Just Right Media

Home
Just Right Media

We analyze issues of the day from the perceptive of individual rights & capitalism. Our radio show b Everything in the show ties to this lesson or concept.

From a listener

"As you guys know I’m a huge fan of Just Right, and I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately; what is it about Just Right that is so appealing to me and what is that magic element that is missing from all other podcasts? I’ve realized over time, that what sets Just Right apart, and this has not changed since episode #1, is that there is ALWAYS an organized, well thought out, c

ompelling and significant lesson. With the addition of Robert, there are often two concepts, making him such a great addition. I would imagine that it’s this part of any podcast / presentation, that takes all the effort and thought ! "Contrast this to other podcasts…..in politics and philosophy, generally they are unorganized, the lessons are scattered and improvised and somewhat repetitious. Not to say that they have nothing to offer, but the majority of them don’t require a second listen and if they do, there is a lot of fast forwarding to get to the good part. Just Right has some similarity to other types of shows, like weird and wonderful fact shows (Stuff You Should Know Series, BBC, CBC), in that they are organized like Just Right, however, the content is rather insignificant, non-controversial and often just plain wrong, scattered and confused. I get so ticked off with CBC sometimes, like the other day the Title was “Fascism, can it happen here?”, and they start the show with snippets of Trump speeches and move on from there interviewing progressive, “experts”, never once asking what Fascism is to begin with….absolute garbage. "Anyway, just wanted to tell you that with every show, I learn something, and this “something” is always significant, that I ponder for days, weeks and even years. It really is a unique experience that enriches my life greatly, which is why I support the show in what I consider to be an insignificant way……which is the point I guess, otherwise it would be a sacrifice……LOL! Thanks again guys!"

Murray T.

08/10/2025

Eye witness—to a bloodless assassination? "Don't believe your own lying eyes," has been a common response to visual 'evidence' used to create a narrative that simply doesn't make sense. If ever there was a test of this bromide, it is the growing number of speculative accounts and 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Currently, the most alarming observation to surface is the reported lack of blood at the crime scene, something quite inconsistent with the visuals of blood seen streaming profusely from the neck of Charlie Kirk at the moment of his being shot. This has been observed and commented on by a variety of very different bloggers and podcasters, each with his/her own unique perspective and interpretation of what is being witnessed.

In this age of eye witness accounts, one must be extraordinarily cautious about what is accepted as the truth; discernment is the rule.

Given that revelations of past assassinations in American history continue to be released decades following the events themselves, it shouldn't be surprising that the Kirk assassination has been viewed with a skepticism drawn from a deep distrust of those providing the official narratives.

Perhaps the most frustrating conclusion to draw from all of this is that when it comes to establishing an assassination narrative about Charlie Kirk that is Just Right, we might have to wait another six or more decades before something resembling the 'truth' surfaces.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element "Don't believe your own lying eyes," has been a common response to visual 'evidence' used to create a narrative that simply doesn't make sense. If ever there was a test of this bromide, it is the growing number of speculative accounts and 'conspirac

01/10/2025

Losers Lefting it—by just winging it: One reason that the political polarity remains unseen by so many is because when it comes to Left and Right, most people are just winging it.

In fact, they have been 'winging' it for so long that they are at last coming to realize that each political wing is not so different from the other. U.S. General Michael Flynn has called on Americans to stop playing "this political two-party game" which, of course, was a sarcastic reference to what has been called a 'Uni-party.'

But the only way to stop playing the 'Uni-party' game is to stop 'winging it' in the political arena. What is required is a two party polarity, not party wings. That's because Left 'wing' and Right 'wing' are not so different from each other. Instead of representing individual rights and justice, each 'wing' represents a different interest group.

Traditionally, Left-wing groups restrict economic choices, limit trade and monopolize labor, while Right-wing groups restrict personal choices, control trade, and monopolize business. Those who claim to be 'middle-of-the-road' simply do both, and the 'road' all of them are on leads directly to the polarity of the Left.

The 'Uni-party,' as many have come to call it, arose on the Left as a failure of recognizing the missing polarity on the Right. An American party of principle that consistently upholds individual rights, freedom of speech, individual freedom, capitalism, and individual justice has yet to be founded.

