What’s in a word? Evolving words with the left all amount to the same old ideas. Explained in 60 seconds by Chuck Woollery.
What’s in a word? Evolving words with the left all amount to the same old ideas. Explained in 60 seconds by Chuck Woollery.
Even before he made his grand exit, Obama did all he could to set the stage for Trump. It’s called sabotage most places. But it’s just a day in office for the radical-in-chief, Obama.
WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.
Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”
MORE at NYT
The real story is there for all to see of Obama’s shadow government and its expansive influence. He would not be happy to give up power. And he isn’t finished.
Let’s review what Obama’s administration looks like: cabinet secretaries, sub cabinet, and all those influential and controversial Czars.
In order of succession to the Presidency: 15 cabinet, 6 sub cabinet, 32 czars
Vice President of the United States
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Department of Education
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Homeland Security
The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:
White House Chief of Staff
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Management & Budget
United States Trade Representative
United States Mission to the United Nations
Council of Economic Advisers
Small Business Administration
Then there were all those controversial Czars which Obama denied were czars.
“Green Jobs Czar” ————- “Diversity Czar”
“Car Czar” ————————- “Cyber Czar”
“Intelligence Czar” ————– “Regulatory Czar”
“Safe Schools Czar” ————- “Border Czar”
“Science Czar” ——————— “Climate Czar”
“Energy Czar” ——————— “Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar”
“Pay Czar” ————————– “Health Czar”
“Homeland Security Czar” or “Drones Czar”
“AIDS Czar” ————————- “Manufacturing Czar”
“Weapons Czar” ——————– “WMD Czar”
“California Water Czar” ——— “Asian Carp Czar”
“Great Lakes Czar” ————— “Information Czar”
“Technology Czar” —————– “Auto Recovery Czar”
“Drug Czar” ————————– “Domestic Violence Czar”
“Urban Affairs Czar” ————– “Gitmo Czar”
“Mideast Czar” ———————- “Iran Czar”
“Stimulus Accountability Czar”
What’s missing? I know, how about a “Hope Czar” – Ambassador of Hope?
Oh but the Obama administration pushed back on using the term Czar. Maybe he just didn’t want to call them czars. Let’s hope Trump — or no other president for that matter — ever has a penchant for czars like Obama.
I looked back on a couple highlight posts from last year and it hit me like never before.
Look back at a couple incidents from the past year and see what I mean. That was then this is now. Those incidents were then, there are new ones now. It has just been a cycle, a continuous cycle. We literally go from one crisis to another. Sometimes a new one happens in the middle of a current one.
With our government and pols, it has been one thing after another. Boehner left, Paul Ryan in. Same thing happens. With the takeover of new Congress in 2015, it continues like no change. Terrorist acts, surges of illegals, murders by illegals. criminals caught and released. Pols lie, scandals and no government accountability. 2016 like 2015. Nothing changes.
What I am really wondering about now is what effect this pattern is having on us? Are we just caught up in the minute, are we in survival mode, are we into the fight or flight stage? I think it is serious and bound to have some effect. I mean we can say it is the new way things are but we see it every day and get tired of it. In and out a continued pattern of incidents, threaded and strung together like a chain. Well, that is how it feels when I look back. Then terrorists do what they want to do, terrorize people.
That’s all I’m going to say, people know what I’m talking about. Any ideas or suggestions anyone has, about it or anything, I’d love to hear them.
RightRing | Bullright
Is our government out of control?
Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.
No sector appears safe.
CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:
“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”
Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court. Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.
“The Constitution is not a living organism,” Justice Scalia reminded us, “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”
Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.
He makes a frightening case. We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.
Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/
Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.
These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]
Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.
So let me offend Muslims a little bit and say we should use a little psyops on them. (apply a little reverse psychology) It may sound provocative to some people.
We can start with one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. Joel has something to say about just such a situation as we are going through. People of Judah were down and things were bad. Joel felt judgement had come upon them.
2 Hear this, you elders;
listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
or in the days of your forefathers?
3 Tell it to your children,
and let your children tell it to their children,
and their children to the next generation.
4 What the locust swarm has left
the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
other locusts have eaten.
6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7 They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.
They were depressed at the prospects all around them. They were no doubt wondering if God was with them? The answer came in the second half of chapter two.
Joel 2:25’I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten — the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm— my great army that I sent among you. (26) “You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed. (27) Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.
