Meanwhile Press and Media Whine

I’m going to put up this piece from the news association, not because it deserves to be but because it needs to be called out for what it is. I am mean for picking on the press.

They are calling on all press to use their prestigious space to defend the “free press.”
A few hundred have agreed, like a solidarity thing.

RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom

August 13, 2018 | RTDNA [*emphasis mine]

The Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force are calling on our more than 1,200 members and their broadcast and digital news outlets to join the Boston Globe and more than 100 other local newspapers across the country on Aug. 16 in a coordinated editorial response to attacks from the President on the media.

“We urge our members to join the effort on Thursday, Aug. 16 by dedicating airtime, publishing an online editorial or sharing information via social media platforms that speaks to your viewers and listeners about the role we play in preserving the public’s right and need to know, in a government for and by the people,” said Dan Shelley, RTDNA’s executive director.

“The President has ratcheted up his anti-press contempt. Journalists are now the ‘disgusting fake news,’ and according to one presidential tweet, we also ‘cause Wars [sic].’ This rhetoric has contributed to many of the president’s supporters lashing out harshly against members of the White House press corps and other journalists. It must stop before more journalists are hurt or worse,” states Shelley.

Today, RTDNA, its members and the other broadcast and digital journalists it represents stand in solidarity with the dozens of American newspapers that have joined the Boston Globe campaign to publish editorials pushing back against the notion that responsible journalism is “fake news” and that journalists are the “enemy of the American people.”

Please contact RTDNA at pressfreedom@rtdna.org if your station plans to participate. For more information on how to explain the public service your news organization regularly provides, please see this list of resources for rebuilding trust with news consumers and this list of questions to consider as a newsroom.

About the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force
RTDNA formed the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force to defend against threats to the First Amendment and news media access, and to bridge the divide between responsible journalists and those who don’t like, or don’t understand, the news media. People wishing to support RTDNA’s efforts may reach out to the task force by emailing pressfreedom@rtdna.org.

About RTDNA
RTDNA is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. Founded as a grassroots organization in 1946, RTDNA works to protect the rights of electronic journalists throughout the country, promotes ethical standards in the industry, provides members with training and education and honors outstanding work in the profession through the Edward R. Murrow Awards.”

Original source

So it is a campaign defending press freedom. Oh goody, a special day for that.

Instead of what they claim, this is a dedicated day to attack Trump, feel free as if they do not already do so daily. So what is the special occasion about this day? That’s what they have done since Trump won.

But my personal issue with this goes much deeper. First of all, when press refers to the First Amendment, they liberally mean “freedom of press.” However, there are other freedoms in the first amendment. Just that to press, this freedom is the only one they really give a damn about. Secondly, it is offensive that they lay claim to the First Amendment as their own. But that is the only part they want people to care about and keep beating us over the head about.

Yes, I understand the need for a Free Press. It is absurd I have to make that disclaimer.

I will take the opportunity to mention another favorite talking point of theirs — meaning the press in general. The claim is Trump declared war on the first amendment. Again, by first amendment they are referring to press. (misleading to say the least.) Or some even say he declared war on the “free press.” What nonsense. I have never seen another president more media friendly than Trump.

This bothers me why? It is mostly this “war on or against the first amendment” mantra that gets me. As the old line goes: “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” With all that is going on, there is not a war on the press or first amendment. It is a battle within the First Amendment. But it has always been there. There has always been some friction within the 1st Amend. The press is only one of 5 freedoms contained therein: Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition of grievance, and assembly. I see press is only one fifth of that. Technically, you can say press may have some tangential influence in others.

As to the “war” as they call it within the first amendment; it is press declaring war on the people’s freedoms. Press has no ownership of or control over the First Amendment.

Despite how I really feel about this brouhaha over the press, I will give them this honored day…… to make a joke out of themselves, as they have done for over 10 years.

What an idea!

We could have had special “defense of the first amendment days” back in 2009-2010. Remember the Tea Parties? But we did not get “special day” kudos for defending free speech. We got the royal condemnation for it, and viciously attacked. For all of our organizing skill and peaceful efforts, we had the long arm of the IRS attack dogs sicked on us. It was labeled traitorous to the US Constitution in media. Talk about Orwellian.

Did we get a special assist or atta-boy from the media/press for standing up and defending the First Amendment? Just the opposite. We were attacked for “hiding behind the first amendment.” But it was press that was doing the attacking. They declared war on free speech and dissent, from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and in press and media.

So what does that tell us, other than the fact that the “press” doesn’t give a damn about the first amendment? It tells us they have chosen sides. And they chose to go to war against the American people, just for standing up for their first amendment rights.

So for this dedicated “defending press day” I offer them a peace sign minus the index finger. Of course they really don’t need me or anyone else to stand up for them, they have the power of the press. And chose to use that power against the American people. What were they “standing up” for back then? Oh, it was for big-government, for the power of the White House, the power in Congress. Remember their stories of outrage that people yelled at Congressmen, especially black members, when the Democrat caucus paraded in front of Tea Parties to fabricate fake news about us. Then press ran that narrative lie into the ground. We were also labeled racists then. Media assisted.