But awakening to the fact that Left and Right are opposite polarities, not wings of a single polarity, is the first step one must take to move in the Right direction. It is also a painful awakening for many, particularly for those on the Right.

In their attempt to politically defeat the manifestations of the Left - communism, socialism, fascism, etc. - many on the Right try to avoid the use of 'Left' and 'Right' only to find themselves continually forced to do so in the absence of clear definitions.

In the binary world of electoral politics, it's not about 'we the people' versus 'authoritarianism' or other terms being used to substitute for the Left; it's about 'we the people on the Right' versus 'they the people on the Left.' Since all things Left are predicated on violence-based ideologies, any efforts by the Right towards political compromise or 'working together' become an impossibility without further moving Leftward.

Given that the Left has been successful at associating those on the Right with supposed 'extremism', racism and violence, it is understandable that many feel uncomfortable at being so labeled. For them, it is far better to be seen in the 'center' of any polarities, rather than be forced to directly confront or defend them.

There is a subtle irony in the fact that so many prefer to be identified with the 'center' of an imagined political spectrum. That's because to be objectively 'centered,' one must enter the very polarized 'Goldilocks zone' - where it is "not too hot, not too cold, but Just Right."

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element One reason that the political polarity remains unseen by so many is because when it comes to Left and Right, most people are just winging it. In fact, they have been 'winging' it for so long that they are at last coming to realize that each politic

24/09/2025

Turning Right—by awakening to the Left: The Left is in a frenzy trying to associate the assassination of Charlie Kirk with the Right, an impossibility given the evidence. But facts and evidence have never mattered to those on the Left.

Finding himself in the middle of the frenzy, late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel was briefly suspended by ABC due to his political commentary (masquerading as comedy) claiming that Kirk was assassinated by the MAGA Right. Unfortunately for Kimmel, there was no evidence to justify this and a mountain of confirmed evidence pointing to the Left.

Attempting to portray the Left as the side against violence, many are now trying to talk 'unity' and walk back some of the hateful Leftist reactions to Kirk's assassination, including Barack Hussein Obama.

In his recent fake condemnation of those who support the violence, he announced: "Let the record say that on both sides undoubtedly there are people who are extremists and who say things that are contrary to what I believe are America's core values."

Of course, the "extremist" to whom he was referring was Charlie Kirk, but "the record" actually says that all political violence emanates from the Left. Without exception. The record actually shows that there is possibly no greater enemy to America's core values than Barack Hussein Obama himself.

To justify its use of violence, the Left has gone so far as to declare words and ideas themselves to be violence, and that therefore to use physical violence 'in response' is morally acceptable.

Having failed to persuade, many on the Left are openly 'using words' to threaten physical violence - to the point of advocating the murder of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. However such 'words' should be treated as criminal and as acts of violence. But it's not the words themselves that constitute the offense, it is the announced intention of violent action that constitutes the offense.

What makes the whole controversy so fascinating is how important and critical it has become to the political Left and Right alike to determine on which side of those polarities the shooter of Charlie Kirk was. Given the number of people who continue to insist that Left and Right don't matter anymore, it is obvious that this simply is not so.

That's because Left and Right represent ideas, principles, policies and actions; they do not represent 'people' as such, even though people themselves may identify with one polarity or the other.

However, people are malleable and can change, as we have been increasingly witnessing as more identifying with the Left are now finding themselves aligning with the Right. But the concepts of Left and Right themselves never change; they define political reality and the concepts associated with tyranny of the Left and with freedom on the Right.

If there's one eternal lesson to be learned from the murder of Charlie Kirk, it is that it is always possible to kill a person but never possible to kill an idea - whether good or bad.

That is why eternal vigilance against bad ideas must never cease, to be carried from one generation to the next, not only by identifying and resisting the evil of the Left, but by identifying and supporting what is Just Right.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element The Left is in a frenzy trying to associate the assassination of Charlie Kirk with the Right, an impossibility given the evidence. But facts and evidence have never mattered to those on the Left. Finding himself in the middle of the frenzy, late-n

17/09/2025

The Charlie Kirk turning point—from ballots to bullets: Last week's assassination of Charlie Kirk sent a shock wave across the world that exposed the political polarities of Left and Right on a scale never before experienced.