(28)’And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
The point is we often debate the cause of bad things, but there is also judgment. Yet God is capable of restoring us to greater blessings for going through them. When we call on Him and pray, He hears. He can turn to good that which is done to us.
We tend to personalize it seeing circumstances as punishment feeling judgment has come, that God has removed his protection. But He will restore even bless us.
2 Chronicles 7:13″If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
So I have to wonder about the terrorism, as bad and evil as it all is? I’m thinking how God can restore us and greatly bless us for going through it. Then I wonder how great those blessings might be for what we are going through now?
Do hihadis and Islamists realize, with what they are doing, that God can and will bless us in the end? God will restore His people, and take them to greater heights. We can have faith in that. That’s the message I hear.
That should give Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists pause to know(or think) we will be restored. We will be blessed in spite of all they do. Now maybe that is the best message that could be sent to them. Just proclaim what is going to happen. That might be the best campaign we could have. It will also build a confidence among God’s people in anticipation of what is to come. Plus, it would be better than any propaganda we could employ. God repaid to his people what the locusts had eaten. God has a salvation plan, Christ.
RightRing | Bullright
SO the Chattanooga shooter investigation seems to be on a real slow train.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – The public may never know what motivated a 24-year-old Chattanooga man to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga’s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July.
Investigators have said Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a homegrown violent extremist but have not offered more details about what motivated the attack that began at a military recruiting center and ended when Abdulazeez was shot to death by police who followed him to the reserve center.
“Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people,” [FBI Director James Comey] said.
Sometimes it’s better if people not know, I take it. Wouldn’t want to damage or smear anyone. Nope. Isn’t he the same guy running the Hillary servergate investigation?
No smearing … unless it is the American people, then by all means go ahead.
The US and American people are being held hostage to Obama’s personal political agenda. You can stop reading there because that’s the whole point in a nutshell.
As a matter of his personal political ideology we see country collapsing around it. The Left can’t compare it to Bush and say it is the same thing. The only suitable comparison is to Putin. But even that does not work because Vlad is acting in Russia’s interest, whether you agree with what he is doing or not. Putin does believe in his country at least.
With Obama the only thing that matters is Obama’s ideology, corrupt as it is. Any means to the end. So now we see Obamacare collapsing. Not a problem to Obama. 12 out of 23 states had their co-ops crash. The initial seed money is lost. Silence from Obama. The agency said enough people were not forced into the ObamaCare by loosing their employee insurance. Jonathan Gruber admitted the plot was to lie to the people just to ram it through. Obama basically said what’s it matter, so what? He sends earthquakes again into medical coverage. Did he say anything?
His comrades have declared a war on cops. Again, not a problem for Obama. Even when the FBI director tells us that police are backing off due to all the social chaos and cop-killing, so crime is up. Obama says you cannot cherry pick data or use anecdote to make public policy. But Obama is doing exactly that: cherry picking and using anecdote to make policy.The FBI is not making policy but stating the trend, facts.
Obama declares the Keystone Pipeline dead. The Climate Caliphate is gearing up for a year-end push of their agenda. All he cares about is his environmental agenda. Meanwhile, months back his own administration contaminated a pristine river and region in Colorado.(an interstate disaster) Obama said nothing. He was not up in arms firing people. No, it was business as usual: lie and make excuses. First they denied the amount and damage.
He told the EPA to go ahead and roll out his anti-business agenda and war on coal regulations, despite whether it is Constitutional. Who cares about the effects, or their impact on people? He weaponized the IRS and used it against his political opponents. He said there is not a smidgen of corruption. then his DOJ declared there was nothing to prosecute Lerner for.
This all and government is just an extension of Obama’s personal ideology. And he’ll go to any end to force it on the people.
Invasion of illegal immigrants, Obama’s executive orders, his forced amnesty, gun control, racism, riots, and even his scandals are all a product of his personal political agenda.
Whatever you think about all that, one thing is clear: Obama is holding America hostage to his own, personal political agenda.
Remember that credible confirmation, (Retired)Lt. General William Jerry Boykin speaking out on the state of infiltration in government?
26 Sep 2012 | Breitbart
U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William Jerry Boykin claims that individuals with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood hold security clearances in both the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.
Further proof of this back in 2012 when this was verified, but that also confirmed what the reaction to it would be.
In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and State, asking that they investigate government “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood”—the ideological wellspring from which such terrorist outfits as al Qaeda and Hamas first emerged. One letter, for instance, noted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s closest aide, her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, “has three family members … connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” (In fact, Abedin herself spent 12 years working for for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a Saudi-based Islamic think tank whose agenda was—and remains to this day, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy explains—“to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.” For details about this agenda, click here.)
