Don’t Rock The Woke Boat, Simple Simon Says

The condition of the country and world today, as it is not as we wish it to were, would normally be a great time for evangelizing. That seems like the way it always worked. We called them awakenings, revivals, or God moments.

People do need hope, faith that there is something bigger than the potpourri of devastation we see around us while the country disintegrates from that shiny city on a hill. All is not lost, God is still on His throne and nothing these people do will change that. He is in the capital Pronoun business. That is the message all right.

So if ever there was an appropriate time and need for a message, this would seem to be it. Except for one thing. Where are the people to spread it? I don’t mean just a few or handful of evangelicals telling the great salvation story. Don’t get me wrong, God can work in a few and look what disciples did once they got the hang of it.

But when I look at what many mainline churches are doing, I shake my head. No, this is not a critique of churches……. or is it? I’m not really sure, but the more I see the more I see at least some churches as part of the problem. That hurts me. It bothers me and it makes me feel uncomfortable about some fellow Christians and about the future. No, I don’t want to complain too much here. Wouldn’t be prudent, you know, or productive.

Then maybe that is what is needed? I mean every quadrant of society takes criticism from different sides these days. It is open season on the right folks or groups. Should churches be exempt from criticism? I know people probably don’t want to hear it. After all, churches are supposed to be part of the solution, and they often are, not the problem.

But the same age-old story you would get if you really broaden the scope to look at everything objectively (without inherent biases which seems harder and harder), then you cannot ignore the one stunning thing staring you in the face that does not go away.

That is, as bad as times are for culture and the rest in civil society, it screams to what is responsible for it. You have to admit if churches were doing a better job, then how could things be this bad? That would seem impossible if churches were very effective. So you must draw the conclusion that part of the blame is on the churches. Yes it is people themselves but the church is an organ of God that should stand up for and be doing something. No, this is not about church building for me. It is about being effective.

See if we all must take some of the blame for the way society is — or the country by extension — then churches cannot escape their share of blame either. I believe people are responsible for allowing much of this to happen. We can claim to be victims of it all but we allow it, even if we do not condone it outright. But churches are in that mix, too.

I know, it is an issue/story many people don’t want to hear, aren’t interested in, or don’t care about. I get that. But who can stand up for churches to defend them from blame? I don’t know who can make that case? Maybe I am doing the easy thing by throwing some criticism their way — rather than attempting to defend them.

Sure churches have missions and they do a lot of good. But that is not what I am talking about. When do we start, as people, taking responsibility for the society we live in? And where is the effort to change and fix it? Maybe this is all a cultural indictment and not about the individual. We like to hide behind the individual responsibility thing. But if things are the way they are, what does that say about us all as individuals?

I don’t mean this as a rant, just being serious because we know there are serious consequences to it all. We know that much. Just look at the way Democrats downplay or parse abortion. (most of those politicians) They claim they are personally not for abortions themselves, but they completely endorse having as many as society can provide, even demanding our government pay for it. Abortions on every corner, without limits. Does it make sense? There is a layer of excusing themselves in all that .

Like oh, I don’t personally rob banks or assault people but I will not stand in the way of anyone who does. “It’s their thing.” I don’t light fires, riot and burn down buildings when I am mad at government but I will not condemn the “love summer” of riots, political violence and crime. ‘It’s sometimes necessary.‘ So they stood there and watched cities burn and said nothing about it. They donated to the no bail or arrest cause for those that did it. ‘No, I don’t believe in it but I don’t believe in accountability for it either.’

Only a few classic examples. Where are the churches in all this? Or where are the churches when innocent people are being spied on or targeted for their religious and political beliefs, or for who they voted for? When forced to take a gov’t shot or pill or  else lose their job?  Oh, that’s where they would claim “but separation of church and state.” So we are to stand by to allow this weaponization against people of faith and do nothing?

It is a selective thing to churches as it is to the rest of society. They choose their fights when it is for ‘poor immigrants’ or downtrodden. When it is for standing up for illegals flooding the country through open borders, they are right there with their compassion buckets. But when it is our own citizens being discriminated against or attacked for their faith, they are silent. Show me a left-wing issue like climate change and they are on it.

How is it they can break barriers of a phony “separation” when they feel like it and it’s welcomed by society, too? But if churches stand up for people’s personal belief and faith, that is not acceptable to defend. We have become very accustomed where those lines are,  where they intersect and contradict each other. We accept it. What can we do about it?

So those ‘good’ folks can have charities, organizations, marches and fundraisers to help illegal aliens who broke the country’s laws to get here; but when it comes to those here that need help in hard times, they fall through the cracks. People who are not intentionally and knowingly breaking the law do not make the priority cut. Sorry, just not enough compassion in our tanks for that; but show some more love for illegals. Get with it.

