There’s a whole lot of shaking going on

Syria: Kurds, PKK, Asaad, Turkey, Isis, Russia. Put then all together and what do you have? A whole lot of shaking.

Washington: Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin, Rand Paul, Republicans, Democrats. Put them all together and what do you have? A mess. Did I forget media?

All these, of course, represent factions. We have factions in the USA. Certainly, then, you cannot expect people to be all on the same page. They all have their own interests, and their own ideologies. Now I’m not one for letting ideology, unadulterated, run all policy.

Sure I succumb to an ideology like everyone. But this idea that ideology is the be all end all would mean all one has to do is plug in their ideology to any given situation and voila, you have the solution. But it doesn’t work that way.

That would not require politicians or leaders but only an ideology everyone must adhere to. That sounds more like a communist China or other regime, sans the dictator who enforces it all. So the Communist Party rules in China, the Democrat Party rules here.

Some things you have to make the case for, some things you have to fight for. Indeed, some things may be impossible — that is outside the dictator to implement and force it. In the US, we typically wrestle with such things. Other regimes don’t have those “problems.”

Case in point, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer go to the White House to talk to Trump about problems in Syria. What do you think happens? Dems run out with their hair on fire, to the media, and say “the President had a meltdown”. Is any of all that predictable? Rather than just deal with an uncomfortable seat in the theater, Democrats would rather scream fire and run out. No, it isn’t proper but that is their predictable reaction.

But of course the only thing that Pelosi wants to deal with is her own caucus. She will immediately run out to fundraise off of it. Impeachment is actually the only thing on her caucus-craven mind. And how to guide that to a successful conclusion.

Damn the will of the people, damn 2016 elections, damn all immediate pressing problems, damn the volatile situation anywhere; full speed ahead on the impeachment train. Election 2020 is now the next destination. Ideology rules the sandbox.

Right Ring | Bullright

Narratives Demean Motives

On a serious note, I’m going to do something I never like or want to do but in the interest of critical understanding, I think I must do. It is a shame that circumstances should require that someone say these things. Yet those are the times we are in.

It is important to know why and I think that in itself is the reason to do it. I don’t do it out of animus for the country or what US stands for. It is for perspective in fighting the narratives radical leftists have foisted on us. We must know the enemy.

So with all the outrage about what happened with (A) a phone call to Ukraine and now (B) a report on what Trump told Kislyak in the famous White House meeting after Comey was fired and (C)Pelosi’s unilateral “official impeachment inquiry” started; there are a few loose ends and statements that need to be examined further.

Most of this is not new, but what is new is the level of the Left’s frenzy surrounding it all. Media is doing their level best to roll this into one big mud pie to fuel their impeachment efforts. Almost on cue as expected. They have no real concern or loyalty to the nation, nor do they care about the damage it does. They are willing to sacrifice everything about our country to try to get Donald Trump.

They have already referred to Trump recently in choreographed mobster terms. (Aka Don Corleone) When have we ever seen this before? Never. And they have their other favorite tool used to attack Trump, our intelligence — however they can use it and say whatever against a sitting president to hurt him. Another narrative is that Trump is somehow green-lighting the Russians to meddle in other countries’ elections. The idea Trump would have equated or admitted to Russia that, essentially, we meddled in elections and was not upset by what Russia did in our elections sounds damning. (the gaining media narrative)

Leftists are offended saying we don’t meddle in elections. Well, let’s just take Obama for example. He meddled in Egypt, Israel, and even his team in Canadian elections. He also basically intervened in the Brexit vote. I’m sure that is only scratching the surface. If it is one thing Obama liked to do, it was intervene in elections. I’m sure there is much to Putin’s claims of Hillary meddling in Russia’s election. At least most people in Russia believe State and Hillary did. And we know how some of that meddling turned out – not well.

We meddled in the control of the dictator, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in Libya by sanctioning his killing. To hell with elections, there’s always Plan B.

Let me cut the chase here with a bigger narrative yet to roll out. Whenever there are skirmishes or deep disagreements anywhere in the world, Russia is plotting on how it can extort the situation for their gain. Putin as I noted before is the consummate opportunist. Years back he took on an aura of a conservative leader causing people, like Pat Buchanan, to compliment what seemed a more traditional domestic approach. What’s not to like?

But not to be fooled, he was not the Harley-riding conservative fellow conservatives here may have envisioned, but only an opportunist who was carefully feeding people what they wanted to see and hear. He had family plans with incentives for having more children and a friendlier outreach toward Christians. Welcome changes one would think, in contrast with what we saw from Obama. The Planned Parenthood saint of death with an anti-Christian bigotry. He was happily riding a Sherman Tank over American traditions.

Now in the present situation, we are presenting more opportunities to Putin. The Left has brought impeachment, Trump hatred, controversy and a slice of corruption to the Ukraine. What better place for it? You might say controversy and corruption are no strangers there. And all is within Putin’s operating realm in the last few years. For people to get so choked up on corruption or domestic politics there, then be thrust in with a scandal involving the US, is made to order fodder for the opportunist Putin.

Just days ago the word spread that Putin has Russians dispatched in Libya operating in that current conflict where ISIS or terrorists are gaining a foothold and vying for political power. Sound familiar? Russia parlayed Syria into a net gain over humanitarianism, and the ISIS crisis into a greater strategic plan for Russia. Thanks John Kerry.

Now their attention is back on Ukraine, his long time nemesis. A new president taking office on an anti-corruption plan offers yet more opportunity for Putin’s insatiable appetite. In so many ways Democrats are once again playing right into the hands of a conniving Putin, with little restraint for involvement. As the smoke of controversy rises in the Ukraine, the cloud of Putin will gravitate to it like bees to honey. Cleaning up corruption, you say? We shall see what eats away at that agenda.

For the worst part in it all: what does Putin think, or what talking points might we expect to hear from the Kremlin on the subject? (it pains me to think it) You don’t have to worry about giving them ideas because they are old experts on propaganda. He might simply inject himself as a level mediator to all sides. He might propose some sort of deal to get the ball rolling, and emphasis off fixing corruption. He might make some offer to volunteer some help or guidance. But all those would be open holes created by zealous Democrats who’s only interest is attacking Trump. Putin doesn’t have to worry, because Democrats will provide him more opportunities than he could ever create for himself.

That’s what they did for him from the 2016 elections. To this day, Hillary and Democrats credit Russia — and particularly Putin — with achieving the outcome of our election. They credit Putin with more influence than he could have hoped for.

Not to ever leave out the king of corruption and influence in countries and elections, George Soros. In Ukraine, there have to be many connections along with the DNC. Soros and the orgs he supports are certainly not non-political either. More Soros influence will ooze out. A corrupt political system, what a fertile ground for Soros to operate? He can do a lot of damage there. So the Soros effect on Ukraine probably cannot be overstated.

Then there is the glaring takeaway lesson we gave to Russia on the 2016 election: that we don’t really care about or respect elections. When it comes down to it that is just talk. Actually Hillary just reminded us, once again, in the media that the 2016 election was illegitimate. How can you have more contempt for the electoral system than that?

Further troubling is the movement afoot to throw out the electoral college process — an inherent blueprint in the Constitution. Well, who really cares about the Constitution anyway? So the election did provide many benefits to a meddling Russia. If you have people in America who don’t even accept their own election process, or final results of it, then one serial meddler in Russia would have a whole lot to work with.

There remains a lot of space to fill by Russia’s narratives. And they are the masters at saturating the air with them and diverting public scrutiny. First off: is this an example of how America operates in other countries? See how they enrich themselves while really caring nothing for democracy they claim to love. That’s a great narrative.

And there are pleny more narratives the Russians can plug into current circumstances, custom created by the left, and our political feuds here. Just like all the foreign interference the left dabbled in with our last election. Call that a meddlers stew.

What really undermines our national security and credibility are Democrats. Everywhere you look they compromise our security. The claim that a phone call with Ukraine threatens our national security is ludicrous. But they want to impeach Trump over a foreign call, which is way too much foreign interference over our elections for me.

Imagine that — just as domestic policies at home are finally going in the right direction — they try to take Trump down over a foreign phone call. Do people care about it?

Right Ring | Bullright

SOTUS What If

It is pretty hard to write fiction any stranger than today’s reality. But the thought crossed my mind about a what if scenario of Hillary giving the SOTUS.

Nothing would be more polar opposite than current reality. She would be hailed as the greatest president by mainstream media. The only problem she might have would be living up to their unattainable expectations. But not to worry, media would take care of that too.

It would be fabulous and every paper would have that one great memorable photo of her like she came down off the mountain as Moses. Democrats would cheer at every word making it almost twice as long as it would be.

And knowing Hillary, she would probably find some way to make money off of it. She would have to have some angle to enrich herself. Bubba could sit there with his bit lip and googly eyes applauding at how well she lied to the American people. Nancy could sit there cackling in joy to every word. Tim Kaine would have his twitching eyebrow raised.

It would be her defining swing speech as she demonstrated just how far left she could go to appease her far left base, coming off the 2018 results. The driving theme would be “My Time.” And if from around the global community you see her speech and were so inclined, you could dash online to make a donation to the Clinton Fundation.(FBI & DOJ certified)

There would be lots of lectures in there about a better tomorrow because, well, it wouldn’t be that great in the present. Isn’t that what it’s always about with Democrats, ‘a better tomorrow?’ It would be chuck full of platitudes and cliches in typical liberal speak that have you cheering before you even know what she said. She would have that monotonous habit of Obama’s down to a science of raising her voice from the middle of the sentence to have you applauding it before she finished. It always worked well for Obama.

She would be staring intermittently at her two newly installed leftists on the Supreme Court. A wink and nod occasionally to her Deep State, radical Attorney General to cover her backside in all things scandalous. And we wouldn’t have seen or heard from her two weeks before the speech or two weeks after. But who cares when it takes the media two weeks to interpret the glory of her words, packed with voluminous estrogen?

But then any target audience for Hillary’s speech would not be informed, critical thinkers. They would be followers like those serfs in foreign countries, lapping up every intentionally vague word as if it were mana from heaven. Then Planned Parenthood would have to get a shout out, or maybe two.

Lucky for us that isn’t the speech Trump will give. Lucky that election turned out the way it did. We dodged a big bullet there. Any speech Trump would give is better than that.

Right Ring | Bullright

Pelosi’s Quid Pro Quo

It’s the optics stupid. Well, after Pelosi denies Trump’s SOTUS she gets a surprise.

Trump denies Pelosi aircraft for foreign trip, after call for State of the Union delay

By Brooke Singman, Chad Pergram, John Roberts | Fox News

President Trump on Thursday abruptly denied military aircraft to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a foreign trip just minutes before the congressional delegation was set to depart, in a stunning decision that followed her call to delay the State of the Union address amid the government shutdown.

In a curt letter, Trump said her trip has been “postponed.”

“Due to the Shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the Shutdown is over. In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate,” Trump wrote.

“I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown. Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”

More: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response-to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

Looks like Pelosi may be flying the friendly skies in commercial, or not at all. Or maybe Nancy could just do a nice conference call instead.

Tales Two Videos Tell

First Nancy Pelosi, in this case elaborately tries to project tactics onto Republicans (while actually doing the smearing she complains about) but clearly lays out the tried and true method Democrats employ in their tactics.

Listen as she describes their own tactics to a T.

Pelosi gives us a page from the Democrat playbook. Lie, smear, smear, and lie some more. Yes, this is from 2017. Yes, she is referring to what Republicans do. HENCE THE REASON I SAID IT’S PROJECTION!

Please read watch the next video I did on this to see the full clip and a better explanation of what psychological projection is and how it displays exactly what was going on: https://youtu.be/4pNBr1fLqcM

In the longer, full version of the CSPAN cataloged press conference, Pelosi claimed the “the difference [between her and Paul Ryan] is that “we don’t engage the politics of personal destruction.” Ha ha ha. That takes the cake, doesn’t it?

 

Then we have the news that the investigation revealed Comey’s fraudulent claims about bringing a case against Hillary Clinton for her server was questioned within.

Unbelievable! reporter released Gowdy’s letter on live TV! Hillary & Comey have been hiding this. GOP letter reveals FBI divisions over Clinton case decision, conflicting claims on Rosenstein controversy.

The details were revealed in a letter from Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Trey Gowdy summarizing their findings and reiterating once more their call for a special counsel to be appointed to probe decisions made in the Clinton email and Russia probes.

The investigation led by the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees probed allegations that the FBI and the DOJ were biased against Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election and favored Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Oath To Tough Talk On Border Wall

Since we all know just what we are talking about, here is the Senate’s Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

If Senator Schumer or Speaker Pelosi wants to protest their oath, he or she can resign.

There are two distinct issues in this whole scenario: one is the wall and securing the border; and two is the status of Government in this partial shutdown mode.

But Pelosi and Schumer only recognize one as a problem, the government shutdown. Now what is extremely ironic is that they only care about opening government when the first basic, functional duty of that Government is to secure our borders and protect citizens.

No reservations.

Secondly that they took an oath — “freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion“– to “ defend the Constitution… against all enemies, foreign and domestic” The Constitution puts that central tenant of Government on protecting its borders, from invasion, as a priority function of their duties.

Now they don’t want to do that. They want to stand in the state of resistance, which is actually the state of Sedition. But that resistance is against the government of the US. Whether their base has lulled them into that position makes no difference. That is where they all stand. It comes down to either honoring their oath to defend the country or not. Their open-borders base does not want to defend the Constitution and makes no bones about their position of opposition to the administration and duly elected president.

So, by their own efforts, they are in a current state of sedition. That is what it is.

Thus Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer are aiding and abetting the enemy. They are also giving comfort to the broader enemies and invaders of the US, generally.

I found it fascinating how yesterday Nancy Pelosi was made Speaker and then swore in all the Dems by their oath. The skunk in the room was Democrats’ obvious ongoing state of protest with Trump, the administration and our national border security. Yet they stood their claiming to take that oath “without mental reservations.” Which one is it?

Are they proud card-carrying members of the Seditious, resistance Left or are they authentic members of the US Government — with no “purpose of evasion?” It does make sense though that the very first thing Nancy Pelosi would do as Speaker of the House is to defy her oath of office.(and then lead others) I mean it is what radicals do.

They either stand with the Sedition and their radicalized open-border, anti-American base of subversive miscreants… or honor their official sworn oath. But they cannot do both.

They did not take an oath to only make talking points and lies about some fictional “border security” illusion that lives only in their minds. And “technology” does not physically slow down invaders. How many invaders did their talking points repel? Actually, it undoubtedly encourages them. So, what is it about no “mental reservations” they do not understand?

God Bless America because the Left sure won’t.

Hey hey, ho ho… time to build the wall, ho ho!

Right Ring | Bullright

Obamacare’s Ironic Fate Hangs

Well, sports fans, it seems Bernie Sanders and some Federal Judge in Texas have done what Repubs have tried to do for years, get Democrats to oppose Obamacare.

Now they are against it. They’ll be opposed to fixing and saving it because they really want single-payer Medicare for all. So there is no big movement to save it. Democrats and their mob will now go against it. If that is not strange irony I don’t know what is.

So Nancy “we have to pass it before we know what is in it” is tasked with defending something they don’t want which is unpopular. They don’t want it fixed, Nan. The people want single-payer now. See how that works? The mob holds the poison pill.

Poor Nancy will have to learn to count all over again. And that won’t be easy at her age, in her condition. Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can give her a few pointers?

Right Ring | Bullright

Image of the Week

 

 

This one tells pretty much the whole story.

Or is that the Image of the Weak? 

Someone suffers from severe chronic wall phobia.

 

____________________________________________________________

While we are at it, let’s go with this James Woods for tweet of the week.

Hey, socialists, I got some “Baby, it’s cold outside” for you.

 

All Fired Up

Seems like folks are fired up to finish the job. No one can steal that away from us.

Does Pelosi think the people who elected Trump might not vote in this election? Funny.

If the fake news media does not want to be called “the enemy of the people,” then they should stop acting like the enemy of the people.

Sorry, Obama’s economic failures cannot be considered pre-existing conditions.

“The people are coming, the people are coning!”

Everyone should stop appropriating liberal culture because they don’t like it.

Right Ring | Bullright

DNC Melltdown

As midterm elections start to heat up, with all the primaries going off in every state, you might see enthusiasm among Democrats. You might even think they are the ones with the unified momentum. Well, you may be wrong if you do. I’m not spinning it, I don’t need to.

Here’s why, first. Take a good look at the bare cupboards in the DNC. Then take a glance at their big funders. You know who they are: Tom Steyer to George Soros and a basket of others. It is not as important who they are as what they are. They are the hair on fire, far-left radicals that drive the Party. But more importantly, drive any base. DNC is out.

–(Open Secrets)———-Total Raised——–Total Spent——Cash on Hand——–Debts
Democratic Party——–$510,732,825—-$405,218,739—-$139,922,483—-$11,902,719
Republican Party——–$630,554,660—-$426,703,807—-$150,139,527—–$1,650,056
Demo National Cmte —$110,040,264—-$112,645,182——$9,185,284——-$6,353,378
Repub National Cmte –$213,054,677—-$187,695,079—–$50,687,610————$0

And now there is a fairly new big player, not really new. The ACLU has been stepping in, or should I say kicking in to drive many races. So they are in more than ever. We are literally now running against ACLU and Planned Parenthood.Chelsea tipped their hand. Twist Roe into economics, if your economic message is as vacuous as your political one.

But then look at the DNC coffers. They aren’t just empty, they are in big debt. Not only are they on the financial verge of bankruptcy but the Party is bankrupt on ideas as well. They still blame Obama who left the Party in shambles. Then Hillary. There is very little cash on hand and a lot of debt. What do these factors mean?

Enter my opinion and just that. They will manage because they always find a way to flow some money. However, what is happening is the big funders, i.e. special funders and special interests will fill the gap. People are not funding the party, instead putting gas in the tanks of candidates and causes. Money is flowing around the DNC. Read again, Democrats are not funding their own Party. It is all but irrelevant, at least as any central Party apparatus. By design? I doubt it. They just cannot fund it. And who would put much confidence in it after the way it worked in 2016? So they are going around it. No credibility is telling.

Don’t just take my word for it, listen to others make the case. A WaPo opinion piece by Ed Rogers in June described the dire Democrat Party conditions as unraveling. (I refuse to call it Democratic) And now good reason to use that term instead of their preferred one.

In the meantime, the Democratic Party appears to be dismantling itself. Outside groups are fighting their own fights, donors are being pulled away, and potential Democratic presidential candidates show no sign of being party-builders. If you believe in the two-party system, you know this isn’t good. Party discipline has eroded, and that makes it harder to govern once a party is elected to power. We need reforms that empower parties and candidates and diminish the influence of deep-pocketed plutocrats and narrowly focused interest groups.

Well then, is the fat lady warming up her vocal chords? All he can do is make the case for the “two party system”. But is it really a two party system anymore, I mean really? Regardless of how the DNC finances look, is it half of a two party system? I don’t think so. Even the author points to the non cohesive and unconventional funding. What does that say? I don’t see a party unity. It’s a grab bag of mostly socialist ideas bickering for turf. While Bernie might be ecstatic, when the dog finally catches the car what happens?

I think they have big problems. Maybe they are all smoking some real good stuff over there but how about the unity and love? It’s not there. While the Republicans are unified, to some greater degree on issues and a platform, Democrats are flailing about making a lot of noise, with no central theme or purpose. Many years ago I would have prayed for this scenario, a disunited party and bad if any leadership. Worse yet for them, seems no one can reign in the Party or their dire finances. It’s broke. But the people of the party are broke apart too. The screaming and yelling make up for, or paper over, the empty shell that remains of a party. There’s nothing there.

They can trot out the Alinsky stuff, bring out the Marxist ideas, plug in their socialist values, get fired up for a few key races, do a few marches and fundraisers; but in the end, what do you really have? A hot mess that’s what. The great divide in overdrive.

It would be a mistake to try to run an election against an empty bankruted party. What do you focus on? There is nothing there? Call it what it is. Before you get too excited, we still run against the socialist party they are, only we are not running against a party structure. You are basically running against all these splintered special interest groups. Though the only thing that does tie any of it together is a socialist agenda. That is where the energy is. You can no longer say or talk to the moderate, sane ones, or adults in the room. peel off a few. There are none. Everyone is just out for their thing, whatever bad acid trip it is. But they are a long way from any resemblance to unity, virtually on anything.

Sure they agree on issues here and there, but not on direction or a central vision. They want to abolish ICE and do something to cops and hate Trump. They are the anti-party now. Their resistance is all that defines them or unites them. That may be where the solidarity is but there’s a random hodgepodge everywhere else, including in funding which does matter. That funding is a collection of special interests. You could call them a party of special interests, but even that wouldn’t be really fair. Even special interest have more cohesive unity than that. The people are not really united. It’s a giant illusion. We shouldn’t fall for thinking that it is some solidly united party. What is missing?

Any defining leadership – MIA. Nancy Pelosi recently made statements to reinforce her leadership but then she blamed the press and media for trying to divide them. Wow, a tell that is. Blaming the press now? Bad when you have to blame the strongest allies of the Party. And media has drifted along its own far left course. Nancy may be on an isle all by herself. Does she dare take on media? She can’t. They are all she has to try to control it.

In the last almost two months, I see nothing that has improved or changed for Democrats. It’s still a party of misfits. Interesting that this whole meltdown happens at this time, when Republicans are unified in issues and a message with Trump having consolidated his approval. It looks like a time to close the deal. I mean any questions have been resolved and Party unity high, we now know what he can do, we’ve seen it. All we need is the how. And that is where the midterms come in, with a new Supreme Justice on the way, and tax cuts in the rear view, we have a good economic message. So there are problems, so what? There are always problems. But this kind of unity can’t be wasted at such a time when our enemy (opponents) have none.

Put it this way, politically, the trends on the other side are not positive. They are negative. And what they are really running on is all negative. Who can get behind that with any enthusiasm? I know, never underestimate the Party of Stalin. But Republicans seem to have found their voice, finally, and the fog is lifting. They’re perpetually underestimated.

The fork is ready….the lady is standing in the wings getting anxious. Someone could say but in the end, the Democrats always unify. Except on what this time? There’s nothing cohesive there, like their bank accounts.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Racism, Russia and Impeachment

In a shell, you have Dems entire 2018 strategy. But you can add tactics like obstruction or give us back your money and our power. They need all the help they can get.

Just say all the Dems running for the House this year will simply be Pelosi-bots, since she is not going anywhere. That’s what is at stake. It’s Democrats’ political Armageddon.

But 2018 all comes down to a simple question. What would you rather do: Make America Great Again; or Make Pelosi Great Again? So we have to beat Pelosi’s band of bots.

Better hacks

Dems ask: How can we get a better deal? Well, by dissolving the Democrat Party.

Better Deal, resistance at all costs. Undermine and obstruct the government and rule of law. Better at deconstructing America. How can deconstruction of the economy be the economic message you are selling? Dems began their “better” plan.

‘We want our power back’ is the real purpose. Elections are all they care about. They don’t care about working people or values we keep hearing so much about. Unless by values they mean to obstruct and stick it to the American people.

But now, they declare “better” as their new buzzword. Better than what?

If being a political hack is the goal then they are no doubt getting somewhere.

So the Marxists take their show on the road. Trot out the most divisive, most radical, lust-for-power progressives to push their message. Note: they are not interested in selling their ideas, they want to force them on the people. Better force.

They roll out their plan — should I say ideas because they are not plans — and then comes Elizabeth Warren out to demonize corporations and large employers. What they need to do is to take them “head on,” she says. Back to fight, fight fight. Better fight.

That’s the way they are going to create a better deal, better jobs, better wages. Better than what? Is better the new dog whistle for resistance? Better resistance.

Are we to believe they are going to run this dual track agenda? On one hand run their resistance movement against the Trump administration, tearing down not building up; while on the other run a pro jobs program, demonizing the very people who create them.

Who could believe this utter nonsense? They don’t have any answers, they have problems. It is a bash the economy agenda. So out of all that bashing, they believe they will shake jobs down out of the trees. It will just happen.

They are 6 months late to the jobs agenda. But then it is just a lie anyway.
They can’t even think up an original message.

But if the objective is really for them to be better hacks, then call them successful.

Why can’t Democrat, progressive, Marxists, socialists ever tell us what they really stand for, and what their real agenda is, or what they really care about?

(meteorologists are now reporting Hurricane Hillary is moving off to sea. We’ll see. I hope someone will still keep an eye on her anyway)

RightRing | Bullright

Pelosi and the war on planned parenthood

Here is a nice crap sandwich from Pelosi about her BFF, Planned Parenthood.

Oh, for the days when she was speaker of the House.
See video

She plays the woman card, plays the mother card, plays the Catholic card, plays the arrogance card all at once.

Take your ideological view and shove it? Well, considering this is their ideological baby.

Isn’t she looking really old, too? Testy…

Related: http://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosi-snaps-at-reporter-to-avoid-answering-question-about-late-term-abortion/

Obama to ISIS, the perfect comparison

There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.

It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.

But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.

With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)

This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.

In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)

With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.

Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)

With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.

All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.

Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.

RightRing | Bullright

Then and now — 2008 vs. 2014

2008 HoR map

2008 HoR map

2014 HoR map

114th Congress

Also see National Journal

On Friday, Pelosi said,
Pelosi

“I don’t consider it a wave. I think it’s an ebb — an ebbing of Democratic voters rather than a wave of Republican voters, because I don’t think the American people gave anybody a great big seal of approval.”

waving photo: Waving handwave.gif

waving photo: waving smiley smileywave.gif

 

 
Then how about a great big seal of disapproval?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama: I don’t need no stinkin’ Congress

Obama to Congress: I don’t need new permission on Iraq

By Barbara Starr, Deirdre Walsh and Tom Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN) — I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.

The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering.
Dick Cheney slams Obama on Iraq

According to a White House statement, Obama went over U.S. efforts to “strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s security forces to confront the threat” from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, “including options for increased security assistance.”

Earlier, spokesman Jay Carney spelled out one limit to any U.S. help, saying: “The President hasn’t ruled out anything except sending U.S. combat troops into Iraq.”

While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President “basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell’s assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.

More  http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iraq/index.html

Go it alone … “And why not, I can do everything by myself, unilaterally?  I got my pen and my phone… and a tee-time.

“I’ll let you know.” Really, why should that have any credibility either, with everything he’s already done? He’s got a border crisis here and he isn’t saying squat about that.

Though they are doing logistical summersaults to disperse them throughout the country. Heck, no one even knows if the Governor of Massachusetts was told what’s going on.

RightRing | Bullright

2014: let the show begin

I was trying to think of  some strategy for progressive demonic Dems to run on in 2014, to stop the hemorrhaging from the ObamaCare debacle. I think I have found it.

Next is to boil it down to a nice sound bite for the masses to understand. Again, I have a solution for them. They can’t run on ObamaCare, so why not go for all the marbles? Yes, there is too much going on from the progressives to appeal to a wide swath of their base.

So just run as… “the Party of Scandals“. That’s no joke. Here’s a glimpse of the introductory promotional campaign.

[Photo]

If you like all you’ve seen so far, you’ll really be impressed with what we can do with a majority in both houses AND the White House. If you mistakenly thought we were shamed and disappointed — and you were wrong — then eat your heart out because we are just getting started. There is so much more we have in store for you. We’ve been working hard on the plans.

If you thought politics was just a spectator sport, we have a surprise for every one of you in ways you never before envisioned being personally touched. The Repubs had to manufacture all these scandals to try to bring us down. Guess what, we’re back! Those phony scandals were nothing… a mere pittance compared to what we can really do.

Remember we have to pass the bill before we can find out what’s in it? Well, we’ve been scheming up some legislative add-ons to all those previous laws that will knock your socks off. Plus we’ll put new meaning to “fiat law”.  Then there’s  Executive Orders. We own the White House at least for a couple  more years. All that will only be the opening salvo on the Republic for 2016 — which is phase 2.

So if you were tongue-tied by our delivery so far, you are going to be in shock and awe. Sure, we are going to run on ObamaCare as well as every other problem. We are equal opportunity offenders and we can shove  much more than ObamaCare down your throats. Think about all that when you go to the voting booth next year. We are putting our foot to the floor on a whole bunch of new scandals for you. We will have you in suspense. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and IRS were just the appetizers. We  know this is what most Americans really want and we are the Party that can deliver.

Even as we speak we have new IRS rules planned. We have new EPA regs rolling out. In education and every other bureaucracy and agency, we have some real surprises in the works. Much of it is just too good to detail now. That is without even mentioning our spending plans.  Send us your money and get on board with your support. You will want to be a part of this assault historical election process. It will  take some of the attention off ObamaCare and unaffordable, non-healthcare – big time.

I think that provides plenty of ideas. But, now that I think of it, this would probably guarantee their success.

Obama Support Group Travels to Bush Library

I was searching for a little political humor, you know, to just take the edge off a little.
And I think I found it. I’ll put a [J] for laugh to make it easier.

Today, Obama went to the Bush library for the dedication. [J] Hard as that was for him. By the way, Bush did not invite Pelosi, Hoyer, or Reid. But apparently Hoyer was miffed.[J]

However, just look at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. All that rush to protest that occurred, even Bill and Hillary declined to go. When they saw the protests, they snubbed her. And Democrats initially blocked the resolution to honor Margaret Thatcher.

Now comes Bush library and they are surprised at not being invited, probably so they could decline anyway? Nevertheless, Obama goes

Hoyer, the Democratic House whip who represents southern Maryland, complained privately to colleagues about the slight earlier Thursday, HuffPost was told. A second House source confirmed the lack of an invitation to Pelosi and Hoyer, and a Reid aide said that the Senate majority leader was not invited. [J]

Rather than all the presidents being an “exclusive club”, Obama said it was more of a “support group”. [J] So now he declares himself a member of a support group. Yea, what nonsense. The guy has not missed one opportunity to blame Bush even for his own failures, and then calls it a “support group”? [J]

Obama said: “When all the living former presidents are together, it is also a special day for our democracy. We’ve been called “world’s most exclusive club and we do have a pretty nice clubhouse, but the truth is our “club” is more like a support group.” The last time we all got together was just before I took office, and I needed that. …because, as each of these leaders will tell you, no matter how much you may think you are ready to assume the office of the presidency, its impossible to truly understand the nature …/.” [J, J, J, J]

Who in the world… or “world’s most exclusive club”… does he think he’s kidding?

I can interpret that support. Obama: “you are all here for me and should support me. I, however, can stab each of you in the back whenever I want. That includes you too, Mr. Jimmy. Now any questions? I didn’t think so…Support on!”

But of course, we know the way it works for the Bastid-in-Chief, everybody needs to support him. How long, he hasn’t decided yet but he’ll let us know. Where is Obama’s contribution of support?

“Support group” [J]– isn’t that the funniest thing you ever heard?

True story though…

Pelosi takes a stab at “problems”

Pelosi lied and Democrats cried

Obama meetings couldn’t have prevented gridlock, Pelosi says

Posted by
CNN’s Gregory Wallace

(CNN) – The stalemate in Washington is not because President Barack Obama has held himself above meeting with Republicans, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday.

In an exclusive interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” the chamber’s top Democrat said Obama respects congressional Republicans and called “just really not reality” the idea that Obama could have prevented gridlock by meeting with the GOP sooner.

“It is not why we haven’t had progress before. We haven’t had progress before because the Republicans were committed to blocking the initiatives of President Barack Obama,” she said.

Pelosi spoke shortly after Obama took a dozen Senate Republicans out for dinner, sat down with the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate and has plans to meet with senators and representatives from both parties on Capitol Hill next week. Washington has just over two weeks to pass a measure averting a government shutdown, which neither party wants.

Continue: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/10/obama-meetings-couldnt-have-prevented-gridlock-pelosi-says/

Here are Pelosi’s words:

“CROWLEY: A lot of talk about the president reaching out to Republicans. Do you think that this in, any way, undercuts leadership?

PELOSI: No. No. Absolutely not. The president has always been very respectful of the views of the Republicans and the Congress, their leadership and their membership. He has always tried to accommodate them. This idea that, but for that we would have gotten all these other things done is just really not reality.
/…
PELOSI: … He’s been very bipartisan in his approach.

I think it is, let’s get some things done together to make elections less important. … That’s far more important than what happens in an election.

Getting lectured about election politics from Pelosi… now that’s rich!

Here’s Exhibit A in Democrats’ negotiatiing, working with Republicans:(Free Beacon)

  •  DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) calls the Ryan Medicare plan ‘literally a death trap’ in April 2011
  •  Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) on “Hurricane Ryan” in April 2011
  •  Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius offers ‘die sooner’ as an option under Ryan’s Medicare plan in May 2011
  •  Wasserman Schultz compares Ryan plan to a tornado in March 2012
  •  Democratic strategist and fundraiser Karen Finney says Obama campaign’s “Julia” would be dead by 30 under Ryan’s plan in May 2012

    And Alan Grayson saying Republicans want the sick to “die quickly”.

    And lets see, their own fuhrer-in-chief attacked Ryan’s plan as un-American, labeling it a Trojan Horse calling it a “radical vision” of ” social Darwinism”. That’s rich considering OBamaCare.  

    He’s really working on that respect, isn’t he? Note his words to the News Editors:

    It’s a Trojan horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism,” Obama said at a luncheon during the annual meeting of the American Society of News Editors.

    How’s that for showing great “respect” in listening to their ideas? You really got us there, Nan.

    And when he criticized Ryan and the Supreme Court while seated in front of him from the national podium. Respect? Then there was candidate Obama calling Bush unpatriotic for spending.

    You think Obama heard echoes of Pelosi’s previous warning about inflammatory language? Of course that was the reason he said it, to be inflammatory, just like the SOTUS. It is the very reason he does it. “Respect”, Nancy tells us.

    Here was Pelosi trembling in fear over Tea Parties:

    “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.

    Hypocrisy is her middle name

    Now here is her concerns about drone targeting on American soil:

    “But this is where the great coming together that our country and our Founders experienced in their own time because they were always under threat, witness the War of 1812, and the challenge to balance freedom and security. I don’t think that the administration has any intention of using drones in the United States against American citizens or otherwise. So I don’t have that fear.”

    Maybe she should have checked with AG Holder before she said that. Oops, his comments and intentions were the very reason for the outrage, I forgot. Pelosi shoots off her mouth and people think its cute. Biden shoots off his mouth — or shotgun off his balcony – and they say: “that’s just Joe. Isn’t he a hoot?” The right says anything and its immediately twisted into a pretzel that supposedly offends most of the country.

    Pelosi got fear fever over Tea Party people but no concerns about government overstepping its authority on we the people.

    Meanwhile, Obama can accuse Republicans of being un-American, practicing social Darwinism, and call their plans a “Trojan Horse”. That’s called “respect”. Democrats rally and cheer him on crying “NO harm, no foul!”- to verbalize their approval. Then Pelosi can come out and lie about it, as if they are victims and taken out of context.

    Early on Obama labeled voters as gun toting, Bible thumping bigots.

    This passes for respectful politics and bipartisanship, and listening or working with the other side? Sure it does, if you are Pelosi.

    Nancy defending earlier claims she had no knowledge about enhanced interrogation:

    Poor Nancy Pelosi, she can never manage to get her talking points quite right without contradicting herself. Here she is fumbling up her words about her knowledge of investigation tactics used. She is in an all out race with Holder on who can muddy up their words more.

Now we know Democrats’ definition redefinition of respect.
R E S P E C T… “find out what it means” – San Fran Nan style

Give me a break!