Another actor just couldn’t help himself

So Johnny Depp got into the act or bash Trump fest in the worst possible way.

Wait, in it he said he was not an actor. But in a 2013 BBC interview he said:

Depp stated in a BBC radio interview on July 29, 2013 that he hopes to be involved with “quieter things” at some point in the near future, implying that he will retire from acting. Depp explained in further detail during the interview: “I wouldn’t say I’m dropping out any second, but I would say it’s probably not too far away. When you add up the amount of dialogue that you say per year and you realize that you’ve said written words more than you’ve had a chance to say your own words, you start thinking about that as an insane option for a human being.” [Wikipedia]

Okay, what better way to set off defining yourself by making news in your own words calling for the assassination of President Trump? Picture it, Glastonbury arts festival in England, he remarked to the crowd: (what is it with these people and arts?)

“It’s just a question; I’m not insinuating anything. By the way, this is going to be in the press and it’ll be horrible,” he said.

“When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? I want to clarify, I’m not an actor. I lie for a living. …
However, it’s been a while. Maybe it’s time?”

Yea, in all that spoken dialogue over the years, no one wrote that line to deliver. He can be sure it is original and it is him. Now the SS will have to ask him about his own words.

Then he had to go cleanup his statement in an apology, another Depp original:

“It did not come out as intended, and I intended no malice.
I was only trying to amuse, not to harm anyone.”

Right, a joke, didn’t mean any malice. But his original comment said he lies for a living. Oops. He knew it would cause a problem, though he did get some immediate cheers. He goes to England and does this?

He prefaced it by saying he wasn’t insinuating anything but then said “It’s been a while, maybe it’s time?” Really? Your words and the apology aren’t matching up again, Johnny.

Way to venture off into your own original words — not someone else’s. That’s sanity.

On the other hand, maybe Depp would have been better off sticking to someone’s written script. Who knows what else his own spoken words will reveal next?

Kathy Griffin: victim is thy name

Now Griffin is a victim? I wonder if she she’s associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign?
I know, that’s a stupid question.

Breitbart

Kathy Griffin has hired high-powered attorney Lisa Bloom and will hold a press conference Friday to address the firestorm surrounding the viral image of herself holding the bloody, decapitated head of President Donald Trump and the “bullying” she claims she has endured at the hands of the Trump family as a result.

From celeb culprit to victim in 24 hours. Whew! I suppose next, after claiming the entire Trump family bullied her, she’ll demand an apology from the Trump family. I know what would be great, Kathy, if you could have Baron Trump apologize to you. What a freak.

Well, now we know what her New Year’s Eve act would have been like, if she wasn’t fired. Well, CNN can always rehire her in time. What an attention whore.

Addendum: I have a great idea for Victim Kathy. She should go after CNN for terminating her as part of a media harassment campaign. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

—————————————————————————————–

And when you lose Al Franken, you have really lost the left country. Franken had been running around associating himself with Griffin even saying he wouldn’t cancel an upcoming appearance with her.

Are you in luck, Kathy, it looks like you could have another bully person to go after. Al Franken, the perfect target.

Franken To Griffin: On Second Thought, It’s Best If You Just Skip My Book Event

Townhall

“I believe what Kathy Griffin did was inappropriate and not something that should be anywhere in our national discourse. I consider her a friend and I’m glad she realized she crossed the line and apologized,” Franken said.

He added, “After hearing from many Minnesotans who were rightfully offended, I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be best for her not to participate in the event we had previously scheduled. I understand why Minnesotans were upset by this, and I take that very seriously.” [via Politico]

Wow, Kathy’s list of bullies is getting almost as long as Hillary’s. Congrats.

Check this out for someone claiming victim status. Note December date:

A Potpourri of Liberal Hypocrisy

Three things you can always be assured of: death, taxes and liberal hypocrisy. No region on earth is more saturated with it than California — proudly known as the incubator and purveyor of liberal thought.

