Joey Pissing In The Wind

by Bullright

Thanks to Fox comes this article on Bidenflation and Bidenomics.

Liz Peek writes:

“Biden loses control of inflation, and the trust of American people — Americans have lost faith in government, leading to The Great Distrust”

I call it The Great Distrust. Simply stated, Americans have lost their confidence in our leaders, our institutions (think FBI, Congress, public education, CDC etc.) and, most especially, our president. We are trying to keep our balance on an ever-shakier foundation, trying to move forward as the pillars of our country are eaten away by a rising tide of political discord and dishonesty.

Biden continuing to blame Putin for inflationVideo
At the heart of that corrosion: President Joe Biden
Consider Biden’s recent speech at the Port of Los Angeles, where he addressed inflation which he alternately called his “top economic priority” and “Putin’s tax on both food and gas.”

  1. “Millions of Americans are moving up to better jobs and better pay.” Actually, real wages tumbled 3% over the past year.

  2. “And since I took office, families are carrying less debt on average in America. They have more savings than they’ve had.” Reality: debt is rising and personal savings are falling.

  3. “What economists call ‘core inflation’ — moderated the last two months.” Reality: core inflation of 0.6% in June remained at the highest level recorded over the past six months.

“First up, is not admitting that spending $1.9 trillion from the Democrat-only American Rescue Plan ignited inflation.

[*Then telling us he will now decrease the budget deficit by 1.7 trillion. ]

When Biden signed that bill, spewing hundreds of billions of dollars to Americans sitting on $2.5 trillion in excess savings, the country was growing at 6% and recovering rapidly from the COVID-19-induced downturn. Biden claims the economy was on the brink of recession when he took office and required the lavish handouts; that is not true.”

Read at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-control-inflation-trust-american-people

Welcome to Biden’s Amerika. Lying is the specialty.

Biden Disapproval Chart

by Bullright

So here is a look at Biden’s approval trajectory. Notice the obvious intersection at about Aug 29, 2021. What happened then, I wonder?  From there it is all downhill.

(Credit to FiveThirtyEight.com for chart)

 

Quinnipiac now has him at 33%. (and we know the error rate in polls for Dems)

Wow, pretty soon Biden’s approval number is going to intersect with Paul Pelosi’s alcohol levels. But it is nice too see Joe heading a “just say no” campaign.

Many Dems are saying ‘no to Joe’ in 2024.

“Mr Axelrod was one of 50 Democrat officials interviewed by the Times over their “frustrations” about Mr Biden.”

Do you think Joe has enough gas left in his tank to run in ’24?
He looks like he’s running on fumes now.

Well, Biden is not alone anyway. Cratering along with Joe’s approvals is public trust in government, to ‘do the right thing’. According to Pew Research:

“Public trust in government remains low, as it has for much of the 21st century. Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (19%). Trust in the government has declined somewhat since last year, when 24% said they could trust the government at least most of the time.”

 

Biden Doctrine Of Open Stupidity

by Bullright

A Biden doctrine emerged from smoldering ashes of public unity. It is to “do something wrong.” No matter what the issue or problem, the answer is just do something wrong.

Everywhere it is clear: open borders, war on energy to inflict pain on the people, undermine national security, poison the economy with every harmful action, to military, gun control, or their Ministry of Disinformation. Then complain about racism and inequity everywhere, while creating it in everything with their agenda.

Flashback to Obama-Biden years, their doctrine was don’t do stupid shit. But unlike what it said, it did not mean that they were not doing dumb stuff. It was only meant to provide an assumption that they were not doing stupid shit intentionally. It was a cover doctrine so you could not possibly think they intended to do something stupid. You get the idea.

But now the mask is off. That was a negative rule to not do something. Now we have a positive rule to actually do something wrong, knowing full well it is wrong and will have negative consequences. Except sell it as the right thing to do, or the only valid option.

Before, they wanted the perception of trying to avoid negative consequences, even though we caught on soon after Obama began. Those days are gone and today they are all about inviting bad consequences as a political agenda, with no apologies. They freely admit it, telling us it is necessary for the big-green transition — which is inherently wrong.

When the consequences do come, then just deny those were their goals. But the policies as they inflict them on us are very intentional. Deny the consequences until you can’t.

Never mind sending in the clowns, just “let Joe be Joe” and make him the clown.
“The commander of nothing,” as Newt calls him.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Schumer’s Whirlwind Shows Up

by Bullright

Remember when Senator Schumer attacked and threatened the Supreme Court Justices, calling out Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name at a rally outside the Court?

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I wanna tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwinds and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you….. if you go through with these awful decisions!”

One of Schumer’s whirlwinds showed up at Justice Kavanaugh’s home early Wednesday, prepared to assassinate Kavanaugh and possibly his family. He was arrested.

Just tell them Schumer sent you, that ought to take of it. No harm no foul.  Schumer was silent Wednesday and Mitch McConnell relayed the story in the Senate.

Bad Trip Down The H Corridor

by Bullright

I’m guessing that, at one time, most Americans have had one of those road trips that turns out so bad it becomes the butt of jokes, and a moniker for where you don’t want to go.

Bad trips I’ve had a few.

It serves the memory as a place holder for trips best not taken, for any reason. “Don’t do it.” And so it goes. I’ve had a few of them myself even if I have not been an avid traveler. Some of them were not a destination but a curse. I couldn’t wait to get out of there vowing to never to repeat the mistake of however I wound up there. Was it a wrong turn or a vortex I got sucked into?

