Open Letter To The Mainstream Media

I write in sympathy to your current predicament. I know you have an extreme lack of credibility and standing with the public. Or maybe you are still in denial? You offend them and they offend you. I know it upsets you.

I feel your pain; but I cannot validate it.

The problem is that it is not Trump’s fault. That must be hard for you to accept, too. Yet it is the truth. Just repeat the words: “our credibility deficit is not Trump’s fault.”

It was not Trump’s fault that before the 2016 election you jumped on the Hillary bandwagon, with no reservations. You were doing her bidding well before the primaries.

When the election did come, by then you had set the perception that she was the winner by all standards and could not lose. Trump had nothing to do with your willful bias. He was not whispering in your ear to give favorable treatment to Hillary, forcing you to do her cleanup and dirty work.

He did not tell you to make things up about him and his supporters just like you all did about Tea Parties. He didn’t choose all your negative coverage of himself and positive coverage for Hillary. That was not in his power or within his influence to do.

He didn’t make you into card-carrying members of the resistance. He didn’t tell you to brand his supporters as racists, bigots, or even domestic terrorists. But you implied they were dumb, uneducated grievance hustlers who were generations out of step with the times. (talk about projection)

We came to the party only to take our part. You came to blacklist us. Sure, you couldn’t quite get the job done, but you expected it to take a toll. To some degree it did. Though you couldn’t defeat or destroy us. After all, you had been trying more subtly to do that for years. But we were not going away. In fact, we were the original resistance. So you fully embraced the banner of resistance after the election. Trump did not make you do that. He only pointed it out. You demurred any criticism because that is the kind of people you are.

We don’t matter. When you ran the daily 24/7 hate Trump media for his first two years, hyping the resistance movement and impeachment, you dug in your heels of sedition. With every leak and anonymous source you could muster, you blazed an historical trail, aligning yourselves with a coup well under way from the first day of Trump’s presidency.

Yes, I can sympathize with your pain and agony of it all. Well, I can because we have felt that prejudice against us from the public for decades. Your part in that campaign against us has not gone unrecognized. We are well aware of it and your attitude against we the people. We know how you feel about the people and flyover country.

We know how you despise the people’s mindset… and their choice.

So when Donald Trump said some members of the mainstream media – not all — were enemies of the people, he was right. We already knew that. You just confirmed it. When you were offended by that comment, it was not our fault. You did it. When you tried to spin yourselves into victims of that remark, it fell on deaf ears because we have always been the real victims of your schemes.

We get to vote, and were determined to vote regardless what you thought of us. See, you get to cast your vote everyday, as the elitists you are. You want to control dialogue and you couldn’t. The conversation went on around you, even factoring in your heavy hand at the ballot. But you could not control the discussion or the election results. So I can really identify with how you must feel. We’ve felt that way for years and you never cared.

Yes, we all know exactly what it is like to be outcast by the public as troublemakers and crazies. But we were not looking to validate our victimhood. We didn’t have to. It is prima facie in any honest assessment. Along comes media now claiming to be the righteous victims of slander, smear or character assassination to vindicate their cause. It is dishonest. It is self-serving, it is agenda driven and, finally, it is very political.

Now you have laid the record bare for all to see. Only you want your trashed credibility back on a golden platter. That’s just not how any of this works.

Worse than all that, you have also lost credibility with the Left, your handlers and allies. You promised and built up their hopes that you would assist in taking down this president.

When the Mueller report came out and didn’t declare the collusion you promised, your radical base of consumers recoiled. Their hearts and trust were broken. So you have lost on both sides, with your enemies and your allies. Hurts, doesn’t it?

That should have taught you something. But it was your stubborn choices you made every step of the way that are to blame, not Trump. We didn’t destroy your credibility. You did that yourself. We only supplied the means. Remember reporters demanding apologies from Trump? By the way, did you ever apologize for the way you treated the Tea Parties? No, it’s all part of the long record now. It lives on to prove to anyone honestly looking.

You are the victims of your own bias and hatred. Thursday will only validate what we all knew. It will expose you for the liars you were all along. But Trump didn’t do it to you.

It might be time to take some stock and dust off that first amendment to see what is really in it. There is more there than your beloved freedom. And last I checked, you weren’t.

Right Ring | Bullright

Let’s go with media bias for a 1,000

We don’t have to take it from conservative media. Here’s Ted Koppel actually making the good case against the MSM agenda.

Ted Koppel: New York Times, Washington Post ‘decided as organizations’ that Trump is bad for United States

By Brian Flood | Fox News

Journalism legend Ted Koppel feels that The New York Times and Washington Post have both “decided as organizations” that President Trump is bad for America.

“I’m terribly concerned that when you talk about the New York Times these days, when you talk about the Washington Post these days, we’re not talking about the New York Times of 50 years ago. We are not talking about the Washington Post of 50 years ago,” Koppel said on March 7 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a clip that was uncovered on Monday by NewsBusters.

“We’re talking about organizations that I believe have, in fact, decided as organizations that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States,” Koppel said. “We have things appearing on the front page of the New York Times right now that never would have appeared 50 years ago.”

Koppel explained that analysis and commentary didn’t use to appear on the front page, but times have changed since Trump entered the world of politics.

“I remember sitting at the breakfast table with my wife during the campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out and the New York Times, and I will not offend any of you here by using the language but you know exactly what words were used, and they were spelled out on the front page of the New York Times,” he said. “I turned to my wife and I said, ‘The Times is absolutely committed to making sure that this guy does not get elected.’”

Koppel said Trump’s perception that “the establishment press is out to get him” is indeed accurate.

“He’s not mistaken when so many of the liberal media, for example, described themselves as belonging to the Resistance. What does that mean? That’s not said by people who consider themselves reporters, objective reporters of facts,” Koppel said. “That’s the kind of language that’s used by people who genuinely believe, and I rather suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.”

The Times and Post did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is hardly the first time Koppel has bashed a mainstream media organization.

Last year, Koppel mocked CNN’s Brian Stelter to his face, telling the “Reliable Sources” host that “CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump” while on stage for a National Press Club panel discussion.

Stelter responded by asking, “That means what? If ratings are up, that means what?”

Koppel – who anchored ABC News’ “Nightline” for 25 years and has been a working journalist for over four decades — quickly answered.

“The ratings are up, it means you can’t do without Donald Trump. You would be lost without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as Stelter shook his head in disagreement.

“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.

“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel said as the audience laughed.

There is one little nut he left in there. He said “people who bleive, I suspect with some justification, that Donald Trump is bad for the United States.” Except justification is missing. Opinion is not reason alone for what they do. We never did that en masse to Obama and we had quite the case there for it. Believing he is “bad for America” is not the justification for hatred, resistance and impeachment. There must be real cause.

No, the problem they have with Trump is that he is non-conventional, and they are more than non-conventional in return. If he was conventional, they could apply all their typical radicalism and beat him down. And that would work as usual.

So Trump is somewhat radical in the way he responds. And that is partly why he got elected. It also happens to be the only effective way to react to these rabid leftists.That is the appeal of radicalism, make their own subversive actions hard to respond to.

They don’t want a debate or discussion, no matter how many times they say it. So Ted Koppel inadvertently gets himself caught in a dilemma.

Every time you hear media, politicians or people hypercritically complaining how some problem needs to be dealt with and fixed, remember one thing: they might have a superficial point that does sound good, it is ridiculous in practicality. We must have an effective response to radicalism — no matter what the problem is. Unless you have that, you will not have a real solution. A followup part II is needed for that.

Media Does It Again: making donuts

The lamestream media has done it once again. Synopsis: media put out an article that they thought was a damning case against Trump but instead vindicated him. But don’t tell.

This really gets to be a tiring exercise always chasing down what media says verses what it really means. Actually nothing is ever what MSM says it means or thinks it means. That alone would be an indictment on journalism, in a normal world. But is it?

Here is the problem, they know what they are doing. The reality can’t condemn their incompetence because they are not. They are just competent at getting things consistently wrong, by intention and design. It is the same proverbial question always raised about Obama. Is he really dumb, naive or just arrogantly inexperienced; or does he know exactly what he is doing? Too many people missed that distinction giving him the benefit of any doubt. (a benefit never awarded to Trump) Incidental verses calculated?

In Obama’s case, he did know. But we were not supposed to be on to him. His first duty was to keep any naivete public illusion alive. In other words, the first goal was to deceive. Hypothetically, he could have really been wistfully unaware each and every time some major scandalous thing happened, where he only read about it in the papers, but then none of the full picture about Obama would fit or make any sense. And it would have been completely wrong, which he desperately wanted and needed us to be. See similarities?

The key is you find out the answer to any questions about radicals’ conduct and motivations for it when they are confronted. You will know by how deeply they dig in to defend or explain it. Then you know how intentionally malicious and subversive it all is and how important to them. Their anger and lengths they go to only confirms their intent.

That is why it is important to keep confronting “progressives” and radicals, to keep pointing out what they are doing. I mean one could stop and say what is the point because they know and I know what they are doing? That is too easy for them. However, I am not under the illusion I am getting somewhere or proving something in pointing out the issues.

It was the same way with Obama, we knew what he was doing and he knew it but it needed to be said. Unfortunately, he was never confronted the way he should be. But enough people did raise questions and he apparently heard those questions, we now know.

I think the real point with these cold, calculated people like Obama or MSM and others is not that they are doing a job but that their real mission is a fine art in deception. They see that as their talent. Objectivity or fairness never has anything to do with it, or very little. Only that illusion matters — and they aren’t too convincing about that.

No wonder they hate the fake news label with everything they have, as it is everything.

Their whole goal is not to tell you something but make you think and believe a certain narrative. So the narrative rules, which coincides with a political agenda. See it is all up to us then, how we perceive them as to how successful they are at their mission. If we believe CNN, NYT or media to be noble and credible sources, they are halfway to their goal. Then you will likely accept what they tell you when they feed you the narrative. So it is very much about telling you what to believe, not informing you. (unless by informing they mean forcing you to believe their narrative.) The rest is downhill.

While it may seem redundant to us to keep pointing out the lies and problems with their narrative it does serve a purpose. It challenges them to explain it and also lets them know that we know. If that basic deception is the first objective their mission and narrative depend on, it puts them back to square one. See they really need people to believe them. If they can’t get people to that they cannot convince them in the (political) narrative.

Think about this, as a tribute to their success, they could convince a good part of the nation into sedition without the people even realizing exactly what they are engaging in. If they are that good to string them along on that, what else can they lead people into?

That is their formula, whether it is on Russia or any of their other favorite pet issues. The left uses the same tactics. Obama’s campaign theme was not so much on “change” but the “believe in” part that made it possible. On reelection he told people just keep believing. So, pay attention not to what you see but what we tell you to see and what you believe.

Right Ring | Bullright

Washington, Media Cabal of Chaos

They are in a tizzy. Let’s look at the media. They say there is a false equivalency here and that there is/can be no moral equivalency with White Supremacists and Nazis.

First, Trump was not making a direct moral equivalency. But he suggested violence on both sides. Now then, the left’s great equivalency argument.

If they hate any moral equivalence, then why is the Left drawing a moral equivalence of KKK, Nazis, racists with Trump and his entire base? Why can they freely apply an equivalence by comparing and associating Trump with racists or white supremacists?

Now the Left (et al), including antifa, will apply these same protest tactics to anything tied to Trump they can — as if they are racist terrorists. There is a rally planned next week in Arizona. My bet is the Left is staging a major protest for that. They want to apply the same public hatred and resentment against supremacists at the moment, , onto Trump. Get it? Yeah, I smell what the radical left is cooking.

The media has called on any high level Trump administration officials to quit in a show of separation with Trump over his latest statements on Charlottesville. So they want to see mass resignations in the administration. If they can’t directly oust Trump at the moment, they want to shame Trump’s advisers and team into abandoning him. It is now a real part of their anti-Trump strategy. It is disturbing how this is pushed by mainstream media and CNN . This is not a few low-level rogue leftists.