Excuse me for not having any outrage that the press is victimized. Give me a break. Again, press made huge choices long ago and declared war within the first amendment, against the people. You didn’t just stand idly by, you were the enforcers. Even Ben Rhodes admitted the Obama administration had media, press eating out of their hand. Because, at that point, free press sycophants, you were no longer a “free press.”

Is it time for a ‘voice of free speech task force’? — at least I’m being honest.
See what they did there: “Voice of the First Amendment Task Force”?

 

Related Ref:
Boston Globe: “200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials”

[Globe]- The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s opinion page, told the AP last week.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

The voices in Lois Lerner’s ear

Once again, we have to thank Tom Fitton for rooting this out. Like everything else the Obama administration tried to bury, the IRS targeting was no different. Go figure, the FBI and DOJ under Obama was involved with this, too.

Judicial Watch Obtains IRS Documents Revealing McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to Engage in “Financially Ruinous” Targeting

Judicial Watch | June 21, 2018

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released newly obtained internal IRS documents, including material revealing that Sen. John McCain’s former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” Kerner was appointed by President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, former IRS director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, Nikole Flax, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

“Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen timely. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.”

Judicial Watch previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting but Judicial Watch found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

Judicial Watch separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

More: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/

Is there any scheme against conservatives or Republicans that McCain did not have his hands in? It seems like that was his whole purpose, especially to undermine the Right and disrupt their ability to organize. This one scandal was tailor made to fit his agenda.

And the IRS scandal is not over, as JW says it is still recovering documents. That is called a coverup, too. It is easier to cover up when you have the institutional resources cooperating. But this shows how far Obama’s administration went and who all was involved.

By the time you do get info, leftist Obamafiles then try to bury the exposure in subterfuge.

[screenshot via C-SPAN May 22, 2013]

Lois Lerner Fears Retaliation

Lerner, Paz say they fear physical harm from enraged public, want IRS testimony sealed permanently

The Washington Times

Former IRS executive Lois G. Lerner told a federal court last week that members of her family, including “young children,” face death threats and a real risk of physical harm if her explanation of the tea party targeting scandal becomes public.

Ms. Lerner and Holly Paz, her deputy at the IRS, filed documents in court Thursday saying tapes and transcripts of depositions they gave in a court case this year must remain sealed in perpetuity, or else they could spur an enraged public to retaliate.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/19/lois-lerner-holly-paz-want-testimony-sealed-perman/

Retaliation — I think that word should be banned from her vocabulary. I’m not feeling the sympathy. What about her pension? Consequences? There’s Obama’s not a smidgen.

Career government criminals want the records permanently sealed and government protection now. She now wants to reverse the Constitution.

Our government then had to pay out 3.5 million taxpayer dollars for what she did! And it took 6 years to do it. She had her 5th amendment privileges, what do they have?

That’s a brand new kind of chutzpah. My G-A-S is busted.

Every which way…. but lose

This is probably one of the most painful columns I have had to write. Had to out of a sense of obligation. Someone should say it.

Ferg-us-soon and Baltimo’ have taught us something. They weren’t the first riots and won’t be the last either. No, that isn’t the lesson. Most of us are still alive to remember the 60’s riots. We remember Martin Luther King, too. Even that is not the real lesson in this stuff happening.

Like anything else, the real lesson about catastrophe or disaster is what you do about it that counts. Still not quite the lesson. Have we learned anything after the sixties’ riots? It was that people need to get involved in the political process to affect any change. But those were mostly civil rights issues etc, important stuff. Today it can be over one person being hurt or killed, not that it doesn’t matter but that is all it takes. (in truth it probably won’t even take that in the future)

There is a whole grievance industry built on decades of people having a chip on their shoulder. Sooner or latter it explodes. What do we hear about people who go out and commit mass murder or destruction? It’s that there were problems all along which manifest themselves, ultimately, in committing the acts. That’s what we hear anyway, like it was an unavoidable train wreck bound to happen. Someone should have stopped it somehow, before it was too late. Who can we blame? We’re told all this by psychologists, sociologists and professors in Ivy Towers, and finally by mainstream media.

So the potential is there for it to happen, maybe it’s always been there? You are always going to have a few disgruntled people etc. These are the lines we are fed over and over again, like a Christmas fruitcake.

No, I don’t want to ague that they don’t have a point. Sure there are always going to be crazies. We know that. There are always going to be problems, issues, disasters, “tragedies” — however they define the term. There will be broken people, humans, behind it. We may always have disgruntled people: have nots, you got yours I want mine, or whatever their grievance is. They live out an act of revenge. But this is not about that.

This is bigger, it’s about what is acceptable to do in society or not.

It’s about moral boundaries, decay, wanton destruction. It’s about disgust for our system, be it the political one , capitalism, or government writ large. It’s also about feelings too numerous to mention. It’s about a sense of who cares how much damage it takes? The reasons are no clearer than the violence or its objectives. It is becoming all too common. It goes from one event to the next like wildfires. It looks for an incident to justify itself and finds it with frequency. No, you cannot eliminate the causation because they will find it anywhere, anytime they want. You cannot beat them at that game. Find it — some justification — they will.

But we must look at the whole, too. We now have a political system with a win at any cost mentality, whatever it takes. Sound familiar? They take pride in that philosophy. If Alinsky tactics are bad, those are only the starting point and only a means. The real enchilada is in the ends. They can twist any issue into a banana peel to slide off into massive protests sparking riots and looting. We know there are professionals out there who do that. Whatever the last one was will be nothing compared to the next in their minds, progressing in damage and passion. They can plug in their formula to any issue and come up with the same answer and results — protests, rioting, looting, burning down and destroying neighborhoods, creating chaos.

As much as government or some in it try, they have no concrete answers to it. Oh, they say we need economic development, jobs and mo’ money to combat it. It’s always the same patent answers no matter the issues in question. Spend more is the prescription for everything. Meanwhile, our legislators and politicians continue on their own win at any cost campaign. They are not oblivious to what is going on, but which one is really the priority? It has to be their jobs and winning elections above all else. That’s just the way it has to be.

Look at the real problems with the protests and riots. They breed on themselves. And there is always some debate through it, in all the media attention, as to what the answers are. Even after, the debate goes on and maybe hearings or an investigation into the problems. How many grueling studies or whatever have been done? How many columns are written on the dynamics? How many “passions are flared” comments will come out of it all? Still the same thing happens over and over. Then there are the political racketeers who say the answer is voter registration to give people a voice, to affect a change. Yep, we’ve heard it all before. It’s as predictable as the taste of that fruitcake. That airbrushes a sense of legitimacy over the whole thing. “Now if you will only vote we can work this thing, or problems, out.” We just need their involvement in the system. Right?

We seem to forget.

We had the riots in the 60’s and they were told the same thing in the aftermath. Where did Bobby Rush come from, the only one who managed to beat Barack Obama? So they did get involved. Let’s call them activists now. They went into the influence game and made a difference. We’re seeing the results of it play out before our eyes. They have made an impact. And today the very same radicals from the sixties hold higher offices around the country. Look at Chicago, look at Baltimore, Elijah Cummings, Eric Holder, and countless others like Maxine Waters. And they also went into academia to influence society and culture. Then they got control and look what happened? We even got Obama in the White House. He set up a network administration of radicals. They got involved, no? Now we see the fruits — and that fruitcake is tasting worse and worse. (apologies if you like fruitcake — just a metaphor)

Flash forward to what we see now. Even before the riots ended they had the registration drive. Sign up, we need people like you in our process. I understand their ploy to make everything about voting and the process. Has it worked? Has it stopped the problems? Along the way, progressives and liberals have actually politicized every possible thing within reach. They complain about the process being so politicized or that the problems are so politicized. But that is what they have done with every stinking issue, politicized it.

Of course there is going to be hypocrisy, they assert. So what? Well, remember when there were all those Tea Party rallies around the country. They were not burning down buildings, rioting or looting. Let’s not forget the answer in that case was not to register people to vote, or tell them to get involved in the system. No, in fact, it was the exact opposite. They called them racists and mocked anything they did. The last thing they wanted was them to get involved in the process. In fact, they resented them for doing just that. Of course then we had government’s jihad against them, whether they were business owners, running for office, or starting non-profits to make a difference. Remember it was all out war against them.

The very same people and government who now goes out to plead the case for these rioters and looters. We see an organized pattern of backing off the police and allowing rioters and looters to have their way. Then there is an attempt from mainstream media to refer to them as “mostly peaceful protests,” even while it is going on right in front of cameras. But police being stood down sends a sharp, disturbing message to protestors et al. The officials come right out to say let them riot and loot, it’s only property. Yea, who cares about that? The message is even worse and more profound than that.

If there is to be a fringe benefit or quid pro quo to the protestors, it this rioting and looting aspect. Someone gains and someone loses. I’ve said this is all part of Obama’s economic recovery program. It really is, it is redistribution in the most basic form. Sure it is a bit more crude than the the methods politicians and Washington uses. But hey, same effects.

Over the last few years we’ve heard an awful lot of talk about how communities have been militarized to the point of having the same equipment right here on our streets as they have in heavy combat war zones. Yes there is some undeniable truth to that. What do they use it on? Then there are countless no-knock raids carried out all over the country everyday.They incorporate some of the same military-style tactics. Whether it is federal agencies or local communities, the same rules or tactics seem to apply: explain later. And they use them on a multitude of issues. Swat teams practice their maneuvers for use on schools and public buildings. All communities have swat teams with much of the same military-type hardware.

Even so far back as the nineties military tactics were used to scoop up little Elian Gonzalez to ship him back to Cuba, authorized right from the justice department. They had military style deployments at Ruby Ridge and Waco run by Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Lest you blame this too on George Bush, this was alive and thriving long before he took office. Sure there were hearings over it, but so what? They also had hearings over baseball and steroids.

What’s the point?

Well, there are many points. It is an evolving landscape of militarized action on people when government deems it necessary. (subjectively and selectively) Now it has evolved again to the point of making a calculated decision, in the case of riots — racial et al — to hold back the police presence. There has been a calculation to let the looters loot, and let the rioters riot. They’ll stop eventually.

