Assessment of the Left

Remember the old Van Jones’ cliche about how he viewed the progressive, liberal strategy?

“Top down, bottom up, inside out.”

Van Jones: “Change has to be top down. bottom up, and inside out. It’s got to be top down… we can’t just leave the federal government in the hands of our enemies and expect to make a lot of progress.

So even if we can’t get everything done we WANT to get done out of DC, we certainly can’t let other people have the levers of control of DC. But also, you can see right now, DC can’t do much by itself. You have to have that bottom up movement….and that’s what’s been missing is that bottom up sense of movement to get the best out of DC. And What’s {inaudible – cog]…in stopping that is the inside out piece. “

Van Jones said “we need to have the right president and the right movement.”
(the right radical roots)

Rahm Emanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is [its] an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

This is not about conflict resolution this is about conflict proliferation.

It was always fairly clear what they were talking about when they said bottom up or top down – Van Jones said they needed the presidency. But it was always more vague what inside out really meant — maybe inside anger acting out, turmoil or chaos itself? Now we see more of what really “inside out” looks like within the government.

That is government turned inside out, against itself, when undesirable power to radicals is in control. Of course this wouldn’t happen under Obama. Where government is used against itself to bring down an opposed power. And it is rolling out of the left right now.

See all the obfuscation, obstruction to allow nominees to get through. You have all the Dems, in minority, functioning in lockstep to use any of their power to oppose and sabotage the majority. Now the radical remnant within is in rebellion.Then you have the phony grass roots AstroTurf acting in concert calling for obstruction.

The first thing liberals did post election was demand Dems obstruct and do anything possible to prohibit everything the new administration tried to do. Hence, resistance.

At the moment, all three parts seem to be fully activated with one added caveat, the media. It is nicely cooperating with their strategy. Money was never a problem with Soros, Dem orgs etc. Then all they need do, collectively, is project chaos everywhere they can.

So under those circumstances, the only way Repubs can get Dems to cooperate is to appease them somehow — what the left wants and expects. If the radical left cannot control government, they must at least exert force over those with levers of power.

And media is doing a marvelous job right now playing along. It’s almost too perfect for them. They have a former president now going back into politics, leading their movement. Democrat pols are all on board with the radical left’s agenda to disrupt, deny, and destroy anything opposing them. It’s basic radical ideology, and Dems are fully radicalized.

There is Move On, which was Clinton’s defense organization. Then there is Organizing for Action, Obama’s campaign organization. There is RevCom, a tool of Bernie’s. Along with other leftist groups, including the ACLU, BLM, environmentalists and the financiers like Soros glad to foot any bills. Couple it with Obama and his internal political machine of fellow travelers, and former staff. Eric Holder and then a crew of Obama’s lawyers challenging everything Trump is doing. Now it’s a strategy of inside out and upside down, too.

RightRing | Bullright

Wolves in the midst, Islamic cleric at Inaugural prayer service

One thousand chapters strong across America with 400 thousand members, ACT has been speaking out on the issues of Islamic Radicalism within our borders and beyond.

So it is only natural they had a curious eye on the inaugural events. Guess what they found at one of the services?

Radical Islamic Cleric Poisons Inaugural Prayer Service

(ACT)On January 21st, the noble occasion of Interfaith National Prayer Service at the Washington National cathedral was poisoned by the presence of a radical Islamic cleric named Mohamed Magid.

The attendance of Magid at this occasion to honor President Trump and Vice President Pence, clarifies with absolute precision, how close the tentacles of radical Islam can stretch towards those with the very task of eradicating them.

Magid serves as the executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center and is the former executive director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which according to declassified FBI memos, acted as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987.

Magid has endorsed sharia governance, and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. To advance his dream of a caliphate, Magid believes in incremental infiltration of both government, and the media.

A 1991 document from ISNA’s mothership, the Muslim Brotherhood, stated “its work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”

The Muslim Brotherhood also considered Magid’s ISNA as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

Given these facts, a man as dangerous and radical as Magid should not be allowed anywhere near the President of the United States.

Magid, and many others like him, are crafty characters who understand that by attending this noteworthy event, they can now claim innocence from radical ties since they were seen attending an interfaith prayer service with the President of the United States.

This is why eradicating the stealth jihad is one of the most critical aspects of the war on terror. While combatting ISIS is paramount, we must open our eyes to the infiltration taking place within our own borders.

Always trying to innoculate themselves against the boilerplate of radical Islam. If they wanted to try so hard not to represent themselves as radicals, then why are they engaged in proliferation of radicalism, as radicals? Of course truth and honesty are also their enemies, so it figures they would try to represent their real cause as harmless.

My friend, Pepp, recently reminded me of a scripture I think also apples here.

1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

I thought ACT explained Islamists’ rationale very well. Just being seen at events is an attempt to normalize the very type of people who mean us harm.

This is all part of the greater problem I have tried, very hard, to write about. That is they are opportunists, in the same form of other radicals in our country. And they seek to extort every opportunity they can find. It is what they do.

ISIS and Democrats: apples to apples

Of all the comparisons I have, the one I come back to time and again is comparing Democrats to ISIS, or more directly to Islamic radical terrorists. It works. Some people would say that is a bit extreme. But I think it applies and not in a forced way.