Since that is an established fact, it would be an overload to list examples. Liberals, i.e. Democrats in lockstep, are demanding San Fran and the sate divest and boycott any construction companies who cooperate on building the wall.(seems even bidding)

It’s okay to discriminate against them — it’s encouraged. But if we threaten to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities refusing to follow the law, they threaten to sue.

Move along to Maryland, wonderful little Rockville. Here they have a crime where two illegals (undocumented) raped a 14 year old girl in a bathroom in school. One 18 and the other a minor. Outrage erupts from sane people. But Montgomery county is a sanctuary area, so good luck nailing them. How much more should a school be a sanctuary for citizens of a community? But never mind.

In fact, liberals want to declare all Maryland a sanctuary for illegals. They are threatening that any town or county doing otherwise would have its state funding cut.

You see how backwards this all is? It’s completely upside down or reversed. They’ve made official, unlawful resistance to law the new normal. (not the exception) Oops, we’re sorry, there are no exemptions You can’t opt out of it — that would be unlawful.

Another case in the South is in Texas. We all know they take a stand, right? Well, they have Sanctuary Sally, an elected sheriff officially denying her oath and refusing to cooperate with federal law. Even worse, she ran on a platform of defying the law.

Add her to the coalition of Resistance. At least Governor Abbot is trying to resist ol’ Sanctuary Sally. Not so much in Maryland or California. They get rewarded there.

I have a new medical term for this craziness: Sanctuary Psychosis.

Their biggest fear or problem is how to obstruct or avoid the federal law.

Meanwhile, Trump rolled out his second national security executive order that was immediately met with an act of defiance from Hawaii to halt it. Yes, national security is the very last thing government should be concerned with. Preserving lawlessness is a priority.

Let’s go even deeper — not into the abstract but into the liberal hypocrisy epidemic.

Ryan and Trump try to pass the repeal and replace Obamacare plan. Whamo, it meets with stiff resistance. Okay, you might expect as much. But the same problems Obamacare had, has are the same ones they accuse are in this plan. Liberals sent their mutiny of militia to townhalls to protest, claiming they were just like Tea Parties.

As the bill got yanked, when it did not have the votes, liberals ran to the microphones. Nancy Pelosi declared it a huge victory for the people — who have a failed system that is doomed to implosion. That’s a victory. Your skyrocketing premiums and deductibles you can never meet are… “a victory.” Fight to save that.

We’ve now seen hypocrisy on a scale never even imagined before.

N. Korea, Syria and Russia became 5-alarm problems the day Trump took office. Obama hadn’t done a thing but hey, now that they are Trumps’ probs, they are super urgent.

Obama never lifted a finger in office to fix his Obamacare , but now Dems scream it needs to be fixed. Now they say premiums and deductibles are too high, and claim it is Trump’s problem to fix — that he’s responsible for it. Really?(or so they assert)

So we’ve been there, done that and have all the scars to prove it.
Now they tell us how ugly those scars are.

RightRing | Bullright

Got Milk?

Let me do serious for a minute instead of media’s mockery of anything related to Obama.

There was a wiretap of candidate Trump before the election.

So the control area of debris here is: a former president’s administration, two campaigns in a heated race, and a current president’s administration.

Add to that the chronic leaks epidemic just to spice it up.

Is that enough to give you pause?

 

For your viewing pleasure:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hannity-hammers-valerie-jarrett-over-wiretap-scandal-and-wins/55075/

Obama’s information spreading campaign

Even before he made his grand exit, Obama did all he could to set the stage for Trump. It’s called sabotage most places. But it’s just a day in office for the radical-in-chief, Obama.

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
//…

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.”

MORE at NYT

The real story is there for all to see of Obama’s shadow government and its expansive influence. He would not be happy to give up power. And he isn’t finished.

Soros’ ship skipped the port of call

This just in:
Soros lost a billion on the election of Donald Trump, it has been revealed. Oops!

According to the WSJ, “George Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Donald Trump’s surprise presidential election.”