Do you think churches deserve some of the blame for the way things are going? I’m really curious. I don’t see anyone who has made a great defense for the status quo. Am I being a little too hard on blaming Christians and churches? Maybe. But aren’t we supposed to be the salt, not the wine-chaser for everything the world concocts?

Could it be that some of these churches are doing this selective advocacy (I’ll call it) for a reason? Maybe it’s  to keep the finger of blame from pointing at them, by pandering to the world and the woke in one stroke? Just a question. That’s all and I fear that is enough.

 

In Critical Defense:

Someone may say I just want to politicize churches in general, because that’s what liberals always do and say. No, churches have already politicized themselves more than anyone cares to admit. It’s been done. They also follow the lead of some corporations.

And I never said all churches but I don’t have a number. True, some aren’t in that camp.

But for other mainline ones, they advocate political issues much the way some corporations have. So they gladly take positions on gun control, climate change, critical race theory, revising history, BLM, abortion, biological debates, border control, illegal immigration, LGBTQ advocacy, demonstrations, civil disobedience resistance, on crime, police and bail defunding issues, social justice activism, even some union policies.

They also incentivize illegal immigration through their advocacy.
Why does that almost feel sort of like Luther with a list of Theses?

That is to say basically all the hot button issues or controversial ones you commonly hear about. Green and environmental as well, And many of those in official capacities, in missions or raising money. They participate in marches, protests and sometimes have political leaders speak on them. All those are highly politicized issues. So yeah, they’ve become political. But no one points out those contradictions. Strange about that.

(So keep the pews warm… and I’ll leave a light on for you).

Right Ring | Bullright | 2022

Joe’s 15 Minutes of Fame and Pain

With half the collective cognitive ability of an anthill, Joe Biden takes to the South Lawn for a pre-planned rally to celebrate inflation, while the market was tanking in real time – going south faster than Joe. It dropped 1200 points by the time he spoke.

‘Titanic move over, I’ve got a better band,’
It was better than an ice cream festival, for Lyin’ Biden.

After all, Joey didn’t have to explain anything. He had famous singer, songwriter James Taylor to do the interpretive messaging for him. Biden wanted to hear that favorite song, fire and rain. “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain. I’ve seen sunny days I thought would never end…” Except that it is a song about suicide, pain and addiction.

I know, with the lyrics fire and rain, Joe was thinking climate change and to change the message from the creeping inflation. But Biden’s economy is lying in pieces on the ground, with our “sweet dreams” and lives hanging in the balance.

So I took the liberty to rework the lyrics a little — aka Corny Pop style.

I seen anger and I seen pain,
I seen James try to put us in shame.

And I hope to never see that again,
From my rooftop or my poop-drop.

But our time may be at hand,
If we don’t oppose their plans and take a stand.

“Lord knows when the cold wind blows it’ll turn your head around.”

 

This reminds me that those valiant musicians are always my go to sources for politics and influence, or as the left believes. Them and celebrities have the best political advice.

‘Cause I know damn well musicians got their finger right on the pulse of the people and  important problems in America. Maybe I’ll write a song about that. Cheers to those preening, musical Nostradumasses! Hats off to you.

Politicizing Petroleum Policy

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

Bad Vlad Rising

Okay all you Climate Change loons out there, here’s a message for you.

Is there no black hole out there powerful enough to suck “Vlad the Bad” into it? I thought science and climate change had the answers to all problems?

But the only thing the climatologist Leftists prove successful at is inflating The Bad’s ego, or appeasing him. And then using Putin as a punch line to blame all their policy failures on.

What happened to the supremacy of science?

So your god of science is powerless to save you from evil. It doesn’t seem like science can even save itself… from science.

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

The Putin Price Hike

I refuse to sit this one out. I can’t “resist” it. Mama didn’t raise no fools. It’s like fried chicken, it’s just so good.

On Tuesday, Biden and Jen Psaki did what we expected after Joe made his announcement to ban Russian oil. They spun it like tops.

Psaki said it was a Putin price hike. Biden said blame Putin for the prices. Tennessee “fried chicken” propagandist, Steve Cohen went out to tell people that every time they fill their tank in sticker shock, they should think of sticking it to Putin – as if redirecting the blame will help assuage it.

In other words, people should proudly feel the pinch knowing they are getting even with Putin. Right, they’ll show him while running up the old credit card to gas up. “Take that, Puty!” (what a feel good moment it is)

 

So I’ll take them up on that. Okay, I will blame him:

Putin has raised the price tag of electing Joe Biden President significantly.

He raised the real cost exponentially, which will be felt by every American up and down the economic ladder. I hope they are happy.

And now we have Joe Biden blaming Vladimir Putin for one of his own biggest problems, since gas lighting us evidently did not work.

More fossil fuels not fossil fools. And more chicken, please!

**One for the tank: “70% Favor Increased U.S. Oil and Gas Production” – Rasmussen

 

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2022

Sustainability Meets Its Match

Don’t you worry; the eviro-green people are busy thinking of new ways to use our bountiful resources in ever-sustainable ways. Out of the box.

