

What amazes me is Putin’s theatrical disagreements with Obama on several fronts. He could be accused of hypocrisy too, but why bother when Vlad says stuff which makes sense to conservatives? That’s the point.

Putin can be crude and slick at times, and ruthless at others. He can rally the support of his people. Obama could take a lesson on that. Putin can appear conservative on fiscal and cultural issues. In other words, in areas Obama would never dare to venture.

It might demonstrate that the new American Left is more openly Marxist than Putin. If it were a political campaign, in many ways it is, Putin can run to the right of the progressive Left. But that is not hard to do. Hillary ran to the right of Obama – while darling Edwards ran to the Left — creating an illusion Obama was in the middle.

Consider that for decades  cultural Marxists were natural allies to ‘mother Russia’. Visions of Ted Kennedy and Andropov come to mind. They stuck it in our faces when they could. This is a different twist. Moscow knows the American Left’s record. So should conservatives. It was conservatives who actively opposed communism. (it was even popular to some Dems in the JFK era) Today is different. The mask is off for the Left.

On to Putin. He has made inroads with the people who historically were the most opposed to Russia. Just how could he do that? This article like others points it out. When he bagged the big Pike in the summer, fish was not the only thing biting. If conservatives are comparing his policies to ours, he’s come a long way. He knows it. Meanwhile, he appears less like the new Democrats, despite former alliance.

Spokesmen for several right-wing groups including the American Family Association have praised the Russian law, which prohibits any pro-gay speech or expression that could be accessible to minors. Veteran columnist Pat Buchanan has joined the Putin cheerleading squad. And, shockingly, the usually thoughtful author Rod Dreher, who blogs for The American Conservative, has added his own “1.5 Cheers for Putin.”
While condemning anti-gay violence and authoritarianism in Russia, Dreher praises Putin’s willingness to speak up for Christianity and laments that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is . . . more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”
This is a truly grievous misunderstanding of the reality of religion and politics in 21st Century Russia. Russia today is outwardly far more religious than most of Western Europe, but it’s a religion of state more than church: Orthodox Christianity has taken Communism’s place as the new official ideology, with church membership an official badge of patriotism and loyalty.

More at

It’s good politics for Putin. His staunchest chief enemy, conservatives, have suddenly been smitten by his moves. Who changed Putin or conservatives? We know Putin hasn’t changed his stripes, he changed the rules to allow him to regain power. (something some of us are leery of Obama doing) So he’s no hero for the rule of law. Yet he has won over some conservatives with his gimmickry.(and politics) He’s still that same Putin Obama promised more flexibility to. Now Putin seems to flirt with American conservatives. Age-old enemies. Like people play the dating game: present yourself as a noble partner while courting, then after the commitment the truth comes out.

Don’t be fooled, Putin is still the Russian bear. I think its dangerous to draw too many parallels. Pat Buchanan should know better than making very cordial comparisons to Russia and Putin. It’s too easy to take a few positions for common sense agreement with Putin. And still as easy to disagree on his traditional values and anti-gay stance we are supposed to condemn. But there is more lurking beneath the skin, just like Obama.

It is a fascinating change though. I leave you with Putin recently sounding more FDR:

Vladimir Putin pointed out the well-known attempts in recent years to impose an allegedly more progressive development model on other countries. But the result was invariably retrogression, barbarity and a high price in blood. On the other hand, the situation around Syria and now around Iran, too, proves that any international problem can and must be settled exclusively through political means, without ever resorting to the use of force, which, the Russian leader is certain, has no future and provokes rejection in a majority of world nations.

Recent address


RightRing | Bullright

The Other Problem

I’m going to try something different. I’m a little tired of talking about Obama, the greatest threat to freedom and the Constitution this century. He gets his share of time, and everybody can’t seem to stop complaining about his daily assaults on the country.

So today I’m making an exception. I want to talk about the other major problem, the one who gets almost as much criticism as King Barry. Well, its not one person but a group. No, I don’t mean the Islamic Jihadists. It is even a greater target of criticism than that.

This time I want to talk about that group that is always in season. No matter how much criticized, there can not be enough time or energy focused on them. It never gets old attacking them. It is a daily if not hourly task and there still can’t be enough said about the subject. I know you are getting real warm now and ready to boil.

Okay, pardon the generalities and don’t mind my broad-brushing them because who cares about them anyway? I know I’ll be granted wide berth here. It is simply those regular folks out there. Yea, your stereotypical conservatives, regular Joe’s, libertarians, Republicans, the evangelicals, Christians, right-wingers, cultural conservatives, social conservatives, value voters, Black conservatives, moral majority, white conservatives, vast right-wing conspirators, homophobes, Tea Parties, neo-cons, business owners, on and on, activists et al. I know I left some out. I want to refer to all of them by one label. What shall it be? I’ll just generically call them “the problem”, when I’m referring to their whole lot.

Now, I started by asking myself some central questions: Why is it always an opportunity to criticize or attack the “problem”? Why can there never be enough animosity or scrutiny directed toward this group? Why do their actions and motives always deserve the toughest scrutiny we can muster? Why is what they do always suspect even if they explain their motives? Why do we need to probe any differences between sub groups? Dice, sort, and compare them any way you like.(no rules)

And no matter what they do and say, why do they need to be examined under a microscope using the toughest standards? No, I don’t attempt to answer these questions, nor should you. Suffice it to say that is just the way it is. Let’s just agree on that. And that is the starting point. It doesn’t demand volumes of proof. It’s just the way it is…. an established phenomena. Why do these toughest standards only apply to the “problem” group. And why aren’t they routinely granted some benefit of the doubt, like others?

See you won’t get disagreement that they deserve serious scrutiny, and they do get it. Even within the “problem” group, many of its members will take them to task any time they see a good opportunity. The “problem” is a universal target for anyone.

Moderates, RINOS and liberal Republicans are also part of “the problem” –fodder for critique based on association with the whole — but the same standards do not apply, and they are not subject to the same results in the end. We can be less critical of that sub group. They must be included for relative criticism of others.

Remember Reagan and his 11th commandment?

While popularized by Reagan, “The Eleventh Commandment” was created by then California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it:

“The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.” – Reagan

The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater’s defeat in the 1964 presidential election. East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an “extremist” for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office. Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice.


Picture an Autopsy

It is not a new phenomena either. There’s been a feud among Republicans for many decades. It plays out frequently, in campaigns, primaries, conventions, among Republicans, on the airwaves, and in news media. Now it is just a given fact, like gravity. It is accepted and anticipated by every political pundit and strategist, even trying to play/use it to their advantage however they can. It’s a favorite pass time to examine the right.

Better yet, its a game everyone can play. It is called smack the right. Left-leaning and liberal Republicans love to play it, even right-wing conservatives indulge. (also contagious) It’s a group sport or an individual one, whatever your preference. It’s something like whack-a-mole. But anything is fair game. Whatever comes up, as long it is in any way part of that “problem” group: attack it, probe it, question it, hold it to any level of accountability you want. No rules, really, just do it – the more the better. Make a career over it. Really, who cares? Yes, the Left can play right along side the Republicans, conservatives, and moderates. Attack, attack, get the message? Question anything at all as often as you can. Compare and distort, who cares?

Many Republicans and the “problem” group repealed the 11th amendment long ago, if it was ever ratified to begin with. So they do the same.

Now I’m not a fierce adherent to the 11th commandment myself. I take my shots when justified. But for some of us with wiser scrutiny about it, our justified complaints are depreciated by the mountains of attacks or criticism from everywhere nowadays. You can do it wherever and whenever the urge strikes. Don’t worry, you will never be out of place or shunned for it. It is acceptable across the spectrum. Scrutinize the “problem” — and the problem with anything always comes back to this group, somehow.

Why is it that, no matter what the current problem/issue, this group deserves blame or is labeled the real “problem”? Again, no answer, its just the way it is. All problems are directed back at them because, somehow or another, they are the problem. And conventional wisdom is you cannot deal with any issue without dealing with them, or taking aim at them. So they are dragged into every issue and every battle like a hostage. Who else gets the ire, the criticism, suspicion, and sheer attention this problem group gets? What other segment demands that treatment?

They’ve turned the process (for lack of a better word) into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Through all the blame and critique of the “problem” group, they have really become the one universal problem. Only not in the way that all the critics see it. It has so divided the “problem” that no one within it can unify and agree. You have to believe that was a chief ojective by some all along. If there is no unification, then there can be no unified action coming from them. Thus, they are not a unified political threat either. This is contrary to what we see in the left. They will always unify over the worst, leftist positions. Its a natural habit for the cultural Marxists.

Just to contrast all this with the progressive Left. It operates on what I call the Gestalt principle, meaning the effect or momentum is greater than the sum of its parts. On the right, the effect or momentum is only as great as any of its smaller parts. Even where several of the parts agree, the differences are emphasized. And the strength thereof lasts only as long as the differences do not win. The left could unify over a crap sandwich, and often does. (…for the sake of it)

Gestalt (Webster) – psychology : something that is made of many parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its parts; broadly : the general quality or character of something

[Photo – painting Author:Rembrandt; Title: The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp]

RightRing | Bullright

Who are those conservatives

Every so often with bad weather I flip through the weather channel, usually disappointed at the non-local forecast anyway. This time I was treated to Al Roker’s narration about the Sunday Climate Change rally/march on the Mall in DC.

Washington DC, now there’s a Climate I wouldn’t mind changing.

It was the same mantra we heard before. Only contrast it with the way news covered the Tea Parties. They would talk over protestors, or shut down Tea Party activists the minute they didn’t like their free speech. Not for the climate ralliers. No one checked for the participants degrees or credentials in Climatology.They interviewed lots of them, as many as they could.. One woman said she was there doing this for her kids. They are the ones who will have to live with these “severe storms” and violent weather patterns, she claimed.

However, it seems every time the lunar left has one of these rallies, they always zero in on a couple of people who claim “I’m a big Constitutional Conservative…and I have to support this too”. Who are these token conservative plants they always seem to find so easily? Weather Channel had no problem finding one soon into their coverage. I don’t come across them when talking to conservatives. I don’t see them elsewhere. But they make grand debuts in front of TV cameras though. I beg to disagree whether they are conservatives. I can see they are real people, but Conservatives? Don’t make me laugh. Who are these fine feathered conservatives?

Enjoy a little clip from the left’s Democracy Now…or not.
(minus the conservative imposters)

Calling the Keystone pipeline a “boondoggle”. That’s funny, what about the boondoggle that is Solyndra, greengate, and Obama’s green energy agenda? Now that’s a boondoggle. “2/3rd of our fossil fuels must stay in the ground” for the temperature to moderate and remain acceptable, “arresting climate change”, according to Sierra Club.

Here’s how the left operates: (calling Tea Party activists retarded)

Ending of an era, changing of tactics

A little personal venting.
Sometimes I just take a news story or current event and go off of that. Its not that there is a dramatic lack of supply anymore, it is just that it seems monotonous at times.

We well proved how stupid liberals are, even if they aren’t done making their case.

So that is why I’ve been easing off, certainly not for a lack of ammunition. It’s a daily thing with Liberals, where one day they will surpass the idiocy of what they did the day before. It is hard to keep up. What do you want, they are evolving?

Some take to chronicling the Liberals’ bobs and weaves very seriously. But sooner or later you look back and wonder if you are getting anywhere? What’s the point, just reminding people all the places they’ve been and the ugly path they are on? It really is simple though and they supply plenty of motivation.

And some of us may appear obsessed  with keeping track of Obama’s lies and his un-American agenda. It may seem like obsession but what should we call Obama’s agenda? Now that is a real obsession if anyone has one.

But it does tend to get boring if not predictable. Then there is exposing what the Right is doing that often falls short of responding to Liberals. There’s a task to keep up with. I saw a few interesting books out( one by Ben Shapiro) claiming the civility is totally absent with the left. I do agree. And they assert that, because of the lack of civility on the left, it is time to step up and respond to their blatant lunacy in kind. I almost agree, sort of. I’ve been doing that for years. Step it up to what? Namecalling, screaming, boycotts or protests?

But just to say we are now going to leave civil discussion behind because there is no civility with the left kind of gets my dander up. That is not the reason to abandon civility for scorched earth. I have nothing aginst scorched earth either. But the point was never just to be civil for civility sake. In fact, I’m not sure what the right’s entire point was till now?

Yes, Martha, there was a time when many conservatives naively thought they would convince, convert, or convict the left with the better reasoned argument. As TV’s Dr Phil says, “how’s that working out for ya?” It never did work. The dorbell rings and no one is home. The more civil the right tried to be, the more irrational and unhinged the left became. They don’t care. It was like a cat and mouse game anyway. Only those who “believed” in that illusion played the game. That got old somewhere around Clinton’s impeachment. The left fnally proved playing handball on a curb was even beyond their mentality when Bush came along. That was almost made to order for leftists’ Alinsky tactics.

So what to do? Well, I’m not recommending or changing my style based on anything the left is doing. That would sort of be pointless. They bob and weave so much its like getting hypnotized by a bobble head doll. Next you’d be buying tickets to the flea circus. The Right is right and the Left is, well, wrong. Changing the chairs on the Titanic does not change the truth.

Why bother saying it’s all out warfare now? It was always that to libs even when they are having success. That’s what Alinkyism is all about. But why the right has to make gestures about stepping up their arguments is beyond me. It suggests they weren’t doing all they could before. (and they weren’t) They merely thought the appearance of well-mannered discussion was enough to win the day. It didn’t; if the last two elections proved nothing else they proved that. It was always about survival – now more than ever.

Still it is time for some adjustments. I’m thinking of a few rules of the road. One of them would  be to take a liberal seriously for what they say most of the time, especially during their emotional fits. They have moments of revealing their agenda. They may be as wrong and dumb as you think but that doesn’t guarantee they are losing, or will. Second, don’t expect that the majority of voters see the fallacy of the left. They don’t, so don’t be deceived. Don’t believe voters are smart enough to avoid doing stupid things. They aren’t.

Don’t mistakenly think the people will see a reasoned argument and agree with you. People are disagreeable, sometimes for the sake of it. Don’t think the truth always wins the day. It doesn’t. Once people are caught in a lie it often takes them a lot of digging to see daylight again. And finally, don’t take a liberal’s word for anything, ever. They live to defy reality.

Above all, never fall for their stupid ploys about how they actually can agree with much of what you say. They don’t, they lie. Don’t fall for the “can’t we all get along” schtick. That went out the window in the 70’s. They have zero interest in getting along. They only want to control as much of you as they can, period…ain’t no “getting along” about it. Now I’m having fun. I could go on here, probably indefinitely, but I need to stop now.

Like I said, it is a task to keep up with their bobbing and weaving. The point would be not to alter your response just due to their tactics or stupidity, it doesn’t help anyone. Conservatives, stop drinking the Kool Aid and thinking that if you only appeal to liberals’ better senses you will succeed. They have no better senses; that’s a fool’s errand. I have a gut feeling I only scratched the surface. Feel free to add your own.