Why? First of all, because radicalism is big part of their strategy. And because terrorizing to influence people is, by nature, their goal. Political objectives of both may be murky at times but it drives their strategy.

Radicalism is the central connection. When I think about the Democrats, and party in particular, the term that always comes up is radicals. Obama confirmed that. After the last 8 years, it is hard to deny Democrats are radical. It’s their M/O and in their DNA.

Now that leaked emails about the inner workings of the DNC and Hillary’s campaign came out, it only confirms what we knew by their own words. Democrats’ talk amongst themselves exposes their mindset.

This could be a very long post…but it’s not. Or as Rep. Ted Poe from Texas says:
… “and that’s just the way it is.“

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.”

Fair is not fair – rhetoric or otherwise

John Kasich said that Donald Trump has created “a toxic environment.” So Trump is to blame, apparently, for these protests and large group that shut down a rally in Chicago.

Now I know people appreciate Kasich for his record and success, and so do I, but I have to take issue with his statements. Let’s put the blame where it lies, can we?

Trump is not an isolated factor nor the cause of everyone’s opinions. He is not the cause of the anger, it predates his run by far. What has failed us is our Party and leaders. To ignore the cause of this movement, the anger and disgust is to dismiss the purpose. Many people try to ignore and dismiss the purpose of this.

In Chicago, a protest organizer explained that, after they positioned themselves all around the venue, their goal was “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.” Now is that perfectly clear?

Then Kasich’s spokesperson came out, also condemning Trump, but saying we understand the reason people are mad as heck and he[John] understands that anger. Does he really? He seems to dismiss the voices of masses so easily, but put some blame where it belongs — with politicians and the establishment status quo.

How come when someone surges like that on the uber-Left everyone celebrates them, they gush praises on them? But on the right, they rush to condemn them. Why is that?

Rubio says he doesn’t know if he could support the nominee if it was Trump. “I don’t know.” He believes trump would shatter and fracture the [party] movement, as the nominee. Again, what has fractured and shattered the right has been the establishment politics as usual. Only insiders or estabo hacks could claim that… because it already is.

Cruz said the “responsibility for any campaign begins and ends at the top.” Maybe for others, not considering camp Cruz’s dirty tricks applied in Iowa. Cruz implies that if we just talk a certain way and act a certain way — like him — and have a dialogue, it eliminates problems like the Chicago protests. Please, is this really Ted’s understanding and knowledge of the Left?

Their Marxist purpose is to shut popular voices on the right down. It is not about dialogues or reasoning with them. All these front groups on the left operate the same way, or in concert with one another.But their objective is to stifle opposition to themselves any way they can. All of us should appeal to civility or appeal to our “better angels,” Cruz said.

Carly Fiorina said Trump “has taken advantage of [people’s] anger and frustration.” Blind are leading the blind. When she was talking about people’s anger that was different. Was she extorting that and her female credentials? Now just blame Trump for having given voice to the exact issues GOPe wanted to bury.

Obama, for the second time in a week, took his time to delve into politics namely on the right, in his roadshow tour. He said:

(Wa Po“)What is happening in this primary is just a distillation of what’s been happening inside their party for more than a decade. I mean, the reason that many of their voters are responding is because this is what’s been fed through the messages they’ve been sending for a long time — that you just make flat assertions that don’t comport with the facts. That you just deny the evidence of science. That compromise is a betrayal. That the other side isn’t simply wrong, or we just disagree, we want to take a different approach, but the other side is destroying the country, or treasonous. I mean, that’s — look it up. That’s what they’ve been saying.”

He went on to add that there are “thoughtful conservatives” out there — read who agree with him — that care about poverty, climate change, don’t insult people, who are concerned about what is going on. Well, everyone is concerned, supposedly, one way or another. But more of the same is not exactly the answer to any of it, or what they are asking for.

Then Obama said:

“We’ve got a debate inside the other party that is fantasy and schoolyard taunts and selling stuff like it’s the Home Shopping Network,” he joked.

“Now, the truth is, what they really mean is their reaction to me was crazy and now it has gotten out of hand. But that’s different. I didn’t cause the reaction. The reaction is something that they have to take responsibility for and then figure out how do we make an adjustment.”

We are being bamboozled people. This is the way the left operates and made to order for the party of Alinsky radicals. I’m not saying we are playing into their hands. Heaven knows they are going to do and act this way no matter what. I’m saying Trump presented them with an ideal opportunity for their tactics. Maybe this is one of the ways Carson can help Trump, by knowing and understanding their exact tactics.

What they have done is use Trump to personalize their attacks to broad brush the whole conservative country. Trump gives them a personal target. This is what they’ve always done. So while Ted Cruz rails about the Washington Cartel, that’s fine. But we also have to focus on left-wing fascism, too. Let’s not look at Trump as the problem when, in fact, he has been one person to speak out about the problems. So naturally he would be a target of theirs.They want to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way. Why should it surprise us?

Give me a break though, as everyone comes along to say “we know people are angry…” blah, blah and it is justified. Well, if they do know, then why do they face off with and criticize the people for taking action? In fact, they tell us they understand it that they too are angry. Really, what are they doing?

Maybe Trump is getting the hang of it and understands this radical dynamic of the Marxist Left. He has taken to pointing to the protestors as Bernie’s people, and indeed many were Bernie people in Chicago’s protest. He calls them out and personalizes who they are.

Hillary could not pass the opportunity to say “When you play with matches, you could start a fire you cannot control.” Let’s talk about playing with matches and starting a fire you can’t control sometime. It’s a long conversation.

Bernie continues to say Trump stokes anger while his campaign throws the “revolution” around loosely. Now considering Bernie’s chances against Hillary, what happens when he loses and when everyone does not get their totally free college education? Talk about stoking people’s anxieties, anger and expectations. What are those people going to do? You and I both probably have a good idea what they are going to do.

Now have you ever seen a candidate or someone take as much incoming attacks and criticism as Trump, especially from powerful places and the media? And it keeps coming.

Jekyll Island redux. A group of top Republican establishment, operatives and donors organize a meeting to take out Trump. Of, course the strange thing is it is not in secret, they are right out in the open about it. Jeb Bush has a private meeting with Kasich, Cruz, Rubio strategizing a take down before the debate.

I’ve already talked about Mitt Romney fiasco, also scheming behind the scenes. Then there is the matter where Republicans or Trump critics cannot oppose protests or Romney attacks because both comports with their own opposition. What kind of Party?

MSNBC has been reading motives into Trump all along, like racism. Other media jumped on to condemn Trump for what happened in Chicago. Glenn Beck a week ago referred to Trump supporters as Nazis and brownshirts. Talk about doing the Left’s work for them. Then another news broadcast said the rallies are WWE-type events where Trump incites and promotes violence. Two weeks ago, and still, they were stuck on a KKK message trying to tie Trump to racism. Is there anything they haven’t thrown at Trump? Not much.

“Imagine what Trump would say if he had a record like this – [his]?” Just imagine.
Barry, just imagine if you had half of your records (in question) thrown at you?

RightRing | Bullright

National Prayer Breakfast… post mosque visit

Last year at the prayer breakfast, Obama said that the violence and atrocities committed by the bands of Islamic terrorists was not unique to one faith. Then he said not to get on our high horses, lest we forget the Christian Crusades and the Jim Crow policies.

Well the problem is that this is sort of unique to this religion of Islam. Further the denial that this is unique and inherent to Islam is actually an offense of its own. It’s an assault on logic and current events.

So this year he one upped himself and planned a visit to a mosque the day before the National Prayer Breakfast. Not just any but one laden with controversy and Muslim Brotherhood ties. Why not choose another one? Well, that wasn’t the purpose.

The mission was to enunciate any friction he could while sticking it in the face of reasonable people. Like a gotcha effect. In fact, wouldn’t you think that if attempting to avoid friction, he could have made a case for speaking to moderate types he was trying to highlight? Why not give them some much-appreciated kudos for standing up to the face of radicals or Mo-Bros? No, again, that wasn’t his intent. His intent was to paint this mosque as the same as those moderates seeking reform that he was marginalizing by his visit.

So in his remarks, instead of denouncing violence and radicalization, he denounces the anti-muslim bias (which apparently is at epidemic levels in the country) Wouldn’t you think that message would have been better received in a mosque without Mo-Bro ties? And don’t look for a message like the slap in the face toward Christians last year aimed toward radical Muslim adherents because there isn’t one.

How can he manage to be any more divisive and biased himself? Again, he issued a warning to citizens to not be “bystanders to bigotry.”

“And so if we’re serious about freedom of religion — and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country — we have to understand an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths.”

Which says nothing about the specific attacks of radical Islamists, or their apologists, on Christians or others. And what did he mean by an “attack”? Have we seen an attack[s] on Muslims? This, as the rest of the world is inundated by Muslim “refugees” who consistently attack citizens of countries that welcomed them. I’m sorry, I guess I missed his central point and all those examples.

From II Timothy, Obama quotes that the Lord has not given us a spirit of fear. He turns to preaching that our fear is not of God. The day before he had been lecturing about legitimate anti-Muslim bias fears. So now he says fear does some funny things. That fear can lead to our lashing out at others. Where was his fear-warning message yesterday in preaching to Muslims at the Islamic Society? Obama may yet decide to sire a Rev. Wright-style church. Now he’s telling Christians that sometimes we have to stand up even to friends as well as others. Would that not have been appropriate for Muslims yesterday?

Al Jazeera called Obama’s mosque visit a “belated denunciation of anti-Muslim bigotry.” And they point to Islamaphobia. When fear is justifiable it is not really a phobia.

What was the central purpose in his message? Of course it was a political one, disguised as he tried to make it. Even while he was appreciating what Christians have done in disasters to help better humanity, his overall theme is co-opting Christians into his political ideology. But that is nothing new for the community organizing guru. He wants to reinforce how the left can use Christianity to its political gain.

Now he lectures that we need to respect the right of others to practice their faith freely. Well, I must have missed where we have denied someone their right to practice their faith. But I don’t remember Jihad being a right. Again, the ones denying respect are radical Islamists that attack an employee Christmas party, and plotted to carry out mass jihad. Or when Islamists tell us that America shall be under Sharia. Right, lecture us about fear. Then again, with Islamists, religion is a very political and a useful tool for terrorism.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama pushing back on terrorism label

Report: Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino

Daily Caller

The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.

And why not. it worked for them on Benghazi? You might say they have plenty of experience. I guess Obama’s idea of fighting terrorism is fighting the labeling of it.

This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy. — more>

 

So that photo the WH had strewn across media of Obama meeting with his advisers in the Situation Room was a deceptive photo-op. The picture we never saw from Benghazi he makes sure we see now. Except he was pushing back on calling it terrorism.

Obama’s idea for a P/R strategy meeting was brainstorming to oppose a terrorism narrative. We actually made jokes about that but now it is confirmed that’s exactly what he was doing. It was self-serving for Obama to manage and strategize the story. That is what the situation room is to him, a political strategy room. Funny how even the pictures are deceiving with Obama. It validates my lack of trust for any actions of BHO as CiC.

What a self-centered creature of politics and narcissism. It’s a pathetic state of reality.

It’s about the about, stupid

This post is about the about. Allow me to explain. We always talk about what the left or globalists are doing and reacting to it. Sometimes we get so busy with documenting what is going on, or the media does, that we don’t spend enough time on getting the bigger picture. By we, I mean the public at large. Those here know better.

A good explanation of this whole subject is a great article Pepp posted on her blog. It diagnoses the cause and effect of basically the treason going on. I recommend it. This is only one aspect of it. We’ve all been aggravated and frustrated with what is going on. We see stories or examples in schools, media and public but it deserves a closer look.

It all reminded me of something a teacher used to say that stuck with me: “it’s not enough to know what or how to do something, but you have to know why.” That coincides with the article explaining the media connection. It is tough to explain, but stay with me.

I believe, as that article suggested, people are just being fed the scripted play by play news. They report just enough of something to cover the surface. And we’ll know what they want us to. Yet we’re always lectured about context. The context of what is happening is important. A person can be informed but what does it really mean? So it is possible to see the play by play news without understanding the context of the whole picture. Media can only be blamed for part of it. The rest is on the people.

So to put it together as to what is happening in real time with what it means is incredibly important. “You have to know the why too” – or why it matters. It is possible to do things without knowing why in which case it turns you into just a machine. No one wants to be a robot. Even monotonous things have some significance in the greater picture. It’s the same way with current events. You can, as Tom Snyder said, watch the pictures and words fly through the air, but we must grasp the contextual meaning. I see that missing more and more with some people. It’s enough for them only to know what happened.

Seeing the Democrats’ whole platform turn to socialism disturbs us because we know what it means. Those that don’t, or don’t care, are the same mindset of Dems who just go along with it. We are in a pretty bad, dark place when people don’t see why socialism is such a bad thing? History won’t be kind to those who don’t bother to understand.

It’s hard enough even for conservatives on the right to avoid this syndrome by making a constant conscious effort to understand the why seeing the big picture. That is the central problem and theme. So even when we know what is going on, one may not understand the significance, or care to. One can see what happens but not know the agenda.

Democrats have played this “we know” game. They play dumb with the facts. They know enough. They’ve gone to the point of developing a faux reality. Then there is what they want to see or believe. It is convenient for them to accept what they want and discard the rest. Anything inconvenient to their faux reality is wrong. Thus. Democrats’ exuberance for socialism at the debate, or raising the debt limit — never mind what it means.

Context matters

People bought into ObamaCare and all the hype. After the fact, Johnathon Gruber came out to boast how Obamacare passed only thanks to “the stupidity of the American voter” and the lies they were told. Even then Dems didn’t want to believe it. So they carried all the talking points and became useful idiots. They attacked Gruber. Even when known it’s a lie they act as if it was not. Not just a lie, but everything was constructed on one big lie.

There’s an alternative reality aspect just as there is with Obama. From Benghazi to the green agenda, to Obama’s daily narrative. They buy into it as willing dupes. Even when framed in the most naive way, one should not be able to deny the truth. Not so with Democrats. They can block out anything inconvenient or countering Obama’s narrative. Hillary comes out, ironically, to say “what difference at this point does it make?” That is how it works with the Left. What difference do the facts make? What difference does the truth make? What difference does reality make? What difference does the bigger-what it means-picture make? None. Whether it is they can’t see it or just don’t want to.

So we saw it in virtually every scandal. Fast and Furious, a manufactured scandal. It didn’t matter. In IRS, maliciously targeting people didn’t matter. Solyndra, nothing. Obama playing politics with issues and scandals, nada. Then when Obama came along saying not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, they repeated it. They knew this much: if they encounter a problem with that statement, Obama and Dems would issue a new one to explain it. That much they depend on. The left only has to repeat the talking points. Obama’s election, reelection, now Hillary and her record of scandals — it doesn’t matter. They become useful idiots.

When Obama calls on Israel to stop the excessive use of force, and State makes an equivalence with Israel and Palestinians committing terrorism, facts and truth don’t matter. Does he not know Israel is under attack? Sure, how can anyone avoid knowing? But he denies it and implies an equivalency. Democrats fall in line and do the same. The Crusades were resurrected as an equivalency to barbaric ISIS terrorists in an Islamic caliphate. Yet Obama cannot admit their religious, Islamic basis for a caliphate.

The left claims to believe in the process until it goes against their faux reality. Then, the process like the Benghazi committee is corrupt What difference at this point does it make? Hillary could have been talking about her Democrat base. So they call it a political stunt. But the Benghazi scandal was caused by Obama playing politics. Now the excuse and defense is it is a political witch hunt.

The same thing applied to the Green Agenda when one by one the truth came out. Leftists went into denial pretending it wasn’t so. The same mentality applied to the IRS scandal. The about part, the bigger picture and meaning is ignored. They don’t know or don’t care, either one amounts to the same thing. First, the Left claims facts show there is no there there. Then, when shown, they simply deny it. It’s not just a case of drinking the Kool Aid, they deny the truth when faced with it. They are useful idiots that follow Obama’s lead and Democrat spinsters who never met a scandal they couldn’t spin their way out of. Whether is was Jonestown or under Obama, it has the same effect.

RightRing | Bullright

Structural Radicalism: the new description

Since the progressives are obsessed with “structural racism,” I thought it was time for another term to describe the reality of what we have. What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate. A H/T to Pepp for the inspiration from our discussion.

The new term is Structural Radicalism. So now I am saddled with defining it. But that should not be easy because of our current state of affairs, or is it current affairs of state? (Merriam-Webster)

Structural
: relating to the way something is built or organized
: relating to the structure of something

Radicalism
: the opinions and behavior of people who favor extreme changes especially in government
: radical political ideas and behavior

The integrated structure of radical political ideas and behavior. Now we have it. I suppose one could substitute ideology for opinions, and actions for behavior.

It amuses me how the word “reform” pops up related to government or even political parties. It probably ranks right up there with the most used words by politicians, though probably has as many meanings. In the context used it usually refers to change for good. That’s what they mean or imply anyway.

The problem is that we have already had de facto reform over decades now. Schools, government, culture, society in general. That’s what caused most of our problems. Their reform has percolated since the 60’s. But that reform hasn’t been necessarily good. Roe v Wade, Obamacare, EPA, Kelo decision, education, amnesty, border security, homeland security, housing, sanctuary cities, Bipartisan Campaign Reform, same-sex mariage.

Oh change has come and has people calling for a change back. Remember Obama’s mantra was “Hope and Change”. But the part no one quotes is “change you can believe in” — a faith-based campaign theme. Or the belief in nothingness, as exhibited in his record.

Of course what we got was not what you believed or even wanted. What we got was the invasion of radical mindset in all corners of the government. An infestation Over the years, the same radical ideology has invaded many state and local governments. Chicago, Detroit, San Fran, Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, NYC and Universities. Now that seeing is believing, what can you do about it? We are a nation under siege of radicals. Everyone else can see it. And how do you deal with this radicalization of our system? That is a brain buster.

So do you reason with it? That is a foreign language to them. They care as much about reason and logic as nothing. They have no credibility. Emotions are king and activism is their means. They want decisions and law based on ideology and mob activism.

We need an updated strategy

You see, many people believe that the good ideas just win but that is not the nature of radicalism. Is it enough to be right about the issue or issues? Do radicals recoil and pull back all their weapons because “yea, you are right”? So the problem is much bigger than ideas. A certain amount of these radicals will never be converted, and they ill not admit they are wrong and won’t quit. The thing is we need a radical approach to radicalism.

Someone would say but the founders were radicals. Yes, but a different kind of radical. I would call that fundamental radicalism, contrary to what we see here. They are statists, big-government radicals that infiltrated our system at the highest levels.

How do we deal with this progressive radicalism?I admit it will take a tough approach. One might say a radical opposition of the fundamental type. Where that foundational radicalism had some integrity with patriots pledging their lives and fortunes on foundational principles. That kind of unwavering devotion is needed to defeat this Marxist, statist radicalism. So there is no standard political approach with them that will be successful. Might as well talk to a wall. Power and force is all it understands. And don’t expect to reason with it to win it over.

That is why we are at a loss to combat it with any success.They don’t care about due process (Hello Obama & Harry Reid), by their radical nature. They are capable of using and twisting the process to serve their ends. Yet we see how outraged everyone got at Rand Paul or Ted Cruz when they took a tough stand. None of the outraged can tell us what to do. The common ways don’t work.

That also opens the door for economic radicalism interwoven in their activism. We see that rolling out all the time. CEO for Mozilla, gay wedding cakes, Dr. Laura I presume. But those holding the reins of power share the same ideological agenda, which is how we get to a Mayor of Baltimore issuing a stand down order to police during riots and looting. It’s how we get government agencies locking down private bank accounts of individuals, or get the IRS and every alphabet agency jumping on Tea Party organizers. Private property being seized in eminent domain. K-Street lobbyists and government spending. Foreign policy, same thing: negotiating with terrorists, demonstrating lack of will to defend the country and our posterity. It’s structural.

One proposed answer is an Article V Convention — complete with its own hazards — but we still have to deal with the systemic radicalism embedded in our system. But enough of the people have to see it as the real structural radicalism it is, first.

PS: Happy Fourth of July, Independence Day, too.

RightRing | Bullright

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

A rejection of radicalism

As someone else says “….this ain’t bean bag”. But then this is not politics, as commonly understood.

Well, politics is bad enough, I know, but this is far from your mom and pop’s politics. The Alinsky radicals don’t play “politics” that way either. This is part of the problem, and it is only my opinion for what its worth….your mileage may vary.

The point is if it isn’t conventional politics, it is radicalism. Something happened though which seems sort of odd to some people. We the people, the sane ones, saw Barack Obama coming. We knew in no time what he stood for — or what he didn’t. We knew he was a different animal, and the events just validated it.

Sure media played their games. But the people found out, researched and were vindicated by the events. We saw the fraud and misrepresentation. However, Washington doesn’t think and act the same way we do. If they learned of any of this they forgot it, or never grasped it. They assumed, as many still do, that it is just politics and it is not.

Sure progressives now are a lot of things, like extremists, but they are radicals. We need to let that soak in to the beltway mentality. You would think they would have caught on over this 6+ years. But there are some slow learners in there.

So now we have a big problem. One does not just play the same way with radicals. One cannot project the same political strategies and goals on them. The rejection of this radicalism is an ongoing effort, and something elections won’t solve by popular vote.

RightRing | Bullright

Terrorism’s Russian connections

The Russian Roots of Terrorism

Cliff Kincaid — September 30, 2014 | Accuracy in Media

I learned about the passing of former Washington Times columnist John Lofton as I was looking through an old file of clippings and found a Lofton gem entitled, “Where terrorism is rooted,” from the July 5, 1985, issue of the paper. It’s a reminder of Lofton’s important style of writing and the fact that the Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East.

At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today.

Lofton quoted from Marx and Lenin, establishing the fact that the communists were advocates of terror from the beginning. He cited evidence of Soviet sponsorship and support of terrorist groups and personalities from the PLO, to “Carlos the Jackal,” to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the African National Congress in South Africa.

What Lofton was describing was a concrete example of how the communists and the Arabs and Muslims were collaborating in terrorism.

What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-russian-roots-of-terrorism/

The trail is pretty clear. This also indicates the complexities in identifying the terrorists’ true origination. And why Obama is at a complete failure to understand these groups. But then if he does know or understand the connections, in any way, then he is in denial and probably covering up the tentacles. He always hopes we don’t understand the truth.

Anti-Israel protests

Anti-Israel protesters rally across France, defying ban imposed after synagogue clash

Thousands march through French cities in protest of Israeli operation in Gaza Strip; French president says will not allow violence to spill over into France.
By Nicholas Vinocur, Joe Bavier Jul. 19, 2014

REUTERS – Thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters marched in French cities on Saturday to condemn violence in Gaza, defying a ban imposed after demonstrators marched on two synagogues in Paris last weekend and clashed with riot police.

A Reuters photographer said demonstrators in northern Paris launched projectiles at riot police, who responded by firing teargas canisters and stun grenades.

“We must show that as Muslims, we’re all united” // Shirli Sitbon reports for Haaretz from Paris

Demonstrators also climbed on top of a building and burned an Israeli flag. At least one car was set on fire.
/…

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has contributed to growing tensions between France’s Muslim and Jewish populations, both of which are the largest in Europe.

In the first three months of 2014 more Jews left France for Israel than at any other time since the Jewish state was created in 1948, with many citing rising anti-Semitism as a factor.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606036

 

Paris isn’t just for lovers anymore. One commenter dubbed it Paristan.I think that sums it up. How far from that is the US or other countries?

Activists Are US: Liberals in rabid political mode

(at a new high even for them)

There are a plethora of areas which tie into the rabid nature of today’s “progressives”.

The latest on Obama’s ‘phoney scandal’ list is the VA and poor treatment of vets, which is an example. There were calls for Shinseki to step down, rejected out of hand.

There is a deeper issue here and its personal with Libs. Do you think the Libs really care about the VA or veterans? They are proving which is more important by defending Shinseki over the widespread mismanagement in the VA.

But first Shinseki’s history. All you hear is he is a four star general served in the military. If you remember Iraq he was a steady voice in the Liberals’ criticism of the war. He was wildly cited by Liberals in their anti-war campaign. Because he disagreed with Rumsfeld on the number of troops in an surge, he was hailed for his disagreement.

Now at the VA, Democrats’ knee-jerk reaction is to defend him, and since he was their VA pick. No doubt past-disagreement politics factor into the administration’s defense of Shinseki. Had he not been useful to them, he probably wouldn’t be there now, nor entitled to Dems defense. That’s my guess. That aside, he became a default ally of the Left. His post military career includes positions at corporations, also contractors to the military.

But the people frustrated with the VA don’t care about that. It matters to Liberals since politics trumps reality. Were it not for Obama being in the White House, and his man Shinseki at VA, Dems would have no problem politicizing the VA situation for political gain. (as if they are out there by their lonesome defending the military – the way they frame every other group they pander to.) It’s what they do.

The White House says they have full confidence in him, and he says he serves at the pleasure of the president. He said he has no plans of resigning. Veteran organizations have called for his resignation for over a year. He might have been wrong there, he serves the Vets in that capacity. Wouldn’t you think he would have said as much instead of just at the pleasure of the president? What is going on in the VA is symptomatic of what happens in Government, and the Left’s mindset. They instinctively protect government bureaucracy. Backlog? Alter the books, fixing the books not patients.

Another issue, in no particular order, is Liberal activism in media on business. The CEO is forced from his office at Mozilla for his past support of “prop 8” in CA. Not that he was against anyone, just supported traditional marriage. He wasn’t out there with a megaphone. But the left went at him like a pack of wolves for it. So he’s out. It’s all part of the culture that tolerates what is politically convenient — even if it is the mismanagement or abuse in government.

Along the same lines is liberal activists supporting same-sex marriage. And you have the LGBT movement/agenda lashing out at anyone who stands up for traditional marriage. Chick-fil-A anyone? Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty? Oppose their agenda and look out. Standing for tradition is taboo.

On the stimulus, same thing, opposition was hatred of Obama. They distorted and extorted Mitch McConnell’s quote that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” into ‘hatred of Obama’. Then came the mythical “War on women”.

Then you have their defense of ObamaCare despite roll out problems. The defense of ObamaCare stretched from accusations of extreme right-wing politics and branded opponents unreasonable. They did anything to ram it through. Anyone who disagreed was driven by hatred, bigotry or racism toward Obama. The strategy was to demonize any opposition and question their motives.

You have the environmental Nazis in a tizzy defending global warming and Michael Mann, their super hero. (remember the hockey stick) Enter Mark Steyn who said as much in his columns and suffered their attacks, along with National Review, for it. Mann sued both for defamation of character for criticizing his work. Rule number I , tho shalt not criticize or insult Leftisit academia. Buck that and the collective come at you. (by design) But now even defending yourself against their intimidation and attacks can cause defense attorneys to cringe. Possibly even dropping their client.

Along those lines the Keystone Pipeline. The Left channeled all its environmental strength and money to oppose the pipeline for five years. Obama being a creature of the radical Left himself has handed off and stalled the process multiple times. The Left is willing to do anything to “save the earth”. (while destroying civilization as we know it) The lizards’ welfare trumps human interests. Stuck on Steyer; all who oppose them feels their global-warming wrath.

Then we have campuses, universities, and collective academia. This is on various levels on the left’s hot button issues. But gone are the sit-ins, today its about controlling and wielding the strings of government in the most radical ways they can. A pox on anyone or thing that disagrees. It’s called progressive, and so loud and paramount is it that it repels anything in its wake. And the proofs, or fruits, of it are demonstrated across campuses. That’s an entire subject but consider just some of their main bullet points. (Issues coincide with the radical Left, MoveOn and the LGBT movement et al) Not to leave out class warfare — always a popular favorite.

The anti-war left, the anti-Israel left, the pro-appeasement, pro-abortion left, multicultural left, and the big government left, with their ever-present pro amnesty, pro-illegal alien, social justice, pro-LGBT agenda in tow. However, they demand not just in kind support but their full agenda. No a la carte.

What’s new is not just their grievance list or their lobbying power, for their cause, the new tactic is singling out anyone disagreeing with any part of their long laundry list. That is one big difference. It attacks anyone or anything that disagrees. It demands synergy from everyone, despite your own views. And the means is their way, exclusively. No lone cowboys. It plays out in social media, which apparently was bequeathed to them alone.

Start with a few honorable mentions on their menu: Israel boycott, pushing boycotts of Jews on campuses, summer camps on anti-Semitism, and their anti-military lockstep. (they love everything about big government except robust defense?) But factor in the cadre of other issues above and you have a volatile cocktail.

Along comes  Condoleezza Rice and their wrath pours out. Not like she’s Ann Coulter but the same treatment applies. That was only on the heels of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being dis-invited to speak at Brandeis because she did not represent their values. Cair protests and the University of Michigan shuts out the film “Honor Diaries” – calling it hate Anyone speaking to them has to meet their ideological criteria or they get the banner of protest. (that alone rallies their support) Now they won’t tolerate anyone out of lockstep. It sends a powerful, albeit chilling, message to others. If you marginally disagree, you might as well be in full disagreement. Well, not quite your Aunt Nelly’s bra-burning liberals.

Then we have the old standard of the Left, racism. Used to maintain control and intimidation on their enemies, it is their accusation of choice, freely applied. The way it plays out though is the best case against the left. It’s not only militant, it is radical to the core. So the rabid way it treats others is particularly aggressive on campuses where it strives to set the culture precedent for the rest of us. Going after anything perceived racist, or related to Israel, and believing UN and the human rights campaign are its personal tools inspires their activism and emboldens their radical posturing.

I’ve concluded it is now more a culture of intolerance. We’ve had political correctness for decades. Now it is full ‘offense’. More like pc swat teams, pc paratroopers, pc snipers, and a whole armament assembling to deal with their perceived grievances. I’d say they managed to bring all the issues to bear, unified, to make their case. Breaching one pet grievance is to breach their entire code of conduct. If only one side, theirs, sees it as an all out war, then we have a problem. One should no sooner dismiss this open assault than dismiss the Islamic extremists’ and terrorists’ agenda.

In fact, progressives, Democrats, ‘Liberals’, Marxists, and multiculturalists can see bigotry just about everywhere: from the Internet, to reality TV, to board rooms, to talk radio and sports. Everywhere it seems except where blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by progressive orthodoxy; institutionalized in Universities, on campuses, in the administration, bureaucracy, in the Left, the grievance industry, the LGBT movement, the environmental movement, in Party politics and their conventions, or Islamic radicals. Those are just some highlights of what passes for the progressive left’s politics today — which usurps almost every facet of culture.

RightRing | Bullright

Students learn white voters rejected Obama due to race

St. Clair County 4th grade book says white voters rejected Obama because of race

DUPO, IL – Fourth graders in Dupo Illinois are reading a biography of Barack Obama that’s raising eyebrows among St. Clair County parents. The book, which supplements the school’s Common Core curriculum, blames television for the negative behaviors the first African-American president picked up as a teen:

The book – brought to the attention this week of those on the “Moms Against Duncan – MAD” Facebook page, goes on to say white Americans were hesitant to vote for a black president, and that Obama pushed the race issue to bring the nation together.

“But some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack’s former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens, he said.”

More at Illinois Review

Surprise, what change they got! Bringing people together? He doesn’t seem to be so confused about who he is now.

Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama can’t take any personal responsibility for what he did years ago, so how could he ever take any responsibility for what he currently does in office? They might have included some of that sentiment in their propaganda curriculum. They could call it critical thinking.

Moderate Muslims rarer than WMD

Syria: Obama chases mirages of moderates in Syria.
In the Bush years we chased the trail of WMD.

If the Bush administration was in search of WMDs, the Obama regime is in a perpetual search for “Muslim moderates”. In the end, neither may find the holy grail, as both are kept well-hidden and at least under tight control. I’m not going to bother stating which one there is more evidence of, but the use of WMDs was confirmed in Syria. Moderate Muslims are proving far more illusive every day.

September 5, 2013

(Reuters) – Secretary of State John Kerry’s public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.

General Martin Dempsey, warned: “Syria is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. [if you like playing the odds]

“It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor,” Dempsey wrote. “Today they are not.”

The Blaze 9/27/13

The Raqqah Revolutionaries Brigade and the God’s Victory Brigade abandoned their secular command and pledged loyalty to the Al Nusrah last week, Reuters reported.

The Raqqah Revolutionaries Brigade is believed to have more than 700 fighters in its ranks. According to the Long War Journal, the “size of the God’s Victory Brigade, which announced its merger with the Al Nusrah Front on Facebook, was not disclosed, but it is said to have 15 battalions.” Those battalions can have dozens to hundreds of fighters, according to the website.

By Greg Miller, Published: October 2 ] Wash Post

The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, U.S.-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war, U.S. officials said.

But the CIA program is so minuscule that it is expected to produce only a few hundred trained fighters each month even after it is enlarged, a level that officials said will do little to bolster rebel forces that are being eclipsed by radical Islamists in the fight against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Both Obama and Kerry are playing a dangerous game where an optimal goal is a stalemate with the Islamists, rather than defeat of them. Its a losing proposition.

Moderates today… Islamic extremists tomorrow. Odds on finding then confirming WMD are much better.

Related: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/al-qaeda-seized-weapons-for-syria-rebels/

Who are those conservatives

Every so often with bad weather I flip through the weather channel, usually disappointed at the non-local forecast anyway. This time I was treated to Al Roker’s narration about the Sunday Climate Change rally/march on the Mall in DC.

Washington DC, now there’s a Climate I wouldn’t mind changing.

It was the same mantra we heard before. Only contrast it with the way news covered the Tea Parties. They would talk over protestors, or shut down Tea Party activists the minute they didn’t like their free speech. Not for the climate ralliers. No one checked for the participants degrees or credentials in Climatology.They interviewed lots of them, as many as they could.. One woman said she was there doing this for her kids. They are the ones who will have to live with these “severe storms” and violent weather patterns, she claimed.

However, it seems every time the lunar left has one of these rallies, they always zero in on a couple of people who claim “I’m a big Constitutional Conservative…and I have to support this too”. Who are these token conservative plants they always seem to find so easily? Weather Channel had no problem finding one soon into their coverage. I don’t come across them when talking to conservatives. I don’t see them elsewhere. But they make grand debuts in front of TV cameras though. I beg to disagree whether they are conservatives. I can see they are real people, but Conservatives? Don’t make me laugh. Who are these fine feathered conservatives?

Enjoy a little clip from the left’s Democracy Now…or not.
(minus the conservative imposters)

Calling the Keystone pipeline a “boondoggle”. That’s funny, what about the boondoggle that is Solyndra, greengate, and Obama’s green energy agenda? Now that’s a boondoggle. “2/3rd of our fossil fuels must stay in the ground” for the temperature to moderate and remain acceptable, “arresting climate change”, according to Sierra Club.

Here’s how the left operates: (calling Tea Party activists retarded)