Take this novel idea: someone took salmon sperm and mixed it with vegetable oil to create a gel-like substance that can be formed into all kinds of things.

It then hardens to become like a plastic. So they fancy all kinds of things it could be made into. One of the first items they created with it was a cup. Neat, uh?

They said that, unlike plastic, one bonus was its ability to be recycled since it is water-soluble. So adding water will turn it right back into gel. So much for the cup, eh?

But don’t worry because they go on to expound that for this reason it would have to be used on things that need to be kept dry like in electronic equipment or packaging. Okay.

Yeah, I bet some heads will explode over at the UL – Underwriters Laboratory. They are going to just love this great idea. But read it in Euronews Green.

Just search: ‘Sperm used to create eco-friendly alternative to plastic.’ — How many articles could there be matching that criteria?

I’m sure people can think of all kinds of creative uses for this innovative substance.

Maybe we could make shower chairs for the elderly with it? Sky is the limit. Okay, boats are  probably out. I wonder how those salmon feel about this definition of sustainability?

Settled Science

What is and isn’t settled science? Let’s dispel a couple of these popular faux arguments.

The science debate.

Take the left’s view: that there is no real debate here; that science rules; that it should be the basis of all actions. So science literally rules

Now that translates to science should dictate all decisions. For instance, on COVID or climate change, or anything else for that matter. It is the definitive answer to problems.

The logical side: no one is denying that science exists and it is useful. (that’s the defensive posture) When making decisions on society, many of those are out of the arena of science. Leaders and officials are making decisions on lockdowns and mandates on travel, or on what you can do and buy. What food you eat or car you drive. Is that science?

To say, like Joe Biden, that science declares you should shut down the economy, which is not an area of science, removes decisions from those tasked to make them. Plus “science”- whatever all it includes – is not accountable for those decisions and their consequences.

And people are elected or appointed to make those decisions on all the necessary variables. If it were true that science dictates, then there is no purpose for government or those officials but to enforce a science edict. Simply have science dictate decisions.

One of the first rules on any topic where science is injected is to ask if it is actually part of science or how much of it is? That tells you a lot. Most of it is far outside its realm.

For instance, much of this societal, cultural stuff we are lectured about is not an exact area of science. But that is where leftist social engineers come in. So their social engineers – presumably all leftists – will interpret their science into our society and lives, or into the code we must live by. When anyone resists their code, they hold up the science card. (just like they play the race card) But we are not governed by a board of science.

And if officials are going to issue these edicts, then they better be able to explain them and be accountable for them, because science won’t be. So it is not just science making these decisions, let’s be clear. Don’t hide behind science as if it were unquestionable.

The objective, the left tells us, is and always should be to control the pandemic. Except that controlling the pandemic equates to controlling people. That theorem means simply, you control the people and you control the pandemic.

Often when they tell us science is settled, they really mean their interpretation of science is settled. And it usually is not all science. Unless you mean political science.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

I’m not crazy, just following the rules

I sort of wonder what is going on and what is next on the list today, since everything is now politicized anyway? It’s interesting to see what stuff Leftists come up with and how fast.

I think I’d like to play the game the way the Left does. Every time they do something I don’t like, we tell them the ocean just rose another 1/4 inch because of it. And yes, we did not yet switch to the metric system and we are still getting by. Thank goodness.

So every time they do something I don’t like, wham, tell them they just shortened their own life expectancy. They are costing the planet a few months. Can we keep that up?

Trump announced the government will no longer continue an agenda against light bulbs. You can buy the light bulbs you want. Well that should be a problem for Leftists. I wonder what fear they will hold over us for that? That just shaved 50 years off the life of earth.

What will Trump think up or do next? No wonder he is dangerous. He makes the Left think up all these crazy new threats based on what he does. So maybe they will tax thoughts next? Stop people from creating new ideas and thereby extend the life of the planet.

And to protest that new tax, I have an idea. They say solar flares are our next big problem. We should fight fire with fire. We build a machine that shoots flames at the flares to burn them up before they can harm anything. We’ll need fuel for it. How about we use those same self-sacrificing leftists for the fuel? That way we cure two problems at the same time. They do say they don’t want to live in a world with all this new innovation and its freedom going on. We’re ruining the planet. Anyway, I see more than enough fuel for the job.

Well, it’s either that or we just scare them to death with what we are going to do next. It doesn’t seem to take much. How else could I assist them in solving problems?

That reminds me, the twitterverse has been shrieking for a week over Trump’s comments about flushing WH toilets too much. Who knew conserving water was a problem to the left? Only when Trump tries it. Then he is like some crazy uncle saying “stop flushing the toilets all the time.” They’d rather see him as nuts than making sense… whatever that takes.

