Tag Archives: transparency

Transparentless

by Bullright

Some people may wonder why all I talk about is politics. The answer is simple. When I was  20, if you asked me if I would be talking about politics, I would have laughed and said that will be the day everything else is off the table. But that is what happened, everything else has been removed and politics is the only thing left. I didn’t make those rules.

This is because everything has been usurped by politics. Virtually everything you see now is either chronically affected or controlled by politics. It offends me. So that is my gripe, rather than my mission of only politics.

Now there is one secret strategy I want to mention. When Trump was in office, all the talk was about transparency. Remember that great thing? Obama boasted about being transparent. (There’s a big difference between Obama and Trump transparency.)

Trump talked about what he would do and then set out about doing it. Everything he did amounted to questions asked or explanations about it. Sort of simple, isn’t it? Transparency is making the case and doing the job. They all should have loved that and mostly did. But some for mixed reasons.

Biden on the other hand is showing us the left’s idea of transparency. (or duck and cover) The strategy there is you don’t talk about what you are going to do. You don’t say exactly what your plans are. No, you just do it. Why is that a strategy?

Well, everything Biden has done is the most radical agenda we have ever seen. Much of it may not be popular with the people. Still, just doing it requires their opponents to react and call attention to it. See, these radicals just do it often without telling you. When people see it, they have to point it out and react to it. (usually after the fact) But if no one does react, oh well.  They don’t want the debate about it beforehand because you can assemble opposition and criticize it, which makes the public aware of the plans.

But if they say nothing, then you have to find out, explain it, argue against it, raise the public’s attention about it; all after the fact. It is not that it is too late to do anything, but that you are challenged just to break through about its importance  from the beginning. So they say nothing and carry out their sinister agenda. Media assists their silence. That leaves you to discover their plans and point out their dirty deeds in the first place. They certainly don’t want to announce them to the whole public.

If you do oppose them, they have already plotted out their talking points to rebut any attacks. Yes, it is a stealth strategy but what do you expect from the commie left? They are about power and control, or using it, not defending their ideas. You want a debate, they only want the power. Transparency becomes another redefined word. They claim after the fact, when you find out about it, that it is all transparent.

With Trump, it was talked about first so they could critique it. Media loved that. So they could broadly attack Trump’s plan beforehand. Biden would have no patience for that.

CNN is reporting that Lying Biden’s speech will showcase his “moderate radicalism”.
What is that? More transparency, of course, served with a side order of secrecy.

They just make this stuff up as they go, new terms new definitions.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

The most irritating two words

by Bullright

Democrats use so much language that really offends me, but there are two words that stand out as probably the most irritating.

Every time you hear the Democrats cry about needing this legislation, regulation or that bureaucracy those same two words rear their ugly head almost every time.

The words are Common Sense:–“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

One of the biggest culprits of this egregious offense is Hillary. She loves those words and works the phrase into almost any issue. The more unpleasant the issue or their ideas are, the more they use the words common sense to cover their butts and detract from their ideas. If the ideas aren’t popular, then throw out the word common sense a lot. Ask a Democrat their position on a very difficult and controversial issue and you are sooner or later likely to get the standard “I support a common sense approach.” Does it tell you anything? Does it define their position? Well, I suppose it defines the fact that they want to be sneaky and slippery about the issue. It sounds so good.

And that is exactly the problem, it sounds good to way too many people. First, the idea that these people are actually guided by common sense is ludicrous. I mean if there were a competition for lies that would be in the top 10. Or then the idea that whatever approach they do take must be therefore based on common sense because they told you they support a common sense approach. It’s crazy. Second, they are filler words; or it’s more like an empty vessel into which they can pour anything they want under that label. Want to buy affordable healthcare anyone? That’s the kind of plan those words are cover for.

The latest case in point is Hillary using them in her response about gun control. She said:

“It makes no sense that bipartisan legislation to require universal background checks would fail in Congress despite overwhelming bipartisan support. It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense, and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.”

“The president is right — the politics on this issue have been poison. But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear, and I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”

All that sense from someone who obfuscates and hides the truth about Benghazi, a person who short circuited the State department by having her private email server. Someone who ran around blaming a video no one had seen for an attack, and telling the victims family they would get the guy who made it.

A person who scolded Congress “what difference at this point does it make” in response to questions on the Benghazi terrorist attack. This professor of “common sense” is lecturing everyone on what “makes no sense”, after scrubbing her private server clean after email requests on Benghazi – where an ambassador and 3 Americans were killed under her authority, while setting up an outpost under her orders.
“Once again racist rhetoric has metastasized into racist violence,” then she dove into race issues of the Charleston shootings. “America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”

For a little background from Dan O’Donnell at 1130 -WISN:

Even as her husband’s term in office was ending, Hillary was still trying to profit from it. She had furniture from the White House shipped to her personal home in Chappaqua, New York. She said they were donated, but when the manufacturers were contacted, it became clear that they were donated to the White House, not the Clintons, and meant to stay there. — Read more

But remember at that time the real story Hillary claimed news should be covering was the vast right-wing conspiracy, which was after her and her husband for all their escapades. This is probably the phoniest woman on the planet, lecturing on moral high ground.

At Texas Southern University earlier in June, Hillary said.

“Now, all of these reforms, from expanded early voting to modernized registration, are common sense ways to strengthen our democracy. But I’ll be candid here, none of them will come easily.”

But apparently real common sense does not come easily or frequently to Hillary Clinton.

Lecturing about law enforcement’s need to use cameras for “transparency“ she said,

“It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens. For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more than remained invisible. Not every problem can be or will be prevented by cameras but this is a common sense step we should take.”

So it’s “common sense,” we need cameras on Hillary Clinton to provide transparency.

Obama’s touchstones, breaking badder

by Bullright


“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”.

Touchstone:

(assaying tool), a stone used to identify precious metals; or (metaphor) a means of assaying relative merits of a concept

1: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal
2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing
3: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature — merriam-webster

There’s nothing wrong with transparency and rule of law. Just that Obama has to pervert them to suit his personal needs like he does everything else. Then, you probably thought you knew what “transparency” meant.

But in this case, transparency actually now means the opposite: spying on citizens, concealing the truth about Benghazi, or lying when convenient –especially for political gain, Obamacare and its roll out, denying scandals as “phony scandals”, or that IRS was engaged in political activism. Or ignoring and dismissing a problem he previously railed against as a priority.  

So  transparency can mean denial of a problem and necessary cover-up that one even exists. Luckily, transparency is also alive and well in the Dep. of Justice — not. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for failure to comply. Now it can mean selective transparency when you want something known, like details of the bin Laden mission or CIA chief in Afghanistan, accusations about your political enemies, or spying and accusations on a reporter, or revenge for an unfavorable documentary. And feeling politically justified for it all — even the contempt.
 

Rule of Law: one does not have to return to Blackstone commentaries to define rule of law. It’s sort of self-explanatory. (Wikipedia)

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined “rule of law” this way:

“The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

O-translation: ‘whatever I say or decide the rule of law is at any particular time’.
 
Wikiquote

The term to “break bad” is American Southeast slang meaning to turn against one’s previously lawful lifestyle for one of criminal acts, usually at the cost of someone else’s life or well-being.

Obama could not abandon what he was never constrained by, so he’s ‘breaking badder’.

It sounded better than “cronyism, lies and corruption will be my touchstones.” Obama’s words fit his penchant for making factually inaccurate statements, then repeatedly lying to try to validate them. Benghazi and ObamaCare are text book examples. The border crisis demonstrates his lawlessness and insincerity for the “rule of law”.

RightRing | Bullright

IRS scandal wider problem

by Bullright

Caution: Government at Work.
 

National Organization for Marriage Renews Demand That IRS Come Clean On Stolen and Leaked Tax Return; Seeks Investigation Into Possible White House or Obama Campaign Role

May 13, 2013
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —
National Organization for Marriage
Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today renewed its demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the employee or employees responsible for stealing the organization’s confidential Form 990 tax return and leaking it to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). At the time of the theft, the HRC had long-sought to know the identity of NOM’s major donors and its chief executive was a co-chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. The Form 990 that was leaked to the HRC contained the identity of numerous major donors to the organization.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
In March 2012 the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post published NOM’s Form 990 Schedule B from 2008 containing the identity of dozens of donors. The HRC claimed the tax return was provided by a ‘whistleblower.’ For months previous to the publication, the HRC had been demanding that NOM publicly release this confidential information even though federal law protects the identity of contributors to nonprofit groups. The publication of NOM’s tax return occurred just a few months after Joseph Solmonese, then president of the HRC, was appointed a national co-chair of the Obama reelection campaign. An analysis of the published documents shows that they could only have originated with the IRS.
“We’ve seen in recent days an admission that the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups for harassment and scrutiny,” Brown said, “but what NOM has experienced suggests that problems at the IRS are potentially far more serious than even these latest revelations reveal.”
http://www.nomblog.com/35132

 

Background [summary]: On March 30, 2012, the Huffington Post published NOM’s confidential 2008 tax return filed with the IRS, which it said came from the Human Rights Campaign. The HRC has said on its own site the documents came from a “whistleblower.” However, NOM has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

 

Obama’s statements on it add more insult to injury.  Meanwhile Obama’s campaign gone wild turned Organizing for Action, his self-lobbying advocacy network, proudly enjoys its tax exempt status. There must be quite a market for this information.

Need anyone remind people this is to be the enforcer, watchdog agent for ObamaCare.  Let’s see how he tries to cover this one up.