Left still in panic, jump mode. All flights to Canada have been canceled. (not really)

Wish he would have bet it all. That would solve so many of our problems.

Schumer recruiting Trump

Cheesy Chuck Schumer declared that the only way Democrats could work with Trump is if he abandons his Republican base and joins Democrats, instead.

Well, I guess he already forgot who won the election. See their idea of bipartisanship?

Take note McCain — it is going to get increasingly lonely on his pedestal. But then he probably already made that choice.

Interesting Trump, Israel factoid

Elijah List

5777: Is Donald Trump a Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar?

Here Are Some Facts… President-elect Donald John Trump Will Be 70 Years, 7 Months, And 7 Days Old On His First Day Of Office. What Are The Chances Of That Happening On The Hebraic Year Of 5777? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up.

Video at: http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word.html?ID=17219

So add a 5000 to that and what do you have?

Now on the Jewish calendar, this is year 5777. Just an interesting tidbit.

The Dumber Than Public Media

For years we had the media trying to dumb down the American public. Now we have Donald Trump dumbing down mainstream media. They prove it everyday.

Trump puts out a tweet on nuclear arms and the media goes Gatling guns on him.

Always expect the media to interpret Trump’s statements in the worst possible way. That’s a given. They can’t even admit there is another meaning behind it than their worst possible scenario interpretation. For Obama, the benefit of doubt is endless. For Trump, “there can be no doubt about it, this is really bad!“.

Wait, he just suggested the world had apparently not yet come to it’s senses regarding nukes. Oh, just ignore that. No wonder Trump calls them disgusting.

Well then, they just came off a 9 month fear mongering campaign over Russia when they cared nothing about Obama promising Putin more flexibility in his last term. Nor did MSM correct Obama for claiming the Russian threat was as obsolete as bell-bottoms and Atari.

Now Russia and nukes are behind every door, just pick one. You might get both as in this case. Putin announced they will strengthen nuclear/military capabilities, but it seems Trump is supposed to volunteer to weaken ours in response. Media has a cow.

But Trump said it on Twitter, so they declared his T-account a national security threat.

They also question why he is talking about nukes anyway? Hillary’s campaign and media were obsessed with talking about nukes. Trump mentions them and it is “off sides — 15 yard penalty.” And the public says, “but you all were the ones bringing up nukes.”

Trump is on his way to dumbing down the media. They just haven’t noticed.

RightRing | Bullright

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

Why Romney?

After following this courtship of Trump and Romney, I just cannot see the objective. Everything seems clouded by chaos and that aroma of elitism.

I can’t understand an appointment to Secretary of State for Romney. There are other places he could be squeezed into. Like a cabinet of commerce to focus on jobs.

Secretary of State? He does not have the foreign policy experience with all these countries. He could be a turn around guy but not the scope of State department.

Now that he is dug in so deep as the front runner, it would be hard to not pick him.

Democrats are almost giddy about his choice. But they had nothing but contempt for Romney in 2012. They had him exporting jobs and selling out America all over the world. His dog is still on top of that station wagon going down the highway. Now they have such admiration for Romney in 2016. They’re waxing nostalgia about him.

What about those confirmation hearings? Every statement he made about Trump will play on a loop and Dems can do what they do best, push an alternative reality. That is probably the reason they are happy. Romney will have to answer for every one of those comments, which Dems agree with. Repubs will be forced to defend Mittens as an all-star choice.

Remember State is one of Dems’ favorite departments. What a circus that will be. So that gives them all the ammo to undermine Trump’s legitimacy. Dems whole plan is to start to defrock Trump from the beginning. Romney is cut from central casting to play a lead role. Of course Mitt doesn’t care about being used by the Left. He has been their willing pawn all along. Useful idiot comes to mind.

Maybe it is supposed to remove him from the bleachers and the 2020 lineup? I don’t see either. Maybe it is a setup for ‘good cop bad cop’? I don’t see a benefit to Romney.

So I have some real mixed feelings about Mittens turning State Department hero.

Students choose Castro over Trump

Surprised…not! I know, it must have been a trick question. Nah.

Campus Reform has the pathetic story.

  • Fidel Castro’s recent death evoked conflicting assessments of his legacy from world leaders, but college students are no more prepared than prime ministers to justify their support for the Cuban dictator.
  • A number of students at American University acknowledged the brutality of Castro’s regime, but insisted that he was a better leader than Trump because he did “good things” for the Cuban people.

President-Elect Donald Trump, for example, referred to Castro as a “brutal dictator,” whereas Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called him a “remarkable leader.”

Read more @ http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8455

Really what can you say about that? I think it is self-explanatory. Are we  in trouble?

And for your amusement pleasure:  let’s see the DNA.

The evidence is in. I think it’s a hung jury on that one.

Awaiting Mitt Romney’s apology tour

After campaigning against and trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign/election, even his Republican nomination, Romney now contemplates the real consequences of issuing an apology to try to seal his Secretary of State bid. How far can he go?

I do hope he likes groveling but is it enough — after all he has done?

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Transition Team sources told Ed Henry from FOX News that Mitt Romney is preparing a public apology.

Mitt Romney is reportedly very interested in the Secretary of State job. (See)

But is it enough to apologize? And I don’t mean only to Trump but to all the people who supported or voted for Trump. He owes them plenty — whether he gets the job or not.

Remember he wrote a book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Ironic now that his appointment requires an apology just as a precursor.

Has anyone out there in Rightville considered what a Mitt Romney confirmation hearing would look like? I think I’d call it a smorgasbord for Democrats. They’ll eat it up.

Don’t Out Anger Me

In this fallout of the Left about the election results, something comes to the surface.

An exit poll said 69% of people were angry about the way government was run in DC. The angry, fed up people are a big reason Trump was elected. We all get that.

That sentiment on the right is so clear it is not even debated by MSM. They despise us and our “drain the swamp” anger. They certainly don’t question the existence of it.

But after the election, the Left is now fuming at the results. Their anger is flowing through the streets. (anger is stock and trade of the Marxist Left) They even say anger is not enough; they call for violence. So which anger wins — ours or theirs? (See)

The above is how uber-Leftists talk. Trump’s appointments stir up more Leftist anger. Too bad so sad. But they have laser-focused their anger on them. (Alinsky rules: personalize it)

George W Bush now says “it is about what’s best for people who are angry.”

After Trump election, Bush says “anger shouldn’t drive policy”

The Texas Tribune reports

Former President George W. Bush on Tuesday cautioned against allowing anger to dictate policy in the wake of a heated presidential race — especially when it comes to trade, an issue in the crosshairs of President-elect Donald Trump.

“I understand anger, and some people might have been angry when I was president, but anger shouldn’t drive policy,” Bush said during a speech in Dallas. “What should drive policy is what’s best for the people who are angry and how does it benefit people in our country and people in our neighborhood.”

Read https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/15/after-trump-election-bush-says-anger-shouldnt-driv/

Gee, thanks for the anger lesson Bush, but I think I’ll pass. Our anger was/is justified. Actually, our outrage and anger needs to influence policy, after all that has gone on in the last decade. And we chose Trump as a president and a vehicle.

Remember, it was Obama who in his first campaign called us bitter. Hillary called us deplorables. We were the perpetually marginalized. But thanks for the anger shout out.

On the other side, should Trump assuage the anger of the Marxists? Should one do what is best for them? Only reaching their goals will make them happy.

However, the question is which anger Bush was talking about — ours or the Left’s? Then which anger should be assuaged — doing what is best for those who are angry

Bush said. “I’m interested in politics, but I don’t think it’s helpful for a former president to criticize successors. It’s a hard job to begin with, and I don’t think it helps to make it any harder.”

Working with the incoming president? Obama is creating the illusion of working for a smooth transition. But he is hardly doing anything toward that ideal end.

I think our anger trumps their anger, and we won.

Obama had a press conference to, again, criticize and lecture Trump. Evidently he didn’t get his fill of that campaigning last month for Hillary.

Let’s see, Obama was wrong on Brexit, now he’s been proven wrong about Trump winning. He has a failed record to boot. So he goes overseas and what does Obama love to do overseas? Right, criticize his opponents and enemies back home. That is his shtick

Politico

Then he’s going to tell them to trust him this time on his promises and assessments of where things will go now that Trump did what he assured them couldn’t happen.

Obama’s Secretary of Stupid Shit did not win the election. But he did so depend on her to secure his decomposing foreign policy legacy. No such luck. But Trump is probably a bigger threat to it than Hillary would have been. And that explains his bubbling anger and resentment.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Obama’s legacy “shall be etched in stone.” And nowhere did it confer on a president the right to pick his replacement, as Obama expected.

In fact, it is all rather fluid. So Obama does what he always does, go overseas to schmooze it up with his fellow lefties, and share his frustrations about American politics — actions — then take aim at his domestic counterparts from offshore. That, while appearing to reassure them that it is not that bad. All disingenuous of course.

Commenting overseas about the election:

“I was surprised by the election results.” “Did I recognize that there was anger, frustration among the population? Of course I did,” Obama said.

But Obama and his caustic policies were the cause of much of it. He just insisted on throwing more of it in our faces as he campaigned around the country. So the election was a rejection of him as well. Let’s see how fast Obama identifies with the Left’s anger?

Just don’t lose sight of, or underestimate, this anger and pissed-offness of the people that finally brought us this far. The fierce reaction — protests and rioting — is the problem, not the solution. Message to the left: Don’t even try to out anger me.

H/T image to http://theamericanfirst.com/hollywood-director-paul-schrader-calls-for-violence-to-stop-donald-trump/

 

MSNBC on Rigged Elections

From the oddest source on the topic, in MSM, even Morning Joe attacks phony media hype about Trump’s reference to rigged elections. What a collection of truth.

Well, and they didn’t even mention the Al Franken race that went on for how long? (I think he gets some kind of record)

MSNBC for one said it. They decided right away they didn’t want to die on that lie.

H/T to Conservative Tribune

Clinton media and terrorism in #2 debate: the victims

To those who have dismissed the warnings or concerns about the Bush and Clinton dynasty threats as legend or myth, I have a few bridges you might like.

“We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we have bowed down to, has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone.” – Samuel Adams

But it doesn’t stop there, it’s how ruling class elitists think.

Hillary told us what she thinks of people. She puts them all in baskets and buckets. There’s the Bucket of Losers, the Basket of Deplorables that are irredeemable. There are basement dwellers. Here’s what even Hillary supporter Eleanor Holmes Norton said:

Daily Caller reports at a Global Business Travelers Association, Hillary said:

“[Terrorism] is not a threat to us as a nation. It is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat. It is a danger to our citizens here at home, and as we tragically saw in Boston, and to those living, working, and traveling abroad.”

The little, regular people down there worry about such things, but they don’t threaten our nation. Any threat to the people in mass should qualify as a threat to the country. But Terrorism is not a threat or danger to our economy or society? Yet Hillary constantly boasts at being around NY at 9/11 attacks.

Hillary does count Trump’s 11 year old private statements as a threat to society. But her and her husband’s decade of destroying women is not a problem.

“Why don’t you ask Bill Clinton that?”

Media was outraged that Trump brought up Clintons’ victims. They especially were animated that he called for a special prosecutor for Clinton’s server gate ordeal. They said that is what third world dictators do going after their political enemies. Calling for justice is the stuff of third-world politics. That anyone is not above the law is now third-world.

However, the very person at the center of the scandals, Hillary Clinton, was in the White House that gave us Filegate. That was when up to 900 FBI files were pulled on their political opponents and enemies. The press has such a short memory, especially on Clintons. Now they lecture us about the danger of language.

Hillary Clinton now obsesses about locker rooms. Ever notice Hillary brags about being in the Situation Room but she never mentions their “War Room” for dealing with their inconvenient “bimbo eruptions.” Oh, to when Bimbo Eruptions take priority over terrorism threats.

“How absurd, then, is it to draw arguments from the nature of civil society for the annihilation of those very ends which society was intended to procure!” – Samuel Adams; “American Independence” speech.

Guy is right, Obama finds him insulting

One man speaking out on Democrat plantation politics.

They or Hillary “put us in a basket,” he says. Yep, they put everyone in a basket, and that’s where we are all supposed to stay. (or else…)

Obama says it is a personal insult to him if the blacks don’t line up to vote for Hillary. Bell finds Obama disrespectful. Well, that’s what critical listening (thinking) will do.

Someone calls it like it is. The guy is A.D. Bell and I don’t think we heard the last of him.

And Hillary doesn’t mind calling us all deplorable — who’s quibbling on the number? We’re irredeemable, she claims. Somehow it makes me proud to be “irredeemable” in her eyes — as opposed to a lockstep conformist.

Red Scare strikes the Left

After being deemed albeit irrelevant by Obama in 2012, the Kremlin worry is back. This time inflicting the Left and whipping them into a frenzy.

This time Hillary is leading the anti-Russia charge. Reset to Red Scare. But what won’t she do to try to pull off her anointing, even if she has to use Russia to accomplish it?

The new Red Scare? Russia ups role in world events, US elections

(CNN)The Cold War was supposed to have ended a quarter of a century ago.
But Russia is commanding center stage in a presidential election for the first time in decades and President Vladimir Putin is being portrayed as a sinister puppeteer looming over the bitter contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Democrats have blamed him for orchestrating a huge cyberespionage operation using stolen and leaked emails to sow chaos and distrust in America’s democratic process ahead of November’s election. Putin’s even been accused of cultivating one of the candidates in the election — Trump — as an unwitting agent to further his quest to strangle US global power.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia/index.html?sr=twCNN091516putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia0454PMVODtop

So the progressive, Marxist Left has found a useful whipping post along with Trump. But of course it is only for campaign election purposes. At the very same time, Kerry was making a “cease fire” deal on Syria.

Obama, after all, followed the Kremlin footsteps on Syria. Leading from behind the iron kurtain. They couldn’t have asked for a better stooge. And Obama promised Medvedev and Putin “flexibility” in 2012. Now they are collecting.

Suddenly, the Leftists awoke to see Russia scare everywhere. Gee, I wonder what could have sparked that? Now they see Russia directly involved in our election.

Well, that’s odd, considering Obama and the entire left mocked Trump for mentioning election fraud problems in our system. In a grand speech from the White House, Obama said Trump didn’t even have a valid concern until after the election.

Finally, Hillary found something other than the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy to blame. Russia has already coined a new term for it called Russiaphobia.

Now the Red Scare is back with a vengence, temporarily anyway. Hackers in Russia have nothing over the political hacks here on the left. Maybe Russia will start running ads?

Polls, Hillary, and Goldman Sachs

Polls are up in Trump’s favor, email problems plague Hillary, she has endless coughing fits, she’s hoarse, she leaves her campaign for extended periods, she has a record she can’t run or hide from, she can’t be trusted, she lies, she doesn’t have press conferences and she’s obsessed with Donald Trumps taxes. Which one of those does not fit in the picture?

Hillary’s real 3am phone call came in 2013. Probably a conference call with Goldman Sachs, hedgefunders and George Soros on the red line…. offering her 225 thousand dollars for a speech. She took the call, set up the speech — mission accomplished.

The call from Benghazi and Chris Stevens, not so much. Maybe that line was busy?

Newsflash: now Goldman Sachs forbids its top 1% of employees from donating “to “any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official,” which also applies to donating to Trump — or “governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket.” (those speeches must have been worth it)

But now I wonder what their policy is on paid speeches?

Aside from the politics of it all, I smell a big First Amendment case here.