I even took my wife on a few of them. Sure, they were usually good for a few laughs much later though there were valuable lessons learned, namely to never repeat it.  “The swamp, who knew that was there?” At least on some occasions I had bad vibes about the trip beforehand but said maybe it won’t be that bad? Get it over with.

I realize now that the proverbial bad road trip has become an apt metaphor for the Joe Biden presidency. You were somehow roped into going, or held hostage in the vehicle, and away you went on Joey’s spiteful adventure — destination unknown.

So you buckle up and try to make the most of the passage of time, which hopefully should bring an end to this stupid road tour. A barf bag would be helpful though it was never included in the package. So an ability to improvise was always a helpful asset.

The only nostalgia it has is to make you appreciate your departure point all the more. Oh, if one could only roll back the clock like it never happened? But no, it was too late for that now. You are at the mercy, or torture, of Joe Biden’s travel agency from hell. All you want to do is leave but you can’t, as if locked into a serial nightmare with your eyes glued shut. So there you are a hostage to his crazy itinerary, whatever the hell it actually leads to.

So complaining doesn’t do any good. In fact, it only incites determined perpetrators.

There is no amount of safety equipment that could prevent the inevitable calamity awaiting you ahead. Nothing can stop it. So this little metaphor goes on and on. It doesn’t seem to have an end like that nightmare. New plots keep rolling out as you try to thwart them to no avail. Disgust builds. You almost feel will being torn away.

Until suddenly you realize it is not just a real bad road trip but probably your last trip, anywhere. And there doesn’t appear to be anything you can do about it. No hotline or 911 to call for rescue. But that is just how you feel.

I hesitate to say there is no good end. Lessons learned are pointless because you should never have been there in the first place. It should not have happened, period.

Since we are here on the cusp of Memorial Day, when typical trips normally get started, it is worth considering the trip we are already on. Dragged kicking and screaming, against our moral will to somewhere dark and more uninviting than even the host.

Whatever our own plans were don’t seem to matter now, or are buried in the rear view.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Pete Buttigieg: hold my boob.

by Bullright

You just knew it would happen. The never ready for prime time Pete Buttigieg had to go there on the baby formula thing. He said it really has affected him too.

Buttigieg, who is openly gay, is the father of twins after adopting the newly born babies in September. The Daily Mail regaled about how “the baby formula shortage is affecting him and his husband Chasten as they have had to ‘root around’ and talk to friends out of state to get food for their nine-month old twins.”

“Like millions of Americans we’ve had to root around find different solutions. Spend more time clicking and clicking online – even get in touch with relatives out of state. We’re okay we’ve figured it out at least for now,” Pete Buttigieg told Sirius XM.

Look we knew he was really a boob but this is taking things a little too far. Past the obvious biological problems, he suggested they’ve figured it out. Figured it out?

It’s a shortage not an internet app. And he is in the driver’s seat. (pardon the pun) Could the guy get any more dense? So did he identify with formula-challenged parents?

Pete Buttigieg says formula shortage is affecting him, too. Someone get him Bette Midler’s hotline.

But Pete is not going to miss out on popular baby formula complaints… by piling on to say: Here, hold my boob!

Agenda-Driven Agenda

by Bullright

There is a very tight circle on the Left, where their ends and the means eventually merge. We normally criticize both ends and means but aren’t they actually the same thing?

We always say the Left believes in any means toward their ends, but they are really one common goal. Their objective is to achieve political power by any means necessary. Then use the power to accomplish their political objectives, which is permanent control of power to achieve their political means. That’s a nice, cozy circular mission.

It is all one thing — a political agenda, for the purposes of political ideology. The agenda is their ideology. That may seem a minor point but it really is a major one in the art of radicalism as a means and end. We should start seeing it as the same.

The lesson is always that history repeats itself but nowhere has this theorem been more obvious than in the last few years. It’s hard to look around and ignore the signs. At a certain level it is undeniable. It should give anyone pause.

On Sunday, Mark Levin made an excellent point. The old story is that Stalin and Trotsky became rivals. Eventually Stalin finally got Trotsky killed, who believed in a permanent state of revolution. In that power-hungry world, killing one’s rivals becomes almost an inevitable necessity. What a tangled web … spoiler alert.

Anyway, the point being a perpetual state of revolution naturally has its own problems. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any nation to survive in a permanent state of revolution. But isn’t that exactly what the left pursues currently? Revolution without end. “Viva la Revolution!” (of, by and for the purpose of revolution) And isn’t that the whole point of it as well? By George, I think they’ve got it.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Accidental On Purpose

by Bullright

Allow me to ask a personal question: how could anyone politicize baby formula? But for a president and administration who could politicize everything, it only comes natural. How could it not play politics with baby formula when they’ve been playing with babies’ lives on Roe for 50 years? And they treasure every moment of their killing babies agenda.

Now that the validity of that Supreme decision is challenged by another SCOTUS decision, it’s time to ramp up politics again to keep it alive.

However, baby formula is a different thing. That doesn’t fit within the abortion agenda, so it must go on the other side of the political ledger. Bidenistas only care about babies when they belong to illegals coming across the border. Then they use babies as political weapons, feigning compassion. “No cages for babies” but, to leftists, those little tikes would have made excellent abortion candidates only a year or so earlier.

Since illegals are here already, and our responsibility, stockpile baby formula to feed them. The nation needs to have formula sent to the border to take care of illegals’ babies. Who cares about our parents or babies in the US? Who cares if our own people can’t get theirs? They don’t care about our families or children. But pull out all the stops for illegals.