An American political activist on the Right, Kirk founded the conservative organization Turning Point USA and was its executive director until his untimely demise on the Utah Valley University campus on September 10.

While the tragedy of Charlie Kirk's murder is its own horror story, a greater horror story has been the reaction of those on the Left who have celebrated his murder with calls for even more murders, including those of Kirk's wife and children.

This has presented those on the Right with a moral dilemma: how to oppose the Left without having to resort to violence. Unlike the Right, the Left does not honor the ballot box; it worships the bullet.

As Charlie Kirk himself explained: "At the core of the Left are very violent people. They always have been. They can't debate; they can't have conversations. So they resort to violent tactics because they can't beat us. This is not a joke; this is who these people are."

Soon enough, millions on the Right will recover from their shock and grief caused by the unjust and immoral act of violence that resulted in Charlie Kirk's death.

Let us hope that what they choose to do next will live up to Charlie Kirk's legacy in a way that will dramatically accelerate and expand his Turning Point mission. Perhaps then it can be said that something good will have emerged from this horrific act.

But silver linings aside, there's simply nothing about Charlie Kirk's absence that could ever be considered Just Right.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Last week's assassination of Charlie Kirk sent a shock wave across the world that exposed the political polarities of Left and Right on a scale never before experienced. An American political activist on the Right, Kirk founded the conservative org

10/09/2025

Anti-capitalists—lazy envious losers: If calling anti-capitalists lazy envious losers sounds a bit harsh, the reality is that these descriptions are nowhere near harsh enough.

You have to hear it for yourself to understand why, and thanks to Patrick Bet-David's August 31 Jubilee production, "One Capitalist versus 20 Anti-Capitalists," you can. It has stirred a storm of controversy by exposing what anti-capitalists think and say - in their own words - that make them often sound as if they have yet to emerge from the womb.

"It's such a horrible dystopian world to live in if someone has to work just to survive," emotionally protested one participant. Another declared that "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't have to be earned. We just want to exist."

Of course, the reality is that they "just want to exist" at the expense of others, who never even once are considered in their deranged ideals. In justifying their hatred of capitalism, the 'anti-capitalists' all shared a common fear, expressed as "either I work or I die."

Said one female participant: "I like to be free and that's why I'm anti-capitalist, because the incentive is survival." In reality, what she is seeking is freedom from individual responsibility, one of the most fundamental and evil motivations behind all Leftist ideologies and collectivism.

Common to all the the anti-capitalists was the refusal to work, a near psychopathic envy directed at anyone who earned 'excessive' wealth, opposition to private ownership and private property, opposition to money, opposition to the nation state, and full support of communism and socialism as the means to their utopia. If these things sound contradictory, they are. But contradictions do not matter to the Left.

It is terrifying to realize that the irrational and ridiculous ideas emanating from this handful of 'anti-capitalists' are shared by every politician on the Left, which explains the dystopian zeitgeist in which they find themselves, and which they ironically blame on capitalism.

What this group of young adults had to say was beyond alarming, and does not bode well for the future should their kind of thinking continue to destroy civilization. That is why, in our own response to their ideas and comments, we address what was never addressed during the entire Jubilee debate, a debate totally immersed in economics, finance, and money.

In any conflict with 'anti-capitalists,' we must never fail to remind both ourselves and others about why capitalism is the only economic system that is Just Right for humanity: because "capitalism is not merely the 'practical,' but the only moral system in history."

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element If calling anti-capitalists lazy envious losers sounds a bit harsh, the reality is that these descriptions are nowhere near harsh enough. You have to hear it for yourself to understand why, and thanks to Patrick Bet-David's August 31 Jubilee produc

03/09/2025

Shooting blind—at shooter motives: Given the alarming number of recent mass shootings, have we been shooting blind in our own analysis of these shooters' motives?

In attempting to zero in on the underlying cause of these once unheard-of events, one is faced with an overwhelming array of symptoms, explanations and suggested solutions.

