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

The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

A Democrat message in a bottle to anyone listening

Welcome to the Left — I mean the new reality. (oops even ‘reality’ is a pun now.)

I heard interesting conversations from libs in the last few days, after the Alexandria shooting. It was “one nut,” “one crazy guy.” So you point out that it is more than one guy out there with the DNC. They scoff. Then you point to tweets and Libs’ blame of Trump for even shooting Reublicans. Nice. They deny it has anything to do with partisan politics.

They tell you how they condemn all forms of violence by anyone. “It is not a left vs right thing,” they claim, “we support peaceful action.” Why can’t we all get along, why the bitterness? We point out the Left’s problem and propensity for violence, so they claim they haven’t seen or known anyone like that. You can only play dumb for so long. (below)

Actually it looks and feels a lot like arguments about Islam and terrorists. The same tactics and strategy in both. If it is one thing I concluded over the years, it is that violence is the Left’s plan-B when it can’t get its way.

To the rescue: Pat Buchanan has ‘Exhibit-A’ chronicling the long, bitter history of the Left with hatred and the violence accompanying it. Hey, they don’t call it Hard Left for nothing.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, who aspired to end his life as a mass murderer of Republican Congressmen, was a Donald Trump hater and a Bernie Sanders backer.

Like many before him, Hodgkinson was a malevolent man of the hating and hard left.

His planned atrocity failed because two Capitol Hill cops were at that Alexandria baseball field, providing security for House Whip Steve Scalise. Had those cops not been there, a massacre would have ensued with many more dead than the gunman.

More at: http://buchanan.org/blog/long-history-leftist-hatred-127223

But we have an evolving view playing out in front of us. Here is an exchange.

Excuse number one:(from a Dem strategist)

Sigh or high-five, who can be sure?

Of course it is only a sampling, there are too many to mention. It is cool to talk up their hatred insisting that somehow the Left’s violence could be justified because of Republicans’ agenda or what we did. Blame the victims as if Repubs should have expected this.

And then there is the class war argument. How long have libs been running on class warfare? Yet the idiots have that figured out too. Dems class warfare is our fault too — even though it is about all they have to run on. Their strategy is blamed on Repubs.

Have you ever witnessed a bunch of people more averse to taking any responsibility than the liberal left? Republicans and conservatives aren’t even in the same race.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Seeing is not believing anything the left does

Every time the radical left elevates someone to immortal status (victim, martyr, hero etc), just look in his or her closet, if you can pry it open: Khizr Khan, Hillary Clinton, Michael Brown, Bill Ayers, Che Guevara, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Tookie Williams, Kathy Boudin, Obama et al.

Dubbing James Comey as the Boy Scout poster boy was a classic. It didn’t prove anything except that he fooled a lot of people. Sure there were those on the right that said he was the pillar of integrity and honesty, even going so far as using him as a textbook example of proper behavior. If you like that sort of behavior, that is. Honor?

Comey put Martha Stewart behind bars but couldn’t find corrupt conduct with Hillary. Just can’t get there, even if it wasn’t his duty. He’s notable for overstepping his job, usurping power, but now that is not a problem to the left. After what he did for Clinton, he then turned around to claim Trump’s accusations of being wiretapped before the election were “outside the realm of normal” …“crazy.” Tell me about crazy.

In light of Trump exposing the spying and data collection, a simple doctrine has surfaced:
The good guys get spied on and trashed while the bad, crooked or corrupt guys get a free pass — often promoted. That’s just how the left rolls.

Always be cautious who the left designates with hero, victim status.

RightRing | Bullright

Defending the Indefensible

I’m almost amused by the political dialogue — to use the term loosely — of the left these days but if one thing sums it up, it would be defending the indefensible.

They apply those talents to Obamacare. What is there to defend? It is a total mess even for doctors and healthcare professionals, and prices are going through the roof. But if anyone can defend that it would be Democrats or the liberal left. Calling that a success is sort of like calling the burnig of Rome a strategic victory.

It isn’t the only place they’ve applied their expertise.They defend Obama’s sham legacy, his leading from behind foreign policy. He doubled the national debt….. “winning!”

Finally, Trump has taken the opportunity to say he was left a big mess all over. That was a strange way of securing Obama’s legacy. Now that Trump elegantly points that out, shrieks come from thhe heckler section. Dare he say that? Mess is an understatement.

Remember Obama’s doctrine was “don’t do stupid shit!” Apparently they didn’t follow their own doctrine. Unless fertilized evil was their idea of smart?

The Democrat party is in a scorched-earth campaign to deny the effects of the last 8 years, and to defend the entire scandalous, evil hole called Obama’s legacy. But it was a pretty big giveaway how bad it is when their biggest claim was Obama had a scandal-free administration for eight years. And Valerie Jarrett echoed that across liberaldom.

Leading from behind and “don’t do stupid shit” being pillars of that tenure. If it looks like and quacks like a duck, guess what? It ain’t a pig. Besides, there isn’t enough lipstick to cover this mess. But who’s trying? How quick their perspective changed from a yellow brick road under a rainbow; to a black plague in every corner with red-alert problems everywhere, just as he leaves. They can complain about leadership now.

On one hand they’ll be defending, on the other they’ll be condemning everything, everywhere. Their hope and change turned to Mope and Complain.

RightRing | Bullright

Rantzilla on having a new President

Buckle up I have a rant for you, if you are interested. What a difference a few long months makes?

The National Coalition of Trolls (DNC et al) has kicked off their newest operation, fashioning itself as a Tea Party type movement. Hey, I’m not writing their script, only commenting about it.

Seven years after the popular Tea Party rise, Democrats are imitating the movement. Wait, they spent all that time mocking, attacking, ignoring, and calling them racists etc.; but now say they are following in their footsteps. Media spent 7 years attacking it, trying to marginalize and discredit them.

Whatever they say.

Wait, the Tea Party was set off by government intervention in healthcare, bailouts, stimulus, arrogance of power, and taxagedon to grow government and its control by dolling out goodies to people. Yet Liberals and Democrats say they are following Tea Party’s lead? The original call for Tea Parties was led by Rick Santelli on CNBC saying enough is enough, announcing the idea of Tea Party, hearkening back to the days of patriots dumping tea in Boston Harbor to protest taxes and the King’s control schemes. Everything about that is contrary to the modern Left, and any movement it started.

Tea Parties also had strong overtones about freedom of speech, religion, the Founders and the Constitution. Not necessarily what we see in today’s left. They do call themselves progressives but the new term, coined by others, is regressive. They are about shutting down speech of others or labeling different views hate speech. Still, they continue their imitation narrative.

Never mind that the left is also caught up in their civil disobedience and violence agenda. It is basically nothing like what conservatives or Republicans did. Tea Parties had a respect for law enforcement and kept the demonstrations neat — even though they were grassroots organized. Not the Left. Tea Parties were bottom up grass roots, even resisting the intervention of some Republicans who wanted to commandeer it. The Left is always organized top down, by those in power, or close to its power center. (George Soros et al) But it is staged to seem grassroots — Move On. It’s their business model.

Here is an interesting tangent to liberals.

I have a theory involving market forces and the Left’s willing gullibility to believe in all these things they do, so easily. I figure if you can find a way to target that segment of people, it would be a goldmine. How so? Just think about it. Obama ran on a faith-based message and they all bought it: lock, stock and barrel.

I mean if you have people who are that easy to sell anything you want, then you have a powerful market of buyers or consumers. They demonstrate a willingness to believe in things based on little proof. And once they do, believe in it, you can hardly even talk them out of it. That, my friends, is gold to any marketing agenda. That’s the utopia salesman have searched for. Think about that slogan, change you can believe in. Then think about Obamacare and all the lies. You couldn’t even tell them they were lies, even after Gruber came out admitting it. Even after it was proven to be lies, they still believed it.

So that is the secret, getting them to believe it. That isn’t hard, they are an easy pitch. But once they do, they remain loyal even if results are not what they expected. Now that is the kind of people any marketer wants to find.

Whether this quote is from James Carville or not, it is true from the standpoint of reality. And Obama constantly proved it.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd. — credited to James Carville.

So couple their mentality with the herd mindset and you have a powerful consumer base. You could sell them anything. And they create the demand all by themselves. What could be wrong with that? And then, once sold on it, you could not talk them out of it.

All you have to do is look at the last election. Bernie scored big with Dems, some say he could have won. He promised them free healthcare, free college and a 15 per/hr minimum wage. They believed and remained loyal. Just what they wanted to hear. You couldn’t talk them out of it. They sent in their five box tops and sat there waiting for it to arrive.

Wake up and smell the crazy.

Democrats discovered a new phenomena called Voter Rage. And it is catching on in the media. They like this movement, of course. Remember all the attacks at Tea Parties? Not so with the perpetual protestors, which are nothing more than re-branded Occupiers, who re-branded themselves Bernie’s base, who re-branded themselves as the Resistance.

Something happens they don’t like, take the rage to the streets. Mix it with anarcho-commies, it gets very colorful. They weaponize rage and hate as tools.

What we have with the Left is the biggest case of projection I have ever seen. They lost the election but now think they can project themselves right back into majority power, or at least a potent minority one. Their perception is supposed to become everyone’s reality.

Democrats have that other time-worn weapon. If they don’t get their way, they take to the streets and protest. That is a powerful force for them to get more stuff, or promises. See how this cycle works? Once they believe, they’ll do anything for that cause whether they understand it or not. It makes no difference. People wonder how so many people can be self-claimed socialist? My opinion is they aren’t all socialists — many are Me-ists. As long as they think it benefits ‘Me’ they’re fine with it. If it is not, then cue the rage.

RightRing | Bullright

Delegitimizing Obama’s Legacy

Obama always worried about someone trying to undermine his presidency and legacy.

Remember Mitch McConnell’s well-worn quote that his #1 job was making Obama a one-term president, which never did work out? Obama overused that one.

It turns out that the one person who has done more to delegitimize Obama and undermine his presidency was Obama. Being too stupid to realize it is just icing on the cake.

Spending all his time to get Hillary elected only illustrated the case against his legacy.

RightRing | Bullright

Fake News or Harry Reid’s news

Okay, let’s write some fake news. I mean I’m bored.

So Harry Reid complains the Russian hacking influenced the election throwing it to Trump. Right. Then he claimed that Comey single-handedly influenced the election results for Trump. Slap the certificate of authenticity on that. Both are true, to Reid.

Now this means that Russia, Putin’s hacks and Comey with the FBI in unison all worked together to get Trump elected. We are talking a huge conspiracy, fake news there. Plus, Hillary’s people at Harvard said the media helped get Trump elected. Media-Russia-FBI-Comey.

It doesn’t stop there, turns out Reid is also against fake news. Here is Harry Reid giving his retirement lecture speech. He lashed out at Fake News. (HuffPo)

“We’re entering a new Gilded Age. It has never been more important to be able to distinguish between what’s real and what is fake… We have media outlets pushing conspiracy theories disguised as news. Separating real from fake has never been more important.”

He cited Pope Francis to bolster his case: (but Hillary also railed against fake news)

“[The Pope]said yesterday, and this is a quote: ‘The media that focuses on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement,’” Reid said.

Echoing that,

Hillary Clinton took the opposite tone, calling fake news “a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.”

Then Reid went on to referrence George Orwell’s “1984” to make his case.

The king of fake news is very concerned about Fake News. It turns out that writing a report about Harry Reid and fake news is a good way to point out fake news. He brought in the Pope and George Orwell. Who is more creative than that? Any time you can use the Pope to help promote your conspiracies is a good day. Hillary, I found your culprit.

Elections And Idiots… MSM Arrogance

That is not to say the idiocy of elections. We’ve seen the idiots exposed and it is not pretty. Should we be surprised since the media has managed to create multiple irrelevant narratives while ignoring the major issues?

And the one big issue was the determination of the people — all of us pissed off misfit deplorables — that wanted change, to right the good ship America. They missed it.

I had an analogy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the DNC, to the Titanic. (I even saw someone else make it) They had built this monstrosity of her campaign that would just cruise through anything with all the glitter, pride and arrogance they could stuff into it. Then she thought she would just ride through the tides and she’d run out the clock.

She had the arrival party planned and the music was playing through the trip. No storms on their radar, just minor obstycles — like her corruption — to be ignored. They posed no threat because the people didn’t care about such things. “Boo, turn up the music.”

Now in the aftermath, the media and pontificators are telling us what the results mean. Well, if they didn’t know what the election was about then how can they be trusted to interpret the results? The point being the mood and will of the people. But that was deemed irrelevant even from the beginning. All that mattered to them was seeing Hillary get elected and continuing a third term of Obama. They ignored that 70% of the people who believed we’re on the wrong track. Hope and change is now hope it changes.

The election is over but the campaign continues. MSM and the Left campaigns as if the election didn’t happen, to define both the election and Trump’s plans at the same time. The goal of the left is to define all things to fit their agenda.

At the risk of quoting myself before the election here:

Yet there is one other thing that I noticed, politically. Democrats have this habit of overreaching. Of course that is only a byproduct of their politics. They are constantly trying to push the outer limits on everything — whatever it is — as far as they can go. So the natural extension of that is to overreach.

The Hillary campaign and Leftist media also underestimated evangelicals. By 81% they came out for Trump. But that is the way the Left is: the half of America that supported Trump is irrelevant, just like fly over country they despise. We were never a factor because they don’t care – still don’t.

Their campaign to define everything on the right, including us, continues. So the fight goes on. To allow them to do that is to cede the results. When they define our objective, we lose.

RightRing | Bullright

Here we go with Dems’ mind games

Rush Limbaugh puts it in stark terms. He’s talking strategy which is what this is all about.

I’m Getting Nervous About All These Calls for Trump to Unify with the Losers

November 10, 2016

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I’m getting nervous. I am already getting nervous. I know it’s early. I’m not getting nervous because of anything I’ve heard President-Elect Trump say. I’m getting nervous because of things I’m hearing other people say, things totally unnecessary. And I want to take some time today to try to explain why I’m nervous and destroy some myths that seem to always pop up after elections about unity and crossing the aisle and working together and almost apologizing for winning.

I’m sick of it. I’m fed up with it. I have watched it happen for now 29 years, and I’m not gonna sit here and stand or sit mute while it happens again. We have been governed against our will for the last eight years. The Democrat Party — and nobody saw this, folks — because everybody was so focused on two people, Hillary and Donald Trump. Nobody, I mean nobody until after it was over, had any idea what had really happened.

We should have known it because we’ve been chronicling it. I’m talking about the demise of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party since 2010, the midterm elections in 2010, they lost 900 seats in that election in the House, in the Senate, go to governorships, mayors, town council, if you go all over the country, they got a shellacking. We now know that if Donald Trump had run for president in 2012 using the exact data he got versus what Obama got in 2012, Donald Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012, if you take the data from this election and measure it against what Obama had.

“And we also have the plummeting fortunes of the Democrat Party to back it up. The Democrat Party happens to be the receptacle for anti-Americanism in America today. If you don’t like America and if you’ve got problems with America, that’s where you go. You go to the Democrat Party. It is undeniable. Now, I warned everybody about this rioting. I warned about it constantly. I want you to hear, because, folks, it isn’t real. I am begging you to ignore it. Do not let it affect you. “

Lots more: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/10/i_m_getting_nervous_about_all_these_calls_for_trump_to_unify_with_the_losers

That is enough to open the can of worms. I am sick of it, too, but that doesn’t seem to matter. I’ve been watching this for years wondering just how far Democrats will be allowed to push their agenda? I think we now know. It came to a screeching halt, at least for the moment…only for the moment.

Like clockwork, Dems now shift to try to interfere in the Republican party. They have ruined themselves, and failed at their own mission. But suddenly they are advisers to Repubs and we should listen to them? I know, it is absurd but this is what they do. They want to do anything to detract from the train wreck in the DNC. I mean anything. And bringing Republicans down, after a win, is a huge objective they can all get behind.

Now Clinton campaign staffer, Jennifer Palmieri, says it was Comey’s fault Hillary lost. She cannot take any responsibility. Their campaign accepts no blame for the outcome. Next they’ll blame voters. Hillary the failed human being and candidate shall not be blamed. They want Dems as passionate about her corrupt record as Mother Teresa’s.

For years they have been beating Repubs over the head about the autopsy of the Republican party. I was sick of that. But have an introspective investigation of the DNC and Hillary Campaign? No, can’t have that. “Even Republicans said you need to do __.”

Now Democrats are pushing the idea of Keith Ellison as DNC Chair. Did we mention because he is a Muslim? Think about it, they ousted a Chair literally on the eve of their convention because of a scandal. So they replaced her with the pillar of integrity Donna Brazile, Clinton loyalist.Then there was the corrupted candidate herself.

Problem is they’ll focus their criticism on Republicans. We don’t play that BS. And no one is going to appoint them, or Hillary, as the “tolerance czar.” I can’t wait to see Dems invisible autopsy. They promised people booty for votes. Now the protracted chase and foreplay is over, Democrat stooges are aghast at reality – no booty. Take it out on Republicans.

Hillary, apology wanted in isle #1

Ahead of Al Smith Dinner, Cardinal Dolan says Hillary owes Catholics an apology

Lisa Bourne | Life Site News

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disassociate herself from anti-Catholic statements made by her campaign chairman and said the remarks were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”

Asked about the anti-Catholic comments after speaking at The Bishop’s Respect Life Dinner on Monday night for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Cardinal Dolan suggested that had other faith traditions been the target of the prejudiced remarks, there would have been a swift apology and absolute disavowal of them.

But as far as an apology from Clinton for the remarks demeaning Catholics, “Hasn’t happened yet,” Cardinal Dolan said.

Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.

The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”

Palmieri said in one of the emails she thought conservatives that had come to Catholicism did so because “they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” and that “their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Podesta admitted to helping launch a “progressive” infiltration of the Church in another email, and he took an active role in attempting to incite a liberal Catholic revolt against the U.S. bishops.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” Podesta wrote. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

The “Catholic Spring” Podesta referred to had been broached in the email by Center for Progress President Sandy Newman, who had pondered, how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or “who would plant them.”

Newman wrote Podesta:

Hi John. This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking … There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.

The statements “are just extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics,” Cardinal Dolan told ABC affiliate News Channel 13 on Monday.

“If it had been said about the Jewish community, if it had been said about the Islamic community, within 10 minutes there would have been an apology and a complete distancing from those remarks,” he continued.

“Hasn’t happened yet,” he stated.

The cardinal, who is chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, then said he’d like to see the Democratic candidate disassociate herself from the offending comments.

“I’m hoping that she’s going to distance herself from these very insulting remarks by her chief of staff,” Cardinal Dolan said.

He also told the news station that he trusts people to be guided by their moral convictions, and he expects people to be “acquainted with the issues.”

The Clinton campaign has not acknowledged the anti-Catholic emails, though they have been played down by at least one Democratic operative and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, also a Catholic.

Catholics, some of who have also called for Podesta’s firing, have roundly criticized the email comments.

Original article https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-dolan-clinton-owes-catholics-an-apology

Ordinarily, these should be defining comments of controversy. But the media yawns, even at the talk of organizing and supporting a revolution within the RCC. Those remarks should send tidal waves through both the Catholic Church and political circles.

Think it matters to people? It certainly doesn’t seem to matter one bit to Lamestream media. For Camp Hillary, it is just one more thing to deny and ignore. But people should be outraged at this by a presidential campaign.

Another controversial issue arose at the debate, where Trump mentioned the brutal late-term abortion process. Well, media and pundits were abhorred at that language and how Trump talked about it. Oh, one needs to be careful with language but careless with life? These are the times. Hillary’s rebuttal was as bad. But there is no defense for the indefensible…. and that is the problem.

No apology even for their comments endorsing a RCC revolution. Yet they call us out for how we describe partial-birth or late-term abortion that Hillary supports in lockstep with Planned Parenthood.

Hillary’s response to Trump was:

Well, that is not what happens in these cases and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.

“Scare rhetoric?” — Or as Leftists often call abortion “reproductive autonomy,” and a “health care decision”. Most of us call it killing babies and the business thereof. But credit Trump with broaching the subject at the debate.

All radicals all the time — Clintonistas

Welcome to the truth inside the Hillary campaign. (video)

What about the protest at the Chicago Trump rally? Well, surprise. (which is no surprise)

It doesn’t matter about legal… or ethics, we need to win this M-Fer.

We knew they were behind all this radicalism, but it is what they do.

Ever heard of Democracy Partners? Oh, the dark Hillary campaign that no media dares report on. Alive and thriving via Hillary’s campaign.

Sometimes the crazies bite…. sometimes they don’t. Portraying people as psychotic…. all sinister dark creatures of Hillary’s campaign.

“We want it coming from the people, not the Party.”

“We’re starting anarchy here.”

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.

Inside vs. Outside: the Presidential Finale

The incumbent verses the elite ruling class, who wins is paramount for the future.

Let me start with a few assumptions. People really want an insurgent candidate. It is the year of the insurgent, if ever there was one. Now that change order is not like a celebrity getting a little “nip and tuck”. It is a major event with major consequences.

There can be no doubt about who the elite ruling class are, the establishment has its fingers into all the incubators of freedom or the wave of movement politics, just to hedge its bets. It’s been working overtime to preserve the ruling class reign.

It was validated by people across the spectrum that they want change and prefer an insurgent candidate. So the dynamic, though appearing fluid, is one of the entrenched establishment verses the outsiders — the tar and pitchforks. The elites don’t know exactly how fed up people are csince they haven’t got the message so far. Face it, I can’t think of a lot of fans of status quo politics. It’s not like they have a cheering squad out there.

They’ve always assumed they can corral people back into the cattle chutes in the end. This time seems to be the exception to that rule. Too much has happened, too many lies, too much distrust, too much arrogance…too many lectures, too much failure and at what cost? Put that together with related factors. People don’t trust government anymore, they don’t trust Congress, they don’t trust the media, and they are not predisposed to trust politicians (putting it mildly). And they have the scars to prove their reasons for distrust.

When the election began, I wondered what the narrative would be and what the eventual election would really be about? Wonder not. Very early on, the establishment boldly tried to declare the terms, whatever we thought about it.

It is surprising that there are still a lot of big-government people out there. And they believe that magic dust sprinkled on everything under big government will solve whatever ails the country. It’s not the time or place now (if there ever is) for it but that is their view. They simply vote for more of it. The string of failures don’t seem to matter. Enter Hillary.

Notice with Leftists’ progressive world view that the 2016 campaign is only about a couple things. They talk about some plans — lip service keeping the status quo going — and then there is the vote. Guess which one they care about? The plans are pie in the sky if you can believe anything they say. But the real point and their emphasis is just on the vote and that is all that matters. Any way they get it. It’s a giant registration program(s) and then they talk about the vote, and then they talk about getting out the vote. That is their message. It’s really not about what they’ll do, or what the people want, its about the vote.

Then it is any means to their successful ends. Yet they mock the idea of rigged process or fraud in elections. That doesn’t matter to them as long as they win. Al Gore proved what happens when they don’t. Just stir the pot and get people to vote, then back to business as usual — screwing the public. So public service means served by the public for self-interest.

And people on the Left actually think they are voting for something? The DNC leaks and Hillary show what they think about that. “It’s just the vote, stupid!” To them it’s the vote, to us it’s inies vs. the outies.

“Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.”

RightRing | Bullright

Clintonism is back in vogue

That is if it ever left us. But it’s back again.

Panetta: It’s time to ‘move on’ from Clinton emails

By Kelly Cohen 8/14/16 11:28 | Washington Examiner

Former Defense Secretary and ex-CIA Director Leon Panetta called on the American public to “move on” from Hillary Clinton’s emails and focus on the “real issues.”

It’s been investigated, no action has been taken by the Justice Department,” Panetta told Martha Raddatz on ABC’s “This Week.” “They found no basis for any kind of action.

I really do think it’s time for the candidates and for the American people to move on and talk about the real issues,” he added.

Raddatz then asked Panetta if he finds “anything wrong with a billionaire businessman donating to the foundation and then asking Clinton’s senior State Department aides for favors?”

Panetta said it only matters if anything was done in return for a donation, which nobody has been “able to pin down that that actually happened,” he said.

And as for the Clinton campaign claim of a conspiracy against her, Panetta called it “politics.”

Opposing parties are always going to make attacks. And you’ll make attacks on the other party. That’s part of the nature of the game,” he explained.

Article here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/panetta-its-time-to-move-on-from-clinton-emails/article/2599309

Why is it I get offended by every stinking statement the Clintonistas make, whether it’s on this or Benghazi or how suited she is for the Presidency? Clintons have that ability.

They found no basis for any kind of action.” That’s not true at all. Comey listed a whole bunch of actions that could be taken to any other person, including losing their job or losing their security clearance. Plus it is a real offensive way of saying “there is nothing we (or anyone) can do about it. So get over it.” I can’t remember the last time I was that offended. Right, it was probably Benghazi.

Politics. To leave aside the nature of the game of politics, making attacks is what you call trying to hold someone accountable for their actions? But that’s a big part of the problem with the Clintons, it is all just a political game. Only it is really no game.

But it seems it is not just politics when they attack statements of Trump. Then they call it “beyond the pale” disqualifying for office. When it’s Hillary’s actions, along comes Panetta to say its just a political game, and that no action can be taken on Hillary. Nope, Clintons win and America loses — that’s the game I see.

Turncoats, losers, useful idiots are played

As far as I’m concerned, the Hillary campaign might as well be recruiting for the KGB if they are flipping people for Clinton.

From NYT “Hillary’s Summer of Love”

” Dozens of prominent Republicans have come out and said that they’ll vote for her or consider it, including, just last week, the Silicon Valley titan Meg Whitman, the Jeb Bush confidante Sally Bradshaw, and Maria Comella, a former spokeswoman for two of Trump’s most pugnacious promoters, Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani.

You can expect that list to grow. The Clinton campaign clearly does. As Bloomberg Politics and The Washington Post reported last week, Clinton’s aides have gone so far as to set up something of a special operation — a defection watch — to monitor news accounts and any other public hints that a Republican leader is thinking of renouncing Trump, so that someone on Team Clinton can reach out and ask him or her to take the next step. The Times’s Jonathan Martin revealed that Clinton herself called Whitman a month ago. “

The breadth of G.O.P. affection for Clinton shouldn’t be overstated.” — More>

Sorry, but I think you just did overstate it and that is your whole point.

First of all, always beware of the hype especially when the left has a political objective. They paint a popular picture. We’ve all seen the video using statements of well-known Republicans through the primaries. I hope all those Republicans are proud to be used in this, her campaign.

With the Supreme Court at stake, national security, a swiss cheese border with sanctuary cities, establishment corruption woes and a 20 trillion dollar debt bomb at stake, they make it sound like “what’s the big deal?” That’s some powerful deception. So Hillary disinformation pros can talk them through the process. (brainwashing) What’s not to like? How can a rational person support that candidate from hell?

“She’s gone from Republican voodoo doll to Post-Partisan Barbie.” — Ouch

Really, PPB? I got a better Hillary doll in mind, right here.

Exhibition in Dishonesty

Democrats’ convention — the proper thing to call it — has closed their big show. Lights are down, glitter is trashed and the floors are swept. And a show it was.

Something is missing now though in the media coverage. Normally there have been at least a token one or two conservatives or Republicans. I watch Republicans and they seem like the cat got their tongues. Have they all been defanged? Are they just there for looks? And many of them make cordial, polite comments on Dems’ road show production.

Hillary reintroduced herself editing out the highlights of the last 20years.

She told us that sure, “I sweat the details” on things. Thus if you accuse her of that she will take it. But where was her obsession for details in Benghazi where lives depended on those details? In every area, on details, she sold them out or rendered them irrelevant. So she is a detail freak which mitigates people’s criticism of her. And where’s Heiress’s attention to detail of her own scandalous bio. Or is that Clinton compartmentalization again?

No, we don’t see her focused on any details except self-serving politics. When probed on details, from Benghazi to her server problems, her instinct is to lie. Now her plan seems to be make Donald Trump a scapegoat for her own lack of trust and honesty.

Another note in Hillary’s speech: twice she referred to Bill Clinton as her “Explainer in Chief”. Well, isn’t that special? That illustrates her ‘too cute by half’ campaign. She always blurs the legal lines and then chuckles about the questions that follow. That’s what I mean, just too slick and offensive. So welcome back to the 90’s — or those that missed it — and the evolving definition of “is”. I guess Bill will be very busy.

RightRing | Bullright

Bad to the bone politicians

I seriously wonder if everything that can be said has now been said, if not at the Republican convention then about it? I think it is real possibility.

Well, I sort of think so. I did come up with a new term to describe Hillary, but it is not exclusive to her. I’ll call them predator politicians from now on. Need I define that?

See, there is this big deal about Hillary in the 90s that she coined incorrigible street criminals as “super predators”. Then she added we must “bring them to heel,” which is highly offensive to blacks and is being used against her.

That gave me the idea: what we have now are predator politicians. And it is necessary to “bring them to heel” — I mean if it is possible. (I know a big if)

Wow, does Hillary fit that one to the tee. Normally, one would insert a list here of all the things she’s been involved in, right up to present, and show it is not getting any better. Actually, the more power a predator politician gets the worse they seem to get. So I admit Hillary could be the prototype for this new hybrid but Obama’s right in there too.

I’m sorry, I really don’t have the time for the lists nor do I have the patience for all the liberal deniers to call it absurd.Then try to substitute Bush and Cheney. This is not to say the term is restricted and only applies to Democrats but, come on, at least be objective. They are the ones who fit best, Hillary being the ultimate example.

No matter what, she is not going to change, she will remain the most sinister and corrupt person just because of her vast experience for decades and sets the bar to a new level.(sorry, she destroyed the bar) Whatever you do to her, you cannot shame her. She really does need to be brought to heel, within the confines of our legal and criminal system.

Though we found out how hard that is. She is like an antibiotic-resistant disease. It’s why we keep searching for new super-antibiotics. She is a case study in out of control disease.

How to stop her? How do you prevent her from corrupting others? How do you prevent her actions from becoming the rule instead of exception? See what a dangerous spot she has put us in? Even if you want to get her under control, how do you do that?

She marches past any barrier set. Is she stoppable? Or is it something you have to let run its course until it dies off, hopefully without doing catastrophic damage? You cannot quarantine it. She jumps past all those meaningless limits. The further she goes, the further her tentacles extend. However, we don’t need to be praising her.

So, in that regard, she blew past the threat of “super-predators” or career criminals, We don’t need to further her ambitions — which know no limits. Why would we want to do that? But we, or Dems, do nothing which only enables her on her path.

One corrupt politico, who probably won’t make the convention, is PA’s own Chuka Fattah.(Philly area) Oh, he is another corrupted politician the Left will not talk about and media has not covered much. See if you have corruption, better to keep it hush hush in media if it is a Democrat. Else people will think others may be corrupt as well. Yes, he is also a Clinton super delegate.

But true to the Predator Politician formula. having already been convicted, it has been hard enough to get the guy to leave office. Fattah was defeated in a primary though refused to step down immediately following conviction, even though he cannot vote.

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), a Hillary Clinton superdelegate, was convicted on Tuesday on corruption charges stemming from a racketeering conspiracy in which the congressman and four associates misappropriated thousands of dollars from federal, campaign, and charitable sources.

Fattah and four associates were indicted in July 2015 on 29 corruption charges including racketeering, bribery, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, and falsification of records, among other charges.

The Department of Justice said Fattah took an illegal $1 million loan from his failed Philadelphia mayoral bid in 2007 and disguised it as a loan to his consulting company.

He simply told them he would resign in 3 months, the day before his sentencing. Finally, Dems surrounded Fattah telling him to shove off into the unknown because of the damage he may do to their syndicate. It was not a question of right or wrong but of damage control. Ironically, he also served on appropriations. Ed Rendell defended the situation saying his staff could just serve constituents anyway. He finally agreed to resign immediately.

If only Fattah could have arranged for them to not prosecute. But I digress.

However, Hillary is more of a hybrid. She not only would never back off under indictment, but accelerate her lawless plans. That’s how she rolls. She escaped accountability anyway. So that should give us a message as to what to expect. She actually knows, or at least believes, that nothing can or will stop her. There are no limits: legal or otherwise.

Reality is just an ever-changing kaleidoscope on the road to tyranny.

RightRing | Bullright