While Bachmann was widely criticized and ridiculed for daring to suggest that Muslim Brotherhood elements had infiltrated the U.S. government, corroboration of her allegations came, in December 2012, from an unlikely quarter: Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, which asserted that six highly-placed Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators within the Obama administration had transformed the United States “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (A translation of the article is available from the Investigative Project here.)
So all the more confirmation that they know, we know, Islamists know and Mo-Bro knows. Any questions? The same C-I-C talks all the time about the fear and threat from the NRA.
Then again, there’s sort of a repeat performance from Obama on defense of Islam.
By Daniel Greenfield | Front Page Mag — A timeline account.
Toward the end of September 2012, Barack Obama finally came to New York City after skipping it during the 9/11 anniversary. He had made it out to the city the previous week for a celebrity fundraiser and an appearance on Letterman and then back again for a taping of The View while turning down a meeting with Netanyahu who did not have a talk show or an envelope filled with money.
The next day, while at least one of the Americans killed in Benghazi had yet to be buried, he declared at the UN General Assembly, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
That statement also encompassed the agenda of the Benghazi killers, the terrorists who would attack Charlie Hebdo and the “Draw the Prophet” contest in Texas along with all the murderous censors of Mohammed determined that the future should not belong to those who slander their holy warlord. …/
Two days after Obama’s UN speech, Youssef was arrested and held without bail. The order for his arrest came from the top. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told Charles Woods, the father of murdered SEAL Tyrone Woods, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”
Now here we are with Hillary Clinton leading the Democrat ticket for 2016. Who would think that, still without knowing all the details of Benghazi? For naysayers that poo-poo Hillary’s chances, one has to look at how well this infiltration has persisted for years. (even back into Bush 43 days) Saying this is not happening is no longer an acceptable answer. Her chances are very real and the Mo-Bro affiliates are not going anywhere, and the influence remains. That Hillary Clinton’s chances are that good is pretty indicative of the whole situation.
Listen to an interview with Boykin prior to the Select Committee hearings with Hillary on Benghazi. http://ow.ly/TV2sX
In it he talks about sources he had in Africom that said State told them “do not penetrate Libyan airspace.” My theory of possibilities, no more, is that could be caused by knowing there were all those loose shoulder fired missiles in Libya. But then she prevented Fest from leaving too. So Boykin was concerned that those questions should be asked. Hillary never gave a satisfactory answer for the Fest team. But there is confirmation from African command that State told them to stand down. If she denied knowledge of that, then why? How could she not know as Secretary of State? She is at the center.
Here is a good article worth a read. We know political connections in Washington run deep, How deep? And to any observer, the establishment wing of the RNC acts very odd and aloof in spite of the base of the Party. Sometimes acting as its own worst enemy. This article goes a long way in explaining what could be behind much of it. It’s just a matter of connecting dots and events over nearly 30 years. The piece is over a year old. The same issues seem important again in this election.
Walid Shoebat | February 15, 2014 | Freedom Outpost
If ever there was a political ‘odd couple’, George H.W. ‘Felix’ Bush and Bill ‘Oscar’ Clinton fit the bill. Sure, living U.S. presidents share things in common no one else on earth shares but the relationship between the 41st and 42nd Presidents respectively, always seemed to smack of being suspiciously close. In 2006, I saw Bush 41 speak at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and he referred to this relationship as such; he acknowledged it without explaining it.
The subsequent and logical unanswered question “why?” asked by several people, silently in their own minds, hung in the air and was never answered.
The expression is is “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” You might say in this case it was also a pretty quiet tree. But any witnesses aren’t saying much about it either.
Lois Lerner escapes prosecution, and the arm of justice.
“In a letter notifying members of Congress of its decision, the Justice Department said that while investigators had found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” there was no evidence that any IRS employee had targeted a political group based on its viewpoints or obstructed justice.”
Please, no news here. Move on everyone. What a disgrace.
“The Democrats would revise history to rationalize a return to bigger government, higher taxes, and moral relativism. The Democrat Party has forgotten its origins as a party of work, thrift, and self-reliance. But they have not forgotten their art for dissembling and distortion.
The Democrats are trapped in their compact with the ideology of trickle-down government, but they are clever enough to know that the voters would shun them if their true markings were revealed.
America had its rendezvous with destiny in 1980. Faced with crisis at home and abroad, Americans turned to Republican leadership in the White House.”
This is a quote from Republicans platform back in 1992. From then until now, one must ask “what happened?” We appear now to be a ship without a rudder, stranded in a stormy sea. Where are those tried and true principles that supposedly guide us? Have they been moth-balled in favor of Big-Government Lite rhetoric?
Along came George W who arrogantly claimed to have redefined conservatism and Republicans, (unbeknownst to conservatives) with his compassionate hubris he sailed us into uncharted waters of amnesty plans, appointments, enforcement failures, all while failing on most occasions to make the case for true conservative values. He waffled on this or that and then, after trying to foist crony Harriet Miers on us, gave us a nominees that again deceived. John Roberts turned into John Dud. He had already given a peace offering on the 4th circuit to Dems. (which meant nothing to Dems)
Then came not so popular President W deriding his own base who protested Miers. He steamed full speed ahead despite all conservatives lobbying efforts and letters to the contrary. But the Left didn’t like Bush and never would. Who was he fooling? What made him start down the road to concessions? Only he could know but it didn’t work. Appeasement was not the bomb, it never is with the radical left.
And leaders in Congress did virtually the same until turning over their majority to the libs — who were already quite skilled at minority power. Now along comes Trump to remind the RNC of its long trail of inconsistencies. Some deep irony there.
More from ’92… as painful a reminder as that is:
“While our goals are constant, we are willing to innovate, experiment, and learn. We have learned that bigger is not better, that quantity and quality are different things, that more money does not guarantee better outcomes. We have learned the importance of individual choice—in education, health care, child care—and that bureaucracy is the enemy of initiative and self-reliance. We believe in empowerment, including home ownership for as many as possible. We believe in decentralized authority, and a bottom-line, principled commitment to what works for people.
We believe in the American people: free men and women with faith in God, working for themselves and their families, believing in the value of every human being from the very young to the very old.”
Have we really learned the tough, necessary lessons? Are we now better for it? Are we now defining progressives, socialists and Marxists as they should be? Are we telling the truth about the Left’s agenda and schemes to correct the record? Are we seizing leadership opportunities to provide the kind of example of conservative values our country so desperately needs? Or are we cowering in a corner declaring to be beaten before we even throw the first punch? Shamefully, I say it is more of the latter. Time and time again we have seen deals being cut that display no conservative values, gaining nothing.
For a moment in time I almost lost my head and optimistically thought we returned to foundations and principles. But Jeb Bush came saying it’s his turn — to try the moderate, Rodney King approach to liberals who will never be appeased and always demand more. Compromise to progressives only amounts to doing it their way, and giving them the credit. I regained my sanity seeing the defense of Jeb Bush. Did we ever want to see a dynasty, be it on the Democrat side or the Republican side?
Yet here we are again fighting for our values to be relevant in a system given over to thugs, elites and special interests. We haven’t yet found the way to master real leadership. It must come from within, but our leaders still have not gotten that message. They even resign in a strategic way to hedge the opportunity for the establishment’s benefit.
But the RNC acts as if that is not an issue. We claim to want to move forward while estabos dredge up people who only exhibit the worst of the past. We provide the big hammer to our opponents and then ask them to hit us over the head. Only we don’t even play the victim very well. We blame everything only on ourselves — on stoopid people and “right-wing extremists,” not Estabo leaders. Then we proceed to ask for more of the same treatment. So reactionary disenfranchised voters embraced Trump as an Apprentice.
The shark-infested waters are just begging to be fed. Some in the Republican Party are determined not to disappoint them. It’s hard to stop this abuse of the base that’s been tolerated till it can’t be anymore. Yes, there are a lot of golden quotes in those old platforms and some good lessons, if we could only see them.
Now, true to the form of uncharted course, it threw Jeb Bush at us along with a wide selection of alternatives that were supposed to be chum to bait us so their selection would rise to the top. Ironically, his “Right to Rise” pac is in your face elitism. Jeb’s scolding lectures on the campaign trail aren’t much of an appetizer either.
Newsmax on Right to Rise pac:
There were also at least 20 donors who gave the super PAC $1 million, including healthcare investor Miguel Fernandez, California billionaire William Oberndorf, Iranian-American diplomat Hushang Ansary, along with his wife Shahla, and hedge-fund manager Louis Bacon.
The 236 donors who gave six-figure checks also include former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Citadel Investment Group founder Kenneth Griffin, and Houston businessman Robert McNair, Politico reports.
Jeb was a founding member and head of Michael Bloomberg’s foundation, which supports all kinds of liberal agenda items. Not in ancient history, he only stepped down prior to starting his pac and running for president. Just last year a major part of its effort was to lobby “foreign nations to ease restrictions on abortion.” Not exactly a Mexico City Policy.
Now he distances himself from the agenda that was a central priority of the foundation. I hope the money he got paid was worth it. He didn’t have to sign off or vote on it, as he asserts, but he was part and parcel to the agenda. For him to claim how pro-life he is/was is ludicrous when this is the very last place he was before running. What other GOP was promoting abortion around the globe? As for Jeb, no wonder George W is getting riled up.
“I don’t know if it’s panic or paranoia in Miami, but they are losing [Scott] Walker people to Marco, and if you say what’s true, they get mad,” said one Bush donor, who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity. “I think it’s just reflective of what’s been going on for the past month or so and the way the race, at least in the establishment lane, has shifted. It’s really Jeb or Marco now. Marco’s fundraising has picked up, and Jeb’s has stayed flat.”
Now they will begin shifting the estabo steam from Jeb to Rubio.
Maybe I’ll post more highlights and low expectations from the past.
RightRing | Bullright
Well, in early 1900s all the way to the mid 1900s it was a competition for nuclear weapons — i.e nuclear arms race. Today, the race is to stop nuclear weapons and prevent them — let alone their use — to stop nuclear proliferation. And that race is on.
Then we have the current Iran “negotiations” of trying to concoct a deal. But this one philosophical question always comes up: who is the greater threat to America, Iran or Obama and his administration? The answer to that is very much in the results. Should Iran get nuclear weapons it will be confirmed it was Obama, not Iran, who was really the bigger threat.
That has become obvious now these many months of negotiation, if there was a question about it before. The reason is quite simple. The man and his administration that could allow this nuclearization(weaponization) to happen, whether in the present tense or years in the future, and sign off on it, is naturally the bigger threat than even a nuclear Iran.
That hints at what kind of a “deal” we can expect from Obama and his cackle of radicals. But we know what damage they have already done via sanctions and pre-deal talks. So it is logic and reason that tell us Obama is the greater threat to the future of America and its security interests.
RightRing | Bullright
The evolving dictionary has found another term that needs defined. All the talk is about white privilege. But there is an obvious term that has not been used called liberal privilege.
We know it’s there, it doesn’t require proof. Obama has played that card often. He doesn’t want to follow or enforce certain laws? No problem, just whip out the old “liberal privilege card” and he doesn’t have to. Whether it was DOMA or writing/rewriting legislation from the Oval Office, no problem. Liberal privilege covers it all. It’s the card with no limits and works anywhere. If they don’t accept the card, force them to, it’s the liberal way.
If you don’t believe in following a particular law, don’t and call it civil disobedience — works great for rioting and looting. If you are an official or politician and do not want to enforce a law, pull your liberal privilege card. Voila you no longer have to. Look how well it worked for Lois Lerner. Does the damage matter? Apparently not. In fact, no one usually pays the penalty, that’s where the card really comes in handy. Hillary Clinton uses hers regularly.
So here’s a slogan candidates could use:
Got Liberal Privilege? Check it!
RightRing | Bullright
Since the progressives are obsessed with “structural racism,” I thought it was time for another term to describe the reality of what we have. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. A H/T to Pepp for the inspiration from our discussion.
The new term is Structural Radicalism. So now I am saddled with defining it. But that should not be easy because of our current state of affairs, or is it current affairs of state? (Merriam-Webster)
: relating to the way something is built or organized
: relating to the structure of something
: the opinions and behavior of people who favor extreme changes especially in government
: radical political ideas and behavior
The integrated structure of radical political ideas and behavior. Now we have it. I suppose one could substitute ideology for opinions, and actions for behavior.
It amuses me how the word “reform” pops up related to government or even political parties. It probably ranks right up there with the most used words by politicians, though probably has as many meanings. In the context used it usually refers to change for good. That’s what they mean or imply anyway.
The problem is that we have already had de facto reform over decades now. Schools, government, culture, society in general. That’s what caused most of our problems. Their reform has percolated since the 60’s. But that reform hasn’t been necessarily good. Roe v Wade, Obamacare, EPA, Kelo decision, education, amnesty, border security, homeland security, housing, sanctuary cities, Bipartisan Campaign Reform, same-sex mariage.
Oh change has come and has people calling for a change back. Remember Obama’s mantra was “Hope and Change”. But the part no one quotes is “change you can believe in” — a faith-based campaign theme. Or the belief in nothingness, as exhibited in his record.
Of course what we got was not what you believed or even wanted. What we got was the invasion of radical mindset in all corners of the government. An infestation Over the years, the same radical ideology has invaded many state and local governments. Chicago, Detroit, San Fran, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, NYC and Universities. Now that seeing is believing, what can you do about it? We are a nation under siege of radicals. Everyone else can see it. And how do you deal with this radicalization of our system? That is a brain buster.
So do you reason with it? That is a foreign language to them. They care as much about reason and logic as nothing. They have no credibility. Emotions are king and activism is their means. They want decisions and law based on ideology and mob activism.
We need an updated strategy
You see, many people believe that the good ideas just win but that is not the nature of radicalism. Is it enough to be right about the issue or issues? Do radicals recoil and pull back all their weapons because “yea, you are right”? So the problem is much bigger than ideas. A certain amount of these radicals will never be converted, and they ill not admit they are wrong and won’t quit. The thing is we need a radical approach to radicalism.
Someone would say but the founders were radicals. Yes, but a different kind of radical. I would call that fundamental radicalism, contrary to what we see here. They are statists, big-government radicals that infiltrated our system at the highest levels.
How do we deal with this progressive radicalism?I admit it will take a tough approach. One might say a radical opposition of the fundamental type. Where that foundational radicalism had some integrity with patriots pledging their lives and fortunes on foundational principles. That kind of unwavering devotion is needed to defeat this Marxist, statist radicalism. So there is no standard political approach with them that will be successful. Might as well talk to a wall. Power and force is all it understands. And don’t expect to reason with it to win it over.
That is why we are at a loss to combat it with any success.They don’t care about due process (Hello Obama & Harry Reid), by their radical nature. They are capable of using and twisting the process to serve their ends. Yet we see how outraged everyone got at Rand Paul or Ted Cruz when they took a tough stand. None of the outraged can tell us what to do. The common ways don’t work.
That also opens the door for economic radicalism interwoven in their activism. We see that rolling out all the time. CEO for Mozilla, gay wedding cakes, Dr. Laura I presume. But those holding the reins of power share the same ideological agenda, which is how we get to a Mayor of Baltimore issuing a stand down order to police during riots and looting. It’s how we get government agencies locking down private bank accounts of individuals, or get the IRS and every alphabet agency jumping on Tea Party organizers. Private property being seized in eminent domain. K-Street lobbyists and government spending. Foreign policy, same thing: negotiating with terrorists, demonstrating lack of will to defend the country and our posterity. It’s structural.
One proposed answer is an Article V Convention — complete with its own hazards — but we still have to deal with the systemic radicalism embedded in our system. But enough of the people have to see it as the real structural radicalism it is, first.
PS: Happy Fourth of July, Independence Day, too.
RightRing | Bullright
Let me travel a little further down the evolutionary trail from Obama. You can blame him so far, for so long. So this is a tribute to the sycophant publik that put him in office, first and foremost the Democrats, progressives, liberals, whatever pseudonym they use. If you cast a ballot for him this post is to you.
What amazes me is how they geared up to vote for this pretender and then stepped back – twice. It’s typical of what Dems do, they elect them and then get out of town. When problems come they plead ignorance and, worse yet, have no clue what he is actually doing. But it is nothing new, they did the same thing with Bill Clinton. And sure enough, they are getting “ready” to do the same thing with Hillary-Bubba-Obama-Clinton.
Obama has plenty of problems, most of which were forecasted. But did the Libs care about that? They didn’t want to hear it. Now they revert to the fingers in the ears and don’t want to hear it as the catastrophe on steroids unfolds. In fact, they “moved on.” Now they are back into organizing to elect the next dictocrat. But in between times, or elections, they block out anything related to the decision they made.(just tune out) They assume no responsibility as the shit begins to hit the fan.
When the stories of scandal and abuse of power come out, where are they? Long gone. “I can’t hear you from here, I’m busy, isn’t the sky a beautiful shade?” Or then you get the boilerplate: “oh, they all do that.” Then comes the denials, “those aren’t scandals, it’s made up by Republicans, who just hate him. Next!” And that is about as far as you get.
Hell, they won’t even admit there are problems. So there is no responsibility for putting the guy in office in the first place. Yet in their arrogant defiance, they turn right to the next election and candidate. Hillary looks good! They’ve “moved on” alright. They left the building long ago. They know nothing after pulling the lever — all that’s required.
The only analogy I can think of is a dog peeing on the carpet. You point to it and say “see what you did, bad!” Even a dog will give you that look, he/she knows. Or when the broom comes out, they know what you are doing. They see that. A liberal or Democrat? There’s nobody home there. “La-ti-da-duh!” And they keep doing the same routine over and over. No accountability for the results; no responsibility for their decision. Just a blank stare.
So then when the King Barry prepares to burn down the suburbs just as predicted, they don’t have a clue or care. “Affirmatively further fair housing,” what problem? They think take the money and that will be that but they don’t know it comes with strings, as it always does. Play dumb, which they are very adept at. Then blame anyone but Obama’s policy for the results — or their support for him.
When feds take over local police departments, they say ‘show me the problem with that.’ Draw them a picture. Then they proceed to blame anyone else. Their willful ignorance is so very convenient. Benghazi popped up before an election. Dems didn’t care one bit. That shall not affect their mind in any way. When the IRS goes out of control, same m/o. Whistling past the graveyard….just as long as there are no whistle blowers playing a different tune. But in that event, attack them. Delay any investigations. Call it under investigation. And “move on” to worrying about the next election. “That is old news”.
The Dems pride themselves on their get out the vote campaigns. Resurrect the dead if you have to. Vote, and then get out of town. Whatever you do, do not take any responsibility for the person you elected to office. That is not part of the deal. You are absolved of any and all responsibility. Hey, what’s not to like about that arrangement of convenience?
RightRing | Bullright
So it comes down to logic and reading the tea leaves.
Society has gotten to the point we now have discretionary law enforcement, from the top. At the same time society has gotten so structurally fragile police cannot and won’t be able to protect people. Partly, that may be understood. But on top of those challenges, they also made the conscious choice not to try to protect individuals or private property. That decision comes from those in power and elected, not LEOs by themselves. So when push comes to shove, as it often does, they already made the choice.
This is understood by people who understand the law and purposes of government.
Bad enough they feel at a loss to protect a given person in a situation. Then they have made a bureaucratic decision not to protect you. This crystallized in Baltimore as a Fox reporter was covering the protests had a cop tell him that the reporter should know that if he got into trouble out there, the cops could not protect him. The police could not risk starting a riot to try to save or protect the reporter. It was a tell tale sign. There was a rational reason for the cop to say that to a reporter, but it reveals a larger problem.
As the Mayor of Baltimore and whoever else made the decision to stand down, it was equivalent to making a choice not to protect people or property. It swung the pendulum against protecting innocent citizens or victims. The burden was on innocent citizens.
When they made that conscious stand down policy, they reversed the purpose of government, which is to secure the rights and property of people… to ignoring and deliberately not protecting people. Now it is worse than defying their oath and obligation. They made a decision to forfeit your property, as if their name was on the deed.
Yet worse is motivations and who benefits. They made a choice to protect government, themselves, over your property. In fact, they are actively protecting government, while ignoring property and security. So the fundamental purpose of government almost exclusively is protecting itself. The job of LEOs is to preserve and protect itself.
Government has been engaged in this. It’s first and only priority is to itself. We now have government, of the government, by government, for government. Nothing more. This is why so many people question not only the purpose and intent of government, but much of its existence. Is it really just for itself, for the benefit of itself and nothing more?
RightRing | Bullright
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.
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 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.
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
Ben Marquis April 24, 2015 | Western Journalism
Last year, as part of his Imperial decree of amnesty for illegal immigrants, President Barack Obama created the White House Task Force on New Americans, whose goal is to vastly increase the numbers and rates at which immigrants were naturalized and granted citizenship.
This Task Force works hand-in-hand with the George Soros-funded, open borders-promoting Migration Policy Institute, as well as the openly racist group La Raza, a Mexican nationalist organization that has called for the mass murder of white Americans and a return of the western states to Mexico.
The Task Force is headed up by one Cecilia Munoz, Obama’s Domestic Policy Advisor, who also used to serve as Vice President of La Raza (which translates to “The Race” in English)–a group that receives millions in taxpayer funding, by the way.
Although the Obama administration has claimed that they don’t have enough money to deport illegal immigrants, they apparently found enough money to fund a marketing campaign targeting specific cities in specific “swing states,” aimed at encouraging swift naturalization and citizenship for immigrants.
One can’t help but notice the timing of this plan of action by the Task Force, right ahead of the 2016 election, as they push to create as many new voters as possible–the majority of whom will undoubtedly be swayed to vote for whoever the Democrat nominee is.
According to The Daily Caller, this is actually nothing new, but rather is remarkably similar to a project launched in 1995 during the Clinton administration called Citizenship USA–which was run by then-White House Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel.
The CUSA’s main goal, in Emanuel’s own words, was to “produce 1-million new citizens before Election Day,” by relaxing the rules, regulations, and fees surrounding the naturalization and citizenship process.
Although there was an incredibly damning Inspectors General report after the fact, nothing much was ever done about it; and evidence of voter fraud in the 1996 and 2000 elections was covered up and ignored.
Essentially, the same thing is happening yet again, as the Obama team is seeking to flood the country with new Democrat voters, diluting the voter pool and more or less disenfranchising conservative voters by cancelling their votes with those of illegally naturalized immigrants.
The goal of progressives is to create as many new voters for their party as possible–new voters dependent upon the government who will vote for the Democrat Party which helped them stay in the country and draw benefits when they should have been deported.
These people are criminals and are actively working to weaken and destroy the country, in any possible way that they can.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you aren’t surprised at all that the Obama administration is trying to create new voters out of illegal immigrants to bolster the Democrat Party with more dependents.
This article first appeared at Conservative Tribune. Like their Facebook page.
We could be reaching a whole new saturation level in politics today, especially concerning America’s favorite beyotch, HRC.
Well, if the speaking fees (and amenities to match) were not enough to draw even the ire of MSM, then it has gotten worse since. But it is still all about money, surprise. That’s what Clintons are about, after all, and lots of it.
Last year at this time, MSNBC even got into the outrage that HRC was getting 275,000 for an hour-long speech at SUNY Buffalo. Then MSM dared to ask the question of all questions: why did Hillary take the money? Why couldn’t she wave the fee or just do it for free? That would never cross Hillanista’s mind. And she also could not forgo the rich amenities she demands with it either. Like a crook leaving some cash behind, she could not do that. The money is the whole point. How much are her words worth?
Now we have the uncovering of the Clinton cash component entangled with her corrupt State Department term. Then we have Hillary’s pronouncement of her 2.5 billion dollar campaign plan for 2016. Maybe that kind of cash was meant to scare Republicans. Alright, can you imagine Rand Paul raising and waging 2.5 billion dollars? I don’t think that’s going to happen. What about any other contender? Not likely but a 5 billion-dollar election for president? What does that say about America? Jeb, are you up for that?The whole point is what does it say about the Clintons? By the next election, how about a quarter of a trillion? Trying to ante up in this high-stakes game makes it extremely difficult.
So are Clintons out to buy our process? We already know they are globalists with their eyes set on the world. Is this their means? They can claim, while doing it, that they are doing a lot of good. The moral to the story, from progressives’ perspective, is what does it matter how many millions they are raking in if they are doing some good? (how much does mosquito netting cost these days?) The Clinton Global Initiative is really the Clinton Initiative — by Clintons for Clintons.
Contrast that with Hillary’s campaign. It seems oddly ironic to run a campaign theme of fight for the little guy, her anti-one-percenter theme. The Clintons entire objective is to raise money — and there are no glass ceilings. But they think they can get away with it because, after all, they are the Clintons. Who can deny the Clintons what they want?
So will America empty its pockets into the coffers of Clintons to get another Clinton elected? Isn’t it time America puts the Clinton Clowns out to political pasture? If not now when? We cannot separate them from their cashola but we can say enough public offices on our dime. They prove how effective they can be without political power — shadow government and all — so why give that to them, too? (be glad to get rid of them)
Their collective political bios should already be written and finished. What more do Clintons need or want to get from our government? Because we know it is about what America will do for them, not what they would ever do for America.
Plus, we will have another guy leaving the White House to suck oxygen out of the universe. That is bad enough on the face, so why put another Occupier into the Oval Office again on top of it? Hillary shows how lucrative the speaker circuit is for her. Same for Bill. And Obama is bound to enrich his wealth on the same and he’ll have his ___ organization. This stuff just keeps going on and on and on, and it seems nothing is going to stop it.