Who would think our government could be so malicious toward its own people? That’s the point, who would think that? But if you don’t really like America, then how are you going to feel about the people? So if you don’t care about the people, why would you care anything about our children?

So one more time, it would be tempting to think something is wrong, there must be a mistake. But it isn’t a mistake. It is actually a success because it is exactly what they intended. The dirty little gimmick here is that people would not think this could be done on purpose, no one would do that intentionally. Oh, but they would and do.

It takes some mental training to combat it. Of course they can turn around to say “no one would want to do that intentionally.” That is the gaslighting part. Who would want to believe it is all on purpose?

We went through this with Obama. We would call it failure. They all saw it as success. The more failure we saw, the more successful they were.

Empty Shelves

The baby formula shortage has become a metaphor for the administration. There are empty shelves all over that just don’t add up. It makes you glad Biden is not in charge of stocking shelves or supplying your local stores.

He’s never worked outside the bureaucracy of the government anyway. Putting him in charge of baby formula would be like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Things could always get worse.

It’s interesting that this crowd will do anything to hasten killing babies on a moments notice — even raise money on it — but not in feeding them . That agenda needs supplied.

What is he going to do about fertilizer or other shortages coming? There is always the basement bunker which seems to hold the answer to almost everything. They see everything as a communication or messaging problem. And denial of the problems does not seem to be working lately.

Immediately, Jen Psaki resorted to blame it on hoarding. It’s called eating not hoarding. Then she suggests talking to your pediatrician. That will fix it. She said they were working on the problem for months. Apparently not successfully. But wait… that is success to them.

Empty heads

The obnoxious ‘derelict of duty’ Joe cannot let criticism of himself fester. He put out a tweet which made little sense. — but what does with Joey? “You want to bring down inflation? Let’s make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share.”

Demonizing corporate taxes is not an answer to inflation. It is a deflection, not a solution.
The CPI (consumer price index) was 1.4% when Joe took office in January, 2021. Now it is at 8.3%. What has corporate fair share got to do with inflation?

*in CPI over the year: food at home rose 10.8%. Energy 30.3%; gasoline 43.6%.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Age Of Rage

by Bullright

That is a phenomenal headline but the truth is even more outrageous. Or as Jonathan Turley has said, the Left is addicted to rage. Even worse than rage itself is their idea that they are justified in it — or by it.

We see it everywhere these days. Every opportunity the Democrat Left gets, they are in the state of rage. Usually swimming in it, triggered by everything because they live for it.

Now the only case they have to make is that the right is more of a problem than they are. That is where Biden comes in. He stood at his presidential podium decrying the ultra-MAGA agenda a half dozen times in one speech. Do we get the point? It is that we are the bigger threat, or their rage is somehow justified by us. So they are not responsible for their rage. It’s our fault. This only works for so long; it gets old fast.

“It’s a MAGA agenda all right. Let me tell you about this ultra-MAGA agenda — it’s extreme, as most MAGA things are,” Biden said from the White House, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

“What are the next things that are going to be attacked? Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history, in recent American history,” he added.

Democrats scream “keep abortion safe” while attacking their political opponents.

But then their rage knows no limits either. Yet it is always justifiable by someone else’s behavior. So all the effects and consequences of rage are our fault. If only we were not bringing it out, it could be a peaceful society. In other words, they want peace but we cause their violence. That rationalization works for them, which is all that matters.

Mention their abortion on demand platform, suddenly they are talking about rape, incest and the sanctity of abortion. No limitations. Then comes rage at Christians and Catholics.

What are the limits of their rage? There are none, there can’t be. It makes no more sense to a rational mind than their slogans. This happens as news comes that Obama is actually jealous of Biden for being more transformational than he was. In other words, Joe’s even more radical. He left Obama in the dust. Expect Barry to make the case that he laid the foundation. It could not have happened without Barack Hussein Obama.

Burns and Martin write in “This Will Not Pass,” that Obama called friends to plead his case, saying “you’ve got to understand, I was dealing with a different Democratic party, and I had more conservative Democrats.”

I don’t doubt their rage, it is all they do. Sure it is over dramatic, not to forget dangerous, but it goes along with the Left’s mental illness. Rage, blame, repeat. For 2024, who can carry the flag of rage? How large will that flag be?

“Rage and division”

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Activist Nation

by Bullright

We are now an activist nation. That is not new, or nothing you didn’t know but it has been raised to a new level. The radical left has finally attained the ultimate in activism at the judicial branch, which already had problems with activism.

The one element of the Judicial branch that retained integrity and enjoyed wide public respect was the Supreme Court. That has been eviscerated. A leaker, apparently on the staff of one of the justices, has gone rogue to reveal a majority opinion 2 months before it was supposed to be released.

Of course radicals and leftists — really the same thing — have no problems with this. In fact they celebrated the leak and leaker immediately. One Obamafile, Brian Fallon, hot on the internet response squad, noted that it is time the curtain is torn down.

“SCOTUS leaks are good. Elite lawyers on both the left and right treating the Court as precious all these years have just been giving cover to an institution that is wholly unaccountable. Rip the veil off.”

So there is not even an illusion to sacred respect for the purpose of the Supreme Court, which is to interpret law and the Constitution not create it. And Roe Wade was just that, an opinion — not law.   But nevertheless it was given the essence of law up to the point where Democrats made nominees to the Court swear on the altar of Roe v Wade.

But, as the leak portends, the Court is now prepared to issue an opinion overruling the false legitimacy and sanctity of Roe and Casey. Never mind that they were two of the worst decisions it had issued but which lasted nearly 50 years. This ruling, if it comes out that way, will remove all that. Yet the damage has been done, 50 years of it.

So the Left went to the nuclear option by blowing up the integrity of the Court to preemptively and prematurely leak a decision. The left will brand it illegitimate like everything else they disagree with. By the time it is officially rolled out, it will be stained by the protests and not be given the legitimacy it deserves — by design.

We don’t know the limits of the violence that will follow one event disgracing the Court because there are none. And all the empty slogans will flow like “this is what democracy looks like” or “no justice no peace.”

But it already set off demands to pack the court. From one egregious assault on the High Court right on to the next — at breakneck speed.

Thanks to the unjustified act of one leaker who went off like a sleeper cell in a crowded theater, the rest of us have to live with the results. An egregious act of defiance the Left cares nothing about. They were quick to politicize and weaponize it, almost as if planned. Democrats are fundraising on it.

What does all this mean?

Let’s see what the radical, Democrat Left wants for the modern day woman. They want them to be subjects of the state. They require full compliance with the government with vaccine policy — no exceptions. The radical Left wants women to turn their children over to the state under the auspices of education. No questions asked.

They want women to realize that not only do they not have autonomy over their bodies, or their children, but that women have no rightful claim even on gender or womanhood either. And for purposes of sports and women’s competition, they must be subject to men competing as women in athletics.

Today’s modern woman must have no exclusive claims on giving birth or having babies. And no individual identity. So women’s reproductive rights are not exclusive to women anymore. Having menstrual cycles are now endured by men as well.

Birthing has become a man or woman process. Personally, I’m glad they took that one back from the clutches of delusional women. Where did they ever get that exclusive idea in the first place? All these things were the accepted terms of womenhood in the past.

No more!

Leftists simply redefined what it means to be a woman. They also delegitimized biology, which is a construct of the human brain cells, not anatomy. Gender is therefore fluid and applies to any variation one deems it, despite physical anatomy.

Just call it one more breakthrough of modern science. So don’t be upset, we only expanded the possibilities and potential of the modern woman. She is an evolving species or subset of human beings.

But she is necessarily bound by the power of the state to ensure that evolution for survival. In that sense, she is dependent on the hand of the state. So she must support and vote for the Party that facilitates it all. She is mentally and physically tied to the aparatus.

Welcome to the new woman 2.0. Fluidity means fluidity. Updates to follow as necessary.

In other news: more and more men are having abortions too.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

And Away Goes Roe … potentially

by Bullright

Leftists outraged over news that the Supreme Court may be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade: ‘This decision is a direct assault on the dignity, rights, & lives of women’

The Blaze  News

Alex Nitzberg

May 02, 2022

Leftists are sounding the alarm over news that the U.S. Supreme Court could potentially be poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling when it issues a decision in a case regarding a Mississippi pro-life law.

Politico published a draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito which declares that the high court intends to overturn Roe and another decision — but nothing has been officially decided since the document is just a draft opinion, not an official ruling of the court.

“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” the draft opinion states.

 

MORE: https://www.theblaze.com/news/supreme-court-leftists-roe-wade

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

 

But

So in other words: The same people outraged about a SCOTUS draft think you choose your gender(or create one), call science undeniable, believe in birthing persons, endorse men competing in women’s sports, and want transgender theory in K-4. Just saying…

The leaker? It’s already been labeled an insurrection, legitimately.
Allow me define it: this is Institutional Terrorism.

Not So Funnies

by Bullright

Barefoot and pregnant

Now I can agree men are plenty capable of going barefoot, but getting pregnant? It’s not going to happen. Get over it.

How many genders does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two to hold it and 35 more to imagine it.

When I was 25, I decided to study abroad. 30 years later I’m still studying.

Can gender transition give you women’s intuition? Asking for a friend.

I decided to rename gender transition toxic masculinity.
Got a problem with that?

At the Pearly Gates, there is one line for entry and another for gender reassignment.

I tried to reimagine my identity once… that’s when they slapped the cuffs on.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Saving Sanity In The Biden Era?

by Bullright

The Democrats are using Orwell’s 1984 as a blueprint instead of a satire. Now they have instituted a Ministry of Truth. Of course they wouldn’t call it that, they would rather endow it with the name Misinformation Disinformation Governance Board.

Governing free speech is apparently so popular.

So they are rolling out their ministry of truth to combat, supposedly, all kinds of misinformation — or what they deem as misinformation. (anything they don’t like or agree with.) Ah, what an incestuous web they weave. What sparked this ? You might say it has been in the works a while.

Obama had truth squads and his brownshirt army who were out to keep the record straight. You had 911 Truthers to begin with, who were also part of the left.

But they now incorporated it formally into the administration. What more prominent place to put it than within Homeland Security? Since they keep repeating our greatest threat to the homeland is right-wing extremists, it gives away how they plan to use it.

You might expect such a bureau in some authoritarian regime but here it is in the US. “They’ll never get away with it” becomes another empty mantra along with all their other revisions to our government. They do it and therefore it is. Could there be a Constitutional challenge that tells them “no?” But what are the odds it will be knocked down?

Remember all the czars Obama appointed? Who would stop him? We now will have a department that codifies the network the Left has built among the Silicon Valley social media, to silence any political opposition.

And speaking of social media, what better timing for it than as Truth Social opened to the public? Could they have had that platform in mind? Then Elon Musk buys Twitter threatening their monopoly on censoring information. The Left is screaming over that like when Hillary lost the election.

Adding more insult to the left — as every Tweet from Elon now does — Musk tweeted about the political paradigm alignment. Well, the left jumped to interpret that as a defining of the country, which the Left jealously guards as their inherent right to do. Only they can define the country. So that offended them both ways.

But the image he used was simple and made a point. Here it is.

And that is all it took…. off to the races.

You might say Elon Musk also has some unorthodox ideas for Twitter, sure to set off fireworks — both literally and figuratively. But that’s a subject for another time. This is purely about the political paradigm Musk referenced.

For now, Elon swung at the fences with this image the Left was quick to try to pigeonhole. Many people agreed with his description of where he was on the spectrum of politics. (that was the purpose) The Left hyperventilated about that along with his description in the image that painted the Left as running further and further off the far left scale.

So that prompted someone like Matthew Dowd to respond with a description of where the country is. Here is that assault on reality.

Matthew Dowd
@matthewjdowd

“The truth is, yes the Dems have become more progressive as the country has, but the GOP has moved towards autocracy and further away from “equality and justice for all”. I would ask everyone to acknowledge this factual reality as they discuss the political landscape.”

8:47 AM · Apr 29, 2022

Get that, blame the country that it is going with progressives.

But we know the country got behind Trump and has trended to the conservative side of the spectrum. The country certainly is not behind the issues or ideas they have.

He wishes everyone would acknowledge that fact … er big lie? Autocracy right?

Only so much time, how sinister they really are. The pendulum has actually swung against the left. Under any poll they seem to be loosing support. But they skip down the yellow brick road acting like everyone is with them. People are running the other way.

Schools, the economy, inflation, socialism, green new deal, open borders, crime, anti-police. The people are not supporting their positions. They are running from them.

What started this defining the politics of the country syndrome? A simple Tweet from Elon Musk on his personal place on the spectrum. Though he seems to have a pretty good grip on what has happened in the country. How long till the Ministry of Truth takes on the subject to have the final “progressive” word?

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Czar Of Free Speech

by Bullright

Obama promptly gets called out for demanding gov’t intervention over ‘harmful’ online content after promoting free speech

Chris Enloe– April 22, 2022  
The Blaze

Former President Barack Obama claimed Thursday that he is “pretty close” to a First Amendment “absolutist.”

But in the same speech, Obama demanded more action from social media companies to combat “disinformation” and even suggested the federal government should get involved.

What are the details?

During a speech at Stanford University about the dangers of social media and hyper-connectivity to democracy, Obama said Big Tech needs more regulation.

Obama claimed that content moderation “doesn’t go far enough” because it does not prevent the distribution of “clearly dangerous content.”

Thus, stopping the spread of “potentially harmful content” should not be “left solely to private interests,” Obama added, explaining that Big Tech platforms “need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation.”

Obama explained what he believes that regulation should be:

A regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place, designed in consultation with tech companies, and experts and communities that are affected, including communities of color and others that sometimes are not well represented here in Silicon Valley, that will allow these companies to operate effectively while also slowing the spread of harmful content. In some cases, industry standards may replace or substitute for regulation, but regulation has to be part of the answer.

The former president said that in the same way food processors are subject to governmental regulatory inspections, so social media companies must be inspected to ensure they are “following certain safety standards that we as a country — not just them — have agreed are necessary for the greater good.”

“I’m pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist. I believe that, in most instances, the answer to bad speech is good speech,” Obama said. “I believe that the free, robust, sometimes antagonistic exchange of ideas produces better outcomes and a healthier society.”

“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by the New York Times or Fox News. Never has,” he added.

Read more https://www.theblaze.com/news/obama-promptly-gets-called-out-for-demanding-govt-intervention-over-harmful-online-content-after-promoting-free-speech#toggle-gdpr

Politicizing Petroleum Policy

by Bullright

The Putin Russia invasion of Ukraine has exposed the tender underbelly where oil intersects public policy and where war intersects climate. But the Left simply forgets that oil and energy is a national security issue.

It is fruitless to even talk about hypocrisy anymore. But in the hearings with the big oil companies, it has gone further than just hypocrisy. Democrats want it both ways. They want immediate increased production but they make no bones they want to cut the oil market completely. Last year, they wanted massive cuts in oil and fossil fuel production. All to appease their radical left, climatology political agenda. 

Democrats don’t want to cut production, they want to eliminate it. Wipe it forever off the face of the earth. So while they cry now demanding more, they actually want zero.

But consumers know the basic fact very well of a market relying on supply and demand. They know that ultra high prices require more production to alleviate those high costs. Prices may appear out of control but the industry is increasingly more controlled by government and radical politicians.

The Democrats don’t mind begging from unfriendly dictators who don’t like us much. Actually, they gave them all that leverage over us for free.

The problem is there are environmental impacts of so-called renewables. They require minerals, mining and indeed have an affect on environment. Calling them “clean renewables” is an oxymoron. Plastics are another example of endless oil products. How many plastics are incorporated into their green-dream products? And you will have the same hoarding potential and environmental difficulties in ramping up renewable markets. We already see it around the world. The same departments that control and obfuscate the oil sector will plague the renewable sector. Government control does that.

For years, people railed against a government command economy — not to be confused with supply and demand markets –for exactly that reason. It sort of takes market problems out of the equation.

At one time maybe Democrats only lusted for full control of the oil industry, the way Putin controls it in Russia. Now they simply want to eliminate it altogether. Once upon a time we called it a war on coal, then it became a war on fossil fuels and evolved into a full-blown war on energy. They claimed that was not so, but now they  boast about a war against all fossil fuel energy.

Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths; they want it both ways.

I listened to the hearings just to come away with one conclusion. If Democrats wanted to be lobbyists against big oil — for renewables — they could do that. But they are elected to Congress to represent the interests of the country. And if Joe Biden wanted to be a union organizer, like Obama, he could have been one. But that is not the job of the president.

Things that have made this country run and improved our lives for years, creating millions of jobs, are now preferred targets of society. They simply have no respect for how we got here. In fact, there is an effort to erase the entire roadmap. Well, there is always satire.

Paul Revere’s Ride

“Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five:
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow – 1807-1882

But when Paul Revere rode out to alarm fellow countrymen, his horse emitted large amounts of waste in the process. Shouldn’t we factor in the age of the horse, with how much gas and waste it produced over its lifetime? Or how many people – white, black or Native Americans — who were negatively affected by these equestrian contributions? Must not we calibrate all those numbers into a new formula? Surely, based on a quick summary, we could see that the horse negatively impacted the environment, and humans, more than it benefited us all.

So it is long past time to take some retributive actions against these equestrian terrorists of the environment. Sure, the horse might have  made Paul Revere’s trip possible but at what calamitous cost to the earth? If we only knew or realized then what we now know , we could have prevented all that pain.

Paul — the meddling silversmith and industrialist he was — did not need to make his dumb trip for starters. And that asinine horse did not need to contribute to the “equitable” decay of our environment and climate, even for generations to come. This we can see clearly now because we have been awakened to the accumulative catastrophe of our deeds. 

We did all that. Why the hell were horses not taxed for their environmental impact? No, instead we encouraged their use. This only compounded the problems. So based on any summary analysis on the subject, I can therefore say the entire horse industry contributed to the decline in our climate. That’s just a fact. Anything we can do to eliminate it, and nip the damage in the tail, would only benefit our clean American future.

Revere should have relaxed, stayed home, euthanized the damn horse, and saved us all from our current fate. What a selfish bastard he turned out to be. Well, at least they could have increased the cost of horses to an unaffordable level so no idiot would have a chance to consider such a stunt, or misguided trip. ~~ Not so satirical end.


However, even more egregious with oil, they don’t want to just eliminate the industry, they want to politicize the entire industry. We’ve seen this in every government agency. Now they want to do the same thing to virtually every company, especially big oil.

How that shakes out is demonstrated in the hearings themselves. Democrats bring CEOs in to rip them apart and demand they do this or that. So it automatically pairs Republicans with oil companies. After all, we are the only ones who believe they should exist.

Democrats have accused the oil companies of manipulating the market prices and profiteering, taking advantage of crises and current events. Democrats’ answer to those charges and high prices is to release the SPRO to manipulate market prices.

The other obvious conclusion is this shows why we do not ever want government in complete control of our energy, or companies who provide it. One day they want to cut supply and the next they want it increased, based primarily on their political objectives. That’s the way they run everything else they control, immigration for instance.

So then, what would it take to get rid of exorbitant high fuel prices? Get rid of half of Congress that has a fatwa against the industry. Then replace a radicalized president who cares more about his family’s lucrative income than America’s national security.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Cancel Student Debt?

by Bullright

See if I can understand how this idea works. These people believed in getting a college degree in order to get 6 or 7 figure incomes. So that’s why the rest of us need to payoff their student debt?

And was this economic theory taught in these expensive degree courses we all must pay for? I think we deserve to know that at least.

So did they get the course on gender fluidity with it or was that extra?

 

 
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

The SOAF Doctrine

by Bullright

Everyone in the world knows what MAGA means thanks to Donald Trump. But now the Democrats have developed a new doctrine of their own. It is more insidious.

Democrats don’t brag about theirs, they just support it on all issues. In layman’s terms it is Screw America first. Or if you want to translate it: Sellout America First (SOAF) doctrine.

How’s that pan out in serious issues? Here’s only one example.

Their war on energy policy is actually kneecapping America. Yeah, the new green deal and all that is true but in the meantime it is even more malicious at the core.

Joey first restricts and constrains our new oil production any way possible. They’ve already done a stunning job at that. Then he uses Putin’s war on Ukraine as a justification to deplete – not drawdown or tap into – the strategic petroleum reserve. (SPRO) 180 million barrels over 6 months, conveniently before midterms as an extra political bonus.

Of course AOC and the Loony Left let it be known, they have no interest in refilling it later. They believe it is entirely unnecessary anyway and only want to deplete it.

That mad little Russian dictator, Vlad the Bad, could not have asked for more. It’s exactly what he’s been pushing for years So two birds with one shot, Joe appeases the wild green left and Russia, along with other tyrants, at the same time.

For the militant green freaks, this could not be better. First they loved the price spike to 5 bucks a gallon. It doesn’t even matter why. They liked all Joe’s restrictive energy policies, too, making new production into a fantasy. But then you put that together with depleting our national security preserve and what do you get?

You get less and less energy, regardless if it looks like you are begging other countries to produce more, as cover. Then we will have no choice but to rely on anything else, like their energy fantasies, except for fossil fuels. That’s one way to knock fossils fuels off our demand. Then you have to do all the crazy things they want , you have no choice.

It all fits into their crazy war on energy strategy perfectly. No matter the consequences, it is all a process of force. There is no way back once you go down the road. Then tear out any options to their green deal. That is their preferred method to everything, force.

You simply will have no choice, nor an emergency relief valve for when the SHTF.

 
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Putin’s Duds Of Destruction

by Bullright

The Telegraph – “Ukraine war: Putin’s invasion stalling because majority of ‘dud’ bombs are failing to explode”

Also a Russian General who said the “special operation” would be over quickly has been killed in Ukraine. So it is now up to 15 top Generals and Russian military commanders that were killed by Ukrainians. Well, well.

https://news.yahoo.com/russian-general-said-ukraine-invasion-162705478.html

“[Gen]Rezantsev had reportedly told his men on the fourth day of their deployment that the so-called “special operation” would be over quickly. One soldier said: “Do you know what he told us? ‘It’s no secret to anyone that there are only a few hours until this special operation is over.’ And now those hours are still going.” “

Categorizing War

by Bullright

Sitting peacefully by the waterfront pondering what are the answers? But what are the questions? Are the ripples on the water the answers or the questions? Is the stone that made them the real problem?

That is hardly over dramatic, considering the circumstances or news feeds.
 
It strikes me as odd that for years we have been accused of being Russian trolls only to come face to face with real Russian propaganda. It is even worse than the fear mongers perceptions of it were. But forget past accusations, even NYT admitted denials about Biden were lies. It takes a war to uncover that bullshit.

Even a 4-year fake narrative – concocted by media and operatives here – was widely accepted by some until recently. But debunked doesn’t make it into the narrative.

Now we got a glimpse of what Russia and Putin are actually up to. It is so bad that some don’t even want to believe this reality could be true. There is a lot of denial out there – whatever the origins. Stories even surface of Russia abducting children from Ukraine.

So we have two factions, according to public consensus in media anyway. One side is anti-war and the other being the neo’s – with each side being defined by their opponents respectively.

It boils down to anti-war siding with Putin, they claim, and the other war faction opposes him. Things are not always what they appear.

One thing I despise is broad brushing large groups, just like pigeon-holing people into identity groups. Even when they don’t fit. Also some of us want to oversimplify, even when it is as complex as war. Yet some wars defy all those stereotypes.

The two sides, under their paradigm, come down to two quandaries. The anti-war side saying no war at any cost. The other neocon (neoliberal) side presumably sees no war it can refuse. Both stereotypes are a mission impossible to me.

The antiwar side must realize there can eventually be conditions which you cannot repel from a war. And the neo-side must realize that there are times when you have to resist the impulse to go to war. Those sound more authentic than their common ideological perceptions.

 

On the upside, it has to be an incredibly interesting time to be a psychologist or therapist today with this plethora of issues on which to blame human behavior problems or anxiety. I mean is this a rich climate or what? It is a psychological smorgasbord out there, probably no better time for psychology.

That is not to make light of mental problems. Though the war stand is a fascinating thing to the human psyche.

 
I saw one man talking about how he was always an ideological antiwar guy but he finally rejected that position and went to Ukraine to help. He said the antiwar stand no longer made rational sense to him, and never will again. I can understand that.

Still there is the other neocon side. They are fighting the impulses to see the reasons to jump headlong into a hot war. Because, with the dismal record over the last 20 years, they cannot now justify a pro-war position.

But one area everyone seems to agree on now, from both camps, is doing what they can do to help the victims of this unjustified invasion. Give them real aid and supply what they need to repel an invasion.

There are many who believe in negotiating at all costs to bring a solution, to be agreed on by both sides. But what if you have one party who is unwilling to agree on anything? That party, the invader, wanted war from the beginning and why they declared it.

Antiwar idealists have to come to terms that doing nothing in the face of this evil is condoning it, maybe even perpetuating it.

Then you have those idealists who say continuing aid and supplying victims only draws out the “inevitable” result. But isn’t that the same as conceding to the evil? The only benefit they point to is that it ends quicker and maybe not as many people are killed.

The bitch of all this is that we have seen all these conditions before but we looked the other way and ignored them – genocides and brutal slaughters, besides WWII. But they still happened. True we never got involved in those the way we are getting involved helping the Ukrainians. So this is a bad thing? It doesn’t follow.

Apparently much of the world knows this will not end well if we just sit back and do nothing. Again, that is not a bad thing to accept.

Sure, we have our own problems at home too. Well, you could probably always make that claim. We have severe problems. No, I don’t want to see this become only a diversion from those problems. But I don’t want those other problems to make it impossible to do what we can in this war. I guess by now you can see I am trying to be objective, even if I know one side is correct.

There is also another matter. I’ve seen lots of newsletters from Christian organizations who claim to see it one way too. They only accept the antiwar side as moral. I have problems with that. I heard it from the same folks before, no war is ever justified.

There were plenty of them around at the time of the Revolution who said just chill and stay with the King. That is best. So why is it they cannot oppose authoritarian power? How is that God’s will? But during the Revolution some sided with the King, making them opponents to settlers. They were not conscientious objectors; they actively opposed a new free country. Consequences of actions?

 
The details of the Ukraine invasion are bad enough on a daily basis, but the circumstances are just as bad.

For instance, a man takes his army into another country and starts making all kinds of demands. He declares the country needs to be demilitarized and denazified. He bombs and destroys large swaths of its structures killing thousands of civilians. He particularly aims at civilians, hospitals etc. He pushes millions of the residents out.

He claims the reason he is doing it is due to threats he perceives from them and his neighbors. He plots to kill the leaders of the country or run them out. He wants to install his own people. (Democracy and sovereignty be damned) He dictates the conditions on anyone giving them aid, or interfering. In effect, he acts like he owns the place without having any legitimate authority.

He claims the sovereign country has no right of self-determination at all.
Where have I heard that?

 
_________________________________________________________

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 — (New King James Version)

“To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:
A time to be born, And a time to die;
A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted;
A time to kill, And a time to heal;
A time to break down, And a time to build up;
A time to weep, And a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, And a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to gain, And a time to lose;
A time to keep, And a time to throw away;
A time to tear, And a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, And a time to speak;
A time to love, And a time to hate;
A time of war, And a time of peace.”
(NKJV)

 
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

No Greater Love Has A Man

by Bullright

 

At a certain point a man can become a prisoner to his ideas. He can also become a hostage to his ideology. Then no amount of ransom will do.

What bothers me in this war, as with many issues, is not the issue itself but the surrounding discussion, or lack of it. In the greater conversation, it reveals what is important to us as a society.

Maybe I am as fascinated by the reaction as the event itself. Either is disturbing. I could make a list of items that bother me about this war, as provocative and unjustified as it is.

For example, we value peace and Russia values war. You could not have two things more diametrically opposed. We value security and they value war of might.

Might makes right in their minds.

We value life; they affix value to the cost of killing and particularly innocent civilians. We strive to limit conflict and prefer resolution; they strive to escalate conflict to achieve their goals and deter resolution. They don’t care about the methods used to achieve their desired ends. We make moral judgments where they endorse immoral means. Morality is not a principle to them but only a tool to use against their enemy.

We value saving lives and they put value on killing lives. Maybe it is inherent in their DNA, but that is further than I want to go here.

So in the conversation or reporting on the details of this evil war, without a wider discussion much gets lost in the details. That is not to minimize the details of the war at all. They are critical to the record. However, one has to rise above that to ideals that bind people and unify them. A lack of that today is what does bother me.

You think of Churchill and others who rose to the times, but then you look at leaders today. That is what people see in Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy – regardless what you thought of him before – a man who could speak on moral grounds without fear. That in the face of a brutal war is commendable. It is real not a façade.

There is a complete lack of that by our leaders today. Since they are so used to speaking on political terms, win or lose, they lost touch with moral principle or just plain don’t care. Politics has become the only unifying ideal to them. That is what is wrong with us.

But we are still the same people at heart that we were in past times. Most of us are capable of seeing moral principle even if they don’t. We can’t dismiss it. That principle still unites, as Trump proved.

We long to hear someone like Ukraine’s president talk of moral terms about war, speaking to the justification of peace not might. It still stirs the passion of people, so all is not lost. A pity our own leaders could not take a cue from him to rise above political or ideological narrative. Churchill did it but they later tossed him out, used and discarded.

You wonder what Zelenskyy’s future will be whenever this is over, if it does end? But he will be known as one who rose to the times, not fled from them, stood firm in the face of aggression not appeased it. One who made use of his voice for a higher purpose than a self-serving political career. Now who could fault him for that? Who could fault Churchill for what he did?

Another problem evident in this whole mess is a concept. When we say no one likes war that is not entirely true as we see with Russia. Some of us wish we could abolish war. Would that we could. (enter hideous Jennifer Granholm laugh here)

Something has changed since WWII, not to exclude the wars since – even if they did not call them that. Somewhere the entire debate and problem turned into a diatribe about WWIII. We are to avoid it at all costs. It is always noble and good to avoid war, except that alone has become the overarching goal. Anything to avoid a world war or WWIII. Avoiding WWIII is not a policy.

But that translates into allowing anything under the auspices of avoiding a WWIII. And Russia is very attuned to that sentiment. Translate that to “these people will accept or endure anything rather than have WWIII.” So WWIII has become the enemy, not real circumstances. It has turned into the main problem not a solution. But WWII is what finally ended the rise of Hitler. No one wanted it, even at the time, but it became the means to end Hitler’s final solution.

I only say that because today it has become the central problem. That is not fair to the legacy of WWII or the people that fought it. A lot can be learned about the brutality of war, and we should wish to avoid it. And weigh the cost carefully. Maybe much has changed because of the nuclear deterrent. But can it not be used negatively in the same way? I think it already is, at least by Russia. They extort it.

So World War as defined has become the greatest enemy. But when World War is the chief enemy, everything else becomes acceptable and tolerable. That even allows for threats of nuclear war, as Putin is demonstrating. It is now a cudgel. Could a mushroom cloud be preferable to a World War? That is the provocative calculation they are making.

We now hear that Russia’s doctrine is escalate to deescalate. What a twist. They believe in escalating as a means, in order to to force appeasement. Put nuclear weapons into that doctrine and you have a toxic mix.

So instead of World War being a deterrent, it becomes an excuse for any type war short of that. Just as long as it isn’t, or certainly must not lead to a World War. It is hard to wrap your mind around the rationalization for war. A World War turns from ultimate solution into the high bar. That philosophy should seem scary.

I mean we have lived in a post World War world for decades. It’s like telling a cop that he must never confront a killer because we know where that might lead. Can’t be too safe, you know. And if we don’t believe in the process of charging him, it may be best to let it be.

If Washington is not going to do anything about our spending problems, then maybe we should not worry about spending. In fact, that sounds like an ideal excuse to do more spending. See the way deterrents and accountability work, or should work? Take away that deterrent and you have chaos. If you simply say that we will never have world war again, we have compromised the deterrent. If we say we would never fire a nuclear weapon under any conditions, then we lost the deterrent. When there is no justice there can be nothing but chaos.

Some may not like that system but those are the guidelines to preserving a civilized world. And some don’t like it.

Whatever the stakes, whatever it takes, we must accept anything to avoid World War 3. A new doctrine has emerged.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022