Right Ring | Bullright

AOC Is Grief Stricken

The tears of a commie. I think what happened is AOC confused motherhood with mother earth and believes she is mother earth. Reminds me of an old margarine commercial.

AOC CRIES: Earth Facing ‘Extinction,’ ‘Dreams Of Motherhood Now Taste Bittersweet’

Daily Wire — Ryan Saavedra

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) cried on Friday during a climate alarmist speech in Copenhagen at the C40 World Mayors Summit where she claimed that her “dreams of motherhood now taste bittersweet because of what I know about our children’s future.”

Ocasio-Cortez began her alarmist speech by claiming that humanity was at a crossroads of “extinction or opportunity,” adding that there is “no middle road” on climate policy.

“The climate crisis is already here,” Ocasio-Cortez claimed. “On this note I speak to you not as an elected official or public figure, but I speak to you as a human being — a woman whose dreams of motherhood now taste bittersweet because of what I know about our children’s future, and that our actions are responsible for bringing their most dire possibilities into focus. I speak to you as a daughter and descendant of colonized peoples who have already begun to suffer.”

“It is not a coincidence that these disasters get relatively little media coverage, and that even less of the coverage dares to mention climate change,” Ocasio-Cortez falsely claimed. Media coverage of natural disasters often get significant coverage, with “climate change” being one of the top points parroted by the media.

“It is not a coincidence that the truth is controversial,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “None of this is a coincidence because climate change is not a coincidence or a scientific anomaly. Climate change is a consequence. It is a consequence of our unsustainable way of life.”

Ocasio-Cortez then suggested that capitalism promotes “lawbreaking pursuit of profit” and that capitalism only benefits “the very few,” despite the fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than any other economic system.

Ocasio-Cortez then admitted that her far-left $93 trillion plan is really about “chang[ing] society” and “winning” in politics, and that the desired outcomes are to fix “injustice” and promote “equality.”

This is similar to what Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief-of-staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted during an interview.

The Washington Post reports:

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” [Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D)] greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” [emphasis added]

Article posted at Daily Wire

Well, no middle of her road. I’m not sure she is qualified to speak as a human being. All that Marxist stuff running through her veins would sort of contradict that.

No coverage on the “climate crisis?” That’s all they talk about. The MSM cannot cover a legitimate natural disaster without making it about climate change or Global Warming.

No, it’s not a coincidence or scientific anomaly …. it is pure politics and socialism, about defying all our freedoms and rights. They admit it isn’t about climate change; it’s about their agenda. So what are the consequences of that agenda?

What is really “unsustainable” is their socialist agenda and the supporting government for it. But it doesn’t look like anyone will address that problem soon enough.

Right on the heals of AOC’s statement, Bernie says Elizabeth Warren may be a “capitalist in her bones, but I’m not.” Nope, he’s a commie and past the socialist garden long ago. But he has it exactly backwards. Socialism only benefits few ringmasters, the puppet masters. It is meant to be a transformational thing — to our politics and economy. And they don’t really care about the dire consequences on either of them.

In a few years it will be “the day the music died” — her music and Bernie’s pied piper tune. I’m also wondering if she could be a poltergeist?

It is us who are in the real fight to save ourselves and country from the doom and gloom of AOC and her tribe of commie buddies. That’s a challenge. Why does that thought of someone calling AOC a mom bother me so much?

So maybe I have a little surprise for AOC and her commie pals. There are some things we ain’t ever going to see. And your socialist plans are right at the top of the list.

Turn For The Worst In Roman Church?

People who know me or have read my ramblings know I am not a big proponent for conspiracy theories. The more elaborate ones rampant in marginal politics anyway.

However, I’ll make an exception and go full conspiracy mode here in one case. And former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now present Pope Francis, is right smack in the middle of it.

Before I get too far down the path, I have to say I followed many of his statements. I see the lectures. Like everyone, I shake my head at the ridiculousness of Pope Francis.

If you are looking for a reference of other write ups then try this one from Townhall:
The Fool in the Vatican — It’s a good start.

After all that going on for years, I wonder what is behind it or if there is more to it? I conclude there is, but I am not sure exactly what. Let me offer a few ideas. Another disclaimer is necessary: as always, this is not a Pope bashing agenda. I would ask Jesuits to seriously question what is going on here? After all. it is their home field.

I don’t have to list all the controversial things he has said, which would seem to go against the Catholic precedent and doctrines. He has not been shy about making remarks that has him acting more like Obama than the Pope of the Catholic Church. No, then the reasons for this? And there could be many. I racked my brain trying to come up with some.

But Francis has to know he is turning off many of the “faithful”. Those are ardent, proud traditional Catholics. So what’s the deal: does he care, is he ignorant to it, or is he in denial about it? Is he aware he is stepping outside usual CC lines by venturing into controversial, politically charged areas? Why does he feel obligated to do it?

I could easily plead the ignorant case. I could also say he is in denial. But I won’t. I give the man credit for knowing what he is doing. But why?

I come to the conclusion he just doesn’t care if he is pissing off (or pissing on) a lot of that “faithful” flock. I believe he is well ware. So is he intentionally trying to be divisive? I do believe there is intent behind it. Is it a not so secret anti-Catholic agenda?

I think he has calculated that he doesn’t care about numbers. He really doesn’t care about orthodoxy either. I think, while it might be malicious. he has decided if many people balk and walk away in protest or disgust, so be it. I think he decided that the remnant left (a pun) would be better off thinning the ranks. If dissatisfied leave, it’s better for him. He obviously has no interest in either pandering to the disgruntled or appealing to them. In fact, he may be out to send them a strong message that they are not welcome.

If it comes to a point of choice between him and and them, it is them who are not welcome in the Church — not him or his leftist allies. And he has dug in on that note. Is it a full throated takeover of the CC? You might call it that.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always had my disagreements with the Roman Church, which is why I am a protestant evangelical. But, like Catholics, I look for reasons and explanation why he is doing this? No, I don’t believe it is really God’s call he is following. I think there are other voices, and it’s not divine revelation. In fact, I don’t see anything divinely inspired about it. It is secularism (humanism) he seems to follow. It’s equally divisive.

At any rate, he has already decided that alienating a whole lot of Catholics is justified. As I said, what will remain in who likes it is more important to him. Actually, it is the only thing that does matter to him. He is adhering to a worldview, not necessarily a Church-view. And the Church can take a hike.

What gives me the idea those dissatisfied are not welcome? Look at his statements. Time and again when he makes a wild statement on current policies of governments and says “you are not Christian” if you don’t agree. So if you don’t like open borders, you are not a Christian. Next, if you don’t like socialism, you are not a Christian. He always frames it in those terms. Basically, he is saying if you disagree with you are not a Christian and also a bigot. You are both. He marginalizes anyone who does not accept Leftist orthodoxy. (far left at that). Now we come to the genesis of it all.

Politics. He has determined politics is the act of the Church. He would rather see the Church playing politics than following God’s commands. And he is out to make the CC chief Church of Politics. That is because everything he is concerned or talking about is part of a politically-driven agenda. He is fine with that. In fact, he is endorsing it in what he is doing. He is telling you disagreement is not an option and you are not Christian if you disagree.

So if that Secular Humanism corrupts the Catholic Church, too bad. Celebrate it!

Now I made my case about it. What is yours?

Right Ring | Bullright

Climate Of Religion

What we have seen is the overt politicization, weaponization and religiosity of the climate, or climate change, and the propagandizing of it. It should be no surprise that they politicized it to the max. That’s why so many people are outraged. But that was only the first step. Then they weaponize the climate, against the people of course.

Then they use the climate as the apocalyptic fear-mongering vehicle

When even the former head of Green Peace has to go on Hannity and call out the apocalypse hysteria of the Left, we are in a strange place.

He actually said that if we do the fossil full elimination they are calling for, it would decimate civilization. Or maybe that is what they want? He also said that our coal fired consumption is about 90% cleaner than it was decades ago.

But he said that today we still rely on fossil fuels for 80% of our electricity. Apparently they didn’t realize that when they tell us they want to switch to electric cars. Imagine the reaction when they all plug them in.

But they are telling us something with these Big Green Plans. They show us it is a religious movement now, full stop. The former Green Peace guy said what they are doing in incorporating kids into their message is equal to child abuse. Well, it should be criminal. The same person also said that the direction they are taking it, including using children (and emotions), is just to push their radical socialism or social justice platform.

I guess they don’t realize that we see exactly what they are doing. They turned it into a political issue, weaponized it, then made it a religious one. And they now feel comfortable turning that weapon on anyone they need to propel their political agenda.

Wouldn’t you think using and scaring kids would be a bit over the top? Not for them. In fact, it is right up their alley. The same way they have been using kids in their socialized healthcare schemes. Just roll out the children. What’s next, having children lobby and protest for late term abortion rights? Don’t be surprised.

As I said some time ago: is there anything too radical and extreme even for Democrats? Not anymore. Remember Claire McKaskill let the dirty secret out of the bag in the campaign, before she lost? She said those are the crazy Democrats and she was not one of them. But now that the election is over and AOC has taken over the party, with an assist from Bernie Sanders, it looks like they are telling us loud and clear that really all Dems are crazy Democrats. That’s the way it works.

We used to hear them say on the campaign that they would not be a lockstep vote, and they were independent minded, and that they would represent the people. Remember Trump called them out at rallies and said if they get in, they will only be Pelosi puppets and vote in lockstep. Rubber stamps. Again, Trump was completely right. But it only took a few short weeks for that to happen and prove it.

Bottom line is these people are not at all about preventing a catastrophe, they are all about creating one. And the faster they get there, the better. Have kids believe that the world is going to incinerate. We used to hide under desks in schools, remember. Now just tell them it is over. So we might as well blow through a hundred trillion dollars trying because it’s a lost cause unless. Unless they can save planet earth from destruction. Well, I wonder what kept planet earth from destruction years ago before they came along? They sort of sound like a revised version of Heaven’s Gate people over the Hale-Bopp Comet.

It does show us something. That the climate change and socialists, besides getting in bed with each other, are reading from the same script. It is all about belief. It is only based on that. Throw in a few anecdotes and current events to make your case, then round up the kids and give them their lines. Send them out to the public and watch people get sucked in. Or so goes the plan. However, what it really is based on is belief.(echoes of Obama) Have enough people to believe it and you can even summon a Hale-Bopp comet to come and rescue them. And they are betting all their marbles, and our money, on it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Weather Fruits at it again

Just how deceiving are the global warming climatologists? Well, take it from one of their propagandists at Accuweather.

Headline: “2018 officially ranks as the 4th hottest year on record for Earth

We all know how media uses sensational headlines. But this is beyond sensational.
Note the words “officially” and “for earth”- not for their records.

It is not until you read within the article that it actually says:

“The year 2018 followed the pattern of higher-than-average annual temperatures, as the Earth experienced its fourth hottest year on the 139-year record.”

Anyone has to admit that 139 years of record keeping is a pretty short blip on the earth limeline, even by Noah’s standards. Speaking of which, where were these people back in Noah’s day when he could have used a little weather forecast affirmation?

Anyway, here they are trying to send the powerful message that at no time in the earth’s history has there been a warmer year. Wow, 2018 must have been a real stoker!

And they sprinkle that message with agencies like NASA and NOAA to lend more “official” credibility to it. Heaven knows you are a denier if you don’t believe them, or if you are even skeptical. Then they call you a “science denier”…. when they only base their model on 139 years of records. Records that have been under some scrutiny.

See:

Climate experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) independently released new data on the global temperatures for 2018 and the most important climate trends of the year on Wednesday, Feb. 6.

Is that also the same science I hear that refuses to call a baby in the womb a baby? Yet even in the Bible it says about Virgin Mary that she was with child, not a blob or a zygote.

Now who would you rather believe? They call that science?

I was waiting for the part that would blame Trump for it. That’s a joke but they were not.

Climate Change Red Team: deep bench forming

Trump Solicits Help From Conservative Group To Develop Climate Change Red Team

Chris White — 7/24/2017

The Trump administration has asked a conservative group known for promoting climate skepticism to help recruit academics for a “red team” on global warming, the Washington Examiner reported Monday.

President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have enlisted the help of the Heartland Institute, a group widely considered to be the central hub for the academic push against what conservatives call “climate alarmism.” The institute has become a type of boogeyman in liberal circles, mostly because of its skeptical position toward manmade global warming.

“The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency have reached out to the Heartland Institute to help identify scientists who could constitute a red team,” Jim Lakely, the group’s communications director, told reporters Monday. The Heartland Institute accepted the Trump administration’s offer.

“This effort is long overdue,” Lakely said about Trump’s idea to build a “red team vs. blue team,” which essentially pits climate skeptics against academics who argue that human beings are the primary drivers of climate change. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt first announced the idea in June, and has since suggested that the debates should be televised.

“The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge,” Pruitt said. “That is a violation of the scientific method and the public’s trust.”

Military and intelligence agencies use similar tactics to expose vulnerabilities to strategic systems. Skeptics say it would give needed balance to climate science, a field of research many believe has been monopolized by activists.

Environmentalists and scientists, meanwhile, say it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices that disagree with them on global warming.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientists Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

They argue that the existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project. The authors also said that scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide a forum for scientific debates.

Elements within the Obama administration promoted the idea. Steve Koonin, a former Energy Department head during Obama’s tenure, for instance, suggested a red team-blue team approach in an April editorial to put the issue to rest.

“A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits,” Koonin wrote. “It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs.”

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

At Daily Caller

Sneak attacks from Paris Accord train

I read this op-ed in the NYT, preferred toilet tissue for those in the know. However, it does pay to see what they say once in a while, even with a jaundice eye and flexing eyebrows.

The Times Editorial Board describes Trump’s jump off the Paris Accord train as “America in Retreat.” But then it does it while a terrorist attack goes down in London. See there is no time that is not a good time to attack Trump. And that is all it was.

You would think it might be laced with the benefits of staying in the Paris Accord. No, it was only a criticism for leaving it. How dare you. But it failed to mention any benefits that we would get out of it.

Sure, we know the world gains from US being in it. They want our money. Another Globul scheme that we will chiefly fund. Excuse me, aren’t we having those problems in other world organizations? So no painful losses for us bailing out of the latest Globul scheme.

Their biggest point was that we are shirking, or ceding, our leadership by fleeing from it. That’s the big problem, and that is reprehensible to their ideological view.

We just got rid of a president who believed in leading from behind, who was all for this agreement, but somehow we are foregoing our leadership by withdrawing? In all his twisted foreign policy failures, Obama never once put America first and certainly did not prove his theory correct. He gained nothing from all the apologies he spouted from Cairo to Russia. Yet now we are abandoning our leadership position? Even at home he did not put the will of the people or our priorities first. Instead, he set his priorities of green energy first at the expense of everything else, and wasted countless millions on programs that didn’t work or went belly up, along with our money. Then he branded it a success.

(NYT) Still, Mr. Trump and his team, embroiled in controversy over Russia and other matters, have shown no inclination, much less skill, to do the hard thinking that must precede any decision to alter America’s role in the world.

So right on the heels of having given the world a tragedy of an Iran deal, which benefited Iran, Obama headed straight down his homestretch to get into a Paris Deal that offered nothing but another giant expense for us. That, he claimed, was leadership. Setting up any global slush fund is now called leadership — the bigger the better.

But we were always supposed to be cautious of foreign entanglements that threaten our sovereignty. That is exactly why Obama and the left like to dabble in them so much.

Perfect example: it didn’t take long, when Trump was contemplating the withdraw from the Paris accord, for media and press to ramp up means that you would not have thought possible. Yes, they insisted that to withdraw from the Paris treaty — can we now at least call it that — was, in fact, a threat to our sovereignty. Oh yes they did! Every reason we gave for withdrawing they tried to reverse to make it a reason we should stay in it.

The exact opposite of their rhetoric was true. It was a treaty masquerading as an executive order. If it was so popular they would have had no problem getting Senate approval, which they wouldn’t do because it would not pass. It was the same Constitutional principle they avoided on the Iran deal. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

Now they claim we are giving up our sovereignty by withdrawing. But no one explains why that is true, just like they don’t explain all the benefits of staying in. Other countries had to do nothing. So they, namely the left, are angry because there is no replacement for our funding. Their claim is that without us in the treaty everyone else is going to reap the benefits now. But they were the ones who were going to benefit anyway.

It is just one more deal which doesn’t consider America’s priorities. Yet they lie and say getting out does not preserve our priorities, it threatens them. Then there is Democrats’ universal closing argument for everything that “people are going to die.”

Ironically, the only thing that seems to usurp media’s attacks on Trump are intermittent terrorist attacks that the world has no immediate answers to. So maybe if their Paris plan was framed as a terrorist plot, would they finally see the error in it — or at least the drawbacks? Or probably not even that would alter their Globul perspective. It’s futile.

RightRing | Bullright

Spring Cleaning in Climate Change Isle

Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch blows away the golden thesis of the Climate Change, Global Warming crowd. Turns out it may not be ‘crowd-sourced’ as well as they say it is. This is the number one phrase they base all their actions on: i.e. debate is over, the consensus is, scientists all agree, it’s an established fact, blah blah ad nauseam.

Let’s Talk About The ‘97% Consensus’ On Global Warming

Michael Bastasch — 03/05/2017 | Daily Caller

We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”

Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”

The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.

More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”

Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. After all, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?

But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?

Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.

To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.

In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.

But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.

Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.

Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.

Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.

Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.

Criticisms

Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to address global warming unquestioningly embraced Cook’s study.

But not everyone agreed. Some global warming skeptics took a close look at Cook’s work and found some glaring issues.

Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation authored a major critiques of Cook’s study in 2013.

Montford argued Cook’s “97 percent consensus” figure was meaningless, since it cast such a wide net to include global warming skeptics in with hard-core believers.

To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent.” Neither of these points is controversial, Montford wrote.

It’s like claiming there’s a consensus on legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That “consensus” would be a meaningless talking point.

University of Delaware geologist David Legates and his colleagues took a crack at Cook’s work in 2015, finding the numbers were cooked beyond a basic wide-net consensus.

Legates’ study, published in the journal Science and Education, found only 41 out of the 11,944 peer-reviewed climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950.

Cook basically cast a wide net to create a seemingly large consensus when only a fraction of the studies he looked at explicitly stated “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” or something to that effect.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called Cook’s work “propaganda” created to bolster the political argument for economically-painful climate policies.

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age,” Lindzen said in 2016. “Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” Lindzen said.

Is There A Consensus?

Cook’s paper has become the trump card for alarmists to shut down those who disagree with them. Rarely a day has gone by without some politician or activists citing the 97 percent consensus, but few probably realize how meaningless the figure is.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with Cook’s 97 percent figure — consensus is not proof.

Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right. Most political pundits and pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential race, but were proven dead wrong Nov. 8.

Trying to shut down dissent by arguing “well, all these smart people disagree with you” doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t win anyone over. In fact, most Americans don’t even believe there’s actually a “97 percent consensus” among scientists.

“Just 27% of Americans say that ‘almost all’ climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change,” according to Pew’s new poll from October.

That being said, most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way.

The throngs of climate researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) certainly believe most global warming, though not all, since 1950 was driven by humans.

That still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.

On the other hand, a 2016 George Mason University survey of more than 4,000 American Meteorological Society (AMS) members found one-third of them believed global warming is not happening, mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans. The survey found 29 percent of AMS members thought global warming was “largely or entirely” caused by humans and another 38 percent believe warming is “mostly” due to humans.

Other scientists, like Lindzen, see humans as having a minimal influence on the Earth’s climate. Climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute — where Lindzen is now a fellow — have shown climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.

Climate models currently show twice as much warming as has actually been observed — a problem many scientists have only recently come to terms with.

 
Follow Michael on Twitter @MikeBastasch

**Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Original article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

H/T and thanks to Dave for forwarding — (who is still sipping lemonade at his villa somewhere in the Caribbean until spring – as opposed to the Fake News Spring.)

Groundhog Day: state of climate

In this current climate, my friend says it is time to protest Groundhog Day. Okay:

I’ve been to Punxsutawney and YOU, sir, are no Punxsutawney Phil.

No offense to other ground hogs out there. Stop ‘normalizing’ Phil.

Word is Phil is rightfully concerned. He saw what they are doing to “Fili” the Filibuster using the nuclear option. What could they do to him? His climate prediction is: six more weeks of ‘dangerous’. That’s par for the course in this scorched-earth political climate.

Hey hey, ho ho…. it’s off to protest we go!

No climate denier here.

RightRing | Bullright

CFACT exposes GW gurus latest tactics

As Solomon said, there’s nothing new under the sun. Global Warming gurus roll out new program — which is a lot like their past ones — to Use kids.

Weather Channel goes Orwell

CFACT

Friend,

The Weather Channel released a video featuring kids lecturing their parents about global warming.

Just how much should we believe these children understand about the complexities of climate science?  Where did they get their information?

Indoctrinating children and using them to influence their parents is something right out of a dystopian novel.  It is a favored technique of tyrannical regimes of all stripes.

Here are some examples of the erroneous “facts” (and their refutations) recited by children in the video that Marc Morano posted at CFACT’s Climate Depot.  (His coverage made the Drudge Report):

Dear Mom and Dad:

CFACT’s readers know that these are propaganda talking points that do not stand up when studied under the unforgiving lens of real-world scientific observation.

Increasingly adults are not falling for the climate campaign’s false arguments.  Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate film couldn’t rank higher than number 61 in the ratings as Anthony Watts pointed out at Watts Up With That.

That’s why they target children.

Hey Weather Channel, 1984 was a warning not an instruction manual!

For nature and people too,

Craig Rucker
Executive Director
See more at: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=5a6a4e31f9&e=72a9829d77

Hillary’s vitriol for miners

Hillary now lectures Trump on the campaign trail that “When you are running for president, you better mean what you say.” How’s that work for Hillary? She told her rally: “I will stand up and speak out for every American that he attacks and insults.”

Clinton: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.

So she meant what she said. Oh, then she apologized by saying it was “taken out of context from what I meant.” She didn’t mean it? No, it was in context the way she meant it. The fact is since 2009 Boone County, W Va has already lost 4500 jobs.

The problem she has is the same one Obama had with “bitter clingers.” (which happen to be the same people Hillary is having problems with) It comes down to the same thing:

Barack Obama was speaking frankly to supporters, saying something popular with them. Hillary was saying what is popular with her supporters and Dems. It happens to be very offensive to the people she is speaking about. But who cares about them?

See, on one hand they know that message is received with cheers among supporters. On the other hand, it is intentionally insulting to the people he or she are speaking about. She merely slipped by giving the wrong people the real message. Now anyone can see how divisive their politics are. Their agenda requires the sacrifice from other people.

Then she expects to buy off the people she is attacking, coal companies and miners.

It is funny how they never say such a thing to bureaucrats in Washington: “we’re going to put all you out of business.” Oh, that wouldn’t go over well. How about a “retraining program” for old career politicians and bureaucrats? (there’s an expensive program)

She claims that she wants to throw 30 billion in aid at miners. Meanwhile, she also wants to pump in 60 billion to prop up energy alternatives. “Renewable energy” is very expensive and requires a lot of money. She’s only upset for taking heat over it. Stand up?

ref: http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/14/hillary-clinton-has-a-message-for-coal-miners-youre-fired/

RightRing | Bullright

CFACT: Out of Control & Lawlessness

Out of control


CFACT

Friend,

Is our government out of control?

Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.

No sector appears safe.

CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:

“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”

Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.

“The Constitution is not a living organism,”  Justice Scalia reminded us,  “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.

He makes a frightening case.  We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/

Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.

These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]

 

Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright