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

Morality of the Beast

It’s a strange new world, and the religion of the left has taken center stage.

AOC lectures us about the morality of Climate Change, while they joyfully push for late-term abortion even infanticide as hard as they can. But we are the deniers?

Reality check! Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
Politics of evil.

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

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

Hurricane Matthew not bad enough for GW gurus

GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS DISAPPOINTED THAT HURRICANE MATTHEW WASN’T WORSE

Government Slaves Info

[10/26/16] J.D.HEYES– Only the sickest, most warped and ideologically polluted minds would secretly hope for greater death and destruction to their own people and country, but such is the case with “climate change” zealots.

As pointed out by Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), it was former President Obama crony and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who once infamously remarked that political leaders should never let serious crises “go to waste,” because they can use them to advance a political agenda where they could not do so before.

As for the recent Hurricane Matthew, it appears as though a number of political operatives and true believers in the global warming religion likely wanted it to be worse than it actually was (which, to many people, was bad enough).

See more: http://www.govtslaves.info/global-warming-alarmists-disappointed-that-hurricane-matthew-wasnt-worse/

And they had such high hopes and plans for massive catastrophe. Never let a crisis go to waste, you know.

Crooked pols and cooked polls

Cooked books and cooked polls, is there anything the left is not willing to do in pursuit of their agenda? No but it was rhetorical. Cooked numbers, cooked jobs reports, cooked economic data and information fed to media. Then there are the fact checkers trotted out to continue bolster their case on issues from Global Warming agenda to fracking and the war on coal or energy. Throw on top their cooked up speeches pandering to the greens, socialists, progressives. It all gives us a toxic soup of headlines, opinion and polls.

Media does their part. I have never seen the kind of bias agenda driven news as over the last months. Is it so hard to believe with all these weights on the scale that polls are reflecting their phony reality? Then media touts them as Hillary’s wide success. Well, with all that help it would be hard to believe she didn’t have some upswing. If, for instance, with all their effort Hillary’s numbers did not budge, then that would be hard to believe.

Probably among my worst observations of the effects of all this spin and manipulation comes from listening to random people. I hear the back-fed talking points of media coming from the mouths of regular Americans. And almost word for word I hear the views of the media and political elite regurgitated.

Last week there was a letter from a bunch of Democrats sent to Paul Ryan demanding he withdraw all support from Trump. This week, people are sending a letter to John McCain insisiting he withdraw all support from Trump. Folks, have you ever seen anything like this on this level? I urge people pull their support from Hillary, considering her record.Duh.

Maybe all this effort will have a reversed effect to consolidate support for Trump rather than erode it? I can’t be sure. But when a large percentage of people in this country are smeared, branded, marginalized and mocked, who knows what the results could be?

Now the latest offensive is Barack Obama’s rise in approval ratings. No one explains why his poll numbers should be up. But then because his approval numbers are up, that is supposed to be a glowing positive push for Hillary. Just because it is built on fabrication doesn’t make a great case for her foundation of lies.

Here’s another random observation. When have we heard this much official consternation about a President and access to the military codes and arsenal? I don’t ever remember it. All this is fear mongering about nukes in the hands of Trump. What about the likelihood of Iran or others getting nukes in the hands of Terrorists? Not so much.

Obama made his comments now, following Hillary’s, suggesting doubt Obama can be trusted with nuclear codes and repeating his distrust a day later. Now he is asked whether Trump can be trusted with the Nuclear weapons? He says people should really think about it. Hyperbole. However, we cannot trust Obama with an Executive Pen.

But then much of this election is not standard fare. Maybe that is because Trump is not a standard candidate and maybe it is because of the threat Trump really poses to the establishment status quo? You decide. But we are so far out of the universe of what is standard with the way everyone treats Trump. Hillary is the poster child for the establishment political elite — unfortunately, even for the estabo’s status quo.

RightRing | Bullright

What message Brexit sends

Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.

But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?

“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.

Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)

Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.

Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.

Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.

Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.

Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^

Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?

It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.

RightRing | Bullright

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

The invasion crisis, not a humanity crisis

The perennial “refugee” sympathizer squatting in the White House has certainly gotten the information updates. He chooses to ignore them like all the other pertinent briefings he may get from our intelligence. But most of Americans are aware of what is going on in all the countries these so-called refugees fled to. Face it, if there is one issue O-bastid is interested in other than the Climate Change one, it is the plight of the refugees he so closely identifies with. So at least they are on his attention radar — which neither Putin nor ISIS can really claim.

Still what Americans have seen unfold across Europe where refugees have invaded is not a pretty picture. And there looks to be no end in sight, especially for the places they already infiltrated. But we know it is not just Syrians, as it is not just refugees either. They are just fleeing from many places and many of them are the young males. A portion are more closely associated with the Caliphate, ISIS and Islam than they are with democracy or anything like it.

Have people learned their lesson on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to Democracy and peace? Sure, people may have but our illustrious ‘stuck in ideological mud’ leaders have not. It could be unfolding right in front of them — as it is — and they would deny and ignore any ulterior motives to Islamic transients. What better way to spread a global Caliphate than exporting hoards of thousands, millions from the region infected with it? Of course that would be doing just what they have done all along: ignoring the growing threat to the Western world. It would be just what Obama has done since the inception of the ME crisis, largely spawned and supported by the White House.

Why would he want ours or the world’s attention focused on the crisis now that the consequences became so obvious to the rest of us? He lit the Mid East ablaze, fanned the flames, exported that fire everywhere he could, then stood back and declared ‘what can we really do about it anyway?’ He says things like we cannot send thousands of troops here because what happens when something pops up elsewhere? Do we then send them there too? Yes he would know because he is involved with all those grease fires popping up everywhere. By design he is realizing his dream. He has turmoil everywhere. Funny how he can be involved in the turmoil everywhere and claim that we cannot be everywhere. And use that as an excuse not to respond to it. Does it sound like anything else, like maybe our illegal immigrant crisis? It is not Assad’s mess, it is not Iran’s mess, it is not Russia’s mess, it’s not George Bush’s mess, it is not even ISIS’s mess. It is Obama’s mess.

While the invaders flow through the free world to infect everywhere they descend, we are reaping the product of his policies and his strategies. He’s made the problem so big that we now dare not do anything but watch the world burn with radicalism as he lectures us on Climate Change. What great irony is that? Everyone will be fine if we just cut our emissions, or have our throats slit by Islamic terrorists hell bent on taking over the world and enforcing their global Caliphate. Do numbers, of them, really matter when we have seen the sinister effects from just tens of thousands of them? But then Obama doesn’t seem to care that it is growing as fast as the flames can spread it. Rather he has more respect for ISIS than he has for us. His only mission seems to be not putting it out.

But, as typical, Obama lectures us on what the Statue of Liberty says.
Well, what it does not say is:

Bring me your your rebellious insurgents and ideological warriors to wreck our peace, justice, prosperity, and undermine our Republic. Give me your suicide bombers and jihadists. Come here to take over not assimilate.

There is no country too far out of reach of the Climate Caliphate, for Obama, and there is no country or place worth saving from Islamic radicalism or their Caliphate.

RightRing | Bullright

Climate Caliphate on the march

Move over ISIS, there’s a new Caliphate in town. It’s called the Climate Caliphate and it’s about ready to bust a move all over the global stage. Exhibit A: Climate Conference, Paris.

“Look, I think it is absolutely vital for every country, every leader to send a signal that the viciousness of a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business,” Obama said in his latest press conference, with the president of France, on the upcoming Paris summit.

I guess what that really says is that the climate is a far bigger threat than the Christians and infidels could ever be. Take that ISIS.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told the Coast Guard earlier this year.

John Kerry is definitely on the advisory board for the Climate Caliphate.

“When I think about the array of global climate – of global threats – think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – all challenges that know no borders – the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them,” Kerry noted in February 2014.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/23/obama-climate-change-summit-paris-message-terrorists/

In honor of that here is a catchy tune. (Circa 1982)

ISIS, you got some heavy competition.

Obama sees fear in rear view mirror

November 22, 2015 The Hill

Obama says GOP doing the terrorists’ work for them

President Obama said Sunday that the Republican running for president and in Congress continue to respond to terror attacks are doing what the terrorists want them to do.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261031-obama-criticizes-house-legislation-on-refugees

Obama says “if Republicans running for president and in Congress continue to respond to attacks by playing off fears, they are doing what the terrorists want them to do….fear.”

Of Course Obama is only consumed by the fear of Global Warming. That’s perfectly rational. Everyone should be scared to death of global warming. The more of that the better.

And The Hill

Approximately 66 percent think Obama has no clear plan for defeating the terrorist organization, according to the CBS News poll.

I’m offended by Muslims

Yes, you read that right. It’s not politically correct, you say? No, but it is correct to say. (Sorry Hillary, Obama, et al)

News for Muslims: I’m offended we have to sacrifice and fight this battle of Islamic terrorism. What are you doing? What have you done about it? Do you plan on doing anything about it? But our men, women, civilians, and soldiers are killed and maimed by this ideology, which happens to align itself with Islam and Muslims’ faith.

War with Islamists is a 100 year war, but also a permanent one. No one wants to think this is a permanent state of the world. It’s a way of life. Yet our leaders are crying and whining about global warming being a permanent condition of this world. They want us to change our entire lifestyle to reflect that reality their scientists’ claim. No, they demand we do.

I’m offended by Muslims. They all offend me, since they haven’t been able to stop ISIS or any of the other 100 plus terrorist groups. Have Muslims at large ever prevented or intercepted a terrorist plot? Even if they did it would only be one plot, one act. Can they show me a mosque or network that they shut down? No. Do they want us to police it?

But when France was attacked, a Muslim group ran out to say they condemned this act on the strongest possible terms. What’s that mean and what is that worth? Are they just going to come out every time and condemn the act? Are they also condemning ISIS for their existence? Sorry, I’m having a hard time qualifying their condemnation.

Yet they, Muslims and Islamists, tell us that the real problem is people like me that suggest the whole religion might be to blame. That’s the problem they are concerned about and that’s the problem they want all of America (everyone) to actively work on. They want our government stepping in to prevent that injustice. Their biggest worry is that their religion is being slandered somehow by the victims and citizens of the world.

Some people say they are afraid to speak out or come forward to criticize ISIS or Islamist radicals. Yet they are not afraid to come out to criticize us for “hating” on Islam. Isn’t Islamic terrorism giving Muslims a bad name? Wouldn’t you think they would be concerned about that enough to take a stand and do something to stop it? We’ve been waiting over 12 years now. It hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it is going to happen. It has declared war on us and civilization. It is left to the world to deal with and combat it. That is insulting and offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama Kidnapped America

The US and American people are being held hostage to Obama’s personal political agenda. You can stop reading there because that’s the whole point in a nutshell.

As a matter of his personal political ideology we see country collapsing around it. The Left can’t compare it to Bush and say it is the same thing. The only suitable comparison is to Putin. But even that does not work because Vlad is acting in Russia’s interest, whether you agree with what he is doing or not. Putin does believe in his country at least.

With Obama the only thing that matters is Obama’s ideology, corrupt as it is. Any means to the end. So now we see Obamacare collapsing. Not a problem to Obama. 12 out of 23 states had their co-ops crash. The initial seed money is lost. Silence from Obama. The agency said enough people were not forced into the ObamaCare by loosing their employee insurance. Jonathan Gruber admitted the plot was to lie to the people just to ram it through. Obama basically said what’s it matter, so what? He sends earthquakes again into medical coverage. Did he say anything?

His comrades have declared a war on cops. Again, not a problem for Obama. Even when the FBI director tells us that police are backing off due to all the social chaos and cop-killing, so crime is up. Obama says you cannot cherry pick data or use anecdote to make public policy. But Obama is doing exactly that: cherry picking and using anecdote to make policy.The FBI is not making policy but stating the trend, facts.

Obama declares the Keystone Pipeline dead. The Climate Caliphate is gearing up for a year-end push of their agenda. All he cares about is his environmental agenda. Meanwhile, months back his own administration contaminated a pristine river and region in Colorado.(an interstate disaster)  Obama said nothing. He was not up in arms firing people. No, it was business as usual: lie and make excuses. First they denied the amount and damage.

He told the EPA to go ahead and roll out his anti-business agenda and war on coal regulations, despite whether it is Constitutional. Who cares about the effects, or their impact on people? He weaponized the IRS and used it against his political opponents. He said there is not a smidgen of corruption. then his DOJ declared there was nothing to prosecute Lerner for.

This all and government is just an extension of Obama’s personal ideology. And he’ll go to any end to force it on the people.

Invasion of illegal immigrants, Obama’s executive orders, his forced amnesty, gun control, racism, riots, and even his scandals are all a product of his personal political agenda.

Whatever you think about all that, one thing is clear: Obama is holding America hostage to his own, personal political agenda.

State of the State

I am mentioning some random observations, not that they are connected with one another.

Here we are on the verge of Hillary possibly getting into the White House, with Bubba Clinton. People are projecting her into popular office. No choice but Hillary. “Hard Choices”.

Russia revised its constitution in a way for Putin to get back into office. He’s more popular than ever in the country. They seem to love the guy.

Elists are unpopular in government or elsewhere. The American people are fed up with elitists rule in government and Washington in particular. The disgruntled seem to be across the political spectrum. Trump exposes behind the scenes media manipulation regarding the debates. Who knew? People are turned off by the bias of media in general. Media doubles down on bias.

The world is on fire with radicalism and Obama takes a sigh approach. Obama administration accuses Israel of using excessive force. State Department says that Palestine and Israel are committing terrorism.

David Cameron comes out to make speeches pointing directly to Islamic terrorism. Obama can’t be forced to use the words and says ISIS is not Islamic. Obama calls Islam a religion of peace. Obama wants to put more Muslims in space and other places. But Obama tells us the Crusades are an issue.

Jerusalem is under attack and knife wielding terrorists are spreading throughout Israael. When Israel takes defensive actions it is roundly condemned or criticized. Media cannot be any more biased against Israel.

Sure its a proxy war in Syria, but the media is finally admitting it? Old news, no? Russia has gone through its proper government channels to approve its actions. Obama is flying by the seat of his pants, much the way he did things in Libya. (that worked out well) Obama claims Russia, Putin are operating out of weakness. Hmmm.

Obama says global warming is the greatest security threat. Pay no mind to all other impostors. State of the State — maddening; requires willing suspension of disbelief.

Made for production Dem Debate

Not that hypocrisy ever matters to Democrats or the media liberals.

The story going into the 1st Democrat debate was how Democrats should not attack each other. The whole objective of the two Republican debates was to have them attacking each other.(cannibalizing is a better word) They suggested because Sanders is so low compared to Hillary, that she should let it go even if Bernie attacks her. They asked why elevate him by dignifying it with a response?

On Republicans, they insisted that all the attacks should be responded to, or wave the white flag and forfeit. Now it’s why show any disharmony or disunity in the Democrat Party ranks? Don’t need to do that, even if they are running against each other for control of the Marxist Party.

On the other hand, if they want to talk about rough and tumble Party infighting, point to Republicans. That was surely the script going in.

The debate went according to plan, featuring Hillary in the lead role that will win her an academy award. She’s as gifted at denial as the present Oval Office Occupant. Everyone else was a supporting role. Who cares who they were? Jim Webb didn’t stand a chance with a socialist audience. They made sure not to applaud any of his answers except for a handful that appreciated his pro-gun message. Note, there are a few stragglers left. In their after coverage, they talked about odd moments and pointed to Jim Webb’s answer to who was his biggest enemy? Webb said it would be the enemy soldier who threw the grenade that wounded him. But CNN and their pundits thought that a strangely odd answer.

Debate is over, gun control is the answer. Hillary chimed in she’d make the rich people pay. What emails, or server? Bernie came to Hill’s rescue saying “enough with the emails”. Case closed. Gateway Pundit reported the press room cheered at that line. He is “sick and tired” of hearing about her “emails”.

Later, everyone fawned all over Hillary for how well she had done. Someone who failed at every job she had in the last decade and a half, always claiming to take full responsibility, wink wink.

For people that are forward looking they spent most of the time in the rear view mirror, the last 20 years worth. Hillary said her chief enemies are the NRA and Republicans. Yea so much gainful news there, over the back-biting long nails of Republican infighting. (so the narrative goes) Only Black Lives Matter was declared honorary winner by Van Jones after the debate, for keeping them all on message. Hillary never answered the question.

At one point, I didn’t think it was a debate, I thought Hillary was giving a press conference. Post debate focus group focused on Hillary, surprise surprise. Hillary “absorbs new information”… good cover for lying and flip flopping like a pancake.

And Las Vegas the gambling capitol was the perfect backdrop for a Dem debate. It’s no longer an election, Dems are betting voters really are that stupid.

United Socialists of America have spoken. The debate is over, just as it is on Climate Change, global warming and gun control. (science and facts be damned) The two most hated things in America, according to that crowd, are flat earth deniers and the NRA. Rich people are a close second — unless you happen to be a socialist Democrat. Gun control, socialism, global warming… what’s not to like?

Global Warming groupies meet Ted Cruz

A simple question of how is it wrong becomes such a tough unanswered one except that “we concur with 97 % of scientists [who]concur that there is global warming.” That’s what we got from the Sierra Club president. They have no answers for what they call “the pause”.  Sounds more like an episode from Rod Sterling.

Ted Cruz Exposes The Deception Global Warmists Have Been Peddling

Justin Koski October 8, 2015

See Western Journalism video

Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, and his assertions that the Earth is warming, despite satellite data showing otherwise.

Video Transcript:

Cruz: Is it correct, that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?

Mair: No

Cruz: How is it incorrect?

Mair couldn’t answer the question. He instead needed a sidebar with a colleague to formulate a cop-out answer.

I do find it highly interesting that the president of the Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming, uhm, apparently is relying on staff.

Cruz then pressed Mair on the phenomenon known as “the pause.”

Cruz: Global warming alarmists call that “the pause” because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming and yet the actual satellites taking the measurement don’t show any significant warming.

Mair: But senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming.

Cruz: Your response is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence – the actual data. We have satellites. They’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was, “Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers the satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”

Mair then uttered what was interpreted as the Club’s official position.

Our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.

For the remainder of the questioning, Mair blindly repeated his talking point, refusing to retract the position when confronted with the damning evidence.

Mair: I’m saying I concur with 97 percent. We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.

Cruz: But, but, but sir, would you, would you answer the question?

Mair: We are concurring with the 97 percent of the scientists. We concur with 97 percent.

Cruz: So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?

Mair: We concur with the preponderance of the evidence. But I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.

Cruz: That undermines the credibility of any organization if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.

They sound like they concur with the 97 percent of scientists they pay to support their own position. Are we supposed to just trust them?

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-exposes-the-deception-global-warmists-have-been-peddling/

Isn’t that like pleading the 5th amendment to every question asked? So: ‘we agree with those that agree with those that agree and pay us.’ What’s the problem with that?