In the meantime, in the heat of the situation, the calculation has been made to let them have the private property — loot. So private property of people is now the bargaining chip for communities and federal government. Let them steal or destroy property to pacify the thugs. Let them have at your property if it can calm things down. It doesn’t buy that doesn’t matter, they’ve already made that calculation. “Why get involved and inflame the situation further? It’s only property.”

Yea, and it’s only private property.Your loss, but then who cares about that? If they are determined to loot, then let them loot. That business or home you worked all your life for, scrimping and saving, is now just a bargaining chip for government and communities. Criminals, thugs and looters know this. The principle is very simple and basic though, sacrifice private property for the greater good. Socialism has no better tenant. Your private property is on the chopping block, whether it is by eminent domain abuse, taxes, “civil disobedience protests” or riots. It is there for the purpose of sacrificing it to criminals and thugs to appease a situation. When we all just start realizing that we will be a long way closer to the truth. Just that they have finally codified that process.

To politicians and government it is every which way but lose. To private citizens and property owners, it is every which way at your loss. They win, you lose — fairly simple.

RightRing | Bullright

Whatever floats the boat

Or sinks it… whichever the case may be. I don’t know.

I’m going to take a blank sheet of (internet) paper and make a big mess. I don’t know where all this is going to go, or where it will end. It will evolve.

I could make a list of things and characters, then draw lines and arrows connecting them. That would be even a bigger mess. So I’ll try it in writing. It could cover a lot of ground.

Ferguson revealed a political tactic, or was it more of a law enforcement strategy to deal with protestors? It started with the governor. If you read the tea leaves, Gov. Nixon thought the answer to the protestor problem would be to let them riot and cede businesses and property to them, to do as they wish. That might appease protestors immediate needs. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and civility, just react to the results. Cops stand down and businesses and property owners are sacrificed, not to mention entire communities.

But then even that was not enough to satisfy the perpetual protestors. Wouldn’t they only want and demand more? Rational persons would think so. When they can let the public be overwhelmed by hordes of others, then protestors aren’t taking on police or governmental authorities directly. It’s a tradeoff to protect the powers that be from taking the brunt of it. Confrontation could be more controversial and costly, they reason.

And that fits right in line with the protestors’ goals who are all about some forced sense of equality between haves and have nots. Material property is a natural outcropping of their philosophy. So Nixon decides to give them what they want, let them run roughshod over other innocent bystanders. That would seem to divert the clash from being aimed at him and his fellow political class.

Is this becoming the default strategy for dealing with out of control protestors? In other words, to legitimize protestors’ concerns in word and, in deed, to let them have their way. Let them shut down communities and resources.There were early warnings of this with OWS. But can they let this go on and on? Though the public at large eventually gets tired of being sucker punched.

There’s that old saying that “you can’t make all the people happy all the time.” So why even try? But at what cost will they try to make some of the people happy, that’s the question?

Protestors got the message and responded in kind. They unleashed their wrath — over exactly what is debatable — on their fellow citizens and businesses alike. Make it as hard for people to carry out their daily activities as possible. Make their fellow citizens pay. Set up demonstrations in malls and storefront entrances; shut down bridges and travel; take over the streets of entire neighborhoods interrupting services and transportation. Make life a hell for their so-called neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with their grievances. That will get their message across, while chanting hate toward cops.

For law enforcement’s part, just let protestors continue in an attempt to avoid a clash between authorities and defiant thugs. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it? That’s what people like De Blasio are doing under the guise of ‘feeling the pains’ of this movement and appealing to its violent undercurrent.

Try writing a letter to your elected representatives sometime expressing your grievances about something and see what result you get. It sort of feels like you are talking into a tin can and string. Even after a landslide election against political elites, they defiantly interpret the results however they choose. It’s as if they were elected to invent reality.

The left’s method has long been to get pols attention with chaos and temper tantrums, and they have. Their defiance cannot be ignored. So much so that some politicians made the decision that a sacrifice must be made on the part of some people, to try to satisfy others. But in extension, it’s the same thing they’ve always done by playing their class warfare. Have one group opposed to others, long as the infighting suits the objectives of the power-hungry ruling class.

Then look at libs reaction from major media to elected officials, to the Stalingrad leftist minions. Days ago they were talking about the situation on Fox. Juan Willams was schooling his colleagues on how “we love protests”… that we may not agree but “we’ll defend to death your right to protest”. But those are hollow words we’ve come to expect from the Left. Look at Tea Party protests and rallies. Defense was not their response.

After seeing emails about what was going on in the IRS, targeting conservatives and Tea Parties, and down through the ranks of liberal media, they were not at all sympathizing with “protests” — let alone defending them. They were all about shutting them down by any means, and using government to do it. Liberals objected and rejected permitting for them, saying they would be disruptive. Remember all that? Now Juan trots out his boilerplate talking point about the freedom of protests. Liberals’ allies in the media railed against the movement, painting them as bigots and racists. Let’s forget that.

Al Jazeera has an editorial that made a similar conclusion to mine but by comparing these protestors to the original Boston Tea Party. (more of a disservice to them and history but that is another matter) After making that analogy, it said we are a nation that has not experienced revolt and revolution — at least in modern times — that we tend to put faith in our constitutional system to avert such. So far it has worked, it continued, and we have solved problems through the rule of law. It characterized the current situation as so out of control, by people so distrusting of the very system, that it begs the question: what it will take to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? It theorizes this might be the storm that does us in, after pointing out popular revolutions frequently happened elsewhere. It was not hard to see where they were going, or how their readers might interpret their hypothesis. So the implication is this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

What to say about such an extravagant theory… only it’s not so extravagant in the scheme of things. We have people dead set on getting their way, despite cost or means, who will call it justice if successful. I resent the comparison to the Tea Party though, but it was throughout the piece. Many of these Leftists have been hankering for a righteous revolution for decades. There are rent-a-protestors and communist sympathizers, who latch on to any popular protest movement. (not so much to Tea Parties…)

It even acknowledges the shortfall of Wall Street Occupiers to capture this much fervor. I had to think a little about that one. But it’s amazing what some good old racism can do for you. Two questions spring to mind: 1) was the tradeoff worth it; 2) do the protestors win and replicate this formula on all grievances? Precedent anyone? Are we in uncharted waters? Can their discontent do irreparable harm?

I tend to agree with some of Al Jezeera’s piece. For the most part, because of the mixed reactions and messages protestors have been getting. It’s something academia has aligned itself with. Race-baiters and racists have found a niche. Marxists found another vehicle. Why would any of its factions want to let go when it seems they are getting something in return? Do cops being executed bother them? Not in the least.

But many of these organizers always accused the Right or Tea Partiers of stirring up contempt and anti-government sentiments, holding them responsible for things like Gabby Gifford’s shooting. How quickly the Left and racists have come full circle to endorsing an anything goes, by any means strategy. I do mean anything goes.

The race and all the other interests are becoming mere factors of the whole, or turning into a means within a means. Is it life boat time?

Ref: The spirit of the Boston Tea Party returns – Al Jazeera America

RightRing | Bullright

Tea Party alive or dead?

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

Can We Talk ?

Some things need to be said but the right people are not always listening.

I was commenting on Necessary and Proper Gov’t and saw things that inspired this. The subject there was the shape conservatives are in, and where it’s going. And Jeff suggested a David Horowitz article. It’s fairly long but if you check it out, you won’t be disappointed. Horowitz always brings a good perspective few others do.

David says it is time for a different dialogue. I agree. Some on the right mean well in zealously arguing for conservative ideas. That’s fine, but is it enough? I don’t think so, not even close. Here’s a hint, I know many conservatives get in the trenches and actually read articles. But Progressives do things different. Talking points are spoon fed to the left, from the top,  so Libs don’t have to read or decide.

We are up against a talking point battle. The public often only hears soundbites. It’s not their fault that is the way politics are on the left. Like Horowitz said: we hear about the war on women, on the poor, racism etc. It doesn’t matter that it is not true, people hear those soundbites  and Democrats  repeat them like parrots. Sure we are tired of hearing them. If you hear it, then other people hear it too. You have to know your enemy.

Long arguments are nice but don’t win the war. They have no impact on the Left.  No one except maybe loyal conservatives reads them. And this battle is a political campaign not a dissertation. I’m convinced we must boil concepts down to simple terms. Also, as Horowitz says, our tactics must change.

Who is going to take the time to read arguments, the liberals we are trying to convince? That ain’t going to happen. Liberals try not to read conservatives. On Townhall, they bash away without even reading it, or maybe a few lines just to aim their talking points at. We give them too much credit thinking logic and reason will work on them. What does work are political campaign soundbites.  That someone will convince them is an overrated goal. They do hear soundbites because that’s what everyone hears.

The problem, as Horowitz states it, is conservatives talk in business language. My idea is to use some biz-lingo on our leaders. Tell Boehner and McConnell to ‘listen up’:

We decided your services are no longer needed. Nothing personal… no, actually it is personal. Your job has been eliminated. The decision is final. That is the job as you define it, doing your own thing doesn’t cut it. You fashion yourselves as deal-makers but guess what, fellas? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is no one out there to make deals with. Do you see anyone? Progressives don’t deal. If they want to they know where to find us.

If an opportunity did come up, there are others capable of making a deal. You have become obsolete. We’re going in a different direction and your particular services are not part of that paradigm. Now if you want to stay on in some reduced capacity, then you will have to get with the program. The old way of operating is  over, do you understand? Form follows function now. This movement is much bigger than you guys and your silos.

This  is inevitable in business. Do you want to be a team player or freelance? Your choice. But if it’s doing your own thing… there’s the door. If you think you can handle being on the team, then its going to be a lot different than you are used to. This is not a top down thing. You guys aren’t our boss, quite the opposite. Your positions, as you know them, have been eliminated. Got it? And we’re not going back to that “business as usual” model. This is only the beginning, we’ll keep you informed if you stay on. “

Here’s what else will change: Mitch, you said we are going to crush the Tea Party:

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” … “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

What’s the “we” stuff?  See, it is just the opposite, there’s a new crew in town — just in case you and Boehner missed the last few elections. I know you were both busy doing your own things. And the guys that stepped up are those Tea Party people. They’re already here.  You don’t talk to the other side that way. We have to “crush” Liberals not the Tea Party, except I don’t hear that spirited passion toward progressives. No one is bigger than everyone else.

If power and self-survival were your motives, bury it now.  Your power is limited by the people, like the rest of the Federal Government.  We stand for unlimited individual opportunity. They are the Party of unlimited government. Our “enemy”, the enemy of the country,  is the other side. And that’s exactly how we’re going to treat them. Progs are the antithesis of freedom and individual opportunity. Are we all clear?

By the way, Mitchster, the reason we are taking such a personal  interest in you is because that is where most of the problems are.

Reference:

Why Republicans Need the Tea Party

The movement provides an answer to the Left.

Teaser:

“You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.”

I endorse attacks and defining progressives for what they are. But Rove or Gingrich frown on “harsh tone” as a ticket to loss. What do they base that on? No one will pay attention to subtle, half-hearted, apologetic critiques just to avoid a harsh tone. The Left is begging to be branded, so give them what they want.

Newt told CPAC:

“If we spend the next three years being primarily anti-Hillary, we will virtually guarantee her election … “ Gingrich said. “To make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stop being the opposition movement, and we must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of Americans better so that they understand what we would be doing that is right, not just what the left is doing that is wrong.”

We must define the Left. Horowitz knows that as an intellectual. All the right “ideas” don’t get the job done. Amazing, Newt lectured CPAC and the Tea Party on that.

RightRing | Bullright

Feinstein’s hypocrisy on target, on schedule

Democrats kill amendment that would have forbidden Tea Party targeting by IRS

John | March 7, 2014 | Tavern Keepers

We have been reporting for a while now that Ted Cruz had put forth an amendment to rectify current issues with the IRS and the targeting of conservative groups. The language would have been as follows:
“(a) Offense. — It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Internal Revenue Service to, regardless of whether the officer or employee is acting under the color of law, willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate or single out and subject to undue scrutiny for purposes of harassment any person or organization of any state –
“(1) based solely or primarily on the political, economic or social positions held or expressed by the person or organization; or
“2) because the person or organization has expressed a particular political, economic, or social position using any words of writing allowed by law.”
As you can see it not only would have protected Tea Party groups, but any group that might come under assault for their beliefs. Unfortunately Liberty Unyielding is reporting that the Democrats, who control the Senate, used their power to kill the amendment. Per the usual strategy, those doing the dirty work are not up for reelection this year so they have plenty of time for the populace to forget their assault on freedom. Here is the list of shame:
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Dianne Feinstein of California
Charles Schumer of New York
Richard Durbin of Illinois
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota
Chris Coons of Delaware
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii
So, the Democrats want to make sure that the IRS can continue to be used as a tool of political destruction. Of course, if the Republicans had controlled the Senate the vote would have probably have been similar just with different names. Neither side wants to give up that kind of power. Reason number (really big number goes here) that we should abolish the IRS and implement something that doesn’t resemble the East German Stasi circa 1950’s.
Article Source: http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/06/cynical-dems-kill-bill-prohibiting-irs-political-favoritism/

Just another nail in the coffin of freedom. Meanwhile, when it’s their Senatorial committee being spied on by the CIA, that’s some serious stuff. Can’t have that. There are laws! But people exercising their God-given rights of speech, dot Gov can suppress that any way they can — what’s the problem? Trot out the Constitution in defense of big-government.

“I have grave concerns that the CIA search may well have violated the separation of powers principles,” Feinstein said on the Senate floor. “I am not taking it lightly.”

Who cares about the IRS targeting people, but the ruling class can’t be spied on. I guess that law is, “No one but no one shall gore our Ox.”

(LA Times)”At some point during their work, Senate staff members gained access to the draft of an internal review the CIA had done of the interrogations. Senators say that internal review, which remains classified, was far more critical of the CIA than the agency’s official responses to their questions had been.CIA officials say the Senate aides were never supposed to have access to the draft, which they claim is covered by executive privilege. They began to investigate how the committee staff members had gained access to it.”

In fact, Dems will run interference for the IRS scandal. Sickening really.

Two things make my odd list

Hillary Clinton out pandering to young people saying we need you. And Newt Gingrich’s lecture to stop attacking Obama and Hillary. Make it three with Mitch’s threat to crush Tea Party candidates. (maybe the third is not so odd or surprising, is it?)

Newt, what were you thinking? Wait, I know.

“If we spend the next three years being primarily anti-Hillary, we will virtually guarantee her election,” he said. “To make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stop being the opposition movement.”

How about realizing the failures of both are an issue and largely why there is a good opportunity? Nah, too logical. We need to do both, consistently. I won’t belabor the point, it should be self-explanatory — but apparently not for the brain-child Newt.

Hillary and the young people, those two things should go together like water and oil. The young and cynical voters should want to distance themselves as far as they can from the over-hyped heiress in waiting. Support her, for what? What has Hill done for youth?

“We need you. We need your energy. We need your talents. We need your commitment to participation. We cannot let the millennial generation become a lost generation,” Clinton said at UCLA.

Apparently, Hillary needs the youth as much as Obamacare does.

It’s obvious since Rand Paul talks directly to the younger generation and disintegrating liberty, the heiress sees her chances being threatened. Other than female chromosomes, estrogen, and a piss-poor record, what does she have? (some are not sure about the estrogen) She does prove that she can scandalize and politicize as well as anyone, if that’s a strong suit — not to be confused with a pantsuit.

RightRing | Bullright

If you don’t like your government regulations

If you like your government regulations, and bureaucrats decisions, you can keep your regs. Tough luck it seems if not. But in the event you don’t…. here’s a place to add your voice of disapproval and disgust.

For a look at the current regs of interest on Twitter, and what they’re up to:
https://twitter.com/RegulationsGOV Tweets are under the name “YourVoice”.

For instance, if conservatives – [translation] Tea Party members, grandmas,grandpas, small business owners, concerned patriots, retired people, and folks with common sense – don’t appreciate the abuse and agenda at the IRS and their new rules, then you can send your comments on this page.

IRS is now Obama’s Internal Revenge Service [ © TM — per JTR’s suggestion 🙂 ]

So if you like your ever-growing government regs, you can simply do nothing and they will continue to roll out as usual, uninterrupted. But if you don’t….

Reference http://www.regulations.gov/?utm_content=buffer3a9b1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#!submitComment;D=IRS-2013-0038-0001

RightRing | Bullright

Politics of Big-Government, Schumer style

 

Schumer Calls for Using IRS to Curtail Tea Party Activities

Democratic senator says Obama should bypass Congress, use executive powers

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
January 23, 2014 5:38 pm

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) proposed using the Internal Revenue Service to curtail Tea Party group funding during a speech on how to “exploit” and “weaken” the movement at the Center for American Progress on Thursday.

Arguing that Tea Party groups have a financial advantage after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, Schumer said the Obama administration should bypass Congress and institute new campaign finance rules through the IRS.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies—we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” Schumer said. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

The Obama administration proposed new IRS restrictions on campaign related activity by tax-exempt groups last November. The rules would crack down on “candidate-related political activity,” which includes advocacy “for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party” and communications that are “made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.”

Last May, the IRS admitted to singling out Tea Party groups for increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The scandal forced the resignations of IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and director of Tax Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner.

Schumer was one of several Democratic senators who sent a letter in 2012 calling on the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups for allegedly engaging in political campaign activity. He was also the architect of the 2010 DISCLOSE Act, legislation targeting the Citizens United ruling that failed to pass Congress. Senate Democrats introduced a similar bill in 2012.

Schumer also proposed electoral reform in his speech. “Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries,” he said.

He argued that this is due to the political makeup of primary voters and gerrymandering by Republicans who “draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected.”

Schumer recommended a primary system “where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a run-off.”

The senator claimed there was a divide between what he called “Tea Party elites”—namely, the Koch brothers—who support small government policies, and the “Tea Party followers,” who support government programs such as Medicare and public education.

He said the small government mantra espoused by Tea Party leaders is the “core weakness of the Tea Party, and one we can exploit to turn American politics around to the benefit of our nation.”

According to Schumer, many Tea Party supporters are drawn to the movement because of their concerns about a changing country that “white Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running” anymore.

“The Tea Party rank-and-file know it’s a different America,” said Schumer. “It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”

He also compared the Tea Party to the Prohibition movement, and argued that its policies were “the route of the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlins, and the Huey Longs, towards anger, negativity and even hatred.”

Schumer’s speech comes at a time when both the Tea Party and President Barack Obama are facing record-low approval ratings.

Just 30 percent of Americans view the Tea Party favorably, according to a Gallup poll released last month, while 51 percent view the movement unfavorably.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval rating has plummeted to 43 percent on the heels of the botched Obamacare rollout, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. His disapproval rating is also 51 percent.

The political world that Schumer is obsessed over, however real, is one where groups of people organized albeit loosely might have an affect on the political process.  To combat that preconception, he calls for the government tentacles to take a more aggressive and active roll in politics than they already do. 

The solution is direct government politicking. More than even arbiters,  he sees government advocacy on behalf of Democrats as righteous. Yes, have government bureaucracy clearly advocating for one political Party if not individual politicians. He envisions a country where an activist government must assure partisan election  results – controlling the strings of power.

That is nothing new for big-government Democrats, just that now they can so openly advocate it rather than conspiring in back rooms to pursue it. The hypocrisy of his position is so obvious but that never stopped the Democrats before. So why not use their favorite government agencies to affect elections? They use it for anything else politically related.

And do it through executive authority. What’s wrong with that? They do all the other stuff with executive power. Between EPA, the DoJ, and the IRS, and stacked courts, with a president willing and able to use his pen to legislate, they can accomplish a myriad of items in their agenda.

But then he never sees government running errant of its duties out of reach for career politicos to exploit in their favor.  They see that as the purpose of government rather than representing the people, it derives its power from. It’s a formula completely inverted from the visions of the founders but that matters not to them nor does their hypocrisy. The problem is always the unbridled freedom of the people. Must stop that.

RightRing | Bullright

Esoteric election results

What has the election shown us?

The Atlantic Wire said

    “Even though Christie’s actual politics often lean conservative, he’s done some serious rhetorical work to try and distance himself as much as possible from the Tea Party cohort of the Republican Party, especially in the shut down. As the national party’s approval ratings plummeted in the wake of the shutdown, Christie had some strong words: “get the government reopened, stop monkeying around, and get back to work. I said, I’m out there in the field, people have no patience for this stuff. None.”

If you remember in the last few months, gov Christie was taking shots aimed at both the Tea Party and Libertarians. Rand Paul in particular. He also attacked those “esoteric debates” taking place, and this growing strain of libertarianism in both parties.

Esoteric as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1
a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group ; broadly : difficult to understand
2
a : limited to a small circle
b : private, confidential
3
: of special, rare, or unusual interest

Flash forward, he wins his reelection, which really wasn’t in question. Regardless of his chances, RNC still felt compelled to dump a million and a half dollars into it. Why, is the big question. It became clear right after the election. RNC wasted no time claiming victory and some credit in New Jersey. Though its cash could have been better spent elsewhere, but we aren’t supposed to criticize that. The GOP can criticize factions in the Party, but dare we criticize their motivations. Typical for the GOP.

Also typical is that they need to credit themselves for a win that really was never in question. What was the purpose again that the RNC had to dump cash into NJ when Christie had it sown up? The answer is so they could lay claim to his moderate strategy. I don’t know how much patience people are going to afford his esoteric candidacy?

I think the election and results in New Jersey were esoteric. Who really cares about the results there other than NJ? Still we have this esoteric election discussed as if it has great national significance.

After Christie took big swipes at two major GOP factions and “esoteric debates”, his reelection proved exactly what? That favorites win? On the other hand, there was much more national significance and interest in those “esoteric debates”, as he called them. I forgot, nobody but nobody is supposed to criticize Christie. Governor, don’t be looking for that groundswell f popular support for your esoteric candidacy.

Not all governors would make good presidents, some are more esoteric than others.

Pelosi takes a stab at “problems”

Pelosi lied and Democrats cried

Obama meetings couldn’t have prevented gridlock, Pelosi says

Posted by
CNN’s Gregory Wallace

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

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

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

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

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

Here are Pelosi’s words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here was Pelosi trembling in fear over Tea Parties:

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

    Hypocrisy is her middle name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a break!

Banana Republic

Some people say we are now a “banana republic”. I take extreme issue with that. We are now a rotten tomato mobocracy. It only took how many years?

And …

The Brownshirts are coming…the Brownshirts are coming.
Oh, remember this Boxer statement about ObamaCare protestors?

And yes, they called Tea Partiers Brownshirt protestors too. Albeit nicely dressed Brownshirts, according to Boxer. Maybe the problem was the optics; they looked like middle class Americans. Oops. Progressives can’t have that especially if Libs claim to speak for and support middle class America. Tea Partiers should have dressed, you know, like protestors.

But that was about speaking truth to power. In the Left’s case,  the power is speaking down to the drones that will believe them no matter what. Hence, brownshirts. Obama keeps telling them call your reps and tell them you want ObamaCare, tell them you want spending, tell them you demand gun control, etc. The home of “Astroturf” is the Democrat Party, but don’t let the truth get in their way.

And yet here is Benjamin Carson speaking at the prayer breakfast. Keep an eye on Obama

But you can see Michelle applauding throughout, while stiff-necked Obama sat like a stewing tyrant. His nation of thugocrats does not appreciate the truth, especially when it convicts them.

The Brownshirts are coming…the Brownshirts are coming.

Can’t you smell what Barack is cooking?

Dems and Dog Whistles

There he goes, again.

There goes Joe with another classic Bidenism – check the library that must be a category now. When the right says something they are all over it. If a Republican said something that way, the Left would say it was a “dog whistle”. That’s what they call any mention of certain conservative topics that excite the base. Though they use the term creatively and get very imaginative about where it applies.

They make that charge all the time whether it is a Republican pol or a Tea Partier. It is their catch all phrase for the Right. The Left would call it a dog whistle, if it were anyone else. Much as I’m tired of the term, it should apply to what and how he said it. They stick it to everyone else where it doesn’t even apply. And now they deny that is what this was.

They constantly claim conservatives are talking to their own in code and rallying certain parts of the base. And they usually connect it somehow to racism, directly or indirectly. They throw around the phrase so loosely they apply it to everything. They can use the term to indicate racism without having to say it.

Now their old “dog whistle” charge is a dog whistle to Libs. Clever isn’t it? They use it as a euphemism to call someone a racist. So here’s Joe blowing their tune loud and clear. Obama and Biden do this all the time. They are champions of the “dog whistle”. We’ll hear it a lot more before election.

Here was Biden’s statement.

You want to see Left get outraged? Just call Biden’s remarks a dog whistle and see what happens.

Romney to make VP announcment


So Romney will make his announcement at 8:45 am Saturday. All indications are it is Paul Ryan. If not there will be disappointment.

Clearly Mitt moved it up to hopefully impact the race. Sure, after all reports say the polls have dropped. He wants to boost the polls. Well, they will say it will fire up the base and Tea Partiers.

But, hello, the base is fired up and they’re mad as hell. Its Romney’s campaign that looks like it needs a match to be fired up. And maybe we can put an end to idiotic remarks coming from his chief talking heads. Its not Republicans or that base that are the problem.