As Trump shut down the manufacturing and business councils, this was one more shot at Trump. It all happens when Trump is on vacation. The left has been ramping up pressure against Trump for months. They want to turn public opinion against Trump when he is on vacation, and undermine support for his agenda. It really is how they think.

I’m calling this a back-door coup. Trump goes out the front door on vacation, and the left tries to storm the back door in a coup d’etat. That is by driving distance between administration officials and Trump. No, it is not going to work like that. But getting any resignation would be useful against Trump. They hoped for a mass show of opposition to Trump. That would set the table for Congress when they return.

Screw America and the people’s agenda, all that matters is the Left’s agenda.

All to show ‘no confidence in Trump,’ of course. Imagine if they did anything like that to Obama? The left wants to drive public opinion/sentiment down so that he cannot carry out anything. Dysfunction is the Left’s best friend. On a regular basis you can turn on news to hear them question if there is any public confidence at all for Trump? I know, but this is what they are doing. Then they pose the old fitness for office question to bolster the argument for the 25th Amendment.

Their latest useful item is Bob Corker’s criticism in questioning Trump’s competence, and stability, for office. Corker said Trump has not demonstrated that he understands the character of the nation. Get that? There is another trophy for the left to use in its war against Trump, along with criticism from McCain, Rubio, Kasich and now McConnell. The usual suspects. What can the left do with that? Just add it to their Russia boondoggle.

The American people are being screwed as usual, by the same people who have been doing it for years, but now on a different level. It’s on, a coup in motion against Trump.

Right Ring | Bullright

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Busted

You don’t say…..mainstream media hasn’t or won’t, that’s for sure.
Washington Examiner

Federal contractor arrested for sending classified intelligence to news outlet

“A 25-year-old federal contractor is facing charges she leaked a classified National Security Agency document to a news outlet in May. The charges come about an hour after the publication of a story based on an NSA document detailing Russian attempts to hack American voting systems.

Reality Leigh Winner, of Augusta, Ga., is facing charges that she removed classified material from a government facility and mailed it to a news outlet. She was arrested on Saturday and appeared on the charge Monday.”

Read at Washington Examiner

Let me guess, a Hillary Clinton voter/supporter? Just a hunch, call me psychic.

Negative Impact On The Election

Okay, which one had more negative effects and impact on the election:

(A) hacks and wikilleaks’ dumps of a couple email accounts connected to Hillary Clinton
(and so-called Russian intervention in the election via influencing voters) OR

(B)the hyper-radicalized media coverage attacking Trump 24/7 for over 9 months ?
(while dumbing down coverage by ignoring criticisms / record of Hillary Clinton)
 

You decide. Shall we examine the headlines and press pages, too? Mo’ investigation!

RightRing | Bullright

The Dumber Than Public Media

For years we had the media trying to dumb down the American public. Now we have Donald Trump dumbing down mainstream media. They prove it everyday.

Trump puts out a tweet on nuclear arms and the media goes Gatling guns on him.

Always expect the media to interpret Trump’s statements in the worst possible way. That’s a given. They can’t even admit there is another meaning behind it than their worst possible scenario interpretation. For Obama, the benefit of doubt is endless. For Trump, “there can be no doubt about it, this is really bad!“.

Wait, he just suggested the world had apparently not yet come to it’s senses regarding nukes. Oh, just ignore that. No wonder Trump calls them disgusting.

Well then, they just came off a 9 month fear mongering campaign over Russia when they cared nothing about Obama promising Putin more flexibility in his last term. Nor did MSM correct Obama for claiming the Russian threat was as obsolete as bell-bottoms and Atari.

Now Russia and nukes are behind every door, just pick one. You might get both as in this case. Putin announced they will strengthen nuclear/military capabilities, but it seems Trump is supposed to volunteer to weaken ours in response. Media has a cow.

But Trump said it on Twitter, so they declared his T-account a national security threat.

They also question why he is talking about nukes anyway? Hillary’s campaign and media were obsessed with talking about nukes. Trump mentions them and it is “off sides — 15 yard penalty.” And the public says, “but you all were the ones bringing up nukes.”

Trump is on his way to dumbing down the media. They just haven’t noticed.

RightRing | Bullright

Screw the Debates

I look forward to and enjoy the debates as much as anyone. They are informative and have a place. But they are only one part in the whole process. Like everything else, we see how biased or corrupted they can be. Politicized, for sure, but have they outlived their status?

I mean what else would we expect? It is their system, the establishment likes its control and uses it every way they can. So debates are one of their tentacles. They own it.

However, in case the elite inside, power-control estabos — who know better than the people — have not noticed, the people have been having a debate from the beginning. That’s the real debate, a referendum on them. Estabos do not like that one at all.

So if they haven’t noticed by now, we have come to a few conclusions too. The status quo has got to go. The ruling class told us we are irrelevant and what we want doesn’t matter. They tell us what issues are important. And they tell us how we should vote. That’s the way it is done, they say. Our vote must be based on others’ their choice and endorsements.

While we had this kick down dragged out debate this far, they’ve opposed the will of the people every step. They didn’t notice we won every round. People are fed up. We get faux hearings about phony responsibility with no accountability. Nothing short of that is on their menu now. The establishment is insulted that we dare resist their status quo bargain.

These days they complain about “structural racism” inherent in all places, yet they have a structural bias in the whole election process — from establishment to media — just as they have in government. That structuralism doesn’t bother them one bit, they thrive on it.

Now this elite status-quo is using the race card in every way to keep their establishment in control of the process to control the results. Then the debate injects the label of racist even into the debate. They play the gender card in the same way. Put that together with the smear tactics and you have a structural establishment cocktail to destroy any opposition to it. That’s their plan. Some value debates mey have, but they change nothing.

Under that light, what do even the debates really mean? Use the debates to screw us? What’s new? It’s better not to bestow any more value on them than they deserve — consider the source.

RightRing | Bullright

Media gets Nazified

Well, Donald Trump Jr put his finger on the media’s Brownshirt influence.

CNN

“The media has been her number one surrogate in this. Without the media, this wouldn’t even be a contest. But the media has built her up. They’ve let her slide on every indiscrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of the thing,” Trump Jr. told Philadelphia-based conservative talk radio host Chris Stigall on Wednesday.

I mean, if Republicans were doing that, they’d be warming up the gas chamber right now. It’s a very different system — there’s nothing fair about it,” Trump Jr. added.

Ouch. Media dogs of politics are not going to like that. Hillary has already labeled all the deplorables to target. They’d be all over the Right if media aligned itself like this. There is nothing fair about it, and it is warfare to the media. Free press is not.

I’ve never seen this extent before, though it just validates what Trump has said about the media lapdogs. The good part may be that they are pushing it so far, to such obvious extremes, that it could backfire and turn more people toward Trump. But they are too zealous for Hillary to see that.

Israel’s cultural stigmatism

Every once in a while — all right more frequent than that — it is time to get out and see what some of the biggest mouthpieces are saying about key events going on outside the beltway-fed silos or mainstream American news cycles.

Whoops, did I just say mainstream America? That should be a typo since what the left’s acolytes increasingly lump into “mainstream” are the radical assertions trickled down from ivory towers on high, cultivated then fertilized further by hotbeds of hatred activists for anyone with opposing views to their uber-centric, neo-Marxist ideology.

Gaza’s kids affected psychologically, physically by lifetime of violence

Al Jazeera asks medical experts about the psychological, physical and generational effects of war on Gaza’s youth
July 31, 2014 | Al Jazeera

Beyond the immediate loss in Gaza — destruction of property, infrastructure, and the deaths of more than 1,600 people, mostly civilians — Israel’s onslaught will have long-term mental and physical effects on the Palestinian children who survived weeks of airstrikes and naval and tank shelling.

Many of them watched as family members were killed and homes, schools and mosques bombarded. Others suffered life-altering injuries. Israel’s military campaign may also affect the unborn, as mothers and fathers struggle with traumatic stress, health experts warn. [more]

I challenge you after reading these clips, to take a look at the link from Al Jazeera to see the academic level of their Leftist diagnosis of the Israel-Palestinian situation, which is the thought they are trying to mainstream. They’ve been somewhat successful at it.

Dr. Jesse Ghannam, clinical professor of psychiatry and global health sciences at the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine:

Psychological impact

Even before the current military offensive, young Gazans bore the mental scars of years under siege and previous episodes of bombardment. After the 2012 war, the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among children in Gaza doubled, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance for Palestinian refugees. Mental health experts fear that the latest bombardment may create detrimental repercussions too difficult for children to overcome.

Palestinian children in Gaza are exposed to more violence in their lifetime than any other people, any other children, anywhere in the world. If you look at children right now who are 10 years old, they’ve been through Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009, the invasion in 2012 and now the invasion and destruction in 2014, in addition to the siege. If you look at the statistics, for example, even before Cast Lead, 80 percent of Palestinian children in Gaza have witnessed some sort of violence against them, a friend or a family member. And now you’re getting to the point where probably close to 99 percent of children in Gaza are being exposed to a level of violence where they have seen family members be killed, murdered, burned alive. There’s nothing like the levels of traumatic exposure that any child in the world has ever been exposed to on a chronic and daily basis. – more Al Jazeera

Here is a llnk from the Salon magazine arguing against the coverage in the NYT of the Israel-Palestine conflict. They blame the Times for getting it wrong by leading people to think it is a matter of various factors and social media that lead Palestinian youth to the violence like the recent attacks on Israelis. They take big issue that this be blamed on anything but Israel. Imagine that, even the Times doesn’t satisfy their anti-Israel appetite.

It may be hard for us to consider that the Times falls short in carrying the Leftists’ water, but this illustrates that dynamic I’m talking about where even the Leftists are not far enough Left to satisfy them. Thus, the whole push to mainstream, further, the narrative of the new Leftist thought. And they will have their way, as they usually do, even if incrementally, driving the Times and other Leftist mouthpieces into their narrative. After all, when they get academia and virtually all their other liberal institutions to drive a point it usually has results.

So just for a flavor of that high-brow prodding toward their “mainstream” view, here is a small sampling:

If not placing the blame on social media and Palestinian youth, defenders of Israel’s policies argue that the cause of the violence goes far back in history, to an inbred, and therefore a historical hatred toward Jews. Such an argument also says therefore that the Occupation is not to blame. Maybe not, but how then to ignore the fact that the very worst of the violence we have seen through the years has been in the West Bank and Gaza, and that it is occurring now? – Salon

 

Then you have from a blogger on the topic, what passes now more for liberal mainstream, an overview of the mainstreaming activism of pro-Palestinian thought.

Mondoweiss

The leftwing movement of criticism of Israel is getting more and more mainstream by the second. Everyone is walking the path; they’re just getting there a little later. The Washington Post, a hotbed of neoconservative ideas for the last 15 years, has another article harshly critical of Israel today, written by an Israeli. And guess what: that article along with yesterday’s article by the two prestige Jewish academics calling for boycott of Israel are the two “most-read” articles on the Post list this morning! –

    See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/washington-unrepairable-society#sthash.zqkR5pXe.dpuf

This feeds into the next topic, the BDS activist movement. As it says, this is increasingly becoming mainstream opinion/thought, at least from leftists. They get louder to drive the narrative and seem to think the more they promote it as such, the more it becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy. Seeing is believing.

Search for Competency

How do you start a post that is filled with sanctimonious hubris, self-serving political interests, elite establishment powers and politics? Maybe you just dive in.

The recent debate taught some of us that the media is an important player in that process. But it was evident from the beginning when CNN wanted to use old polls in placing candidates on the two different tiers. It proved media can and does have some influence in the debates — not to mention the questions.

Elite establishment likes to pick the winners. Should I say they like to decide? With all these influences coming together, the one thing that unifies them is the establishment. Why don’t we just have an Establishment Party? It would be simpler.

Even despite all this influence peddling, I have a few observations that stand out to me:

Both Parties are having primaries, why does it appear the media only cares about one, the Republican primary? No one is interested in Dems’ views on current issues.

The media competes on what probing questions to ask Republican candidates, especially the outsider ones. No one asks any tough probing policy questions to the Democrats, including Hillary. In fact, Hillary had refused to state her position on the XL Pipeline for months. No one pushed the issue. Then suddenly, in the face of dwindling polls and the Pope”s visit highlighting the climate change agenda, she vows to oppose it.

Media is casting its vote all the time. They don’t like Trump. They all would like him out, but they do like the ratings he brings them. But don’t talk about Hillary’s opponents.

All these factors together help create one atmosphere of unrest. People were already angry enough, which is why Trump got on top. Democrats are too, but they look to a big government socialist like Sanders for solutions — more government. But people are not just angry with government or Congress. It’s toward media, too, long a point of contention with conservatives, and anything connected with old-guard establishment.

So we have the government not trusted, in any branch. Media is distrusted more and more and under suspicion. The economy is no pillar of stability, not to most people anyway. The world is destabilized with refugees now flooding all across Europe. And Kerry already announced we are going to take a 80,000 and 100,000 the following year. Putin is putting on the blitz.

IRS was targeting people, EPA is running roughshod. Hillary is a ham sandwich short of indictment. We still have the border crisis which people are ticked off with. Mad but no, they do not just want new immigration law. We can’t trust the government to enforce current laws. So we have that old festering wound which doesn’t trust government on anything. Nor the media. We can’t trust the government to investigate itself.

They are angry with the effects Obamacare has had. They are angry with the debt and budget, and Planned Parenthood. They are angry with the effects government has had over their lives and liberty.They are angry with the abuse of power. They are angry that they elected representatives who forgot what they came to Washington for. They are angry at their Party who shortstops their voice in elections. Pissed off would be putting it mildly.

Then you have career politicians vying to fix the problems, with the track records they already have — generally making things worse — while the establishment runs interference to pick them. Then there are the denials about many of the problems we take seriously and they don’t seem to. Talk about icing the cake!

Media in Meltdown Mode

First we had Brian Williams in liar-gate and now the steaming fresh George Stephanopoulos ‘donation derriere-gate’. But what is the message, other than media is not the responsible organ of public trust it ought to be? Media seems to be in a meltdown.

It makes an overall statement of lamestream’s credibility — right, it has none. More importantly to the point, what is the error it committed? They knew the track record and who these guys were when they negotiated and signed these mega contracts.

Breitbart: (Stephanopoulosis worse than Williams)

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer argued George Stephanopoulos’ behavior is worse than Brian Williams’ on Monday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Earlier, Schweizer said … “He certainly knew that he had donated to the Clinton Foundation and he also knew that — as I lay out in the article, he had participated in all these events. I mean, we’re not just talking about George Stephanopolous’ time — his money. We’re also talking about his time.

Does the MSM think a huge contract is going to change who they are? Does creating a nice job around them change anything?

Let’s take it a step further. The Clintons are perfect examples. Do we think the money or prestige of a large charitable foundation, in their name, is going to change who they are? Put some more lipstick on that pig. Was making her Secretary of State? Is running for president? Of course MSM knows who these people are and so do we. They are who they’ve always been.

So what is the shock and consternation from the media corporates? They knew what they were getting. Most of us saw the red flags when Stephanopoulos first surfaced as a media mogul. Sure they can install George at the head of a division or anything else, but guess what? He is still George Stephanopoulos — not wonder boy, Mediatron. Progressives love to reinvent themselves, they do it all the time, but it doesn’t change who they are.

Now we’ll have the debate, controversy about Brian Williams coming back. That gave me an idea. Why not put him back on journalism and embed him in Hillary Clinton’s campaign on the road? Between the two of them they would be able to create some of the best alternative reality we’ve ever heard. And that might be just the thing to kick start Hillary’s campaign. It would make for the most fascinating air-brushed coverage to draw the viewers, too. It’s the best of both worlds, media and politics, which in their case are pretty much the same thing. But they would know what they are getting.

Providence votes in disagreement

This takes a little explaining but I’ll try. The last few weeks reinforce my opinion that there just might be some method in all this madness. It’s a working theory.

Let me start by acknowledging all those loud voices against foreign involvements of any kind. Oh, it makes for some good soundbites. Generally, a lot of people agree with that evidenced by Ron Paul’s popularity. There are good points. There are also limits and extremes, though this is not about the validity of that theory.

Into that backdrop and sentiment came Obama into office. He attempted to project his success in that philosophy, as well as his overall ideology. Then came his second campaign and, besides all other problems, he made anti-war the central issue. “Osama bin Laden is Dead and GM is alive.” Biden said that was the bumper sticker for the campaign, despite reality. Obama’s inaction toward foreign wars was supposed to be his greatest achievement. And they eventually caught bin Laden, even if it was only a matter of time. He rode the victory lap long and hard on that right into the campaign.

Then came Benghazi. After years complaining that Bush took his eye off the ball, a terrorist attack happens. No sooner did it happen than he was figuratively and literally in full campaign mode when they began lying and standing truth on its head. They had already been spinning the Libya adventure, declaring it a validation of Obama’s approach and trying their organizing touch with their Muslim Brotherhood connections.

That was just the backdrop for what happened. As hard as team Obama tried to project his utopian vision, events took place to defy it. Well, they still argued that not only were they correct but things were going swimmingly smooth.(or they pointed to Bush) Regardless of the talk, one Mid-East uprising after another went awry under his studious leadership, if you followed their narrative about it all. They tried to reassure everyone things were working as planned. Biden had claimed Iraq would be their big success story.

But they were so busy running from and trying to rewrite Benghazi to notice what was happening — or to see the overall message. The people caught on but they didn’t. And they dug in even further, calling Benghazi a manufactured and made-up scandal just like they called Fast and Furious. It was standard protocol to deny any truth about it.

Here is the point. It was somewhere between the middle of his fist term and Benghazi. He painted a portrait that seemed nothing like reality, and the sales pitch for it became harder and harder. There never was an attempt to work with others — as Obama claimed he had always done. No, those lies aren’t the real point either. But what happened every time was as if divine providence proved him wrong.

As he was writing off Iraq as ‘his’ success story, it was falling apart. As he was betting on the Arab Spring, it got sprung by his Mo-Bros and radicals. Just like he’d declared success in Libya it fell apart. As he swore off action with a red line in Syria, with a warning not to use chemical weapons, what happened? Hello chemicals. He then declared it a success after Putin cut him off at the pass, and detoured it. Success was now an agreement, he claimed. He was applying the same negotiation strategy with Iran, and again prematurely calling it progress and success.

Now do you notice what happened every time, almost as if planned? The truth showed its head every time. So the message was always there, we could see it. I believe, and it is only my opinion, that the truth was saying “you cannot hide me, and I am not going away.” Despite what Obama did, it seemed truth would not be hidden from view. As stubbornly arrogant as Obama is, the truth appears as stubborn.

They start with deception: but the JV, regional ISIS begs to differ. No threats in this country, then people are caught at the border with ISIS ties ( plus those who got by). Napolitano said we had a border perception problem. Yea, a 20/20 problem. You can’t hide 60,000 illegals storming the border. Why make the statements? No shutdown of government, voila shutdown. Obamacare will save money, facts be damned. Clapper said we aren’t wittingly collecting Americans’ information. Obama said there was “ not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS scandal. Hello.

Obama rolled out his signature Obamacare putting so much emphasis on their success beforehand that it could not live up to it on any level. Even worse, the process to roll it out was so flawed it was laughable. Do you see a little humor in that? I know it wasn’t funny but it was like Providence was playing its hand again. The irony of truth, in spite of what they said and did. With all the ObamaCare hype, you’d think at least the problem-plagued program could roll out without creating even more disaster than it already was.

Even with help from mainstream media, they could not completely hide the truth. Benghazi blew up in their face, after they thought they had killed it. Then came the IRS scandal. Each time they defiantly ignored it. Then the sequester testified.

Obama portrays himself as patient and wise. Events don’t validate it. Almost the harder they try to project their narrative, someone is saying “not so fast…you can’t get away with all those lies.” You probably know what I think. But it would be hard to suggest Obama is going along completely undeterred. Oh, nothing has stopped him so far. No lightning bolts prevented his machinations. At the same time, the truth was not allowed to be buried. Lord knows they tried. Obama makes some pronouncement and within a day or two facts say the opposite. I have to see a little method to this madness. I almost look forward to the next pronouncement so truth can vote its conscience.

“Something in the depths of our souls…tells us that the world may be more than a mere combination of events.”-Louis Pasteur

RightRing | Bullright

Tea Party alive or dead?

Leave it to the old guard and Liberal media to get it wrong. They ask if the Tea Party is alive or dead? It is the wrong question. The right question is how influential is the Tea Party? We don’t debate the existence.

See, there will always be a Tea Party, in spirit. If not, America is dead. So the question is how much influence does it have? The more influence, the healthier America will be. It is beyond a political party, and goes to the heart of individual American spirit. And that “spirit” naturally crosses all political lines. This is what Libs are probably scared of.

Thus, the more influence it(they) has, across the board, the healthier our politics and country will be.

“When cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince… they do not know how to live in freedom… and a prince can win them over with greater faculty and establish himself securely. But in republics, there is greater life…they do not and cannot cast aside the memory of their ancient liberty, so that the surest way to conquer them is to lay them waste.“ — Machiavelli’s The Prince.

RightRing | Bullright

Cable news recession

It is the best topic besides corrupt politics in DC, but goes hand in hand with it. The media and their “news” coverage these days deserves all the ridicule it gets.

Pew: MSNBC Loses Quarter of Primetime Audience

by John Nolte 26 Mar 2014 | Brietbart

According to Pew, year-over-year numbers show that the business of left-wing cable news is in trouble. The cable news viewing audience overall declined for everyone, but MSNBC lost 24% of its primetime audience. CNN dropped 13%. Fox only lost 6%.

Those percentages are even more graphic when you consider how few viewers CNN and MSNBC have to begin with, especially when compared to Fox News. Fox beats both of its left-wing competitors combined with 1.75 million viewers. Only 619k tune into MSNBC, while CNN comes in third (for the fourth year) with 543k viewers.

Daytime viewership was especially bad for MSNBC. Both CNN and Fox News increased viewers over last year: 12% and 2%, respectively. MSNBC lost a whopping 15.5% of its daytime audience.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/26/pew-msnbc-loses-quarter-primetime-audience

They are all losing, including Fox. The only explanation I can think of is less people are watching and/or more people are unplugging from cable. The shocker is that MSNBC could beat CNN in anything. But it demonstrates no matter what, there are some dumb people out there and that sensational attacks work — even if anchors get canned for saying the raunchiest things they can think up.

Other meaningless commentary: another symptom of the sick media is the cable news war. MSNBC is forever attacking Fox. Fox responds attacking MSNBC’s and NBC’s sycophant coverage. The White House defense team spends the balance of their time attacking Democrats’ number one enemy — besides the Koch brothers — Fox news. And Fox covers the Left’s media antics.

It’s sort of a self-serving war. they all complain about each other and CNN just jumps on anything that looks like a story it can use. (I’d love to attend one of their meetings) So their critiques become the theme. It’s reality news.

Are people keeping score though? If the Nixon era was the low point of politics, then this one is determined to set a bigger low in media coverage, even if its about… themselves.

On the positive side, no one wants to miss a train wreck.

RightRing | Bullright

Pope Francis, a man for the media

The Pope. the media, and their immaculate perception

Sometimes popularity is just that.

This is time to inject another popular subject, the Pope. (some comparison is in order) Since he became Pontiff, Francis has enjoyed great reviews. On the surface it seems to be all about likability. But as with Obama, it is much more. Now Time has Francis on the cover. With Obama, media would have your opinion based on his sweeping likability and charisma, despite his statements and actions to the contrary. Likability rules.

As Pope he has ventured on a different path, some of it good and some controversial. Will he make controversy the norm rather than the straight and narrow? Time will tell. (pardon the pun) For media and fellow travelers, they found plenty to praise him about and do. It is uncanny how media are such fans. I don’t remember these circumstances before. They still took issue with John Paul II, and they definitely took exceptions with his successor when they could. And before him, Pope St Pius condemned “Modernism” as the “synthesis of all heresies” which spawned a flurry of criticism.

There is always some public scrutiny to the Pope, some of it on the hierarchy of the Church in Rome. Still it is there. Again, remember the secular Left and their disagreement with religion Christianity and the church in general. Of course, there’s the separation of Church and State crowd, who never find much likable about Christians, evangelicals, or the Catholic Church. Now comes glowing praise for Francis. Nothing adequately explains it. Sure they use him — or their perception of him — to criticize his predecessors and the Church. Does anyone notice their targeted praise? Anyone believe they suddenly came to their senses and changed course, just as Francis came on the scene?

But if media had its wish, they aren’t too proud to say Francis sort of fits their vision.(so it seems) It doesn’t change them. (Jesus is the only one that could change their hearts — Apostle Paul was an example of that) They applaud most of his decisions because, much like Obama, they think they know who he is – better than everyone else. So far, Francis has done little to dispel their notions.

To some, it’s nice to have press in general as an ally for the Pope. (that should sound alarms) It seems too good to be true. Careful what you wish for. Nevertheless, they continue their romance. They are drawn by his humanity. They are casting their vote for so-called “social justice”. Where are all those separatists and critics now? But like the process when the Left was smitten by Obama, Francis has not experienced real dissent either. … or maybe he won’t as long as he remains agreeable to the Left. They might even defend him.

My question would be does anyone see a mutual lasting alliance here? If so, it might start to resemble the Russian model.(in previous post) Maybe not exactly but in the mutual respect for power, ultimately faced in the same authoritarian direction. (as long as politics hold ) Given progressives’ infatuation with Francis, it might be worth considering that materialism is the underpinning for their state/Church relationship in Russia. Is that where this alliance is headed? It may not sound like Francis but, again, what does it matter? The Left gets to frame all things – and they’ve defined him so far.

Listen to who praises the Pope, who praises Putin, and who praises Obama. See it doesn’t really matter what or who the Pope is, it’s who the media thinks he is that counts. Well, since they think it is their job to define everything, why shouldn’t they get to define the Pope? What is to prevent them?

For now, the lamestream is in frenzy-mode hanging on Pope Francis’s every word. (visions of campaign candidate Obama) It is possible that he is not the progressive socialist the Left thinks he is. But because he comes from S.A, particularly Argentina, and has great humanity, he lends himself to their mold. Once media defines something it is hard to change.

And there is some controversy over what the Pope actually said  – exclusively in the English translation. (see article)  Further documented here.

Now the Pope has enough defenders and I am not on the short list, but someone does appear to be taking liberty in translating his words. Slight of hand? For what reason?

Note: progressives are not above slight of hand either. In fact, it is their forte. (For example, “level playing field”, “hatespeech” etc.)

As the authority, JMG, says: (2nd link)

willfully mistranslated, to give Certain Types of Politician very desirable “papal cover” and this is , happening completely by design and, sadly, it’s going according to plan.”

Then suddenly you have Obama referencing the Pope’s words in a scripted speech on inequality. Coincidence? Barry is not above borrowing the words of someone if he thinks it helps make his case for his political ideology. It’s very convenient.

Apparently, just like media, Barry’s teleprompter found a new source. So Elizabeth Warren, Governor Deval Patrick move over, and using Warren Buffett is getting a bit old.

RightRing | Bullright

News drought for lamestream, and the price of ground beef

In a lull of news for media to cover, what do they do? If you have not had your fill of royal watching, which is something like whale watching for enthusiasts, then you must have blacked out the news.

It is not entirely media’s fault that news is a bit slow, considering all the scandals or news they cannot cover and the controversies of the administration that are pretty much off limits. That left the Zimmerman trial and the royal birth as top billing for media coverage. Everyone loves a good racist story or the countdown to a birth from UK’s royals.

But that is real news, they insist. We now know the baby is worth a billion dollars. You cannot take it with you when you die, but nothing says one can’t be born into a billion-dollar net worth.

One only has to look at all the things which are not worthy of media coverage: Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, or ObamaCare’s many looming turns. Next to those, camping outside a hospital to see a baby brought out is a welcomed announcement. They could use anything about George Zimmerman to fill the gaps. If it was the civil war, they’d call the uniforms controversial. Media has its unique way of framing what is important.

I guess that is why Obama took to the campaign trail talking about the economy. It gives them something else they are permitted to talk about. That’s a relief, after the Royal baby arrived they were running low on subject matter. How many weeks have they dragged out the Zimmerman trial?

So Obama debuts his latest campaign speech attack, which is just like all the others, to blame Republicans “for engaging in an “endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals.”

“Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” Obama said in what was billed as a major economic address at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill. “And I am here to say this needs to stop.”

He just got off a huge vacation in Africa, then Friday comes out to stick his nose into the Zimmerman verdict, after dropping the bomb that he was delaying ObamaCare laws for corporations for a year – until the elections — but he charges others have taken their eyes off the economic ball.

Didn’t economic issues have enough sensationalism for Obama’s taste? He must have missed everybody else complaining and talking about the economy all along — which he implied was a non-issue. Now comes the lecture that everyone else has taken their eye off the economy… and the scandals are phony. He takes hypocrisy to a new high.

If there was any take away line from Obama, this could be it:
I’m here today to tell you what you already know — we’re not there yet.”

He came to tell us what we already know! Gee, thanks. You could have saved your breath, everyone’s time, and a whole lot of money by staying in Washington. Maybe giving the lackluster, polished turd speech from there. This is partisan campaigning — not turning his eye to the economy. So turning his eye to the economy is killing the XL pipeline and declaring war on coal? (along with the job killing ObamaCare)

Congress is just getting ready for its recess, so time for Obama to blast away just before shuttling off to Martha’s Vineyard for another bite at the vacation apple. Maybe he can lecture us about the economy from there?

I saw this in a new Factcheck statement:

“Consumer prices have risen a modest 9.9 percent since Obama first took office”

A “modest” increase? Well, if you factor into that that wages in some sectors actually declined — for example in some health related jobs — as much as 5%, then it feels more like a 14.9 % differential.

That is not a good humor pill, and not great that we saw almost a 10% spike in prices. But consider just the gas price increases since he took office. I know it is not 9.9 percent, we could only wish it was that.

Last year, August of 2012, Bloomberg news reported:

The cost of living in the U.S. climbed in August by the most in more than three years, reflecting a surge in fuel costs.

The 0.6 increase in the consumer-price index was the biggest since June 2009 and followed no change in the previous month, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The median forecast of 85 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for an advance of 0.6 percent. The core index, which excludes volatile food and fuel costs, climbed a less-than- projected 0.1 percent for a second month.

As of January 2012, gasoline had an 83% increase and ground beef a 24% increase, since he took office. But Factcheck tells us we just had a “modest” 9.9% CPI increase since ’09. Ground beef prices rose every month from November 2009 to January 2012 – 26 months of price increases. (We had a 30.8% increase in gas prices in 50 days -before July ’09.)

Obama’s Fantasy Island

 
Remember the TV show Fantasy Island? It was a place people went to live out their particular fantasy, for a fee. Well, welcome to Obama’s Fantasy Island. But the cost is paid for by everyone else.

It’s a bit different from the original. In this one there is just one fantasy, Obama’s, which continually plays out. It is where all parts of government function for his self-serving benefit answering only to him. Where any crisis never gets wasted but is turned into a benefit to Obama There are no wrongs, only Obama’s desires.

On Obama Island, every six weeks he gets another vacation wherever he chooses, and in between he plays golf whenever he desires. It is a picture perfect utopia where there are only friendly, flattering “questions” from the press and they go along with his every request. What would a fantasy be without a fan club in tow wherever you go?

There is only accountability for those who disagree with him and it is stiff. Dissenters need to be disciplined harshly whenever they overstep their grounds. They have no power in this government anyway.

Everything officially functions for him, exclusively. Government employees work directly for him and are only responsible to his desires. It’s a happy place where the Constitution is changed whenever he wishes it. Foreign policy is at his whim. It is designed purely for his self-serving political purposes.(and legacy) Every week is another opportunity for a new fantasy, as many as he likes.

It’s also a place where a majority consensus of people always likes him and they are prohibited from saying bad things about him for fear of retribution. Where all state governments must bow down and kiss his ring and honor his every request. (sorry, that’s just the way the script was written… it’s his fantasy!)

He even has a separate organization that lobbies for him, or to him, connected to groups in almost every state. What else could one want? The only thing that ever matters is that his fantasy is fulfilled.

Fantasy? WELCOME ….

Opportunism run amuck

This is a rant about the gun control non-debate. I heard this commercial several times. It is from a lobby affiliated with the anti-gun campaign but doesn’t matter.

They talk about gun control saying because of the events, this is the best “opportunity” to push through gun control they have had. Maybe I get offended whenever the word opportunity is used in politics? But that certainly touched my nerve, never have they had such a great opportunity to pass gun control.

Is that what this is a great “opportunity”? We also have Rahm Emanuel’s doctrine, “never let a crisis go to waste”. It is all the same thing. Opportunity? Is the murder of the kids in Newtown now reduced to an opportunity? I am not surprised.

That’s what the Left is all about, opportunity. The shooting in Colorado or the  shooting in Newtown, is just the greatest opportunity they’ve had. Note how cavalier they say it.

That’s why I relate politics to extortion, and extortion to terrorism. They extort the events for political gain. Politicians are out to get as much as they can from the circumstances. With progressives it is a jihad. They are opportunists. And what do terrorist do? Take advantage of circumstances to serve a political agenda.

I am so sick of their opportunism. No matter how horrible the event or circumstance, opportunists run to take full advantage of it. Hello, Barney Frank on Boston.

Like the death of a wealthy person, family members come out of the woodwork looking for a piece of the pie. When a disaster happens, people try to take advantage of victims. Opportunistis et al. Politicians looked at the banking/economic collapse the same way, “how can we use this?”

It is professional extortion, and all of us are the victims. There can be no doubt the Left is declaring jihad on guns, the second amendment, and gun owners. They tell us. They issued a fatwa to the American people that they want our second amendment rights. At the same time they will not defend the right to life. All part of the same fatwa.

But Liberals and pols will tell you that is just the way our system works.

Now the Boston bombing presents serious national security concerns while they push illegal immigration legislation and amnesty. But all of a sudden the Left cries foul and claims the bombing should not be “used” to deter their illegal immigration agenda. A legitimate national security issue is not relevant to illegal immigration? Beam me up!

There must be a bylaw for the left: when opportunity presents itself, bust down the door. Use a battering ram if possible.’…’when opportunity knocks, beat the hell out of victims.’

In fact, I heard political strategists/pundits talking about illegal immigration “reform” – whatever the hell they call the current concoction. The MSM loons complained that for the right to use the bombing in Boston against “immigration reform” is absurd. “Off sides…personal foul..95 yard penalty. “They can’t understand any remote connection. Say what?

They then accused the Republicans of playing politics and trying to use the illegal alien issue for political gain. Is that a hoot, using the issue for political gain? The gods of opportunism cry foul.

Obama and his cohorts already denounced Rand Paul and others for accusing Obama and the Left of standing on the graves of victims, playing politics with the second amendment, and using family members as “Props” in their anti-gun “campaign”. Oh no, attack the messengers, even if they happen to be right.