In addition to the mass shootings at religious functions and institutions themselves, these include: mental health disorders; gender dysphoria; anti-depressant drugs; SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors); guns and weapons; law enforcement; 'safety' laws and regulations; s*xual dysfunctions; cognitive dysfunctions; atheism; Covid experimental gene therapies; Christianity; private property rights; the right to self defense; government disinformation and misinformation; medical malpractice and disinformation; thought disorders of faulty thinking; castle laws; state protection rackets; anarcho-tyranny; the right to bear arms.

While many of these concerns may seem unrelated, when one steps back for the 'big picture' view, what is particularly alarming is how so-called 'big pharma' in conjunction with intelligence agencies seem to have played a central role in the tragedies - in particular with regard to the use of drugs classified as SSRIs.

As Alex Jones reported on his August 28/25 show concerning the shooting in Minnesota and others, "almost every one of (the shooters) has been a 'trans.' This is an MI6-CIA mind control program that now has huge trans serial killer groups all over Europe, the U.S. and Canada, and they murder children and Christians and straight couples. In the last five years or so, every mass shooter has been a Satanist who is also trans."

Citing Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors used by many of the shooters, Jones reports that the mother of the Minnesota shooter not only worked at the school he targeted, but gave him his gun, after which he reportedly killed her. Most disturbing, both fathers of the shooter killed following his assassination attempt against Donald Trump and the Minnesota shooter "were behaviorist psychologists in a science field dealing with neural-interfaces" associated with intelligence agencies.

It's a scenario that sounds like an unbelievable science-fiction fantasy plot to many.

Unless we view the phenomenon of mass shootings in a way that's Just Right - by dealing with the cause rather than the symptoms - we'll always be shooting blind in our search for a solution.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Given the alarming number of recent mass shootings, have we been shooting blind in our own analysis of these shooters' motives? In attempting to zero in on the underlying cause of these once unheard-of events, one is faced with an overwhelming arra

27/08/2025

When objective isn't—there's Objectivism: Sad to say, the vast majority of people do not take philosophy seriously, even though they are helplessly in its grip. It is understandable that with with all of the competing ideologies and perspectives on the nature and purpose of human life, philosophy is seen by many simply as another religion without the element of deity - a subjective secular belief system.

Enter philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand, whose philosophy of Objectivism has a name that specifically refutes the subjective, and who since having arrived on America's philosophical frontier, established a reputation unlike that of any other philosopher. She self-identified as being on the Right, which she associated with freedom and capitalism.

But there are many others who self-identify as being on the Right, who completely reject Ayn Rand's philosophy, not because of its principles which they rarely mention, but because of its messenger.

"Ayn Rand is a modernist atheist radical individualist; what about that is conservative?" asked the Daily Wire's Michael Knowles on his April 4 podcast during which he ranked the greatest philosophers.

And then, religiously repeating that Ayn Rand "is not a serious thinker," while citing his own Christian faith, he dismissed philosophy as some kind of minor intellectual entertainment: "Everyone knows that the purpose of reading philosophy is to make yourself seem smart at parties."

Humor aside, Knowles is representative of many of those who could be labeled the 'Religious Righteous' by dismissing philosophy because they have religion. By repeating over and over again that Ayn Rand was not a serious thinker, he was doing what the Left does when it wants to avoid being recognized: projecting his own evasion of 'serious thinking' on the perhaps the most serious thinker in the history of humanity since Aristotle.

In her 1960 televised interview with CBS host Mike Wallace, Ayn Rand emphasized that America's leaders had become "intellectually bankrupt" because none wished to face the "philosophical approach to moral issues - issues of right and wrong."

Citing the morality of altruism as the culprit behind the political crisis of her day, she called for a moral code based on rational self-interest, while warning that "to some degree, all religions advocate the morality of self-sacrifice." And when the religious Right claims to support freedom and capitalism on the grounds of Christian faith, Rand objected because this sent a message that capitalism can only be defended on the grounds of faith, which only weakened its argument.

There are rational objective reasons to advocate and support freedom and capitalism, she insisted, and this is the task of philosophy.

If philosophy seems boring to many, it's probably because the particular philosophies with which they are familiar actually are boring and irrelevant - and on the Left. But Ayn Rand has demonstrated that when confronted by a philosophy that's Just Right, millions awaken to the value of philosophy as the key to both preventing tyranny and to establishing a free society.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Sad to say, the vast majority of people do not take philosophy seriously, even though they are helplessly in its grip. It is understandable that with with all of the competing ideologies and perspectives on the nature and purpose of human life, philos

20/08/2025

Official Dumb-and the incompetence of state regulation: The ridiculous fine of $28,870.50 levied against Nova Scotia resident Jeff Evely is a classic example of officialdom hard at work.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines 'officialdom' as a noun referring to "the people who have a position of authority, especially in government, often when they are preventing or slowing you from doing something."

In this case, officialdom is preventing people from taking a walk in the woods on their own property - revealing officialdom to be official dumb. Perusing a handful of on-line dictionaries, the word 'dumb' is described as: "lacking the power of speech; used of animals and inanimate objects; lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted."

All of these terms seem to apply to the likes of Newfoundland's premier John Hogan and New Brunswick's premier Tim Houston whose continually changing justifications for the draconian fines and penalties border on the insane:

"How would you like to be stuck in the woods while there's a fire burning around you?"

"Be smart. Be human. Don't vote for loopholes."

"An out of control forest fire is a terrifying thing."

"Wild fires like this were not contemplated when the legislation was drafted."

"It is appropriate to increase fines a significant amount to punish individuals when they break regulations."

It is simply not possible to apply any of these rationalizations as a legitimate reason to fine a private property owner for walking into the woods on his/her own property. To call this irrational is an understatement.

"These laws and penalties have several factors as to why they arrive at where they are," announces officialdom. The irony in this statement is that it is those very 'several factors' that Canada's officialdom is trying to "cover up" in the words of Jeff Evely.

Those factors can best be described in a single word: incompetence. The degree of incompetence and ineptness demonstrated by officialdom in its fire fighting responsibilities on crown lands is beyond comprehension.

Thanks to principled activists like Jeff Evely, these truths are being exposed, as are those in officialdom who should be held accountable for covering up their incompetence.

Jeff's very disciplined act of civil disobedience has not only brought this issue to the world's attention, he has given others an example of how to fight the tyranny in their own communities in a way that's Just Right.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element The ridiculous fine of $28,870.50 levied against Nova Scotia resident Jeff Evely is a classic example of officialdom hard at work. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines 'officialdom' as a noun referring to "the people who have a position of auth

13/08/2025

The Majority Rule: The majority is never Right: Earlier in democracy's history, its operative principle was not considered to be 'majority rule,' but instead, 'majority government.' This expressed the idea that only those who had reached the 'age of majority' should be eligible to vote and participate in government. It was an age at which a person became a self-responsible adult, capable of exercising informed consent, and otherwise could be held responsible for his/ her actions.

In a free democracy, no one 'rules' anyone else. But in a democracy based on 'majority rule,' that principle no longer holds true.

The Left views 'democracy' as a system of 'majority rule' under which the winning group is given the legal authority to rule over other groups and individuals, all justified on the grounds of having achieved some kind of 'majority.'

The Right views democracy as a system of governance in which no one can 'vote' to infringe upon anyone else's right to Life Liberty and Property. Voting is restricted to matters of governance (justice, military, police, etc.) outside of the private sphere of activity. This would constitute majority government as opposed to majority rule.

Unfortunately most Western nations are now under the tyrannical rule of some majority, however defined or arrived at. Consequently, more and more observers cannot avoid concluding, as did Scotland's Neil Oliver recently, that "the majority is never Right."

Given Western culture's steady democratic drift Leftward towards tyranny, it appears that this observation has merit. So the question that begs asking is why do Western electoral majorities continually vote themselves into increasing levels of tyranny?

To answer that question, we offer The 'Majority Rule' - a few principles and guidelines that will clarify perceptions of majorities and their political significance.

The first rule about majorities is that majorities are about 'consensus,' not about 'consent.' Majorities are defined in terms of groups and collectives. Politicians group people along any politically advantageous grounds: economic status, employment, occupation, language, heritage, religion, citizenship, s*x, race, skin color, and of course, ideology. Putting people into groups is an easy way to create false political polarities, pitting one group against another.

Majorities are determined within the limits of their pre-defined grouping: a 'majority' of farmers, a 'majority' of black people, a 'majority' of Christians, a 'majority' of French-speaking people, a 'majority' of voters. And of course there was the 'majority' of scientists who concluded that Covid and climate change are existential threats to humanity. And let's not forget the 'majority' of journalists who reported that Trump was a fascist and was colluding with the Russians.

It is essential that Western cultures free themselves from the tyranny of 'majority' thinking in governing themselves. To ensure that we live in a free society where no one 'rules' anyone else, the democratic principle of 'majority rule' must be re-framed in that light.

The 'Majority Rule' stipulates that the only place where such a perspective is shared by a 'majority' is on the political polarity that is Just Right.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Earlier in democracy's history, its operative principle was not considered to be 'majority rule,' but instead, 'majority government.' This expressed the idea that only those who had reached the 'age of majority' should be eligible to vote and partici

06/08/2025

Jean therapy—against the WOKE virus: Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle blue jeans ad has proven to be a 'jean therapy' against the WOKE virus. But is it a cure?

The literally insane reactions to the ad by a myriad of women saying that they are objecting to 'eugenics' was both laughable and tragic. Calling upon vague and contrived associations with Hi**er, their objections were justified using terms and arguments like the following:

"Sweeney has great genes; she's a N**i; she's fascist; she's a racist; she owns a German shepherd as her dog whistle; her initials spell 'SS'; she has white skin, blue eyes and blue jeans; American Eagle is promoting fascist propaganda, Christian nationalism and white supremacy; Sweeney is Hi**er's wet dream; cotton jeans are racist; American Eagle is reviving the Third Reich; Sweeney represents white supremacist patriarchy capitalistic beauty standards; the ads portray fascist aesthetics; the script is bigoted BS," and much much more.

These claims are so stupid and outrageous that they have drawn the attention of millions who are utterly amazed that such irrationality is possible in so many people all spouting the same script at the same time.

While much of the reaction can be attributed to jealousy and envy, the consistent and repetitive reference to 'eugenics' is telling. It both reveals projection on their part, as well as an attempt to hide the Left's exclusive claim to pushing eugenics throughout history. To say nothing of the fact that fascism itself is an ideology of the Left.

So with all the associative 'jeans/genes' word play, why haven't the recent Covid 'gene therapy' injections been part of the controversy? Where were all the 'anti-eugenics' Lefties during an experiment pushing injected 'gene therapies' fraudulently misrepresented as vaccines? Not once did any of them cite how these experiments were consistent with N**i fascist eugenics.

With the now widely exposed absurd reactions of the Left to Sydney Sweeney's appearance in a simple blue jeans ad, many are asking how things could have gotten so bad without their noticing.

Explains economist Thomas Sowell: "The Left have mastered the art of verbal sleight of hand, twisting language to obscure truth, evade reason, and impose itself on a society too distracted to notice."

The sad fact is that the women objecting to the ads are using the "Marxist language of fools," as author Isabel Paterson described it. The terms and phrases being used are non sequiturs and meaningless. They do not operate on definitions that correspond to reality.

As Sowell cautioned: "Words are not neutral; they shape perception. By re-defining words you can re-define the debate itself."

What the Sydney Sweeney controversy has exposed is the Left's fundamental hatred of "the good for being the good." It has also exposed a weakness on the part of the Right.

"The Left's verbal sleight of hand thrives because too few challenge it; we accept their terms without questioning," explains Sowell. "If we let others define them for us, we surrender our ability to reason."

This is where the Right has failed. In the game of 'define or be defined,' the Right has continually allowed the Left to define all the key political terms - even to the point of allowing the Left to invent a political 'spectrum' that places Communism on the Left and Leftist Fascism on the Right, where freedom properly belongs.

It's time those on the Right got into the definition game. Until more do, the Left's 'verbal sleight of hand' will continue to thrive, while knowledge of what is Just Right will continue to elude both those on the Left and Right alike.

[To listen to this broadcast of Just Right, simply click on the photo below.]

Your browser does not support the audio element Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle blue jeans ad has proven to be a 'jean therapy' against the WOKE virus. But is it a cure? The literally insane reactions to the ad by a myriad of women saying that they are objecting to 'eugenics' was both laughable

Address

Website

https://www.justrightmedia.org/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Just Right Media posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Just Right Media:

Want your business to be the top-listed Media Company?

Country:

City: