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.

Boston 101

What have we learned about the bombing other than ingredients for these devices of havoc are common materials and there are manuals to create them on the internet? How many times have we heard that this week?

It’s not about the chemistry of making these devices, as they’d have us believe, it’s much more about the motive and rationale for what these people do.

Yea, something else is very common.

It won’t take long for media to get up to speed on the same mantra we usually hear. So here is a look at the favorite defense the Islamic defenders use whenever the opportunity presents itself. Which seems to be quite often.

Take a look at this video highlighting what is going on in the guise of the dialogue we always hear about:

[description] http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Muslim brothers Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev bombed the Boston Marathon. Yet the media are once again assuring us that such attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Does the Qur’an agree?

Whenever they tell us all is at peace and there is no basis for this terrorism, remember that part when they’re busy making excuses for the very terrorism we are facing.

Right to Life means right to death if you’re liberal

Yesterday I noticed something a bit odd. I saw Liberal-apologist Media adopting language about “Life”. What brought that on, you ask? It was the fuhrer-in-chief invoking “life” in his rally in Connecticut for gun control.

The kids at Sandy Hook were where they were supposed to be. So were those moviegoers in Aurora. So were those worshippers in Oak Creek. So was Gabby Giffords. She was at a supermarket, listening to the concerns of her constituents. (Applause.) They were exactly where they were supposed to be. They were also exercising their rights — to assemble peaceably; to worship freely and safely. They were exercising the rights of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So surely, we can reconcile those two things. Surely, America doesn’t have to be divided between rural and urban, and Democrat and Republican when it comes to something like this.

If you’re an American who wants to do something to prevent more families from knowing the immeasurable anguish that these families here have known, then we have to act. Now is the time to get engaged. Now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to push back on fear, and frustration, and misinformation. Now is the time for everybody to make their voices heard from every state house to the corridors of Congress.

Obama: “But this is not about me. This is about those children and those families.”

So its about children and families; and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.Reminiscent of the shock of Hillary at a Roe/Wade anniversary declaring abortion should be safe,legal and rare.

Of course ever the quick studies, Liberal Lapdog media were quick to follow the lead and to make the connection to abortion. To stifle that notion, they complained that the Right is always talking about Life and abortion but they aren’t so anxious to talk about gun control.

And the way Obama framed it was as if someone is trumping the right to life by the second amendment. Not true. The second amendment defends the right of life. That is a fundamental purpose of it, self-defense and a guard to protect innocent life.

Still they set up their argument that the right was standing in the way of Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness in their support of the second amendment. Not so. But that matters not to the Dictocrat in the Oval Office or his many minions. He cites polls of support for background checks as a matter of rebutted fact against the second amendment lobby.(i.e. gun owners)

Now you have to say wait a second. They are spoiling for a fight over the Life issue. Well, the abortion lobby and Democrats resist even sonograms for mothers. They don’t want them to see the baby they are going to abort – kill. No, but they want background checks for every person trying to buy a firearm for the potential danger it will do, presumably to somebody.

He declares he wants to protect children. Saline, scissors and suction hoses are A-okay. And do not try to over regulate that. All children should have a right to a saline bath, or scissors to the back of the head if need be, for whatever reason. But its the gun lobby you have to worry about.

And they want to make sure they promote that “right” and teach our youth that its an unwavering right. They want justices to swear on the alter of an abortion decision. Then they need to subsidize and coddle the very industry doing the most of the abortions in the country.(while it enjoys a budget surplus) We’re told how government has a responsibility to subsidize that industry, to “preserve” abortion “rights”.

Then declare the gun lobby to be public enemy number one? How’s that for supporting Life?

Of course, they never want to acknowledge the good that firearms do in protecting life and liberty, or the deterrent value. All they see is that someone could be killed with that gun. Never mind the doctor standing there waiting to kill the baby, or fetus as they want to call it, for any reason. They even want late-term abortions up to the second he/she is ready to meet the outside world. They want to deny and rob it of its first and only breath and all life thereafter. That is justifiable to libs.

You’ll always hear Obama strategists talking about “pushing back” on an issue or point. What about pushing back on the babies’ behalf or the issue of life?

But on this day, for this issue of gun control, they trot out the life issue and decide it is worth protecting. And they want to remind us all how “life is a foundational right in our foundation of government. Hooray for putting life at the fore for once. What is the reason again?

To protect life by infringing on the second amendment which offers protections for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. See how it works to libs? They need to regulate down the second amendment rights to supposedly protect life. They’ve shown how much they really care about life, and demonstrated it over and over. They see Roe v Wade as a fundamental right. And they don’t want anything to infringe on abortion so-called “rights”.

What is abortion and Roe v Wade in reality? Its a right to kill; a right to deny life, liberty, and puruit of happiness. An unwavering “right” in their eyes. They file it up there with all the enumerated rights.

There are no appeals. As I said, they resist sonogram requirements but want universal background checks for all Americans. There are no waiting periods for abortion. Not to worry about mental screenings. The less regulation they can do on abortion the better.

They don’t even want to share or expose the database to the public. But as we saw with Garnett News, no problem with publishing names and addresses of law abiding gun owners and plotting their homes on a map. They declared that under the freedom of information.

But no such freedom for info on killing babies which they declare a fundamental right in our Constitution. (excuse me) *** I forgot, their right of privacy means “right” to kill your baby. (how did I forget?)

It is also revealing that when you mention rights in the Bill of Rights, Dems are quick to remind you of limitations on rights, namely one through four. So the inference is that they and government need to regulate these rights, and properly limit them. But when the subject of abortion comes up they never want to address limitations, if possible.

So no shouting fire in a theater, but kill your baby? No problem, its a “right” you know.

They glance over that to assert an unquestionable and moreless unlimited right to abortion. They don’t want states to regulate it, they don’t want localities to regulate it, and they don’t want it limited by any of those. And you will never hear them complain about too many abortion clinics.

Obama: “Now is the time to push back on fear, and frustration, and misinformation.”

Funny, that’s what I was thinking.

Piers Morgan’s anti-Constitution activism

How many rules of journalism does Piers Morgan break in this debate (for lack of other word)?
Or how much hypocrisy does he reveal?
Or how much common sense does he ignore? The end says it all.
See video at link by nycresistance

[Morgan gets angered over gun control debate with two women. Plays the “tank” card.]


Ignorance prevails.
“Hi, I’m Piers Morgan, and I’m sick of it….
And I also detest that 22nd Amendment of your Constitution that limits a president to 2 terms.” (little paraphrasing)

Not enough this Brit has issues with the 2nd Amendment, he also has an utter disdain for the 22nd on top of it. Well, maybe he has a personal phobia of the number two.

 

Rarely do two of my most unfavored people come together to air their views, but when they do this is what can happen:

Back in September 2012, he was all over the 22nd Amendment in an interview with Bill Clinton. It was like Piers trying to interview his alter ego. Sure, Larry King had major faults but this guy is totally shameless.

Morgan interviews Bill Clinton (excerpt – transcript)
MORGAN: That was that. You electrified the place. And they all say, why do we have this goddamned 22nd Amendment? Why couldn’t Bill Clinton just run again and be president for the next 30 years?

CLINTON: Well, we had it for a good reason. There — it’s a hard job being president. And you also have a vast array of people working for you. It worked, I think, well. We — I think we did the right thing to keep President Roosevelt for a third term.

But when he died shortly after being elected to a fourth term, and people didn’t really know a full measure of his health challenges, the 22nd Amendment passed. It’s ironic that the 22nd Amendment passed at a time when people thought the Democrats had a lock on the White House and then it was — then after the last 50 years, the Republicans had it more than the Democrats.

But I think there’s still an argument for saying that eight years, certainly eight years in a row, is enough. You don’t want this — you don’t want to run the risk of sclerosis in a democratic society. You want to keep the blood running. You don’t want to get the idea that any country, particularly not one this big and diverse and important as ours, is dependent on any one person.

You look at a lot of these dictators that have been deposed in the last few years, and the few that are hanging on. Almost all of them at one time were young and idealistic and incredibly capable. And they really meant to do something good. And they just kind of outstayed their welcome. So I love the life I have now.

I like helping the president. I like helping my country. I’m interested in politics, but I like what I’m doing. I think that, on balance, the system we have is better than the no limits.

Maybe someday the rules will be changed so if you can serve two years and lay out and — serve two terms and lay out a term or two, you could run again because for a simple reason, we’re all living so much longer and we’re maintaining the capacity to work and think clearly for a longer period. So some future people might be affected that — by that. It shouldn’t affect me or anybody who’s been president —

MORGAN: We’re trying to change the rules in Britain, actually, because if you can’t be president again here, we’d quite like you to be prime minister in our country. Are you available if it comes to — I get this through?

CLINTON: They — there are only two countries I’m eligible to run for the leadership position is if I move to Ireland and buy a house, I can — I can run for president of Ireland, because of my Irish heritage.

And because I was born in Arkansas, which is part of the Louisiana Purchase, any person anywhere in the world that was born in a place that ever was part of the French empire, if you move to — if you live in France for six months and speak French, you can run for president.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: However, I once polled very well in a French presidential race. And I said, you know, this is great, but that’s the best I’d ever do because once they heard my broken French with a Southern accent, I would drop into single digits within a week and I’d be toast. I just don’t think — that’s what I think. I think the system we have may have some opportunity costs.

You know, I was young, perhaps I could have done another term, but I thought Al Gore was going to win and I wanted him to win. I thought he would have been a good president. I still think so. And the thing that’s kept America going is that we’ve trusted the people over the leaders. And I love my life now.

And if I can help my country, I will. But I — we’re organized around institutions, values, restraints on power and people. And it’s worked out pretty well for us for 200 years. We ought not to fool with it too much.

And on another show he verbalized his disdain for the 22nd Amendment — as the worst thing they did — whatever his adjectives were.